Family Lore

[darkerhorse]

Genealogists talk about the paper trail and DNA testing as the two avenues for research.

But there's also word of mouth or family lore.

Given that there can be errors in all sources (paper trail, DNA testing, family lore) how much value do you put in family lore?

For example, there can be actual American Indian ancestry in a family - passed down by family lore - which can be missed by the paper trail and not be detected in DNA testing.

If you want an Italian example, I suppose you could substitute a specific regional ancestry for American Indian ancestry.

[MarcuccioV]

Genealogists talk about the paper trail and DNA testing as the two avenues for research.

But there's also word of mouth or family lore.

Given that there can be errors in all sources (paper trail, DNA testing, family lore) how much value do you put in family lore?

For example, there can be actual American Indian ancestry in a family - passed down by family lore - which can be missed by the paper trail and not be detected in DNA testing.

If you want an Italian example, I suppose you could substitute a specific regional ancestry for American Indian ancestry.

I learned the hard way to put little faith in "lore", as far as ethnicity goes. I can give you examples based on both your scenarios:

On my father's side, there was "lore" that my GGm (my father's maternal Gm) was 100% NA (Choctaw). Absolute ZERO NA ancestry in myself, my 2 1st cousins who tested, nor a couple of 1st cousins once-removed. Not a trace. This is the same branch (her mother, my 2GGm) that I believe carries the Italian on his side. Further, in DNA matches to myself & these cousins, Italian in small percentages is relatively common whereas NA is extremely rare.

On to the Italian -- my maternal grandmother always considered herself and my grandfather of 'Roman' (Lazio) breeding. She held it as a matter of pride over other regions she considered "inferior" (her opinion, not mine). She was especially critical of Sicilians (who married into the family). So what did 23 & me find..? Lazio, Campania, Abruzzo, Sicily and Puglia in that order. And her mtDNA has deep roots in W Asia and Greece and more recent roots in Sicily.

I can't speak for other families, but it seems that both sides of mine accepted "lore" that was more appealing to them rather than doing any research (if any was even available).

I would rate accuracy in this order: DNA, paper trail (errors are not as uncommon as you'd think), then lore (a distant 3rd).

[darkerhorse]

I probably shouldn't have used the Native American example, as families (especially French-Canadian) are notorious for falsely claiming such heritage. Almost all F-C families have such stories, mine included.

As for the Italian example, I guess we'll always have wannabes and deniers.

I tend to agree about placing family lore a distant third, but we should be open-minded about errors (of omission and commission) in the other sources, as well.

[MarcuccioV]

I tend to agree about placing family lore a distant third, but we should be open-minded about errors (of omission and commission) in the other sources, as well.

No question. That is why I took 2 tests & uploaded to many other sites. I did not want to be guilty of putting too much weight on any one scientific genealogical matrix -- especially since Ancestry (the first test I took) seems to be the least accurate of them all.

The same goes for paper trails. Not only have I found errors in "official" documentation, but relying on other's family trees is literally a fool's errand. I had one branch of my father's maternal tree (same one I used in the NA example above) that was accepted by many other family members but was entirely incorrect (at least for the past several generations). It's possible (albeit unlikely) we connect with the same family but many, many, many generations further back. And this was even despite the fact that ancestor names didn't even quite match up (I think perhaps this fits your "wannabe" scenario as it was a prominent PA family & not poor dirt farmers which the true ancestors were).

So you are correct that none of the three should be considered stone carved, but I take family lore these days as more of an entertainment than anything else.

[darkerhorse]

Many errors are bring perpetuated on sites where people borrow information indiscriminately from other sources like user family trees.

In my family, someone misidentified an old photo and the photo with the wrong caption now appears in dozens of other family trees. It will never be corrected fully.