GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

From: Kay Allen AG <>
Subject: Re: "Historical Facts and Historians....."
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 1990 12:38:07 -0700

The Thill Group, Inc. wrote:
>
> Using the Ok - Ok system of confirming understanding:
>
> 1. Kay Allen AG, said:
> "Even some of these aren't truly original. The US census was done in three
> different copies and these copies are not all identical :-) The one on the
> microfilm probably is not the original."
>
> I ask:
> On this definition, is it being said that the "US census - three
> original drafts" are to be considered the "source"or "First source"? What
> would the correct term to use in conversation?
> Continuing: "and the Microfilm the "Secondary source"? What would the
> correct term to use in conversation?
> Continuing: "and when it is displayed in any layer after that, it would
> be numbered accordingly? As in "Third, Forth, etc."? What would the correct
> term to use in conversation?

I will take up shovel and dig a hole and let someone bury me :-)
The first one done would be the original. The copies would be secondary.
The Federak copy is probably secondary. The microfilm copy would also
be secondary. It is presumed to be an identical copy of the copy used in
microfilming. If the original copy had been microfilmed, the microfilm
copy would be given the same legal force as an original also as
microfilm copies are presumed to be an exact copy.

Noel Stevenso has an excellent book on Genealogical Evidence. The new
Elizabeth Shown Mills book, Evidence is also useful. Both these books
should be on the shelf of any serious genealogist.
>
> 2. Kay Allen AG, said:
> "Sometimes there are what I call, to myself, the one and a halfs. These are
> publications like the various Rolls Series publications from Her Majesty's
> Stationery Office. These are transcriptions and abstractions, but fairly
> reliable for the information given. They obviously are not the primary,
> original source, but they are better than the ordinary secondary source,
> which technically they are. Yes, it is always better to go to the original,
> if you can"
>
> I ask:
> Agree with the "better to go to the original" What would these
> "transcriptions and abstractions" be called if used in a conversation?

They would be cited as a entry in whatever Calendar of whatever Roll
Series was being used :-)

Would
> they be called "First source" "Main source" or what term?

There is no special name for them, which is why I call them "one and a
halfs." Strictly speaking, they are secondary evidence as they have
been changed from the original by translation from the original into
English and abstracted or abbreviated, therefore not a full version.
>
> 3. Kay Allen AG, said:
> "Weis and Sheppard and the Faris books and Burke are really tertiary
> sources. That is because they seldom cite original sources. They almost
> always cite other secondary sources (or the "one and a halfs"). That is why
> you should cite the sources they cite in order to get a really good
> evaluation of the problem. And to compound the tertiary problem, the sources
> they cite may be either tertiary or secondary, and some sources are like the
> animals on _The Animal Farm_, that is "more equal than others.".."
>
> I ask:
> "Tertiary sources" - using dictionary for word "tertiary" = Of the third
> order, rank or formation. Latin tertiarius, adjective, of or having to do
> with a (or the) third. So "Weis and Sheppard and the Faris books and Burke
> are actually third level sources, would "Third Level Sources" be the correct
> term to use or what is the correct term to use in conversation?

Since we refer to primary and secondary, tertiary would be
appropriate.:-)
>
> Continuing: How do you recognize that these may be already tertiary or
> secondary sources? Understanding that the auto-response would be "keep
> searching to the bottom", is there a ready mean's of knowing other than
> experience, as in is there a rule of thumb you can provide?

No. In her book, Pat Hatcher Law (or have I reversed it again?) on
writing Quality Family Histories, recommends going through the citations
to get as close to the original as possible. Which is you say, you take
a citation in one of the tertiaries.Yo go to that source and see to what
it refers you. Then you go to that source and so on until you reach the
original or a dependable transcription, which still isn't as good.
>
> I am taking notes, and trying to learn!!!!

Trying to help, hope I haven't confused too badly :-)

Kay Allen AG
> Becky T.

This thread:

• Re: "Historical Facts and Historians....." by Kay Allen AG <>