Paul Drake wrote:
>As an examiner of evidence for a society  with exacting requirements, how
may I (and all others like me) use the many labels that have been or may be
applied to this or that record, writing or memento? >


Mr. Drake, you raise a valid point, from several perspectives. At the heart
of your question is a core issue: Why do we document our work?  That
question has several answers. You answer it from one important perspective:
that of a lineage-society examiner who appreciates applicants being
thorough, clear, and concise. You need supporting evidence that is valid and
to-the-point, without a bunch of jargon thrown around to make the evidence
seem more important than it actually is. Your bottom line is right: real
proof is not a label; it's the validity of the evidence.

But how does the applicant achieve that?

A second perspective is that of the researcher. Again, you're an expert from
that perspective, too. You've spent decades dealing with evidence as a
genealogist and an attorney. Processes that many others want to walk through
carefully, you can soar over in a leap because you have lived and breathed
the principles of evidence analysis for so long, so intensely. However, most
historical researchers are not attorneys---and many attorneys are not
experts in using historical records.

Most researchers who thoughtfully consider the records they find have also
noticed exactly what you point out . . .

>virtually all scraps of evidence are of more than one category.  A Civil
War discharge [that] some call primary evidence that the man named served in
some fashion for some period in that war [might be] called secondary as to
whether or not he participated in the battles in which that regiment was
involved.  It is circumstantial that he was present on the date of that
discharge, and the whole of the document, like a tombstone, is PURE hearsay
in its most apparent form.  >

Because of this, many, many researchers are left wondering: What can I
believe? What can I trust?  They seek guidelines they can apply until they
become as proficient as you are. Providing them with those guidelines---not
just "labels" they can mindlessly parrot, but *principles* they can apply to
their research---can help them produce the quality of work that you hope for
when you process applications for your society. (Which is also the quality
of work that journal editors want to see from writers, that the Board for
Certification wants to see from applicants, and that knowledgeable clients
want to see from the professionals they hire.)

Those "labels" (the ones that actually work <g>) are valuable because they
encourage each of us to thoughtfully analyze every piece of information we
find. Those labels (the ones that actually work <g>) require us to take each
piece of information we find, define its strengths and weaknesses, and
consider what kind of sources might yield better information from which we
might draw more reliable conclusions.

You asked:
> would someone please give me a definition of "primary" that will be usable
by my students in ALL cases?  Or of "circumstantial"? Or of "hearsay"?

The problems you point to with these terms are exactly why the field has
virtually abandoned the labels you use here (and in your Civil War discharge
example above). They don't work. There is too much overlap between them.
They don't allow us to make distinctions where distinctions are critical.
Those problems are why the terms "sources" and "evidence" cannot be
interchanged. The point you make above, that a so-called "primary source"
could be a so-called "secondary source" at the same time is exactly why
more-accurate and more-precise terminology is now used. But, as you point
out, just throwing around labels is pointless. Those "labels" have value
only if the researcher understands and applies the *principles* that those
labels represent.

In the 16 years that I edited the NGS Quarterly, I did not expect the
authors of manuscripts to fill their footnotes with labels or jargon. I
expected them to cite sources that soundly supported their assertions.
However, the quality of the sources they cited clearly revealed whether they
had a sound grasp of what constituted reliable evidence. With good
manuscripts, it was clear that the authors were mentally distinguishing
between original sources and derivatives and that were relying upon the
"most original" sources available. One could tell that they evaluated their
*sources* by the criteria that apply to *physical* form, while they
evaluated the *information* within that source by criteria that actually
applies to information-beginning with whether the person who supplied the
information had firsthand knowledge (primary information) or secondhand
knowledge (secondary information). It was clear that writers who
thoughtfully analyzed their findings knew the difference between
"information" and "evidence." (A distinction that courts of law apply as
well: not everything that attorneys want to get before the jury is
considered valid evidence by the judge, right?) Every time that authors
needed to "prove a point," they had to make a decision as to whether the
information they were citing explicitly provided the answer to their problem
(direct evidence) or whether they were going to have to accumulate many
pieces of indirect evidence to assemble a case that was circumstantial but
still convincing.

Most researchers never write for journals. Many are not interested in
lineage societies. But surely most of them are interested in providing their
families with an identity that's *real.*  Few family historians want to
claim other folk's ancestors. They want to know their own. They want an
identity for their family that won't crumble when their brother submits his
applicant to SAR and is reviewed by an expert like you---or one that won't
crumble 10 years down the road when somebody else uses sources they didn't
think to use.

Learning a structure for evidence analysis, a framework that they can
operate within, does helps them to produce quality work. The framework that
our field has defined for evidence analysis can help them see when they are
building a theory on a shaky foundation and it direct them to the kind of
sources that will yield reliable information from which they can reach
credible conclusions.

IMO, of course.

Elizabeth

-----------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
*Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian*
*QuickSheet: Citing Online Historical Resources Evidence! Style*

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