The Glossary of Evidence Explained, 3rd ed. (revised) does not provide a definition of "artifact". Various passages in the book seem to hint at a definition, but there doesn't seem to be anything explicit that covers the situations that I commonly encounter.
I read over the post: https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/state-issued-drivers-license-artifact. Granted; there are certain documents that will not, or cannot, be issued a second time. If one has these on hand, then these must be considered artifacts e.g. a driver's licence.
However...
If I inherit a document, there are instances In which I could try to order it myself. Until I actually order the document, I often cannot determine whether the document will be exactly the same as what I already have on hand. It could now be re-issued as an image copy, an extraction, or even a transcription. It could also, in some circumstances, contain more or less information. Frankly; I could have the same situation, even if I tried to re-order a document that I had previously ordered.
So; would it not be easier and "safer" to simply classify and cite inherited materials as artifacts?
Hello, History-Hunter, …
Hello, History-Hunter,
Under the circumstances you describe the simple answer would be "yes."
Thank you. I have so many…
Thank you.
I have so many inherited records that it's really impractical to try to decide on an individual basis.
You are blessed, indeed!
You are blessed, indeed!