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

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