Experienced genealogists are always aware that they must verify information by looking at original documents or a microfilm or digital image of an original document. We should know better than to believe a statement on a web site, in a genealogy book, or a verbal statement from Aunt Tilley about the "facts" of our family trees. However, what is the definition of an "original document?"

Let's take one well-known claim of an original document that isn't really accurate: the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Almost all American schoolchildren are familiar with this document; and, if we paid attention in class, we know that the document is on display at the U.S. National Archives building in Washington, D.C. In fact, millions of us, myself included, have visited that building to view the document on display. However, how many of us were ever told that the document displayed in Washington is not the original, hand-written document? Instead, it is one of many copies that were produced on a printing press.

No, this isn't a story plot from a Nicholas Cage movie. In fact, the document displayed at the National Archives building in Washington, D.C. is a copy made by Philadelphia printer John Dunlap, official printer to the Congress, during the evening of July 4, 1776, after the original, hand-written document was given to him. Admittedly, the original and the copies made by John Dunlap had no signatures. The "copy" now on display at the National Archives is the only copy that was actually signed by each delegate and therefore is the one that we can now refer to as the real Declaration of Independence. However, it was produced on a printing press and is not the original, hand-written piece of paper.

The original Declaration of Independence was written by hand by Thomas Jefferson. After making alterations to his draft as suggested by Ben Franklin and John Adams, Jefferson later recalled that, "I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the Committee, and from them, unaltered, to Congress." 

The committee sent the hand-written manuscript document, probably Thomas Jefferson's "fair copy" of his rough draft, to John Dunlap, official printer to the Congress. Dunlap printed the copies on the night of July 4, 1776. It is unknown exactly how many copies were printed, but the number is estimated at about 200. On the morning of July 5, copies were dispatched by members of Congress to various assemblies, conventions, and Committees of Safety as well as to the commanders of Continental troops. Also on July 5, a copy of the printed version of the approved Declaration was inserted into the "rough journal" of the Continental Congress for July 4. The text was followed by the words, "Signed by Order and in Behalf of the Congress, John Hancock, President. Attest. Charles Thomson, Secretary." 

Twenty-six copies are known to exist today of what is commonly referred to as "the Dunlap broadside," 22 owned by American institutions, 3 by British institutions, and 1 by an unknown private owner. A list of their present locations may be found on Wikipedia at https://bit.ly/2ZqPFCM. 

All of these copies were unsigned as they were printed before approval had been granted by the 13 colonies. Each delegate had to await approval from his home colony before being allowed to sign.

Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. Declaration of Independence was not signed on July 4, 1776. While the document was APPROVED by the delegates on July 4, several weeks were required for the document to be printed and distributed to all 13 colonies for approval, and then some more time to re-assemble all the delegates again in Philadelphia. Delegates were not authorized to sign until after their home colony had approved the document and that required some time back in the days before instant communications.

One of the "Dunlap broadside" copies was signed by all the delegates in attendance on August 2, 1776, and that copy now is on display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Therefore, the document that most people think of as the U.S. Declaration of Independence is not the original, hand-written document. It is a copy, although it is the only SIGNED copy. The copy on display in Washington was printed on a printing press, but each delegate signed this one copy by hand.

If Thomas Jefferson's memories were correct, and he indeed wrote out a fair copy which was shown to the drafting committee and then submitted to Congress on June 28, the original document has not been found. "If this manuscript still exists," wrote historian Ted Widmer, "it is the holy grail of American freedom." 

What does this have to do with our searches for accurate genealogy information? A lot.

In all cases, we should strive to look at original documents or a microfilm or digital image of an original document. We then document our efforts by recording a "source citation" that refers to the location of the original document. In recent years, many genealogists also include a digital image of the appropriate part of the original document.

Wikipedia defines a citation this way: "Broadly, a citation is a reference to a published or unpublished source (not always the original source)." Bold text added by myself for emphasis.

Elizabeth Shown Mills, probably the leading expert of today when it comes to recording genealogy source citations, has written no less than two books on the subject for genealogists: Evidence Explained; Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace and Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian. Mills states that the best source is an original source, one created at the time an event occurred. However, she also states that a source can be either an original or derivative document. Let's focus on the word "derivative."

In the example of the Declaration of Independence, we note that the original, hand-written document has been lost. For all we know, printer John Dunlap may have tossed the original into a local trashcan after he finished making his copies. Of course, that is just a guess. Nobody knows what happened to the hand-written original. However, the existing twenty-six copies still meet Elizabeth Shown Mills' definition of an acceptable source citation. It is a "derivative document" that was made at nearly the same time as the original, probably within a few hours, and apparently is an exact copy of the original. Therefore, it is believable.

Of course, not all derivative documents are exact copies. For instance, let's consider the U.S. Census records. In most cases, the enumerators (census takers) visited homes, asked questions, and wrote the answers in small notebooks or something similar that they carried with them. We can only imagine what the notebooks contained. Can you imagine the words written by an enumerator with poor handwriting, traveling around the countryside on horseback or on a small wagon in the 1800s and recording his words with a quill pen and ink of questionable quality? Some of these enumerators traveled in rain or sleet or snow. We have to assume that some of these pages got wet. Perhaps a few pages became unreadable or were even lost.

At a later time, the enumerator went home or to an office or perhaps to a local tavern, got out the official enumeration pages that we all know and love, and transcribed his findings from the notebooks to the worksheets. He then sent the worksheets to his superiors, where the worksheets became the official record. Most of the worksheets have been preserved while most of the notebooks were discarded. 

What do we see today when we look the census records online? Do we see the enumerators' hand-written notes from their workbooks, made at the time of each visit? Or are we viewing the official forms that were filled out later, also hand-written? You probably already know the answer: what we see online and in microfilms are images of documents made within hours or days AFTER the original visit. These are derivative documents.

There is nothing wrong with using a derivative document. In fact, it is all we have in most cases. A derivative document was made at or shortly after the original event by a person who had full knowledge of the facts involved. Genealogists will generally accept a derivative document as a suitable "original" source citation.

You can find thousands more examples of citing "original" sources that are really derivative documents. Most birth records made by town clerks prior to the twentieth century were recorded by men or women who were not present at the birth. They weren't midwives; they were town clerks! They recorded what was told to them by reliable witnesses, often the mother or father or perhaps the doctor or midwife in attendance at the birth. Marriage records were often the same. Town clerks may not have attended the marriage ceremony; but, in most cases, the clerks recorded information given to them at a later date by the clergyman who performed the ceremony.

The list goes on and on. Death records, military service records, and thousands of other documents were not recorded at the event by the individuals involved and often not within hours. Instead, these documents were recorded by clerks and clergymen and others shortly after the event and were based upon information provided by the principal(s) involved. In some cases the description was verbal while in other cases the clerks transcribed written information created earlier. 

Land transfer records recorded in deed books were rarely written by the individuals who bought or sold land; they were written by clerks who listened to the descriptions provided by the principals involved. Probate records typically were transcribed from original, often hand-written wills, often years after the will was written and always after the person who perhaps wrote the will had died. 

While these may be derivative records, we still accept them as primary source citations.

NOTE: In contrast, secondary sources are generally those records created after a passage of time. Examples include an elderly person recounting events in his or her youth or an author of a genealogy book recording the life events of people who have been dead for many years or other people whom he or she has never met. Secondary sources are never as reliable as primary sources.

Now that we have examined both kinds of primary sources (original and derivative) as well as secondary sources, a question arises: Just how reliable are derivative (primary) sources?

Genealogists generally consider primary sources to be reliable, including derivative sources. After all, these records were made at or shortly after the event and were recorded by eyewitnesses or, in the case of derivative records, by transcribers who were given information by eyewitnesses. Yes, we all know that eyewitness reports occasionally contain errors, but are usually correct. 

How about derivative records where the information was recorded by a third party, using information provided by eyewitnesses? Can we really trust the enumerator's record made some hours or days or even a few weeks after visiting our ancestors? Could he read his own writing, smudged from rain or melting snow? If he was sitting at a fireplace in a warm and cozy tavern, already having consumed a few drinks, can we believe his written recollection of a visit made a few days earlier? Did the residents give him correct information? Or did he obtain his info from a neighbor who may or may not have known all the correct answers? 

When an eyewitness provided information to a clerk, can we always believe that both parties understood clearly what was said and the information recorded by the clerk is a true and faithful recording of the facts provided by the eyewitness?

For an example, I will offer the 1910 census record for my great-grandparents in a small town in northern Maine. The enumerator lived in the same town and recorded his own family on another page of the same census. (That is one record that I would believe!) He wrote his place of birth as "Scotland." Therefore, we can assume that he spoke with a Scottish accent, perhaps a very strong accent.

My great-grandparents were Joe and Sophie Theriault. (My great-grandfather was often listed in many records as Joe, but never listed as Joseph.) "Theriault" is a common Acadian French-Canadian name. They lived in the same town. The enumerator recorded that neither of them was able to speak English. Can you imagine that conversation? A Scotsman with his accent trying to ask questions and obtain answers from someone who could not speak English? It is no wonder that their last name was recorded as "Tahrihult."

To make matters worse, there was another couple in the same small town with the same names: Joseph and Sophie Theriault. However, they were listed with different children and different dates of birth and marriage. The enumerator then spelled their last name correctly! I assume the correct information was recorded for them because the enumerator listed them as being able to speak English. That should have been an easier, and probably more complete, conversation. Yet all of these are derivative records, written by the enumerator a few hours or days after his interview and assisted by the notes he made in his notebook.

Similar errors have been repeated thousands of times in census records and probably elsewhere as well.

Let's return to the original question: How accurate are derivative records where the information was recorded by a third party, using information provided by eyewitnesses?

I believe the only correct answer is: Derivative records made at or shortly after the event are generally correct, but we should always be aware that there are exceptions. All derivative records should be treated as “probably correct”–with a strong emphasis on the word PROBABLY.

From the 1850s through the 1920s, New York City was teeming with tens of thousands of homeless and orphaned children. To survive, these so-called "street urchins" resorted to begging, stealing, or forming gangs to commit violence. Some children worked in factories and slept in doorways or flophouses. The children roamed the streets and slums with little or no hope of a successful future. Their numbers were stunningly large; an estimated 30,000 children were homeless in New York City in the 1850s.

Charles Loring Brace, the founder of The Children's Aid Society, believed that there was a way to change the futures of these children. By removing youngsters from the poverty and debauchery of the city streets and placing them in morally upright farm families, he thought they would have a chance to escape a lifetime of suffering.

Brace proposed that these children be sent by train to live and work on farms out west. They would be placed in homes for free, but they would serve as an extra pair of hands to help with chores around the farm. They wouldn't be indentured. In fact, older children placed by The Children's Aid Society were to be paid for their labors.

The Orphan Train Movement lasted from 1853 to the 1920s, placing more than 120,000 children. Most of these children survived into adulthood, married, and had children of their own. Several million Americans today can find former Orphan Train children in their family trees. 

Orphan Trains stopped at more than 45 states across the country, as well as Canada and Mexico. During the early years, Indiana received the largest number of children. There were numerous agencies nationwide that placed children on trains to go to foster homes. In New York, besides Children's Aid, other agencies that placed children included Children's Village (then known as the New York Juvenile Asylum), what is now New York Foundling Hospital, and the former Orphan Asylum Society of the City of New York, which is now the Graham-Windham Home for Children. Not all the children were from New York City. Children from Albany and other cities in New York state were transported, as were some from Boston, Massachusetts, where the Boston Children's Services merged with the New England Home For Little Wanderers, which also is still active today. 

Only a few of the Orphan Train children are alive today, and most were too young at the time to remember their experiences. However, a few elderly Americans can recall their experiences on the Orphan Trains.

Stanley Cornell and his brother are amongst the last generation of Orphan Train riders. When asked about his experience, Mr. Cornell replied, "We'd pull into a train station, stand outside the coaches dressed in our best clothes. People would inspect us like cattle farmers. And if they didn't choose you, you'd get back on the train and do it all over again at the next stop."

Cornell and his brother were "placed out" twice with their aunts in Pennsylvania and Coffeyville, Kansas. Unfortunately, these placements didn't last, and they were returned to the Children's Aid Society.

"Then they made up another train. Sent us out West. A hundred-fifty kids on a train to Wellington, Texas," Cornell recalls. "That's where Dad happened to be in town that day."

Each time an Orphan Train was sent out, adoption ads appeared in local papers before the arrival of the children.

J.L. Deger, a 45-year-old farmer, knew he wanted a boy, even though he already had two daughters, ages 10 and 13.

"He'd just bought a Model T. Mr. Deger looked those boys over. We were the last boys holding hands in a blizzard, December 10, 1926," Cornell remembers. He says that day he and his brother stood in a hotel lobby. 

"He asked us if we wanted to move out to farm with chickens, pigs, and a room all to your own. He only wanted to take one of us, decided to take both of us."

Life on the farm was hard work. 

"I did have to work and I expected it, because they fed me, clothed me, loved me. We had a good home. I'm very grateful. Always have been, always will be."

Cornell eventually got married. He and his wife, Earleen, now live in Pueblo, Colorado. His brother, Victor Cornell, a retired movie theater chain owner, is also alive and living in Moscow, Idaho.

Stanley Cornell believes he and his brother are two of only 15 surviving Orphan Train children. 

Some of the children struggled in their newfound surroundings, while many others went on to lead simple, very normal lives, raising their families and working towards the American dream. Although records weren't always well kept, some of the children placed in the West went on to great successes. There were two governors, one congressman, one sheriff, two district attorneys, and three county commissioners, as well as numerous bankers, lawyers, physicians, journalists, ministers, teachers, and businessmen.

The Orphan Train Movement and the success of other children's aid initiatives led to a host of child welfare reforms, including child labor laws, adoption and foster care services, public education, and the provision of health care and nutrition and vocational training.

The Orphan Train Heritage Society of America in Concordia, Kansas, serves as a clearinghouse of information about the estimated 150,000 children who were "placed out" from 1854 to 1929. It helps members establish and maintain family contacts, retrace their roots, and preserve the history of the Orphan Train Movement. Look at https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/orphan-train-heritage-society-of-america-inc-2400/ and at http://orphantraindepot.org/ for more information. 

Other web sites that provide information about America's Orphan Trains may be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Train, and at https://www.childrensaidnyc.org/about/orphan-train-movement.

I was wandering up and down the aisles at RootsTech 2023 when the banner at one particular exhibit booth caught my eye. It stated, "DNA Testing of Envelopes and Other Artifacts." Really? At a price that appeals to private genealogists?

I know that testing for DNA on sealed envelopes, used styrofoam coffee cups, and similar objects has been available for years but at prohibitive prices that limit their use to law enforcement officials investigating serious crimes. 

I had to find out more so I stopped and had a conversation with the lady in the booth. I was told that such testing is available today to private genealogists, it really works, and that prices are certainly not cheap but are lower-priced than I had imagined (more on that later).

Keepsake DNA is a non-profit company that will appeal to genealogists and others who want to decode the DNA of someone else. Most such tests involve determining the DNA of someone who is now deceased, such as a grandparent or someone similar. For instance, decoding family DNA from love letters that grandpa wrote home while serving in "the war." That's one such use, I am sure there must be dozens of other possible uses.

Yes, you can now unlock the mysteries of your family’s ancestry and fill the holes in your genealogical tree through the testing of ancestral artifacts such as old envelopes, watches, hats, hair, etc.

That's right: the exhibit booth banner said "DNA Testing of Envelopes and Other Artifacts" and the list of "other artifacts" is extensive. Not only can the company test the saliva used to seal envelopes of letters sent by soldiers, but all sorts of other ancestral items can reveal DNA, including:

and many other items that were in close contact with the deceased while he or she was still alive.

Testing will be conducted by an accredited United States lab with seasoned personnel and state of the art technology.

All in all, this might solve some mysteries that could not be solved in any other method.

Methodology

First, the lab identifies the best locations for possible DNA and takes a sample (swab/cutting etc.) of that material.  Some examples of this are as follows:

Some specific sample types also require pre-processing to obtain enough DNA to move forward.  For teeth and/or bones, a special instrument called the Qiagen Tissuelyser II is used to very carefully pulverize the material into a powder before it can move on in the process. 

Biological material trapped in porous materials like clothing or hats may be collected with a specialized tool called the MVAC that can obtain much more DNA than traditional methods.

Next, the lab extracts the potential DNA.

The DNA obtained from the first test(s) is run on one of two DNA sequencing instruments that precisely identifies the specific DNA "code" for each sample.  That DNA "code" is then transformed into a specific output file that is comprised of tens to hundreds of thousands of genealogy informative Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs, pronounced "snips").  These genetic genealogy SNPs are identified and documented in a electronic file that is compatible with GEDMatch and/or Family Tree DNA genetic genealogy databases. 

A Verogen FGx Forensic Sequencing device is used on some DNA samples. The instrument is exclusively distributed by Verogen who, in 2019, bought GEDmatch.com. GEDmatch is a popular DNA database to which genealogists can upload profiles to compare with other researchers’ profiles. For example, someone who tests with Ancestry.com, MyHeritage, or 23andMe can upload those profiles to GEDmatch.

Pricing

Prices for all this testing and the use of expensive, high-tech devices isn't exactly cheap. but is less than I had initially assumed it would be, It is also much less than such testing would have cost a few years ago.

Prices are somewhat customized after discussing all information with the potential customer. In short, each case is different. The folks at Keepsake DNA will make a determination of the chances of success in obtaining useable DNA and the price will vary depending upon the difficulties expected. You can learn more at https://www.intermountainforensics.com/keepsakedna and then click on "Pricing."

For more information about Keepsake DNA and the odds of success of extracting DNA information from your ancestral item, go to: https://www.intermountainforensics.com/keepsakedna.

If you use Google Docs frequently (as I do), you’ll be interested in this update:

Google is constantly updating its online suite of productivity apps, including Docs, Sheets, Slides, and Drive. Those services will soon have a new design to match the recent Gmail update.

Google announced on its blog, “In the coming weeks, you’ll notice a new look and feel for Google Drive, Docs, Sheets, and Slides on the web. Following the release of Google Material Design 3, the refreshed user interface is purposefully designed to streamline core collaboration journeys across our products.”

The new look matches the current Gmail design, as well as the company’s updated apps on Android phones and tablets. Most of the buttons and menus are in the same place, so you won’t have to re-learn how to write a document or edit presentation slides, but there are a few relocated features. Google says the current document status, which includes the last edit and version history, has been moved to a new clock button at the top-right corner.

You can read more at: https://www.howtogeek.com/877666/google-docs-has-a-new-design-to-match-gmail/.

Texas legislators are considering several new proposals to restrict law enforcement's ability to access databases from genetic testing companies, placing the state at the center of a roiling national privacy debate over a technology already solving some of the most stubborn unsolved cases.

“These people didn’t really sign up to help law enforcement, that wasn’t their intent,” said Amy McGuire, the Leon Jaworski Professor of Biomedical Ethics and director of medical ethics and health policy for Baylor College of Medicine. “So, it’s a question of, what other purposes can that information be used for? And is this somehow a violation of their rights?”

Across the country, police are checking crime-scene DNA against data gleaned from popular genetic testing kits, like Ancestry and 23andMe. These increasingly popular mail-order kits allow consumers to share their DNA in hopes of finding long-lost relatives or track their family's geographic roots. But as the technology can pinpoint long lost siblings or relatives, it can also link people to crimes.

Representatives of Texas District and County Attorneys Association took to social media this week to decry the proposed legislation and how it might hamper law enforcement.

House Bills 4 and 2545 and Senate Bills 704 and 1014 all impose new restrictions for the blossoming number of companies offering genetic testing.

You can read more in an article by Matt deGrood published in the Houston Chronicle at https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/crime/article/dna-evidence-cold-case-legislation-17810225.php.

The Salt Lake Institute of Genealogy (SLIG) has issued calls for course proposals for the 2025 program year and for scholarship applications for the 2024 Program Year. Please see the press releases linked below for complete details.

Call for 2025 Course Proposals

Call for Scholarship Applications for 2024 Programs

Oseredok is digitizing its collection of artifacts, books, artwork and photographs, using the web to broaden its reach.

The curator of Oseredok Ukrainian Culture and Exhibition Centre has spent the last 14 months digitizing items in aid of its newly launched online catalogue.

The catalogue currently lists 1,252 museum artifacts, 1,235 library holdings, 424 fine art pieces, 4,583 photographs and 600 glass slides. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

“It’s an evolving project; there is no end date to what I started,” Sloboda says. “The online catalogue provides global access to all who are interested. As the collection grows it will need to meet the information and cultural needs of everyone.”

Sloboda, who joined Oseredok in September 2021, has spent much of her tenure tackling the mammoth task. She oversees the four collections housed in Oseredok: museum, archive, library and fine art, and quickly realized exhibition space was limited.

You can read more in an article by AV Kitching published in the Winnipeg Free Press at: https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/2023/03/06/a-treasure-of-ukrainian-culture-open-to-the-world.

From an article by Jake Peterson published in the LifeHacker web site:

Scammers are hijacking sponsored links in Google searches. Avoid them.

We all google, so we’re all used to Google’s quirks, sponsored links being one of the most visible. These links appear at the top of any given Google search, depending on who pays the most to be there. Even though these links can be largely irrelevant to what you’re actually searching for, sometimes they’re right on the money. However, even if it looks like a sponsored link applies to your search, don’t click it. It might be a scam.

The latest example of this nefarious misuse of Google Ads comes to us via Twitter. Author Cory Doctorow tweeted about his experience trying to place a takeout order with a local Thai spot. When Doctorow googled the name of the restaurant, Kiin Thai Eatery, he naturally clicked the first result that popped up, which happened to be a sponsored link.

Who cares, right? A link’s a link. That is, unless someone has hijacked the identity of the restaurant, which is exactly what happened in this case.

The link loaded to a website purporting to be Kiin Thai Eatery, inviting Doctorow to place an order. He did, and paid for his meal, only to receive a call from Kiin Thai Eatery shortly after. The restaurant informed Doctorow that they did receive an order—from a known scammer. The scammer had created a fake website mimicking Kiin Thai Eatery’s menu, upped the prices by 15%, and placed an order with the real restaurant in Doctorow’s name, hoping no one would notice.

Luckily, Kiin Thai Eatery did, and subsequently canceled the order. But Doctorow was still on the hook for the charges—plural, since the scammers also double-charged Doctorow for the fake order.

You can read more at: https://lifehacker.com/why-you-need-to-stop-clicking-sponsored-google-links-1850163992.

You might have your family tree in order, records documented, and DNA tests all done. Add the Root & Seed conversation cards to your family documentation toolkit. Inspire conversations between generations with 68 thoughtful prompts to capture rich stories, recipes and traditions for generations to come. Act now for discounts.

Learn more at: https://www.rootandseed.com/

Periscope Film owners [Doug] and [Nick] just released a mini-documentary about the rescue of a large collection of old 35 and 16 mm celluloid films from the landfill. The video shows the process of the films being collected from the donor and then being sorted and organized in a temporary storage warehouse. There is a dizzying variety of films in this haul, from different countries, in both color and black and white.

We can see in the video that their rented 8 meter (26 foot) cargo truck wasn’t enough to contain the trove, so they dragged along a 1.8 x 3.6 m (6 x 12 ft) double-axle trailer as well. That makes a grand total of 49 cubic meters of space. Our back-of-the-envelope calculations says that filled to the brim, that would be over 30,000 canisters of 600 m (2,000 ft) 35 mm movie reels.

When it comes to preserving these old films, one big problem is physical deterioration of the film stock itself. You will know something is wrong when you get a strong acetic or vinegary odor when opening the can. [Nick] shows some examples where the film has even become solidified, taken on a hexagonal shape. It will take months to just assess and catalog the contents of this collection, with damaged films that are still salvageable jumping to the head of the queue to be digitized.

Films are digitized at 4K resolution using a Lasergraphics ScanStation archival quality film scanning system, and then the restoration fun begins. One issue demonstrated in this video is color deterioration. In the Eastmancolor film technology introduced in the 1950s, the blue dyes deteriorate over time. This, and a plethora of other issues, are corrected in the restoration process.

If you’re interested in doing this with 8 mm home movies, we covered a project way back in 2011 of a DIY home movie scanning project.

In the meantime, you can learn more about the current project at: https://youtu.be/yhJIIhxng_A.