TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L ArchivesArchiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2013-07 > 1372817369
From: "Michele Lewis" <>
Subject: [TGF] direct vs. indirect
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 22:09:29 -0400
I am still having a hard time grasping why an age on a census is considered
direct evidence. If a person was 40 years old on the 1850 census he would
have been born in either 1809 or 1810 depending on which month they were
born in. If I ask the question, "When was John Doe born?" I can't answer
that with an exact date or even an exact year. What about if I am dealing
with the 1840 census and John is listed as age 30 to 39? Now John Doe is
born between 1801 and 1810. Is this also direct?
I do understand it for a tombstone that states a person was 41 years, 2
months, and 12 days old at the time of their death because using that
information I can calculate an exact birth date.
Please explain this in terms that I can understand :)
|[TGF] direct vs. indirect by "Michele Lewis" <>|