Ancient Descents Project
A n c i e n t D e s c e n t s . c o m
Chart Notation
by Don Charles Stone
1. The Basic Notation Follows Many Pedigree Chart Conventions
2. This Notation Can (and Generally Should) Represent Alternate Possibilities
3. This Notation Can Illustrate Cohesion in a Lineage
1. The Basic Notation Follows Many Pedigree Chart Conventions
The notation I use in pedigree or lineage charts is an adaptation of some established conventions for pedigree charts:
  • Individuals are usually shown in boxes. A standard rectangular box is used for males, and a rectangular box with rounded corners is used for females. (This convention is analogous to genograms, in which males appear as squares and females as circles.)
  • Marriage is indicated by an equals sign: ; for example, the marriage of X and Y can be represented by the following:
            marriage of X and Y
    The upper line of the equals sign can be viewed as indicating the legal bond of marriage. The lower line can be viewed as indicating the physical relationship, and if the marriage produced offspring, it is reshaped to lead to the offspring: . The upper line is omitted in a non-marriage liaison producing offspring: . The upper line is dashed if the marriage is uncertain: or .
  • The parent-child relationship is indicated by a connecting line (perhaps curved or segmented) extending from the marriage or liaison symbol to the child.
  • Connecting lines may branch to show multiple children.
If a person has more than one marriage, then a marriage number is placed above the marriage "=" on the side of that person. (Note: a "1" above the equals sign is used only for the first of two or more marriages; no number is supplied for the default case of first and only marriage.)
Example 1. Marriage with multiple children.   (Click to display or hide example.)
chart fragment
(Note that there might be other children not shown.)
This notation also has these properties:
  • Connections that are certain or almost certain are represented with solid connecting lines. Note that very few genealogical connections are completely certain; in a great many cases we are quite confident of a connection, but there is a very small chance that the connection is wrong and we don't realize it, due to, for example, coincidences or deception.
  • Connections that are plausible but not certain or almost certain are shown with dashed connecting lines. In the following illustration Z might be the son of X and Y, but his parentage isn't certain.
          Example 2. Z might be son of X and Y.
            chart with dashed connection
  • Dotted lines are used to represent omitted generations, by analogy with ellipsis ("...") in text. (Warning: some authors use dotted rather than dashed lines to indicate uncertainty.) In the following illustration Z is known to be a descendant of V and W; the intermediate generations are omitted (and might not be known).
          Example 3. Z descends from V and W.
            chart with dotted connection
Note that dashes or dots don't have to be used for the entire connecting line; a connecting line can be mostly solid but with an easily noticed segment of dashes or dots indicating uncertainty or omission. (Dashes and dots can be used in the same connecting line if generations have been omitted and the connection via these omitted generations is uncertain.)
2. This Notation Can (and Generally Should) Represent Alternate Possibilities
This notation can (and generally should) represent alternate plausible relationships. Since a dashed connecting line asserts that the connection it represents is plausible and might be true, it is possible to show two or more fathers or mothers for an individual, with a dashed line from each pair of possible parents to the possible child. If there are not too many competing theories, showing all of them helps us keep them all in mind when, e.g., we want to evaluate new evidence or interpretations. However, in more complicated situations the display of all possibilities may be cluttered and difficult to understand (perhaps motivating the presentation of some possibilities in a separate subchart or in a verbal description). This potential clutter effect is part of the motivation for the extended notation discussed after the following two examples.
Example 4. P is son of which of his father's wives?   (Click to display or hide example.)
The following illustration represents the case where King M had two wives in succession, A and B, but which of them is the mother of Prince P is unknown:
                
In this example the left-hand dashed segment says that Prince P could be the son of King M and Wife A, while the right-hand dashed segment says that Prince P could be the son of King M and Wife B.
Example 5. P is son of his father's wife, who is probably either A or B.   (Click to display or hide example.)
King M is believed to have had only one wife. Her identity is uncertain, but there are two plausible candidates for this wife, A and B. In the illustration of this case (below) the tops of the marriage bars are dashed, showing that the marriages are uncertain (one of them is probably wrong):
                
3. This Notation Can Illustrate Cohesion in a Lineage
A chart may have a number of dashed lines indicating uncertainty and making the lineage appear fragile and in danger of fragmentation, but in some cases there is a contrasting cohesion dynamic. For example, we may know that someone is descended from a person (or couple) several generations earlier but not know the exact route of the descent. In such cases I use a notation in which the generations from the known ancestor(s) to the descendant have a pale background which makes that block of generations a visual unit, and I further emphasize the certainty or near certainty of descent with brackets on each side of the block:
      Example 6. Z is a descendant of V and W, perhaps via X.
          chart with details
The above chart would be appropriate, for example, if the descendant Z is almost certainly a grandson of V and W; perhaps Z made this claim, and it was apparently accepted by his contemporaries, most of whom would have known whether it was true. Showing Z as the possible son of X, a known son of V and W, could reflect a majority opinion of modern historians. Literally, the chart specifies that Z is a descendant of V and W; Z might be a son of X but might be descended from V and W in some other way.