Family Historian User Group

Would information from a grave headstone be classed as Primary, Secondary or what?

In some cases names and dates vary from other sources, also other children (who died much earlier) are mentioned.

Irene B

ID:4340

Secondary at best. As you noted, the information isn't always accurate, but it can lead to finding other sources such as cemetery records, et al, that will help your search.

Irene,

As RandyP writes: 'Secondary at best' - and I agree.

However, if such an unreliable source is my only source, until I know better, I mark it as 'Primary', and then put the record into a Named List (Check for Definitive Source) with a note giving information and detailing progress etc attached to the record.

This way, I find I have an easy way of keeping track of records that have 'dodgy' sources, which I feel I really need to research further. I have a lot of records in my 'Check for Definitive Source' Named List!

If, despite my best efforts, I can't find a definitive source I then remark the source Assessemnt as 'Unreliable' or 'Questionable', attaching a note to the Source field in the 'Property Box' 'All' tab or 'Records Window' giving details.

This works for me, but I do have to be consistent. Also, it's fun to select at random a record from my 'Check for Definite Source' list to explore afresh, even if the record is away from the main body of research. More often than not I find the source I couldn't find first time around.

Brian

No record is 100% reliable but I would regard a gravestone as primary evidence, along with BMD Certificates, Baptism and Burial entries in Parish Registers, official records such at the London Gazette and Census records etc.

Secondary evidence includes transcripts and indexes, such as the BVI, FreeBMD etc.

Unreliable evidence is evidence where the source is unknown or unreliable, such as comments in a letter where the author is quoting an unknown or unnamed source ie heresay.

Even statements about oneself are unreliable - as we all know - but can be regarded as primary, if contradictory, evidence.

Gerry

I'm with Gerry -- it's primary, because it's the actual source created at the time. It might still have errors in it, but they're the original errors, not the result of a mis-transcription of the headstone.

Both primary and secondary. It depends on what information you are extracting from the memorial inscription and your point of view. The DoB is secondary, and the DoD is likely to be primary, though it could be said that it is secondary and the cemetery record or death certificate is the primary.

All sources are unreliable to varying degrees. The primary/secondary nature of a source is more related to how close to the event/thing it is than it's quality. Though there is a connection that something closer to an event is probably more accurate. A particular source can change it's level, for instance it can be a primary source and become secondary when other information is found.

See Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source

Jon,

Sorry, but I don't think that a source can change from Primary to Secondary (or vice versa) just because later information is more accurate. It is the character of the source (ie how close to the person) that determines the status (ie primary, secondary etc).

On several occasions inaccurate information in a primary source has led me to the correct information. For example, in one Census the birth place of an ancestor is given as Charlton (Kent) when in fact it was Chatham (Kent) - probably because the enumerator couldn't read his own notes. Nevertheless the inaccurate information was a great help in tracking down the correct information but it doesn't change the classification of the original source.

Gerry

I'd add that I tend not to use the primary/secondary classification, but make the nature of the source explicit in the source information, so that others can make their own judgement.

In the case of a gravestone, I'd record whether (for example) I'd seen it myself (on what date, in what condition it was); seen a photograph (taken by named/unknown photographer on date/unknown date); or seen a transcription (again with who/when/how/why).

Gerry Newnham said:
Sorry, but I don't think that a source can change from Primary to Secondary (or vice versa) just because later information is more accurate. It is the character of the source (ie how close to the person) that determines the status (ie primary, secondary etc).

I didn't say a source can change classification because accurate information was found. The classification can change if more information was found. The example from Wiki is that of a document which identifies an undiscovered letter. Whilst the letter is undiscovered, the document is primary about it's existence. If/when the letter is found, the letter becomes the primary and the document (only in terms of the source of information about the existence of the letter) becomes secondary.

All said and done, deciding exactly what is primary/secondary is subjective and context can affect the classification.

Cole Valley Girl, like you I don't put a primary/secondary classification against a source, but put enough information for others to make their own mind up. What the primary/secondary classification does do is make you think in your own mind about the source and how much further you want/need to do your research to find the full details. The accuracy of it still depends more on the type of source, than it classification, though there is some correlation.

John Axtel said: 'I didn't say a source can change classification because accurate information was found.'

Jon, I was responding to your earlier comment:

A particular source can change it's level, for instance it can be a primary source and become secondary when other information is found.

- apologies if that isn't what you meant but that is how it came across to me!

Gerry

Thank you all for your advice. I think I will stick with primary source for gravestones I have actually seen myself and secondary for MIs as I have been doing.

Perhaps I need a new classification - unreliable primary!

Irene