<<snipped>> surely isn't the fact that something was invented for the certificate be an example of the Primary evidence of a deception being employed? <<snipped>> Actually, you can get quite mathematically strict in a very tongue in cheek fashion... Yes, (speaking like a UK family historian), the fact that something was invented for the certificate is indeed primary evidence for **a deception being employed**. However, the same words are only secondary evidence for the **date of birth** (the original query). What's crucial in this view of the world, is that we need to look at what the text is being used as evidence for - the same words can be used as primary evidence for one thing and secondary evidence for another. If this dual view is a bit of a headache for you, then you should understand I'm a fan of Steven Moffat's Sherlock... I need to sit down and read Gabrielle's mail properly later since I'm not familiar with terms like "normative". I have long believed, however, that academic and family historians use these terms differently... She is, however, speaking for all of us when she says "it is the way you use the information that counts". Adrian

Hi Adrian   I am in perfect agreement, many sources contain secondary evidence which later turns out to be primary evidence and vice versa. How many times have we seen a old lady as the mother of a child on a census return when we know very well she is actually the grandmother and mum is actually listed as a sister. Is that primary evidence for the 'truth' at the time, for a genetic link between grandmother and granddaughter or that there was a naughty mother!   David From: Adrian Bruce <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 4 February 2014, 10:09 Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence <<snipped>> surely isn't the fact that something was invented for the certificate be an example of the Primary evidence of a deception being employed? <<snipped>> Actually, you can get quite mathematically strict in a very tongue in cheek fashion... Yes, (speaking like a UK family historian), the fact that something was invented for the certificate is indeed primary evidence for **a deception being employed**. However, the same words are only secondary evidence for the **date of birth** (the original query). What's crucial in this view of the world, is that we need to look at what the text is being used as evidence for - the same words can be used as primary evidence for one thing and secondary evidence for another. If this dual view is a bit of a headache for you, then you should understand I'm a fan of Steven Moffat's Sherlock... I need to sit down and read Gabrielle's mail properly later since I'm not familiar with terms like "normative". I have long believed, however, that academic and family historians use these terms differently... She is, however, speaking for all of us when she says "it is the way you use the information that counts". Adrian ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message