....My advise is: Don't get hung up on definitions. Nyla PRECISELY, Nyla. Those labels tell us NOTHING about the reliability - the evidentiarty value - of any particular scrap of evidence. Would you presume I was correct in any lineage statement simply because I SAID I had learned in from a "primary source"? Of course not; you would want to read and evaluate that source for yourself. Paul

....You're right--no matter what you label it--gotta evaluate each piece of evidence separately. Maybe that's the primary message we need to get across to new researchers--not what kind of evidence but how reliable is it? And maybe emphasize that what Great Aunt Harriet said twenty years ago may not be accurate! That's my real concern--the number of family traditions and tales that just don't hold up under examination--which means they HAVE to be examined. ....Gale Fuller just summed it up nicely. Don't label--just look at every piece of evidence carefully! Karen My point was precisely that; the labels tell us nothing concerning the measure of reliability to be accorded ANY scrap of evidence. For any label to have value other than to one's self, it must have an agreed definition. The responses here have revealed that the words mentioned have slightly different meanings to everyone who responded. Most of all, and in large measure for precisely that reason, I learn NOTHING from any label, and must examine carefully EVERY scrap of evidence that in any way tends to prove lineage. Thanks to all for the contributions to all of us. Paul ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== Always Keep Your Anti Virus Program Updated Regularly. USGW Archives Pension Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/pensions/ ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

In a message dated 8/4/03 4:25:44 PM Mountain Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: > which category is a headstone, please? > How about my Drake family Bible; is it primary or secondary I've seen errors in both--and as Nyla pointed out---county records also contain errors. You're right--no matter what you label it--gotta evaluate each piece of evidence separately. Maybe that's the primary message we need to get across to new researchers--not what kind of evidence but how reliable is it? And maybe emphasize that what Great Aunt Harriet said twenty years ago may not be accurate! That's my real concern--the number of family traditions and tales that just don't hold up under examination--which means they HAVE to be examined. As for bible records--I said SOME can't be considered "primary." I've seen a family bible in which a great great nephew wrote the whole "history" of our ancestor's Rev. service in his bible--and I can't find a trace of old John in the Rev.! In fact, when he was supposed to be at Valley Forge he was buying property in Mecklenburg VA! A fer piece to travel.... Gale Fuller just summed it up nicely. Don't label--just look at every piece of evidence carefully! Karen

>From a subscriber and a correspondent, to which I can only say, "FOR SURE!!" ----- Original Message ----- ....While you are at it, I wish you would explain to neophytes that a unsourced GedCom found on line is NOT evidence of any sort, let alone proof. More fiction is floating around cyberspace than fact. M----

Already, there are at least 4 definitions of primary and secondary. If any label is to have value, we must ALL agree on the precise definition. Paul

In a message dated 8/4/2003 4:07:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: > Just what I said...primary and secondary information, when gathered in > sufficient quantity, constitutes proof (s) or make it singular...proof... > Margaret, Paul and all, I just want to point out the obvious. The definition of "sufficient quantity", also must include "quality". When you are dealing with names common in a particular area, then the amount that equals "sufficient" is increased exponentially, and the definition of "quality" MUST, in my humble opinion, include deeds and other records so that you can pinpoint these people on a map and show that the four John Martins, three, Samuel Martins, six William Martins lived in different areas, etc. (Just ask Linda Sparks Starr on the Johnsons!) Over a year ago, we Bentleys in Amelia Co. VA, had a new researcher (now sadly in Brussels Belgium) who got all the documents (deeds, everything) and transcribed them in originals. We studied them, and concluded that there were two possible separate Bentley families in Amelia Co. -- They lived 30 miles apart, and all the confusion in genealogies results in the fact that both families had ONLY these names in the mid 1700s -- Samuel, William and John. The above two families have been intertwined in genealogies, confused in later migrations to Halifax & Brunswick Co. as one and the same (exacerbated by some marriage abstracts in the latter). This Bentley line is very far back in my genealogy as surname goes (of course contribution to my genetic makeup is equal with everybody else!), but the whole experience was just incredible when we realized that between Amelia, Brunswick & Halifax we had wayyyy...too many Bentleys to be from one guy -- the one with the WILL!! Samuel d. ca 1794 in Amelia Co. As a result, I had to unhook myself from a Richmond Co. Daniel with son Samuel...etc. Janet

I am not an active person on this group but do read what is written with interest. Concerning primary and secondary evidence, I must disagree with Margaret. Primary basically means something recorded at the time it happened. It does not mean something that you can touch but often you can touch those records. Now lets look at what have been suggested. Birth certificate. That is most likely a strong primary document. It was recorded at the time of birth unless the doctor failed to do it until later which did happen! However death certificates can only be called primary for the date of death as signed by the attending physician. As far as birthdates, name of parents, etc. it is only as good as the person who gave the information. I have found huge errors when looking at death certificates. They are basically a clue as to anything other than the actual death date and reason. Bible records. These can definitely be primary if written by the person at the time of an event. But look carefully at the handwritings. You will often see that information is filled in about two or three generations back and we know that the writer was not present at the birth of their grandfather! They just got the past ancestors in their new bible before adding their own information. Although they can be correct, they also can be VERY WRONG. Some were filled in at the time they received the bible and it is possible they copied from their older sibling's bible or parents' bible. But we have no way to know. Again these are clues if all written by the same hand writing. And on the other side of the coin, you will find someone who went back and filled in things in a family Bible much later. Someone of our parent's generation wanting to *catch up in the Bible*. I have seen Bible records that list the death of a person before a will was written! Or one child's birth before another when other proofs show otherwise. Tombstones. We know that many tombstones have been placed long after the death of the person. The kind relative who placed it used dates that were given to them. My father's first cousin placed a stone for her grandmother who died long before she was born. Guess what, she used the wrong name!! Why she did this is beyond me! But it is wrong! She just decided that Anne Sue was named Anne Susan for her mother. No where from the birth, death, marriage records, court and land records do we ever see her as Susan. So what happens when a person sees this and does not have the information I have? Marriage records recorded from the courthouse will have pretty accurate information but wrong spellings of names. My great grandmother was Elizabeth Muller and the "u" has the umlaut over it. The person who recorded it wrote Miller. So you have to look for EVERYTHING. However if you have the actual marriage license, that is a primary document. So in trying to identify if a record is primary or secondary, you must consider the record itself, when it was written and by whom and hope for the best. Gale

Gail is exactly correct. Do follow her advice and Pauls... I should keep my own council...love you all..oh, yes......I can, however, touch original documents. margaret

I've been following all the comments on "evidence." Hope it is okay to throw in my 2 cents' worth. Since it is free, take what you like and ignore the rest. It seems to me that everyone is striving to get to the same result, regardless of what we call these meaningless terms. I've found "official" county records with errors. Something that would be considered "primary" evidence, in certain situations, we might not give it the same value as a piece of "secondary" evidence. My advise is: Don't get hung up on definitions. Nyla > Primary = hard evidence--a record (and I'm not so sure > I consider all bible records primary!) Secondary = soft evidence--what > somewhat else claimed. I have a lot of both in my files. :) Often we have to > start > with secondary/soft evidence--those family histories that have been handed > down, usually orally, which you can count on to have errors. Then we need > the > primary records to support or refute them. >

I agree with Margaret. Primary = hard evidence--a record (and I'm not so sure I consider all bible records primary!) Secondary = soft evidence--what somewhat else claimed. I have a lot of both in my files. :) Often we have to start with secondary/soft evidence--those family histories that have been handed down, usually orally, which you can count on to have errors. Then we need the primary records to support or refute them. Yet Paul is of course right when he says we use what we have--my fallback "proof" (I don't call it that!) is simple logic of place, time, name patterns, etc. I've got many links I'm sure are "right" but they're by no means supported with evidence of any sort beyond logical deduction. Sometimes it's all we have. This works fine with an unusual name like Calthorpe--two in one county? Bound to be related! Roughly the same age? Brothers or cousins. But it doesn't work for Smith, Jones, Mason, Walker....six in one county? Don't count on ANY relationships! The important thing here is to always include in your notes (especially if you're going to publish it anywhere including the web) a descritption of the quality of your evidence. My gedcoms often include the phrase, "not a shred of evidence--a guess." :) Karen Dale

To me, this statement from Paul proves my point exactly, rather than vice-versa...:) >>>>>>>>>hence there is only evidence that when gathered in sufficient quantity - weight, probity, reliability - constitutes "proof" of a proposition or an answer. <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Just what I said...primary and secondary information, when gathered in sufficient quantity, constitutes proof (s) or make it singular...proof... Love to you all, Margaret

I might or might not agree to your definitions, but so what, Ms. Karen? Have you told us anything about the value of the evidence by the use of those words? Under your definition, which category is a headstone, please? How about my Drake family Bible; is it primary or secondary, considering that it has entries written across now 154 years by at least 6 distinct writers? It seems apparent to me that no matter what label you attach, I yet must consider all the facts surrounding every single entry found there, and for you to say it is "primary" or "secondary" assists me not one iota. Enough then; if those words help you and my Dear Friend Margaret, then by all means use those terms. As for me, I feel you have told me nothing about the quality of the evidence to which you have pasted those labels. Paul ----- Original Message ----- I agree with Margaret. Primary = hard evidence--a record (and I'm not so sure I consider all bible records primary!) Secondary = soft evidence--what somewhat else claimed. I have a lot of both in my files. :) Often we have to start with secondary/soft evidence--those family histories that have been handed down, usually orally, which you can count on to have errors. Then we need the primary records to support or refute them. Yet Paul is of course right when he says we use what we have--my fallback "proof" (I don't call it that!) is simple logic of place, time, name patterns, etc. I've got many links I'm sure are "right" but they're by no means supported with evidence of any sort beyond logical deduction. Sometimes it's all we have. This works fine with an unusual name like Calthorpe--two in one county? Bound to be related! Roughly the same age? Brothers or cousins. But it doesn't work for Smith, Jones, Mason, Walker....six in one county? Don't count on ANY relationships! The important thing here is to always include in your notes (especially if you're going to publish it anywhere including the web) a descritption of the quality of your evidence. My gedcoms often include the phrase, "not a shred of evidence--a guess." :) Karen Dale ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== USGenWeb Archives http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb Do Not Flame other Members on List. If you have problems or concerns with list posts, contact the List Administrator. [email protected] ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Dear Margaret, you have just proved my point. There are so many definitions of those words - including the ones you have just set forth - that the terms now have been rendered meaningless. Plus, perhaps I was not explicit; I do freely and often use the words "proof", "prove", "proven", but what there are not are what some folks call "proofs". There are no places where "proofs" are required to answer a question, hence there is only evidence that when gathered in sufficient quantity - weight, probity, reliability - constitutes "proof" of a proposition or an answer. Paul Subject: evidence Oh my!!!! Paul and I always butt heads on this one. Allison, I use the terms, "Primary", "Secondary" and "Proof". Primary, in my opinion, (which will not buy you a cup of cold coffee) refers to evidence you can touch, see, feel. For-instance, a Family Bible, birth and death certificates, school records. Secondary, in my opinion, refers to books. For instance when an author discusses those families that resided in Lunenburg. Finally, proof is what I call these two types of evidence put together. You can prove that, for instance, a person lived because of the Family Bible, birth and school records, marriage certificate, he died because of a death obit, or a tombstone inscription. If he served in a War, a record from the War Department or research in a book listing these men would be proof. Also, don't get hung up on words..Just look for, as dear Paul said, the "who, what, when, where". Fondly, Margaret

Oh my!!!! Paul and I always butt heads on this one. Allison, I use the terms, "Primary", "Secondary" and "Proof". Primary, in my opinion, (which will not buy you a cup of cold coffee) refers to evidence you can touch, see, feel. For-instance, a Family Bible, birth and death certificates, school records. Secondary, in my opinion, refers to books. For instance when an author discusses those families that resided in Lunenburg. Finally, proof is what I call these two types of evidence put together. You can prove that, for instance, a person lived because of the Family Bible, birth and school records, marriage certificate, he died because of a death obit, or a tombstone inscription. If he served in a War, a record from the War Department or research in a book listing these men would be proof. Also, don't get hung up on words..Just look for, as dear Paul said, the "who, what, when, where". Fondly, Margaret

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

Hi, Joe, and everybody. Good questions. I have marked my answers with **** Paul, I have several questions. Please explain: in the courthouse at Southampton there are both Minute Books and Order Books, what is the difference and what types of information might each have? *** Very early there were many differences, yet over the centuries those terms were used loosely and often almost as synonyms. Early, the "minute book" was a "day book" or diary of sorts in which a clerk (and sometimes the judge, when the clerk was absent) made running notes of what happened in the courtroom as the days passed. Such entries included any unusual incidents, who all appeared that day and why, what witnesses were there, the names of lawyers and judges, and any other events that were noteworthy, including the weather if it was in any sense inclement, literally almost "minute by minute". ***The "order books" were/are those notebooks in which the judge or the clerk entered the judges "orders" - the dispositions of cases, and often included his rulings made in the course of trials, rulings on motions, objections, actions of grand-, petit-, and coroners juries and inquests, and such as matters of contempt and the findings of those who listed tithables and raxes. Anything the judge ruled on went into the order books Those "order books" later often and in other jurisdictions were called "journals", and entries in those were known as "journal entries". It should be apparent that many matters in the minute books were critical to the orders found in the order books, and so confusion and duplication reigned. As a researcher you must carefully review such materials wherever those records are extant. ***Notice that very often at first, and almost always as the 19th century approached, order books were indexed in the names of the parties to whatever actions were being taken, while minute books are almost always in chronological order - BIG difference there. I know you have explained this once before, but I am thick headed. Persons dying without a will, how are their estates generally handled, and where would find the information regarding such estates? ***There are 2 principal categories of death; testate where the decedent left a will, and intestate where there was no such document. In a will, an executor/executrix was/is nominated by the decedent in the will and usually accepted to that task by the court. In intestate death, the court appoints a administrator/administratrix who sees to the duties that the executor would have done had there been a will. In both cases and in all other probate death proceedings the entire purpose is to conclude ALL the Earthly business of the dead person, after which the estate is "closed". ***The volumes that have death records are called variously "estates and inventories", "wills and administrations", "wills and inventories", "testate deaths", "intestate deaths", and sometimes simple "estates records". Best thing to do is ask anybody working in the courthouse, "Where are the death records, please?" They will know of what you speak and will send you to that office, whatever it is called in that state. And lastly, on several wills and deeds at the bottom, some signatures are designated "seal" and others "his mark", am I correct in assuming that those that are notated "seal" are an actual signature, whereas those notated as " his mark" would indicate someone who could not sign his name? ***Unless the deed is an original (and VERY few are), the word "Seal" or "LS" at the end of the deed simply means that the original had a seal affixed. The use of seals and the indication that there was one on the original document gradually fell into disuse from 1850ish till the 1950s. There are no seals required now, however if you wish to attach one to your document, it is perfectly legal to so so. ***The seals had/have nothing to do with the literacy of the persons signing. The early history of the use of seals is very interesting, but not appropriate for writing here. Now you know more than anyone will ever ask you about seals and signatures, Joe. hahaha

Dear list I saw a posting some weeks ago for an Owen Family reunion in Sept. but i cannot find it now.Does anyone have knowledge of this event?? Many thanks, Carol Owen

For those of you who may be new to this forum, a MOORE Surname Y-Chromosome DNA Project has been established at Family Tree DNA, called MOORE-Worldwide. This project is intended to be inclusive of all MOOREs from any area and any spelling variant, but we are especially interested in a group of Moores that originated in VA Southside and migrated NC>GA and NC>TN>AL>MS. The testing will be for the male Y-chromosome that is passed only from father to son. Therefore, the testing requires a male with the surname of MOORE (or variant.) The test analyzes either the 12 or 25 markers on the Y-chromosome. If the markers of two or more male individuals of same surname match, it indicates they descend from a common male ancestor. The project is being co-administered by Julia F. Wood, Jan Matlock and Marge Stockton. For more information, visit our website http://small-stuff.com/MOORE/ . To join, click on "Order Your DNA Test Kit." Fill out and submit the form and Julia, Jan or Marge will contact you. The preferred option is the 25-marker test, which more closely defines the timing of the common ancestor. The optional 12-marker test can be upgraded to the 25-marker test later if desired, from the original sample. The cost of testing is reduced for Surname Project members. On the website, your personal information is hidden and only the test results can be seen. We are very excited about the prospects DNA testing offers for untangling our many MOORE ancestors. If your name is not MOORE, but you are a MOORE relative, or if you are a female researcher of the MOORE family, you can still participate by purchasing a test kit for a male with the surname MOORE (any spelling). Please join today!

Hello Everyone, The following information was relayed by another researcher, on the Whaley list. I apologize for any crossposting. "Dick Eastman's Genealogy Newsletter offered news of England's Old Bailey proceedings were now an online database. The address is <A HREF="http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/">http://www.oldbaileyonline.org</A>" Have fun! Best Regards, Janet Hunter

Try again; a wonderful site for us all, and now complete. Paul http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/soldiers.htm