My thoughts... this is a prior post from Quora.com...
Karen Meyer, North America Southwest Area Fam History Advisor at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1978-...
I’m glad you asked. This is the topic of my December Newsletter would like to submit to you that unless you have the papers to corroborate your evidence, you cannot honestly trace your lineage back to Adam and Eve or Even the time of Jesus. Besides the fact that many people did not tell the truth when documenting their relationship to Royal Lineage, it’s almost impossible to know for sure without very exact documentation. There is sufficient documentation that can get you back to 600 ad. The greatest amount of early documentation that bridged that gap was destroyed when the Romans accidentally burned down their own Libraries in Alexandria. Please refer to this article for clarification: “I Have My Family Tree Back to Adam and Eve”
If you have birth certificates, death certificates, marriage licenses, and census records, you can have a fairly strong case for a familial candidate and feel confident that you are related. Organize your paperwork, and start your tree in Genealogy, Family Trees & Family History Records then connect it to Family search. You can get a family search account for free even if you are not a Mormon. We want to help everyone with their documentation. You can follow my blog (https://www.genealogymama1.blogs... or https://www.naswfamilyhistory.bl... or James Tanner’s blog, who is our vote for one of the most noted and respected colleagues in genealogy circles. for more information that might assist you. The greatest boon to our ability to document our lineage is - all credit owing - to the Protestant Church. They were the first ones to actually document the births, deaths and marriages and it is to them that we owe a debt of gratitude.
“I Have My Family Tree Back to Adam and Eve”
January 10, 2013 By Nathan Murphy

Warning. Contains spoilers. Have you ever heard these words uttered “I Have My Family Tree Back to Adam and Eve”? When asked if it is possible for living people to extend ancestral lines back to Adam and Eve, Robert C. Gunderson, Senior Royalty Research Specialist, of the Church Genealogical Department, stated:
“The simplest answer is No. Let me explain. In thirty-five years of genealogical research, I have yet to see a pedigree back to Adam that can be documented. By assignment, I have reviewed hundreds of pedigrees over the years. I have not found one where each connection on the pedigree can be justified by evidence from contemporary documents. In my opinion it is not even possible to verify historically a connected European pedigree earlier than the time of the Merovingian Kings (c. a.d. 450–a.d. 752).“Every pedigree I have seen which attempts to bridge the gap between that time and the biblical pedigree appears to be based on questionable tradition, or at worst, plain fabrication. Generally these pedigrees offer no evidence as to the origin of the information, or they cite a vague source.”
Source: Robert C. Gunderson, “I Have a Question,” Ensign, Feb. 1984, 31.
“I Have My Family Tree Back to Adam and Eve” Part 2
May 8, 2013 By Nathan Murphy

Several readers posted questions after my initial post “I Have My Family Tree Back to Adam and Eve” in which Robert C. Gunderson, Senior Royalty Research Specialist, writing in 1984, had stated that it is not possible for someone alive today to document a pedigree back to Adam and Eve. Readers asked (1) has additional research conducted since 1984 improved the situation, and (2) isn’t it possible for European royalty to trace their lineage back to Biblical genealogies? François Weil provides authoritative answers to these questions in his new book Family Trees: A History of Genealogy in America (2013) published by Harvard University Press.
Weil, Chancellor of the Universities of Paris, states:
Genealogy was originally the prerogative of kings and princes. The oldest surviving royal genealogies in Europe go back to the sixth century A.D. for Gothic sovereigns, to the seventh century for their Irish, Lombardic, Visigothic, and Frankish counterparts, and to the eighth and ninth centuries for Anglo-Saxon and Carolingian kings. (pp. 10-11)
Thus Weil and Gunderson agree – European royal pedigrees cannot be verified before the 500s A.D.
If family tree databases, such as FamilySearch FamilyTree suggest otherwise, I would encourage you to correct the information and ask contributors for their sources.
To learn more, read:
Family Trees: A History of Genealogy in America. By François Weil. Published by Harvard University Press, Online bookstore; 2013. ISBN 9780674045835. 320 pp. Indexes. Hardcover. $27.95 • £20.95 • €25.20.
7.1k views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Ash Christie
Karen, your point about documented traceability is absolutely true.
But, you know, just because we can’t prove another ancestor on some branch doesn’t mean there wasn’t an ancestor there. Of course there was. I am 100.0% certain that every ancestor I can provably document had a mother and father. ...
I heard someone say that you he definition of the millennium is the day when you wake up and find out your sister was not the genealogist she purported herself to be. I understand what you’re saying that you would like to document that you think this might be someone that you’re related to but un...
(more)
Correct on all counts. Interested in your software. Probably still on eBay somewhere?
Perhaps I wasn’t clear.
I’m certainly not interested in adding people to my tree that I really aren’t related to, just to go back another generation. That’s not it at all.
The issue is that in any assertion of ancestry, there is some probability that it is correct. It isn’t just a binary true or false thing.
A well-documented ancestor, with multiple generations matching previous information in official records, is a very high probability. (Though never a certainty!)
DNA paternity tests done while both generations are living is probably even better proof — but that only can cover ancestors with available DNA. Except in rare cases, that’s just a couple of living generations.
And then there are less certain cases. Someone who is mentioned in a will, or in less-official records, or in records that do not tie parents and children together like birth and census records do. Or where there are multiple generations to tie, but there were multiple contemporaneous “John Smith son of John Smith” in the community. Etc., etc., etc.
There is a whole spectrum from 99.9% certainty down to 0.01% certainty.
I think the idea of limiting one’s tree to only what is 99.9% certain (“provable”) certainly gives you a very solid tree, but a very small tree, and unfairly omits people who are very likely your ancestors (e.g. 60–70–80–90% chance), but for which no provable record will ever be possible.
I used to use TMG software (The Master Genealogist), until they finally went out of business and retired. It was possible to record the certainty of a record proving the fact. While that was pretty tedious and fraught to assess for every fact and record, it did offer a way to link up ancestors with less than perfectly-provable provenance. I do not know of software any more that still offers this level of detail — but it is still a useful concept.
Feel free to use only perfectly-provable records in your own tree, but I don’t want to leave out relatives quite likely my own, but with a little less than provable certainty. If you go back very far, you will have to deal with less than provable certainty.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I can not see your address to reply - please email me at meyerandmeyerconsulting@gmail.com - Thanks