APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2006-04 > 1144210918


From: Craig Kilby <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Clerk's copy -- original vs. derivative
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:21:58 -0400
In-Reply-To: <200604041959.k34Jxmtq015866@mail.rootsweb.com>


Elizabeth and all:

What is confused here is what I wrote and what Rodina wrote in response, now
smashed into one letter supposedly all from me because her letter in reply
was not clear in who had written what and what her response was.

Elizabeth, you did write that a "Official Record Copy" would be treated as
an original source, as you say in the last letter. Now, you say that it if
it is a transcript from a long-gone original, it isn't original afterall.
Whatever it is, it may be all there is, and one can only cite the source.
This is the problem I have with labeling everything "original" or
"derivative" sources. Under the strictest definition, very little of what
we have is "original". Original census records can be filmed or scanned or
both, but even those photographic images are not "original".

Regardless, original or derivative, a source is just a form of EVIDENCE
which are may not be TRUE, and which must be weighed against other EVIDENCE.
I hope I've at least got that part right.

Surely, if the original is GONE but a TRANSCRIPT was made and recorded into
a register, it is either an original or it isn't. I didn't say "Tom, Dick
or Harry" waltzed in the court house one day and decided to do the clerk a
favor. (Though I'm sure that has happened more than once).

I think most of know how to evaluate evidence and come up with sound
reasonings on our conclusions. That is why I like land records. People
move, but land doesn't. And since 1782, land has been taxed and gone to
court over. Very little room for error in land records.

Craig

> From: "Mills" <>
> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:59:30 -0500
> To:
> Subject: RE: [APG] Clerk's copy -- original vs. derivative
> Resent-From:
> Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:59:44 -0600
>
> Craig Kilby wrote:
>> There are two categories of sources, either of which can be in error:
>> a. Original Documents or Public Record Copies/Abstracts/Trancripts of
> Original Documents
>> b. Everything Else
>
>
> Craig, we might should clarify a point in the above. Your conclusion seems
> to go back to a posting of mine several days ago, when someone inquired
> about "clerk's copies." There I wrote:
>
> "OFFICIAL RECORD COPY:
> A clerk's official copy, usually entered into a register; it is treated as
> an original when the original does not exist or cannot be accessed."
>
>
> Here, we are not talking about abstracts or transcripts made by Tom, Dick,
> or Harry. Nor would we consider a modern clerk's "abstract" drawn from a
> full record made 100 years ago to be an "original" record. The original
> would be that full record made 100 years ago.
>
>
>> Public records would, with exceptions (shades of
>> gray) be considered original source material.
>
> No, I would not make a blanket statement that all "public records ... be
> considered original source material." Public records come in all shapes,
> forms, and fashions. Those "shades of grey" definitely determine whether the
> record is original or derivative.
>
>
>> Primary and Secondary sources no longer mean anything.
>> They are either Original, Derivative, Direct or Indirect.
>> I'm not sure why or when this reasoning was abandoned, but sources are
> either
>
> Yes and no. SOURCES are either originals or derivatives. SOURCES are not
> "direct or indirect."
>
> "Direct or indirect" is used to describe the EVIDENCE that we draw from the
> INFORMATION within those sources.
>
>> Primary or secondary INFORMATION.
>> A written record, recorded interview or photograph would be primary.
>
> Again, the concept is confused here. It's not the record that is "primary".
> A record is a SOURCE. It is the INFORMATION within the record or the source
> that has to be dissected to determine whether each individual statement is
> primary or secondary. Many, many records contain both primary and secondary
> information. Even within a single sentence, the informant may be providing
> both primary and secondary information. As an example, if I were a witness
> in a court case and I said "My husband, Gary B. Mills," attended St.
> Joseph's Academy in the ninth grade," my information would be both primary
> (my firsthand knowledge of who my husband was) and secondary (hearsay
> knowledge of where he went to school before I met him).
>
>
>> Primary and secondary regards the quality of the information.
>
> Primary and secondary describe the NATURE of the information. Primary
> information can be of totally unreliable quality if the informant is lying.
> Even hearsay could be of high quality if it is based on an accurate
> transmittal of facts.
>
>> Direct or Indirect
>> a. Direct evidence is a statement of fact, regardless of source
>
> Yes and no.
> 1. If we use the word "fact" here, we really should put it in quotes. More
> precisely, what we would be referring to here would be a piece of
> information or an assertion. That piece of information or that assertion may
> or may not be an actual *fact.*
>
> 2. A piece of information is not EVIDENCE unless it is *relevant* to the
> question we're applying it to. That's the first test of whether something is
> evidence.
>
> 3. But yes: Once we conclude that a piece of information is relevant and
> therefore evidence to help answer our research question, then it is *direct*
> evidence if it directly states what we need to know.
>
>
>> b. indirect evidence is a conclusion such as one would use to solve a
> cross
> word puzzle or a soduko puzzle--process of elimination or simple logic,
> which must needs explanation.
>
> Here, Craig, you're taking one step of the process and turning it into the
> whole.
>
> In one sense, all evidence is a "conclusion." It's what we conclude or think
> that a piece of information means. DIRECT EVIDENCE does makes a direct,
> flat-out statement that answers the research question, all by itself
> (although it could answer it wrong). INDIRECT EVIDENCE is evidence that does
> NOT make a flat out statement to answer our question. It has to be put
> together with other pieces of information to arrive at an answer to that
> question. But indirect evidence is the individual piece not the whole final
> solution.
>
> The rest of your analogy about solving a puzzle, or the process of
> elimination, or simple logic--these all express the mental processes we go
> through to reach that conclusion we call "proof."
>
>
>> Direct evidence, like a birth certificate . . . would stand on it's on
> two feet.
>
> Yes and no. Direct evidence "would stand on its own two feet." But a birth
> certificate is a source. That source provides us information. We analyze
> each piece of that information to decide whether it can "stand on its own
> two feet" as an answer to whatever our question is.
>
>
>> Indirect evidence would have to be supported by other evidence. >
>
> Yes.
>
>
> To sum all this up:
> Each time we find an "item of interest," we have three elements to appraise:
>
> -----The nature of the SOURCE (physical aspects: original or derivative)
>
> -----The nature of the INFORMATION (the content of that source: primary or
> secondary)
>
> -----The nature of the EVIDENCE (the relevance of the information: direct or
> indirect )
>
>
>> Any and all of the above can be erroneous and false. Nothing can be relied
> upon. Nothing is ever proved.>
>
> Yes and no :). Life has no guarantees. No case is ever closed. But we *can*
> reach credible conclusions (i.e., "proof") by following the five steps of
> the Genealogical Proof Standard:
>
> 1.
> Conduct a reasonably exhaustive search for all information pertinent to the
> issue in question. (The emphasis here is upon that word "exhaustive.")
>
> 2.
> Collect and record a complete and accurate citation for each and every
> source, taking care to rely only upon the best-quality sources.
>
> 3.
> Analyze and correlate the collected information to assess its value as
> evidence.
>
> 4.
> Resolve any conflicts caused by evidence that disputes other evidence or
> contradicts the proposed solution.
>
> 5.
> Arrive at a soundly reasoned conclusion that we support with a credible,
> written, proof argument.
>
>
> Craig, Rondina pointed you to an excellent little manual, Christine Rose's
> *Genealogical Proof Standard* (2005 edition). Beyond that, to provide you
> with concrete examples of (a) the differences between the different types of
> evidence and (b) how to evaluate the "shades of gray" that each of them
> involve, I would also recommend the special *Evidence* issue of the *NGS
> Quarterly* that was published in September 1999. (See you library or
> www.ngsgenealogy.org or www.bcgcertification.org to order a copy.)
>
> In addition to a more detailed discussion of all the above points, this
> issue provides explicit examples of four types of proof arguments:
>
> "Indentification through Signatures: Using Complex Direct Evidence"
> Dr. Ronald A. Hill, CG (and now FASG)
>
> "Resolving Conflicts in Direct Evidence"
> Helen F. M. Leary, CG, CGL, FASG
>
> "Discovering Identity through Indirect Evidence"
> Marya Myers, CG
>
> "Rebutting Direct Evidence with Indirect Evidence"
> Margaret Amundson, CG
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
> *Evidence: Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian*
> *QuickSheet: Citing Online Historical Resources, Evidence! Style*
> *Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers,
> Writers, Editors, Lecturers & Librarians*
>
>
> ==== APG Mailing List ====
> The Association of Professional Genealogists
> http://www.apgen.org/publications/apg-l/index.html
>

This thread: