Decades ago, J. H. Plumb spoke of a „genealogical craze“ that seized Europe in the later Middle Ages and particularly in the early modern period. Modern scholarship has not overlooked the importance of genealogy. A wide range of publications has discussed, among other questions, the social motives behind early modern genealogies, their representational functions, their media, and their crucial role in matters of ceremonial status. Historians, art historians, and historians of literature have discussed various approaches to answering two important questions: why were genealogies important for people, and how were they presented in order to fulfil their function?

What has attracted much less attention, however, is another question: How did early modern Europeans actually acquire genealogical knowledge? While scholars regularly think about the function and presentation of genealogies, they only rarely address the equally important point of knowledge production. Yet this was a question of great concern to contemporaries. Early modern Europe saw a significant shift in what counted as proper genealogical knowledge. While „Fable genealogies“ (Roberto Bizzocchi) retained some importance well into the 18th century, genealogy largely came to be based on written evidence, usually gathered from archives and libraries. In addition to authentic charters and other manuscript documentation, material sources – coins, epitaphs, coats of arms – became highly important. This meant that the production of family genealogies frequently turned into wide-ranging research projects. The social role of the „genealogist“, capable of locating, evaluating, deciphering, and interpreting pertinent documents in a range of repositories, emerged. These genealogists developed a wide range of technical knowledge helpful in the complex processes of researching family ties.

The conference at Wolfenbüttel attempts to investigate in a coherent and pan-European manner both the people and the procedures involved in producing genealogical knowledge. It turns away from the end products of early modern genealogy, the finished and splendidly presented genealogical tables. Instead, it focuses on genealogies in the making. It investigates research strategies and inherent difficulties and discusses the media involved in researching genealogies (notebooks, manuscript copies, drawings of evidence). A key question is if and how the genealogists’ research strategies relate to the erudite traditions of antiquarian historiography in the 17th and 18th centuries. Another important topic to investigate is the authenticating role of research practices: How did sources considered to be ‚authentic‘ make genealogical reconstructions trustworthy, how were sources actually deployed to construct dynastic lineages? We are also interested in the social dimension of the production of genealogical knowledge: Who were the genealogists and what relationships did they have with their patrons? What role did genealogical research have in their careers? How did genealogical research work on day-to-day basis? To what degree is it actually meaningful to distinguish at all between historians and genealogists in early modern Europe?