"Seems there were three brothers ..."

I received an e-mail from my cousin Vicky this morning informing me of her change of address. At the bottom of her message was the line ... "Genealogy without sources is mythology." Boy! Is that ever true!

It reminded me of all the times I had heard tall tales, mostly from those just starting out in genealogy, which turned out to be pure myth.

The most famous one, and the one everybody can relate to, I'm sure, is the "three brothers" story. Everybody has one of those. It goes something like this:

"Our family history says there were three (or two or four) brothers who came from England (or Ireland or Scotland or France or Germany) and settled in Virginia (or Delaware or Maryland or anywhere on the northeastern seaboard).

One stayed there, one went west, and one went south."

The thing is, that probably has some truth to it, with a few variations. Unless you are Native American, your ancestors did come from somewhere in Europe (or Africa) if they came in the 1600s and 1700s. And they did land somewhere along the Atlantic coast ... anywhere from Savannah to New England.

It's just funny to hear the same story over and over. The variations are amusing.

Another favorite one seems to be," We know she was full-blooded Cherokee (or

Creek or Choctaw or whatever)."

This is the one that usually turns out to be a myth.

For whatever reason, many people try to link their ancestry to Native Americans. The myth usually surrounds an old family photo of a woman with dark hair and high cheekbones. I had this experience in my own family when I answered a query on a family member I had done quite a bit of research on. I hated to burst her bubble, but I wrote back that I had found nothing but White Anglo-Saxon Protestant people in this line back to the late 1700s. If she could find any documentation of her theory I would have gladly accepted it. I think she did eventually find some Native American documentation, but on the woman's husband, not on her. I was happy to learn the research on my part of the family was correct.

Old family photos I have seen usually show women who were quite thin. Let's face it, with the work our early ancestor ladies had to do, there was little time for obesity. Thin faces show sunken cheeks, and that may look like high cheekbones to some. And, perhaps, it may have something to do with wishful thinking.

Finding a beautiful Indian maiden in your background could sound romantic, I imagine. But, in this particular instance, I had a photo of the lady's sister, and it showed her with dark, curly hair. I don't believe Indians had curly hair, did they? Also, I had census records back to South Carolina in the early 1800s. No Indians anywhere.

So far, I have not had to do any research on Native American ancestry, so I don't know that much about it. But I'm sure some of you have. I would appreciate any information you can share on finding documentation of Native American ancestry. That might make an interesting column. Also, I would love to hear from those of you who have done African-American research. That has got to be the most difficult of all.

Another myth involves connecting your ancestry to a famous person. To some, this seems to be a very big thing. I don't know why. What you are has nothing to do with your ancestor's accomplishments, if you are, indeed, connected to someone famous. They do the work and you take the glory? I don't think so. Be proud for them, of course, but leave the bragging where it belongs.

My own particular family myth still remains a mystery. I was told by my aunt that our Fowlers "rode mules" from the Carolinas to Georgia and "bought the stockyards in Atlanta." After several years in that endeavor, they are said to have moved on to Alabama.

Another variation of that story tells of how the Fowlers "got their money."

They supposedly worked for a livestock company and were hired to drive a herd of mules (or horses) to Atlanta. When they arrived in Atlanta, they supposedly sold the herd and pocketed the money, telling their employers it had been stolen. Wild, huh? These two stories came from two separate people, but may have had the same source.

The closest thing I have been able to find relating to Fowlers and livestock in Atlanta was an Ed Fowler who is listed in the 1889-1890 Atlanta directory and whose occupation was listed as "real estate and livestock." I haven't been able to find any Ed Fowler in my ancestry, but it could be that he is related somehow.

We still haven't found the siblings of our Nathan Fowler of Gwinnett County, so he could tie in there.

And two of Nathan's sons served in the cavalry during the Civil War, so they must have been good horsemen.

As for the money, census records tell a different story. Nobody seems to have had more than $500 to their name at any time between 1850 and 1880. Records show my great-grandfather building his fortune after he moved to Alabama, not before. And he seems to have done it with hard work and determination. He started with a log cabin and a homestead, and built it into a general store, saw mill, grist mill, cotton gin, and farmland he rented to tenants. He also owned stock in the Bank of Bowdon, which was supposedly begun by his brother.

I haven't totally dismissed the stories, but they are definitely on the back burner.

I've saved the funniest one for last. On one of the e-mail lists, a gentleman went into great length and detail on names of his ancestors, dates, locations, descendants, spouses ... everything was there ... until the last line, which said: "I don't think my great-grandparents had any children."

Think about that one for a minute. Then, don't wake up your neighbors laughing. Got a tall tale about your Georgia ancestors? Write to The Citizen, Drawer 1719, Fayetteville, GA 30214; E-mailjkilgore@thecitizennews.com or jodiek444@aol.com.

Until next week, happy hunting!