* Grave stones

[GeneSniper]

I have a few photos of grave stones from a few dead relatives with their date of death, but I don't have any other proof of death and wondered the best way to enter the information into FH. By that I mean entering a source, type etc.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I create them as a source of Type "Memorial Inscription". I include a transcript, and attach the photo of the stone to the Source as its media.

I then cite the source wherever relevant (e.g. birth death or burial -- sometimes also wife or children's names).

[davidf]

If you are convinced that it is the gravestone (rather than memorial etc.) of the specific relative, I would tend to think that is sufficient proof of death!

I would enter a burial fact - if necessary with date unknown (I am never sure of the utility of writing "aft DoD").

As to source, as a "lumper", I would add a source "Graves and Memorials", with the cemetery and grave details in the "Where used". I then add the link to the photo as "citation media" (or fact media). If the gravestone refers to just the single person, I would enter the transcription of the inscription in the "Text from Source"; if it refers to multiple people I could enter the transcription in a shared note that I add to the citation (this has to be done through the "All" tab - which is a bit fiddly).

If you are a splitter, I would add a source for the specific grave, link the photo to the source and put the transcription on the source note. If the grave refers to multiple people you link them all to that source.

[mjashby]

I simply create a source record to link to the Death and/or Burial Facts (and any other facts mentioned) containing a transcript of the 'memorial' and then attach any photo(s) to the source. It's useful to have one source record if the memorial mentions multiple people, but you do have to be wary of 'also In Memory of...' content, as that does not necessarily mean that all those mentioned in the memorial were actually buried in the same grave or indeed in the same place.

[Valkrider]

I do exactly the same as @Helen.

[GeneSniper]

If you are convinced that it is the gravestone (rather than memorial etc.) of the specific relative, I would tend to think that is sufficient proof of death!

Definitely know it is the right graves David, as I was at all of the funerals. By no proof of death I meant no certs.

In these instances I was really looking for advice about inputting the information. I normally name my sources 'Death: <name> d<year>' but realised if I used this for the grave stone I could end up with two sources with the same name although different Type.

[ColeValleyGirl]

This is (putative) proof of burial (although note the caveat about Memorials, and death dates) so name it: Burial... ???

[arishmell]

I normally name my sources 'Death: <name> d<year>' but realised if I used this for the grave stone I could end up with two sources with the same name although different Type.

I name my source in exactly the same way, and simply attach any evidence of death to this one source : death certificate, newspaper announcement, image of the parish burial register, photo of the grave stone etc. Your photo of the grave stone is evidence of a death (even if the person is not actually buried there) and for me does not need a separate source.

[tatewise]

I think you should even be able to use Ancestral Sources in Burial mode to create the Source record and Citations on Facts. You may wish to 'tweak' the Source record Title and the Type as suggested, but that may be done most easily in FH afterwards.

[davidf]

I normally name my sources 'Death: <name> d<year>' but realised if I used this for the grave stone I could end up with two sources with the same name although different Type.

Definitely know it is the right graves David, as I was at all of the funerals. By no proof of death I meant no certs.

I name my source in exactly the same way, and simply attach any evidence of death to this one source : death certificate, newspaper announcement, image of the parish burial register, photo of the grave stone etc. Your photo of the grave stone is evidence of a death (even if the person is not actually buried there) and for me does not need a separate source.

The above exchange I find interesting and I want to unpick to more fully understand source, evidence and proof as used. Source and evidence seem to be doing the essential job of answering "how do you know this" and to an extent it does not matter how you do the job as long as you can justify/prove this assertion.

(I also want to explore "Type" (which I take to be the "type" field on the source record), where I think we have a variety of use - which may help span the gap between "splitters" and "lumpers". Possibly for a separate post.)

This above would seem to be either death or burial - although one hopes the latter is proof of the former. As an aside I would reinforce the comment made previously:

you do have to be wary of 'also In Memory of...' content, as that does not necessarily mean that all those mentioned in the memorial were actually buried in the same grave or indeed in the same place.

as "also in Memory of ..." is usually evidence that the person is dead; however in some (rare cases) it can be remembering someone whose status is unknown but who may be dead (emigrant, shipwrecked, left home and not heard of again etc.).

Is there a sort of hierarchy in the answer to "how do you know or prove this fact"?

1. Indirect: "I have (direct) 'evidence' of burial: that proves (indirectly) that he/she is dead"
2. Direct
   1. Contemporary: The assertion "I was there" (at the death or at the funeral)
   2. Subsequent: The assertion "There is a grave"
      Sources for that assertion
      • "lumping" - also citation
        • "It is listed in a booklet, CFHS, 2018, Memorial Inscriptions, Beaumont Parish - Source (Secondary), Where Within Source: Page 14"
        • The Grave itself (Primary). "It is in my personal collection of grave photos DF, 2019. Photographic Survey, Beaumont Churchyard Source (Secondary) Where Within Source: Photo IMG0132"
        • The Grave itself (Primary). "I found a photograph of the grave in Billion Graves Source (Secondary), Where Within Source: Beaumont Churchyard, Grave X"
      • "Splitting"
        • "It is listed in a booklet, CFHS, 2018, Memorial Inscriptions, Beaumont Parish, Page 14 - Source (Secondary)"
        • The Grave itself (Primary). "It is in my personal collection of grave photos DF, 2019. Photographic Survey, Beaumont Churchyard, Photo IMG0132 Source (Secondary)"
        • The Grave itself (Primary). "I found a photograph of the grave in Billion Graves, Beaumont Churchyard, Grave X Source (Secondary)
      Evidence: I have always understood that (strictly) the "evidence" is the source and we should sufficiently source a fact to enable it to stand up. In practice the "evidence" is (in FH) a scan or electronic copies of the source / relevant part of the source attached to the fact or citation (lumping) or to the source (splitting). Pragmatically this allows you to "check the evidence of the source" by clicking within FH.

However the exchange at the top of this post includes "I name my source in exactly the same way ['Death: <name> d<year>'], and simply attach any evidence of death to this one source : death certificate, newspaper announcement, image of the parish burial register, photo of the grave stone etc." Possibly I misunderstand, but ['Death: <name> d<year>'] seems to be more a fact to which multiple sources can be attached. I have never thought of a source as a sort of bin into which you put "stuff" that stands up the event(s). I have always tried to see "death certificate, newspaper announcement, image of the parish burial register, photo of the grave stone etc." as separate sources for the death and burial facts.

Clearly there are multiple ways of using "sources" that go well beyond "lumpers" and "splitters".

[ColeValleyGirl]

https://www.evidenceexplained.com/index ... rocess-map is where I start from.

[LornaCraig]

['Death: <name> d<year>'] seems to be more a fact to which multiple sources can be attached. I have never thought of a source as a sort of bin into which you put "stuff" that stands up the event(s). I have always tried to see "death certificate, newspaper announcement, image of the parish burial register, photo of the grave stone etc." as separate sources for the death and burial facts.

I suppose the "bin" approach is a form of "splitting" of sources because there is a separate bin for every fact. But I don't think it has much advantage over adding images directly to the fact. (I can see that there might be some notes in the bin-style source, but they could go in the note field for the fact).

The drawback of the bin approach is that any image which supports multiple facts has to be linked to multiple bins. Another consideration is whether you want to make use of the Source Type field referred to. I have about120 Source Types which might seem excessive (I was surptised when I just counted them!) but I use the Type field a lot to help keep my naming conventions for ssources consistent. Sorting on the Type column in the Records window makes it easy to check whether I have had a source of a particulr type before and how I named it (both long and short title). So death certificates, gravestone photos, funeral announcements and newspaper obituaries are all different source types. This won't work with the 'bin' system. Having said that, it's possible to use FH without ever making use of the Source Type field. It's important to emphasise that there is no strictly right or wrong way of doing things. The most important point is that once you have decided on your system you should try to use it consistently.

[davidf]

I have just added a separate post about use of the Source Type Field - seeing the discussion as possibly wider than "Grave stones"!