I know I've talked about those to do folders sitting in my file cabinets behind almost every surname. I also keep a virtual one called Needs Work on my laptop. I think I owe this idea to friend/cousin Carol over at Reflections From the Fence. Anyway, over the last year I have relegated a lot of digital images to this file. Some that are about the join it refer to the Percival/Allen/Scott/Slaughter line of Adair and Macon counties in Missouri.
The Percival in question is one Jared Erastus Percival aka Erastus Percival. He married Susan Allen in 1864 and they had two children Elizabeth M, born 1865 and died in 1866; and Mary "Emma" born 1868.
Besides his marriage record, Civil War record (he was discharged because he was unable to speak) and Civil War Pension application and the headstone in the cemetery, there is no other information on this man. It seems he was either hatched or dropped from a spaceship.
I can find no obituary for him, no death record, and maddeningly no census. If he was born circa 1840, he should at least appear in 1850 and 1860. Nothing. Nada. Zip & Zilch!
I've posted him to the Percival list over at Rootsweb and hopefully someone knows who the heck he is! otherwise it appears they will end up in that Needs Work file. [Since writing this, I have been given a lead that he might be from the UK. I've not been able to prove or disprove this suggestion. I am still leaning towards the spaceship scenario.]
Showing posts with label Genealogy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genealogy. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Handy Occupations
If any of my previous jobs prepared me for family research, there were three.
1. Medical records clerk. Taught me to read diagnoses. I actually attended a community college to become a Medical Librarian. It got kind of boring, I ran out of money and found my next job, which was number 2.
2. Medical transcriptionist/pathology secretary. This has probably been one of the most useful occupations in preparing me to read old records. I read doctors' handwriting for a living. I read and transcribed pathology reports and autopsies and had to call doctors' offices with results of laboratory tests. It gave me a boost when looking at old records.
3. Library clerk. This was useful in a different way. I was fortunate to live in a city with a population of 100,000 that operates four libraries and that was a participant in the interlibrary loan system. If I found a branch of the family was mentioned in a book that was available somewhere, I requested an interloan. You didn't have to be a library employee to interloan, but it sure helped when you had a weird request and the branch librarian would manage to get it through the system. (Gee, I miss you TLP.) I know one of my cousins/friends is really grateful for this too!
1. Medical records clerk. Taught me to read diagnoses. I actually attended a community college to become a Medical Librarian. It got kind of boring, I ran out of money and found my next job, which was number 2.
2. Medical transcriptionist/pathology secretary. This has probably been one of the most useful occupations in preparing me to read old records. I read doctors' handwriting for a living. I read and transcribed pathology reports and autopsies and had to call doctors' offices with results of laboratory tests. It gave me a boost when looking at old records.
3. Library clerk. This was useful in a different way. I was fortunate to live in a city with a population of 100,000 that operates four libraries and that was a participant in the interlibrary loan system. If I found a branch of the family was mentioned in a book that was available somewhere, I requested an interloan. You didn't have to be a library employee to interloan, but it sure helped when you had a weird request and the branch librarian would manage to get it through the system. (Gee, I miss you TLP.) I know one of my cousins/friends is really grateful for this too!
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Consider the Source!
Of all the records available to family researchers, vital records are my favorites. Especially free vital records.One of the reasons, I like them is they can give some great information.
One of the things I highlight when I am entering information into my genealogy program is where the person lived when he died and are there vital records online that I can search. Also, obituaries, where available are such a great resource since they often list other family members, ancestors, occupations, church affiliations and birth, death and burial places.
So I was really pleased when a search of Kentucky death records online at Ancestry.com yielded a death certificate in Kentucky for Joseph Chambers. Since the Chambers/Tousey lines was one I was working on, I pulled this record, just checking the year to see if it was feasible. It was. The puzzling thing was the place of death: Cincinnati, Ohio! On a Kentucky death record. Okay, this is not that unusual, as some states require a death certificate for burial, and you will often find a derivative in the Kentucky records. A check of the Ohio Death Certificates (1908-1953) on the Family Search Record Search Site would hopefully yield the "official" death certificate.
Well, I'd like to say that it proved everything I thought. But alas, it opened a can of worms. While the date of death and burial and the cause of death were all the same, the only other items that were identical were the place of death - Grand Hotel, Cincinnati, Ohio and the cause of death. There were nine years difference in the age, and Ohio had his father's name as Joseph and Kentucky had his father's name as Charles!
When faced with this type of problem, I look to the informant. The Ohio certificate gave Donnelly Bros. as the informant. Donnelly Bros. was the name of the undertaker in Covington, Kentucky. The Kentucky Death certificate had no informant.
This is where census work comes in. The 1900 census for Cincinnati, Ohio at the Grand Hotel, clearly shows Joseph Chambers, birth date Mar 1834, born in Kentucky, parents born in Kentucky. The 1880 census shows him enumerated with his wife, Elvira and son Vactor, along with his mother-in-law Elvira Gaines and he is 46 years old - birth year 1834 in Kentucky. I found him only becauses his wife was indexed with him. He was indexed as Jas. instead of Jos.The 1870 and 1860 census are still consistent with that 1834 birth date and children. The 1860 census shows him with his wife and his household is enumerated after that of one Charles Chambers age 58 and Joseph is still born circa 1834. Finally a check of the 1850 census has him enumerated with his father and brother and birth year is still circa 1834.
I don't need any more proof to conclude that the death certificates are for the same person, but am glad that I found two conflicting death certificates. It is a prime example that even "official records" can be wrong. I will admit that if I had found the Ohio record first, I would have dismissed it. But having seen the Kentucky one, I now see the errors on the Ohio record. And I found this because I have obsessive-compulsive family research disorder!
* Clicking on the images will display a full scale photo.
One of the things I highlight when I am entering information into my genealogy program is where the person lived when he died and are there vital records online that I can search. Also, obituaries, where available are such a great resource since they often list other family members, ancestors, occupations, church affiliations and birth, death and burial places.
So I was really pleased when a search of Kentucky death records online at Ancestry.com yielded a death certificate in Kentucky for Joseph Chambers. Since the Chambers/Tousey lines was one I was working on, I pulled this record, just checking the year to see if it was feasible. It was. The puzzling thing was the place of death: Cincinnati, Ohio! On a Kentucky death record. Okay, this is not that unusual, as some states require a death certificate for burial, and you will often find a derivative in the Kentucky records. A check of the Ohio Death Certificates (1908-1953) on the Family Search Record Search Site would hopefully yield the "official" death certificate.
Well, I'd like to say that it proved everything I thought. But alas, it opened a can of worms. While the date of death and burial and the cause of death were all the same, the only other items that were identical were the place of death - Grand Hotel, Cincinnati, Ohio and the cause of death. There were nine years difference in the age, and Ohio had his father's name as Joseph and Kentucky had his father's name as Charles!
When faced with this type of problem, I look to the informant. The Ohio certificate gave Donnelly Bros. as the informant. Donnelly Bros. was the name of the undertaker in Covington, Kentucky. The Kentucky Death certificate had no informant.
This is where census work comes in. The 1900 census for Cincinnati, Ohio at the Grand Hotel, clearly shows Joseph Chambers, birth date Mar 1834, born in Kentucky, parents born in Kentucky. The 1880 census shows him enumerated with his wife, Elvira and son Vactor, along with his mother-in-law Elvira Gaines and he is 46 years old - birth year 1834 in Kentucky. I found him only becauses his wife was indexed with him. He was indexed as Jas. instead of Jos.The 1870 and 1860 census are still consistent with that 1834 birth date and children. The 1860 census shows him with his wife and his household is enumerated after that of one Charles Chambers age 58 and Joseph is still born circa 1834. Finally a check of the 1850 census has him enumerated with his father and brother and birth year is still circa 1834.
I don't need any more proof to conclude that the death certificates are for the same person, but am glad that I found two conflicting death certificates. It is a prime example that even "official records" can be wrong. I will admit that if I had found the Ohio record first, I would have dismissed it. But having seen the Kentucky one, I now see the errors on the Ohio record. And I found this because I have obsessive-compulsive family research disorder!
* Clicking on the images will display a full scale photo.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The 2010 Census
I can't believe ten years have passed since I filled out the 2000 census. And forgot to mail it back, so a census taker hunted us down!
Are you planning on filling out the 2010 census? I know you're supposed too, but, it is obvious that they really can't count every one.
Since the last census, hubby and I have moved from Michigan to Tennessee. On the 2000 census, I put my maiden name in for my middle name. I will do the same for the 2010 census because I want my descendants (if our progeny ever procreates) to find me. Will they be surprised to find us here?
It makes me wonder exactly who and what filled out my Zimmeth grandparents census. My grandfather could sign his name, but was a natural left-hander whose father forced him to write right-handed. My grandmother was ill with tuberculosis and died the following year. Even though she is listed as living with them, I wouldn't bet on it. Most of the time, my mother, aunt and uncle lived with relatives. Somehow they were written as Zimeth and grandma appears to be Louyetta instead of Luetta.
Will my descendants in 2082 find our last name has been butchered so much that we are impossible to find? I hope not!
Are you planning on filling out the 2010 census? I know you're supposed too, but, it is obvious that they really can't count every one.
Since the last census, hubby and I have moved from Michigan to Tennessee. On the 2000 census, I put my maiden name in for my middle name. I will do the same for the 2010 census because I want my descendants (if our progeny ever procreates) to find me. Will they be surprised to find us here?
It makes me wonder exactly who and what filled out my Zimmeth grandparents census. My grandfather could sign his name, but was a natural left-hander whose father forced him to write right-handed. My grandmother was ill with tuberculosis and died the following year. Even though she is listed as living with them, I wouldn't bet on it. Most of the time, my mother, aunt and uncle lived with relatives. Somehow they were written as Zimeth and grandma appears to be Louyetta instead of Luetta.
Will my descendants in 2082 find our last name has been butchered so much that we are impossible to find? I hope not!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
This Isn't Misspelled - It's Just Wrong
I'm still working on the 1892 New York State Census and it appears that the collection is not yet complete over at Family Search Labs pilot site. For more information on what counties are included you can click here for a description of the database.
A couple days ago, I commented on misspellings in the census. Since I am presently working in New York's 1892 State Census, I will use this as an example.
Remember Michael Krushka* (should be Kruszka) in Buffalo in 1892? Well, here is a list of those enumerated with him.
1. Michael Krushka, age 37, born Germany, alien, occupation is laborer.
2. Josephine Krushka, age 37, born Germany, alien, no occupation is listed.
3. John Krushka, age 15, born Germany, alien, no occupation listed.
4. Michaeline Krushka, age 13, born Germany, alien, no occupation listed.
5. Joseph Krushka, age 10, born Germany, alien, no occupation.
6. Leonara Krushka, age 9, born Germany, alien, no occupation.
7. Valentine Krushka, age 4, born Germany, alien, no occupation.
8. Martin Krushka, age 1, born US, citizen, no occupation.
This is the first census in which this family appears. You might infer from this that Michael and Josephine are married and came to the US with 5 of their 6 children (at this point in time) from their home in Germany.
This first inference would be correct, Michael and Josephine are indeed married, but were married abt 1888. Therefore, the first four children are not Michael's, and are incorrectly listed as Krushka. Their real last name is Fryczynski (FUR-shinski). They were the children of Josephine's first marriage to Andrzej (Andrew) Fryczynski. Church records in Buffalo bear this out.
Finally, the family was from Poland, not Germany. Okay, they were from German Poland, but it was Poland, nevertheless. The fact that Poland was usurped by Germany is incidental to me. Also, the census taker was J. C. Knoll. I can just imagine him sounding out the last name of Kruszka and coming up with Krushka. Maybe the Kruszkas never got around to telling him the other children were named Fryczynski. Maybe they didn't want to get into the first marriage/second marriage stuff.
If I had been looking for Fryczynski - which I was - I wouldn't have found it by any means. Not with the name listed as Krushka. So in this case, be real creative to find that elusive ancestor.
*Husband's great grandfather.
A couple days ago, I commented on misspellings in the census. Since I am presently working in New York's 1892 State Census, I will use this as an example.
Remember Michael Krushka* (should be Kruszka) in Buffalo in 1892? Well, here is a list of those enumerated with him.
1. Michael Krushka, age 37, born Germany, alien, occupation is laborer.
2. Josephine Krushka, age 37, born Germany, alien, no occupation is listed.
3. John Krushka, age 15, born Germany, alien, no occupation listed.
4. Michaeline Krushka, age 13, born Germany, alien, no occupation listed.
5. Joseph Krushka, age 10, born Germany, alien, no occupation.
6. Leonara Krushka, age 9, born Germany, alien, no occupation.
7. Valentine Krushka, age 4, born Germany, alien, no occupation.
8. Martin Krushka, age 1, born US, citizen, no occupation.
This is the first census in which this family appears. You might infer from this that Michael and Josephine are married and came to the US with 5 of their 6 children (at this point in time) from their home in Germany.
This first inference would be correct, Michael and Josephine are indeed married, but were married abt 1888. Therefore, the first four children are not Michael's, and are incorrectly listed as Krushka. Their real last name is Fryczynski (FUR-shinski). They were the children of Josephine's first marriage to Andrzej (Andrew) Fryczynski. Church records in Buffalo bear this out.
Finally, the family was from Poland, not Germany. Okay, they were from German Poland, but it was Poland, nevertheless. The fact that Poland was usurped by Germany is incidental to me. Also, the census taker was J. C. Knoll. I can just imagine him sounding out the last name of Kruszka and coming up with Krushka. Maybe the Kruszkas never got around to telling him the other children were named Fryczynski. Maybe they didn't want to get into the first marriage/second marriage stuff.
If I had been looking for Fryczynski - which I was - I wouldn't have found it by any means. Not with the name listed as Krushka. So in this case, be real creative to find that elusive ancestor.
*Husband's great grandfather.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Which Way Did They Go? or Location, Location, Location
No, they did not go for Faygo.
I was searching for a family the other day by the name of Juenker. It's a sort of unusual name, so I didn't think I'd have any trouble finding them on the 1892 New York State census on Family Search Labs pilot site.
So I filled out the search form with the last name Juenker, feeling pretty confident that if it were misspelled, FS would search for Junker also. Then I filled in the location with Erie, New York, United States.
I got zip, zilch, nada hits. I tried searching using the wife's name - Rosa, which is a lot less common than the head of household's name - John. Removed the last name. This is a scary thing because you often get PAGES of results. Then I tweaked the place to include Buffalo. Still no family.
Finally, the little light bulb in my head went on and I removed the Buffalo, Erie, New York, United States location and just let it search in New York. Bingo!!! There was John Juenker, wife R., son Joseph, daughter, R, etc. Living in Brooklyn, New York. The census take was a little weird using initials for only some of the people, but everything else matched. I had no idea they had moved to Brooklyn.
You have to keep an open mind when doing census searches. Absolutely!
I was searching for a family the other day by the name of Juenker. It's a sort of unusual name, so I didn't think I'd have any trouble finding them on the 1892 New York State census on Family Search Labs pilot site.
So I filled out the search form with the last name Juenker, feeling pretty confident that if it were misspelled, FS would search for Junker also. Then I filled in the location with Erie, New York, United States.
I got zip, zilch, nada hits. I tried searching using the wife's name - Rosa, which is a lot less common than the head of household's name - John. Removed the last name. This is a scary thing because you often get PAGES of results. Then I tweaked the place to include Buffalo. Still no family.
Finally, the little light bulb in my head went on and I removed the Buffalo, Erie, New York, United States location and just let it search in New York. Bingo!!! There was John Juenker, wife R., son Joseph, daughter, R, etc. Living in Brooklyn, New York. The census take was a little weird using initials for only some of the people, but everything else matched. I had no idea they had moved to Brooklyn.
You have to keep an open mind when doing census searches. Absolutely!
Monday, December 21, 2009
Why You Can't Find That Family ... Or Spelling Doesn't Count.
I sometimes suspect that my family peeked out the windows to watch for the census taker so that they could avoid him/her.
After all, if they were enumerated, I should be able to find them, right? And they always spelled their name Zimmeth. Always. Forever.
W-R-O-N-G!
It doesn't matter how they spelled it, it matters what the census taker wrote. Maybe that census taker didn't have an ear for a German accent.
In researching this Zimmeth family - that's how they spell it now - I've come across the following spellings:
1. Zimet or Zimmet
2. Fimmith
3. Gimmith
4. Zimoneth
5. Limit - ok, I think this was an index error, someone who was not familiar with circa 1850 handwriting. But it is still WRONG.
6. Simet or Simmet
And those are just the spellings in this country. The various spellings for the name in Alsace-Loraine are
7. Ziemet
8. Zimmet
9. Zimmeth
It makes searching for the family interesting. Challenging. Frustrating.
Fortunately, soundex searching will pick up most of the first grouping. Unfortunately you have to have a crystal ball to pick up Fimmith, Gimmeth, Limit and Simet. Actually those were found the old-fashioned way doing a line-by-line microfilm search.
So what do you do when you are on a site such as the Family Search Labs pilot site? You think creatively and go for that exact, close & partial match search. Sure it will bring up 5,600 search results, but chances are the people you are looking for are on the first couple of pages, provided you have burned incense and prayed to the genie gods. I personally hate using that search because it is disheartening to see the result: No exact matches and then see that you have 5,600 hits or 244 pages of hits on close and partial matches.
Today, though, after searching fruitlessly for the Tomasz Siekierski (pronounced Sikorski) family and the Michael Kruszka family, I finally found them under Thomas Sikorski and Michael Krushka, after resorting to the close and partial choice.
So next time you are looking for a family don't forget that soundex search, think creatively and even try it with an accent, so you can figure out what you think the census taker heard. Chances are they are there just waiting for you to find them.
After all, if they were enumerated, I should be able to find them, right? And they always spelled their name Zimmeth. Always. Forever.
W-R-O-N-G!
It doesn't matter how they spelled it, it matters what the census taker wrote. Maybe that census taker didn't have an ear for a German accent.
In researching this Zimmeth family - that's how they spell it now - I've come across the following spellings:
1. Zimet or Zimmet
2. Fimmith
3. Gimmith
4. Zimoneth
5. Limit - ok, I think this was an index error, someone who was not familiar with circa 1850 handwriting. But it is still WRONG.
6. Simet or Simmet
And those are just the spellings in this country. The various spellings for the name in Alsace-Loraine are
7. Ziemet
8. Zimmet
9. Zimmeth
It makes searching for the family interesting. Challenging. Frustrating.
Fortunately, soundex searching will pick up most of the first grouping. Unfortunately you have to have a crystal ball to pick up Fimmith, Gimmeth, Limit and Simet. Actually those were found the old-fashioned way doing a line-by-line microfilm search.
So what do you do when you are on a site such as the Family Search Labs pilot site? You think creatively and go for that exact, close & partial match search. Sure it will bring up 5,600 search results, but chances are the people you are looking for are on the first couple of pages, provided you have burned incense and prayed to the genie gods. I personally hate using that search because it is disheartening to see the result: No exact matches and then see that you have 5,600 hits or 244 pages of hits on close and partial matches.
Today, though, after searching fruitlessly for the Tomasz Siekierski (pronounced Sikorski) family and the Michael Kruszka family, I finally found them under Thomas Sikorski and Michael Krushka, after resorting to the close and partial choice.
So next time you are looking for a family don't forget that soundex search, think creatively and even try it with an accent, so you can figure out what you think the census taker heard. Chances are they are there just waiting for you to find them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)