MillsTA, your question underscores one of the reasons why careful researchers use language that is as specific as possible. "Source" is a word laden with ambiguity. It can refer to a physical item. It can refer to the origin of information within that physical document. It can refer to an individual who asserted facts within a document.
Citation wise: each document in a probate packet would be cited as a specific item that is different from every other document in that packet. If we take a piece of information from the petition for probate, we cite that one document. If we take information from a court order appointing an administrator de bonis non, we cite that one document.
Analytically, we have other issues to consider. Especially, we consider the origin of each document we work with. For example, a probate packet typically has a number of different documents created by the administrator. If that administrator makes the same assertion in five records, our analysis would not treat that as five different "sources" agreeing on the same "fact." We would have only one ultimate source—the one person who created all those documents.
Evidence wise, before we reach a conclusion, we should follow the injunction to do "reasonably exhaustive research," using the full variety of records and resources that exist for the time and place before we reach our conclusions. Even documents in probate packets can err.
MillsTA, your question
MillsTA, your question underscores one of the reasons why careful researchers use language that is as specific as possible. "Source" is a word laden with ambiguity. It can refer to a physical item. It can refer to the origin of information within that physical document. It can refer to an individual who asserted facts within a document.
Citation wise: each document in a probate packet would be cited as a specific item that is different from every other document in that packet. If we take a piece of information from the petition for probate, we cite that one document. If we take information from a court order appointing an administrator de bonis non, we cite that one document.
Analytically, we have other issues to consider. Especially, we consider the origin of each document we work with. For example, a probate packet typically has a number of different documents created by the administrator. If that administrator makes the same assertion in five records, our analysis would not treat that as five different "sources" agreeing on the same "fact." We would have only one ultimate source—the one person who created all those documents.
Evidence wise, before we reach a conclusion, we should follow the injunction to do "reasonably exhaustive research," using the full variety of records and resources that exist for the time and place before we reach our conclusions. Even documents in probate packets can err.
Editor,
Editor,
Thank you, very informative and helpful.
You're welcome!
You're welcome!