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. >

....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