APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2006-02 > 1140446562


From: "Gail Rich Nestor" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Cite Your Sources!?
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:42:42 -0500
References: <410-22006212010729532@earthlink.net> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAH1kTH4/9P1LkQhS/jaNr0LCgAAAEAAAAFjXyAAXKl1InQvQLcfAcTcBAAAAAA==@tampabay.rr.com> <b66a4ad50602200547g36e223ffwe521c0d637a2c35f@mail.gmail.com>


Another twist to consider is *when* the stone was erected (immediately after
death vs. "a while later." Sometimes, that information is hard to obtain.
I have a death certificate and an obituary for one of my 2nd great
grandmothers, saying she died 16 Dec 1926. Her grave marker says she died
16 Dec 1927. There were no funeral home records and I have not located any
church records yet.

I did note that the inscription read, in part, "In Loving Memory of..."
Either the stone was erected soon after death and the engraver just got the
year wrong (and the descendants did not notice), or the stone was erected
later, when descendants' memories were a bit more fuzzy.

To me, the stone is still an original source if the family members who were
present at the time of their mother's death requested it. However, if a
memorial stone is erected 100 years after one's death by a grandchild, and
is based on derivative date information, to me, this stone is a derivative
source.

In the case of a stone erected much later than the death event occured, I
would also say that even the death information on the stone becomes
secondary rather than primary. It does become hard to distinguish the point
in time where this occurs, though.

This is all just opinion, feel free to contradict and teach me something new
(or enhance my understanding)!

Gail Rich Nestor
Smyrna, GA
www.roots2buds.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Aitken" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: [APG] Cite Your Sources!?


> In my ignorance, I'm going to speak up on this issue and declare that the
> gravestone is an riginal source.
> Bear in mind that as you say, sources are original or derivative. And that
> fact is independent of the information contained-- i'm a little shakey on
> that point. So an original document can contain primary or secondary
> information.
>
> My thinking is this. A father goes into the county court and registers the
> birth of his son. A clerk charged with this task writes down the
> information. A son goes into the monument carver and gives him the
> particulars on his father for the gravestone. The carver, responsible for
> his work, writes it down. Both are original sources.
>
> In both cases the informant could misinform the recorder. In both cases
> the
> recorder could make mistakes. In neither does this factor change the fact
> that a record is being created.
>
> So, shoot me full of holes>
>
> Ken
>
>
>
>
> --
> Kenneth G. Aitken
> Family History Education Services
> 2426 Dewdney Avenue East
> Regina, SK S4N 4V5 Canada
>
> www.genealogy-education.com
>
>
> ==== APG Mailing List ====
> The Association of Professional Genealogists
> http://www.apgen.org/publications/apg-l/index.html
>

This thread: