Ahnentafels as IDs, Sharon Carmack
After years of doing genealogy on computer, I've decided it's time to organize all my hard copy stuff (yeah, yeah, a bit backward, I know). To that end I recently purchased and have been reading Sharon Carmack's book "Organizing Your Family History Search". In chapter two she describes a filing system keyed to the ahnentafel numbers off your pedigree chart (i.e., file by family group, family groups get the number of the parents -- e.g., 4/5 would be my father's parents' family). Collateral children receive Roman numerals indicating birth order. E.g., 6/7iii would be the third child of my maternal grandparents (i.e., my uncle or aunt).
The limits of this system, however, become apparent as soon as one begins to stray from the pedigree chart. It doesn't accommodate multiple marriages (what number do I assign my father's second wife and my half-brothers?), unmarried females, or anything beyond first generation collaterals (e.g., my own cousins, nieces, nephews, etc.).
So I'm trying out some modifications of Carmack's system. As with Carmack’s system, individuals on my pedigree chart are assigned their ahnentanfels as filing/ID numbers, but rather than assign a family group the number of both parents, each family group is assigned the ahnentafel of its head of household only (just 4, rather than 4/5).
Individuals not on my pedigree are handled as follows:
Spice not on my pedigree chart (e.g., my father's second wife), receive their spouse's ahnentafel, postfixed with a letter (a, b, c, etc.) indicating spousal order (this should work for both men and women). Thus, my father’s second wife would be 2b (his first wife is, of course, my mother, so her ID is just her ahnentafel – or 3). 2b will also be assigned as the family group number for my father’s second family, thus distinguishing it from his first family, which is family group 2 (or 2a if you prefer, though that wouldn’t strictly be necessary). And thus my own half-brothers would be numbers 2b.1 and 2b.2.
Collateral descendents of a direct ancestor receive that ancestor’s ahnentafel, followed by a dot and a number indicating birth order – one dot-and-number for each generation removed. E.g., 4.2 would be an aunt or uncle (the second child of my paternal grandparents), and also the family group number for that family. 4.2.3 would be the third child of that aunt or uncle – i.e., my 1st cousin -- and so forth. So, for example, 2b.2.1 is my half-nephew – the first child of my 2nd half-brother – and 4.2.3.2 is my first cousin once removed (my cousin’s second child).
Sorry for the long explanation. What does anyone think? Or is there a better widely-used system than the one Carmack details?
Lee Kaiwen
|
Re: Ahnentafels as IDs, Sharon Carmack
Published in 1999 by Betterway Books
it is totally out dated by computer developments
Just use Family Tree Maker 11
all those numbers are automated
Ahnentafel are hardly used anymore
you can generate them if you ned them
see FTN help file from help menu
This dialog box allows you to add items to your book: Register (Descendant Ordered) — This format is accepted by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, one of the oldest genealogical societies in the country. The Register format dates back to 1870 and is used to establish "pedigree." NGS Quarterly (Descendant Ordered) — This format is the preferred genealogical report of the National Genealogical Society. The format dates back to 1912. It is similar to the Register format, but uses slightly different numbering and symbol systems.
Ahnentafel (Ancestor Ordered) — This format lists both the maternal and paternal family lines in the same report. It is not as popular as the other two formats for formal presentations.
Family Tree Maker version 11
but I don't know how :-)
Hugh W
|
Re: Ahnentafels as IDs, Sharon Carmack
> Published in 1999 … it is totally out dated by computer developments
Hmm, out of curiosity, what “computer developments†have occurred in the last five years that would obsolete Carmack’s book?
Carmack addresses specifically the organization of source documents – obits, wills, land records, etc. As long as we still have them (and I have a LOT), there will be a need to organize and file them. It’s true that the computer gives us organizational tools that we’d never dreamed of before, but my computer can’t organize the boxes of documents I have in my study. That’s where Carmack’s book comes in.
> Just use Family Tree Maker 11
Actually, I use Master Genealogist. Wonderful program, though it takes a long time to adequately learn some of its better features.
> Ahnentafel are hardly used anymore
I’d have to disagree with this statement. My own files are FULL of ahnentafels – I use them every day, as do thousands of genealogists around the world. They’re incredibly useful. Even Master Genealogist prints them on my pedigrees. I don’t see ahnentafels disappearing anytime soon.
> Register (Descendant Ordered) — This format is > accepted by the New England Historic Genealogical > Society … is used to establish "pedigree."
This statement is in error. The Register system is a DESCENDANCY system, not a pedigree system. It is used for numbering descendants. Ahnentafels are used to number ancestors. As the two systems serve different purposes, it would be wrong to assume the Register system could replace ahnentafels. But neither system answers the needs I was addressing – namely, the numbering of collaterals.
Further, the Register system has several flaws. First, it doesn’t number descendants’ spouses, only the descendants themselves. That is to say, for example, in a paternal descendancy chart, your mother would not be numbered, nor would your paternal grandmother. Secondly, the Register system runs into difficulty when more descendants turn up, or birth orders are revised. Once descendants are numbered, those numbers are set in stone. Any subsequently discovered children cannot be incorporated into the numbering scheme, they must be tacked on at the end. Similarly, if new data requires revision of birth orders, original numbers must be retained. Thirdly, not every individual in a descendancy is necessarily numbered – only those whose lines will be followed up on later.
Eventually, one ends up with a big mess of out of sequence numbers that makes little sense. And the fact that the Register system doesn’t number everyone makes it unsuitable as a filing scheme, which is what I’m interested in in this thread.
> NGS Quarterly (Descendant Ordered) > Ahnentafel (Ancestor Ordered)
None of the above systems is suitable for the purposes I was discussing – the numbering of collaterals. The three systems you mentioned number direct-line individuals only, which makes them inadequate for filing systems.
Thanks for your reply, Hugh.
Lee Kaiwen
|
Re: Ahnentafels as IDs, Sharon Carmack
|
Re: Ahnentafels as IDs, Sharon Carmack
Thanks for the link the to GEDCOM definition! I've been familiar with GEDCOM since 1987 when I started doing my genealogy on computer, but I wasn't aware of the proposed GEDCOM/XML standard.
However, what I'm not clear on is how this obsoletes Carmack's book. GEDCOM covers electronic information exchange; Carmack discusses organizational methods for hard copy documents and sources. What does the one have to do with the other?
But I guess that's neither here nor there, as my interest in this discussion has been to find the best-suited filing method for my hard-copy sources, not my electronic data. Can GEDCOM help with that?
Thanks again for the discussion, Hugh.
Lee Kaiwen
|
Re: Ahnentafels as IDs, Sharon Carmack
seen from my humble position as a user of Family Tree Maker 11
Having got the stuff into the program you may generate reports in various formats of which Ahnentafel is one
If I can onl,y find out how !
>> Preferences Reference Numbers Tab
These options appear under the “Reference Numbers†tab in Preferences. To open the Preferences dialog box, click the File menu and select Preferences.
These settings allow you to assign automatic reference numbers:
Individuals — Activates the assignment of automatic reference numbers to individuals in your Family File. You can also choose the type of numbering scheme you want to use: Numbers only, Prefix plus numbers (a number preceded by up to four letters or numbers), or Numbers plus suffix (a number followed by up to four letters or numbers). Marriages — Activates the assignment of automatic reference numbers to marriages in your Family File. You can also choose the type of numbering scheme you want to use: Numbers only, Prefix plus numbers (a number preceded by up to four letters or numbers), or Numbers plus suffix (a number followed by up to four letters or numbers).
Note that these settings are saved only in the family file you have open and will not carry over into other files.
Family Tree Maker version 11<<
HELP !
>> Standard (Ahnentafel) numbers
“Ahnentafel†means “ancestor table,†and an ahnentafel is a special genealogical format that tabulates the ancestry of one individual by generation in text rather than pedigree chart format. The ahnentafel number is the unique number assigned to each position in an ancestor table. Number one designates the person in the first generation whose descent is being traced. Number 2 designates the individual’s father; 3 designates the mother (the second
generation back). Numbers four through seven designate the grandparents of person number one (the third generation). As the ahnentafel extends by generation, the number of persons doubles. Because an ahnentafel starts with the individual and moves back through the generations of forebears, the higher the ahnentafel number, the further back in time the person designated. <<
Family Tree Maker version 11
>> Starting number — Type the Standard (Ahnentafel) number for the primary individual in this field. Normally you would type "1" in this field. However, if you have a set of trees and you want the Ahnentafel numbers to be sequential from tree to tree, choose an appropriate starting number to type in the field. Ahnentafel numbers are only available in Ancestor trees.
Family Tree Maker version 11<<<
but I cannot make it happen
Hugh W
|
Re: Ahnentafels as IDs, Sharon Carmack
I must also add that, if you read the book, the author adamantly refuses to include ANY computer information, database, programs or otherwise. It is ALL regarding hard copy.
There is nothing wrong with organizing your hard copy files, but really, it's the computer age. As Hugh's references note genealogy was very quick to embrace home computer technology for ease of use (databases) and storage space (FGS).
|
Re: Ahnentafels as IDs, Sharon Carmack
>the author adamantly refuses to include ANY >computer information … It is ALL regarding >hard copy.
While you’re correct, I’m afraid I fail to see the point. I want to organize my hard copies – this is a book about organizing hard copies. Saying, “But it has NOTHING about computers!†strikes me as about as relevant as saying, “That cookbook adamantly REFUSES to mention recipe software!â€
> There is nothing wrong with organizing your hard > copy files, but really, it's the computer age.
Yes, computers can do some wonderful things genealogically speaking. I’ve personally been doing genealogy on computers since 1987. But if there’s a computer out there that can organize and rearrange my bookshelves, I’ve yet to meet it (and even if there is, frankly I don’t want it to; computer technology is a wonderful adjunct to my genealogical work, but it is not a sine qua non). This is where Carmack’s book comes in and, frankly, for what it attempts to do it is full of excellent ideas. And I really DO fail to see how not talking about computers renders her advice any less useful.
>As Hugh's references note genealogy was very >quick to embrace home computer technology >for ease of use (databases) and storage space (FGS).
Or rather, many genealogists were quick to embrace computer technology. I’m one of them, and while it’s true that I couldn’t imagine doing genealogy without them, that neither means that there’s NOTHING I can do genealogically without them nor that there’s nothing I WANT to do without them.
I have a small bookshelf full of excellent genealogical books, most of which don’t contain the word “computerâ€. Carmack’s book is one. Her book on cemetery research is another. There’s Lackey’s “Cite Your Sourcesâ€, which is indispensable despite the fact that it has nary a word about computers. Greenwood’s “The Researcher’s Guide to American Genealogy†is another invaluable reference which doesn’t talk about computers. I still wouldn’t be without it.
I certainly agree that computers have added an invaluable dimension to genealogical research. I don’t, however, agree with your implication that it’s impossible to do genealogy without them, or that the failure to mention computers somehow renders advice valueless. I want to organize my hard copy sources. I no more need (or want!) a computer to do that than I need recipe software to bake an apple pie.
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan
|
Re: Ahnentafels as IDs, Sharon Carmack
Hmm, really wish I could help you here, Hugh. Unfortunately, I don't use Family Tree Maker, so I don't know its ins and outs.
Doesn't Ancestry.com have a Family Tree Maker message board?
Good luck!
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan
|
Re: Ahnentafels as IDs, Sharon Carmack
At the moment writing on acid free paper, along with wide distribution, seems to be the most durable method of preserving our work. Magnetic and optical media (CD ROM) both have limited lives and changing formats The computer provides automation for office work, and publication since the macintosh WYSWYG revolution. Pesonally I favour quick and nasty web pages like my blog GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/I use this for news and notes - about this and other sites. and the sites linked to it in the side bar dnkcen Site Map http://www.rootsweb.com/~dnkcen/sitemap.htmlmy shingle http://www.genealogi.so.uk was created by filling in forms in the AOL web editor Family Tree WATKINS and LAPHAM Monmouthshire and Bristol UK http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/w/a/t/Hugh-B-Watk...was made in FTM 11 by filling in the forms in the template from FTM's automatic web publishing function as were the uploaded gedcoms None the less that is my personal choice and a low cost publication solution for me aged 68 with a tiny income. I do think there is room for many points of view in what is a hobby for most of us Hugh W
|