Beginning genealogy researchers sometimes imagine that magic document. The one that tells you exactly what you want to know, explicitly. Occasionally, these documents do exist. A death certificate, for example, may contain the date and place of birth, date and place of death, and the parents’ names (including the mother’s maiden name). This document is an example of “direct evidence.”
As defined by professional genealogist Elizabeth Shown Mills in her definitive book, Evidence Explained (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2007), direct evidence is “relevant information that states an answer to a specific research question or appears to solve a research problem all by itself.” (p. 821). Indirect evidence, on the other hand, is “relevant information that does not answer the research question all by itself. Rather, it has to be combined with other information to arrive at an answer to the research question.” (p. 824)
Note that both of these definitions refer to a pre-existing research question. As previously noted in this column, in the article, “Crafting a research plan, part one: Defining your problem,” one must define a specific research question at the beginning of each segment of one’s research. While the initial search may encompass those records that might provide direct evidence, one must not neglect to search for records that provide indirect evidence as well. Unless you search for all records that bear on a question—including those that provide direct and indirect evidence, you have not completed a “reasonably exhaustive search” and your conclusion may not meet the Genealogical Proof Standard.
Determination of whether a record contains direct evidence vs. indirect evidence comes down to the answer of a single question: does the information in this record answer my research question completely and directly? For example, a death certificate that states the date of birth exactly would constitute direct evidence. On the other hand, a census record that presents an individual’s age would constitute indirect evidence.
The determination of a particular piece of information in a record as either direct or indirect evidence is not a determination of the quality of the information. However, it does bear on the extent of the proof necessary to form a conclusion. The reliability of each individual item of information must be independently determined.
When reliable direct evidence has been located, the case for your conclusion will not be particularly extensive. Other records should be consulted and their agreement or disagreement reported, but lengthy discussion of direct evidence is not necessary. Direct evidence also generally provides more exact information, and therefore a higher degree of specificity and a higher degree of certainty can be obtained.
A conclusion based solely on indirect evidence, on the other hand, by definition involves the use of other information. Multiple records must necessarily be consulted, even when all of them are determined to be reliable. Each item of information contained in the located records must be fully discussed, including the significance of the information and its relevance to your research question. Indirect evidence usually results in less specific answers to your research questions, and these answers should be qualified as “likely,” “probably,” “possibly,” or other statements reflecting your lower degree of certainty.
The multi-part case study involving Jefferson Clark of Leon County, Texas, published in this column is an example of a proof argument based on indirect evidence.
To more simply illustrate the concepts of direct evidence and indirect evidence, direct evidence might be likened to a photograph. Indirect evidence would be more like the pieces of a picture puzzle. As each piece of the puzzle is identified, located, and evaluated, both on its own and in relation to all other evidence, the picture becomes clearer. Eventually you will be able to see enough of the picture to identify it.
Being able to locate records that contain direct evidence is an important skill in genealogical research, but being able to build a case from indirect evidence, when that “magic document” does not exist, is the mark of superior research skills.
Comments