WOW, HUGE question, Alison !!  But I have been asked so many times that I
will try to answer.

You need NONE of those terms to do excellent and complete research, and I
advise all my students to forget those words.  "Primary", "secondary",
"direct" and "indirect" have no meaning EXCEPT to the person saying or
writing those words.  Those are used by some to reveal, based on the sources
of the information, what they think of the QUALITY of the evidence being
described by the words.

As with all such terms and labels, we still must thoroughly examine by
"whom, when, where, and why" those bits of evidence were created those many
years ago.  Only in that way, and NOT by paying attention to labels, can we
determine the value of that evidence in what we are trying to prove.  I must
add that such very fine students of genealogical evidence as Mrs. Arledge,
Haun, and Leary, and Drs. Charles Drake and Kory Meyerlink suggest that the
terms have some value as first lessons for a newcomer to the hobby, later to
be abandoned after those neophytes come to understand that all -
ALL -evidence must be examined carefully no matter what the source, and that
labels do NOT reveal quality.  I do not find that use necessary, but all
teachers are different.

The almost meaningless term, "preponderance of the evidence", at last is
being abandoned as a standard in favor of "evidence that is clear and
convincing", and that change is long past due. Preponderance is a term of
the law and not appropriate as a standard in genealogy.  In fact, none of
us - not you, me or anyone I know - really considers a mere preponderance to
be sufficient proof of ANYTHING (look it up in any good dictionary).  As
with the terms already mentioned, you should try to not use that phrase
again.  It tells your reader or listener nothing about your proof of any
fact.  "Clear and convincing" is really what all of us try to achieve in
proving lineage.

There are no "clues".  There is only "evidence".  EVERY single fact,
memento, writing, story, and state of being that in ANY way tends to
establish lineage IS EVIDENCE, and the only difference in ANY of it is in
the QUALITY - the worth, the evidentiary value, the weight - that those
little pieces of evidence should be given, depending again on the "who,
when, where, why" of the source.  Would you ignore a bit of evidence because
someone says it is a "clue"?  The answer is. "Of course not!"

To speak or write the word "proofs" is simply poor usage; there is no such
word.  There is but one "proof" in any question, and that "proof" is
achieved when the little pile of evidence you have gathered tending to
establish some relationship is large enough - has enough evidentiary value
and weight - that you may state that the matter has been "proven".   We
gather evidence, and then we conclude that there is enough of that to say
the question is resolved and the relationship is proved.  Forget the word
"proofs"; there ain't no such animal.

Finally, words such as "circumstantial" and "hearsay" also are words of the
law, and have defined and precise meanings, that do not apply to our
research.  As with "primary" and "secondary", we must examine the evidence
no matter what label it may fall under.  Notice that a headstone is
"hearsay" in its MOST classical form, yet should we not note and preserve
what the stone says?  Again, of course not; to ignore a headstone because it
is hearsay would be utterly silly.  Again, then, of what value the label?
NONE.  Finally, I have no idea what "circumstantial" means when the term is
used in genealogy.  The evidence that you are the child of a certain mother
and a certain father is purely circumstantial.  Oh, yes, by the way, the
headstone also is classical circumstantial evidence that the person named is
the person buried there, so do we doubt it for THAT reason?  Again, simply
silly.  Hope this helps.  Paul


Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 11:36 PM
Subject: Evidence question

Paul, would you help me, please?  I am new and am confused about words used
by some friends doing genealogy.  Though you have the words in your
dictionary that I have, I can't sort those out as to how they apply.

I am most confused about primary, secondary, direct, indirect,
preponderance, clues, hearsay, circumstantial, and proofs.  Thanks you for
any help you have time for.  Alison

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html