|
Home > Reference >
Sources > Tertiary To me, Tertiary Evidence
basically covers one category: Family Histories. Anything published
about a Family can not be considered Primary or Secondary Evidence (except
in regards to anything written by the author about people he or she actually
knew personally). Family histories are compiled based (hopefully) on
Primary and Secondary evidence. However, much of the data listed is often
based on family traditions or data shared by other researchers (with no
sources listed) or other older Family histories of the same family. This
often leads to the same incorrect data being passed around again and again.
Family Histories are a good starting place, but they can't be considered
evidence unless fully documented.
This applies to these web pages as well. Don't assume
that everything listed is correct. I have several cases of data that is well
documented in Primary Records, but was once published incorrectly in some
family history, and everyone keeps trying to correct me by referring me to
the published family history. I have to keep telling everyone that a
published family history is not a source document. Always refer to the
original records, especially in cases of conflicting data.
In some cases (sad but true), there is no Primary or
Secondary evidence to be found, so Tertiary evidence is all that there is.
In these cases, every bit of data should be considered, and nothing
discarded, but yet it should be clearly noted that the data is suspected of
being wrong.
You've probably looked at one of the big black
"Heritage" books that are available for many counties. These are full of
submitted genealogies and biographies and other historical articles. These
are perfect examples of Tertiary Evidence. While immensely valuable, these
articles are fraught with inaccuracies in varying degrees.
Biographies (and even autobiographies) are also
Tertiary Evidence. One would expect an autobiography to be quite accurate,
but consider that most folks don't like to show themselves in any negative
way, so that would automatically mean they probably leave out some important
events or distort events to make them look better. It is human nature to do
so.
The Internet is full of tertiary evidence. There are
numerous personal websites with descendant charts or other genealogical
reports listed which seldom include any documentation. There is the IGI
with thousands of submitted genealogies, and no documentation. There are the
Gedcom sharing sites with thousands of sets of data files, most with no
documentation included. There are World Family Tree (and similar) CD's you
can buy or access online. These are all prime examples of Tertiary Evidence.
Tertiary evidence should always be considered a
starting point only, and not the end of the journey.
|
