The Slovak Yankee

Madness Monday: Brick Wall Help

Last Monday I had more time on my hands than usual.  And I usually have much too much time on my hands.  I read several of the Madness Monday posts, particularly the kind that are "brick wall" posts--please help me, I'm stuck.  I love those types of problems.  I've regularly read the brick wall listings in New England Ancestors for several years.  I generally research all of them and solve about one per issue (or one out of five or six).  For me, this is genealogy: the puzzle.  

My madness comes from the postings or write-ups themselves.  What would help me is a list of sources already researched.  I never know what a person has already done.  They tend to give dates and other useful information, but not things like: I got his death certificate, but no parents were listed.  So, when you read the postings, you have no idea if that death certificate was even looked at.   Well, I experimented and added comments on several blogs.  Hopefully, it helped.  However, in the future people should always list all the things they have done that have failed.  If I can find your brick wall in five minutes in the census (which I did twice last Monday and several times in the past), you will need to endure my ramblings about real brick walls!!! That should add to Monday Madness.

Ages Based on the Mayflower Compact

The Mayflower Compact was signed on 11 November 1620.  The document with its signatories can be viewed here.  Most genealogists note that if someone signed the compact he must have been 21 years old.  Thus, this document is used to extrapolate ages on several Mayflower passengers.  Is that statement true?  Using three known ages, we can say this:  Gilbert Winslow was baptized at Droitwich, Worcestershire on 29 October 1600 and he signed the compact.  Henry Samson was baptized at Henlow, Bedfordshire on 15 January 1603/4 and he did not sign the compact.  Neither did Joseph Rogers, baptized at Watford, Northamptonshire, on 23 January 1602/3.  Technically, Winslow was but 20, Rogers was 17 and almost 18, and Samson a year younger still.  In each case, these three traveled with family members.  Henry's uncles, Edward and John Tilley, signed the compact as did Thomas Rogers, father of Joseph.  Gilbert was the younger brother of compact signer Edward Winslow.

This is interesting because I'm trying to determine if any of the signatories were 18-21 years old.  The signatories whose ages are not known at all are: John Rigsdale, John Goodman, Thomas Williams, Edmund Margesson, Richard Britteridge, George Soule, Richard Clarke, Richard Gardiner, John Allerton, Thomas English, Edward Doty, and Edward Leister.  Of these only two leave known descendants: Soule and Doty. 

The list of passengers who didn't sign the compact whose ages are unknown are: Robert Carter, servant of William Mullins; John Crackstone Jr., William Holbeck, servant of William White; John Langemore, servant of Christopher Martin; Joseph Mullins (son of William); Solomon Prower, stepson of Christopher Martin; Elias Story, servant of Edward Winslow; Edward Thomson, servant of William White; William Trevour, and Roger Wilder, servant to John Carver.

Assuming that servant status was instrumental in signing or not signing the compact one should note that among the signers were the following acknowledged servants: Edward Doty and Edward Leister (servants to Stephen Hopkins), John Howland, servant to John Carver, and George Soule, servant to Edward Winslow.  Certainly it was age (or at least perceived age) that seemed to be the criterion.  

In summary there is only one man proven not to be 21 when he signed the Mayflower Compact: Gilbert Winslow. Therefore, it is unknown whether one needed to be 21 or one needed to be 18 to sign the compact.  This directly impacts the search for the English origins of two passengers who left known descendants: George Soule and Edward Doty. A full list of signers and their ages appears below the fold:

Journal Penetration on the Web: Final Analysis

In the beginning of this continuing thread, I noted this was not a scientific study.  However, based on the random articles I pulled from my collection of the following journals:  The Genealogist, The American Genealogist, The New England Historical & Genealogical Register, The New Hampshire Genealogical Record, and The Maine Genealogist, I think it is obvious that only a small subset of the genealogical community read such journals.

The information contained in these journals are added by some researchers.  As they make familial connections, they share the information, and that information finally makes it way on to the Internet, sadly and in my opinion, egregiously, unattributed.  Most of the web sites I saw note the information came from a GEDCOM download.  If there is any crime I despise in genealogy is people presenting information without properly thanking the writer/researcher who actually made it possible.

In any case, I've always wondered why a genealogist would assume that a family written about in say 1880, 1920, or even in 1950 hasn't been updated?  Why are researchers always so quick to cite to older materials?  Mostly, because they don't know how to look up the newest information (past a quick Google search, which as we can see doesn't really help).

That's one of the reasons I compiled my first book: New Englanders of the 1600s.  It is the best research published between 1980-2005 on families that came to New England between 1620 and 1700.  I wrote about writing such a book in 1997 before the world wide web took its dominant place in everyday life, but I can see that even after a decade of Internet, finding good, solid, and recent research is still difficult.

SNGF: Random Acts of Kindness

I want to participate in this week's meme, but must write quickly--theater tickets tonight [Seeing an Evening of Stephen Sondheim being interviewed by Frank Rich, the Broadway equivalent of dying and going to heaven.]

My vote goes to Howard Swain.  He sent me a useful followup citation in a comment to this post.  Before that, he was kind enough to ask where my other blog had gone (I deleted it).  It's was nice to know someone other than my mother was reading my political rants and raves.  I've been enjoying blogging on genealogy more.  And I'm supposed to be researching my second book, so, in that vein, I killed the other blog to force myself (self discipline being my least favorite virtue) to write more.

And, of course, Randy Seaver's nice blog about my being nice was nice.  OK--need an insulin shot now.

Surname Saturday: Hollick v. Holič

Last Saturday the SNGF (Saturday Night Genealogical Fun) subject was to see your surname distribution in the world.  That would be cool if your surname is actually your real surname.  However, for the millions of us whose ancestors came through Ellis Island, there is a good chance that our surnames are just Anglicized constructs or even town names.

Hollick (the name on my birth certificate) is such a construct.  Hollick is, in fact, a real English and German surname.  There is even a British Lord Hollick.  So, the distribution of that name is, little wonder, high in the U.K., its former colonies, and Germany.  However, my true surname is Holič.  You don't know how long I had to search for the correct diacritical mark for the Slovak č.  Word doesn't carry it. 

It is pronounced Hole-Leech, Long "o", etc. It means Barber.  It is also a town presently directly on the border between the Czech and Slovak Republics.  My great-grandfather who arrived in the U.S. in 1900 had the name spelled as Holics on his passenger record; Holitsch on the 1910 census; and eventually his sons adopted Hollick.  However, his brothers in Danbury, Conn., adopted Holick.  So, the distribution of my name is completely unknowable.  And this name is just an anglicized version of the real name. 

My other great-grandfather's surname was Chodur.  Because that name was rather common in Vrbovce, the village whence he came, he had both a patronymic and local version of the same name.  On his birth certificate his name is given as Pavel (Paul) Chodur-anovy-oh-dolinae (1877-1937), which is "the Chodur who lives in the valley."  His father was Jan (John) Chodur-Janovych Dolinsky (1838-1915) whose father was Pavel Chodur-Dolinsky (1817-1891).  That last Pavel's father was Jan Chodur-Dolinsky (1799-aft 1869) whose father was Adam Chodur b. 1770.  If you haven't guessed by now Paul, my great-grandfather, was rechristened Dolinsky at Ellis Island.  If I hadn't known from the get go his real surname was Chodur, I'd have been sunk.

Follow Friday: Mug Books

If the Herald's Visitations are peculiar to England, the so-called Mug Books are the American equivalent.   In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, almost every county and town in the U.S. produced a history of their locality.  In these histories, there is invariably a section of prominent local people, usually with a photograph (hence the name "mug book") with a genealogy for that person.  These genealogies usually start with the immigrant ancestor in the 17th century and run down to the person being profiled.

Again, just like the visitations, these books can be very accurate for the profiled person and their immediate family.  However, the earlier genealogical generations given are rife with errors.  Because these books are mostly from the time period 1876-1914, they are now found to a large degree on Google Books.  They may be found even more because these books were almost never indexed in print, at least Google Books did that electronically.  So, you can find good information in these works (here's an example of something I found), but they cannot be used as gospel.  They are, like the visitations, good jumping off points.  Here's how I verified that information.

Again, the time period during which these town histories were published, means that sources are not cited like we do (or at least ought to do) today.  Some town histories have large genealogical sections derived from town records.  Except, how does one really know that?  You have to go back and verify the information.  

William Dudley (1609-1684) Signature

Further Barrows Notes: Two Ages for the John of Salem

Most people who have written about John Barrows who arrived at Salem in 1637 have used the port examination record for him which is reprinted at The New England Historical & Genealogical Register 14 (1860):327.   It is listed that the following people went to New England on the Mary Anne, master William Goose.  "10 May 1637, John Borowe of Yarmouth, cooper, aged 28 years, and Anne his wife aged 40 years is desirous to pass to Salem in New England, there to inhabit."  I've previously pointed out that it was uncommon for a man to have a wife 12 years his senior at that particular time and place.  Now, I know why.

In Charles Banks's book, Planters of the Commonwealth (originally published 1930, reprinted many times, 1997), p. 182, the same list appears for the passengers of the Mary Anne.  However, this time John Burrowe's age is given as 48 and his wife Anne as 40.  At the very least, one of the transcriptions is wrong.  The original record needs to be viewed.  The age of 48 works much better and explains so much more than the age of 28.  A man of 48 would have a wife about 40 years old.  This also explains why they disappear from the records--they simply died.  And of course, a 48 year old is completely and utterly excluded as the same man to be the person who later showed up in Plymouth (whose will was written in 1691 when that man would be 102; his last child would have been born at age 96).

Happy Veteran's Day

To my ancestors who were brave enough to be part of the armed services:

BERRY, Stephen (American Revolution)
COFFIN, Abner (American Revolution)
CORBETT, William (French and Indian War)
DOLINSKY, Martin (WWII) [Great Uncle]
DUDLEY, Josiah (American Revolution)
HEARD, Jonathan (American Revolution)
HOLLICK, Paul John (Korea)
HURD, Benjamin WINGATE (Civil War)
LEARNED, Benjamin (American Revolution)
LEARNED, Calvin Sanger (Civil War, died) [4th Great Uncle]
MARSH, Samuel (French and Indian War)
PINKHAM, Charles Luther (Civil War) [3rd Great Uncle]
PINKHAM, George HALE (Civil War)
PINKHAM, Thomas (American Revolution)
PRATT, ROSS ALLEN (WWI) [Great-Great-Uncle]
RUNNELS, Abraham (American Revolution) (with his four sons, all ancestral uncles)
RUNNELS, Isaac (American Revolution, died) 
RUNNELS, James (American Revolution)
RUNNELS, John (American Revolution, died)
RUNNELS, Samuel (American Revolution)
SCOVILLE, David (French and Indian War, died) [ancestral uncle]
STACK, John A. (Civil War) [4rd Great Uncle]
STANTON, Isaac (French and Indian War, American Revolution)
SWAN, William (French and Indian War, died)
THOMPSON, Archibald (French and Indian War)
WICKWIRE, Peter (French and Indian War)
YEATON, Samuel (American Revolution)
YORK, Benjamin (American Revolution)
YORK, Benjamin (Jr.) (American Revolution)

Tombstone Tuesday: Charles Chester Clark and Alice May Morrow

From Comanche, Stephens Co., Oklahoma. These are Michael's great-grandparents. Charles is the son of Jane L. (Wells) Clark of last week.  They were married on 26 January 1885 in Leavenworth County, Kansas, and were therefore together for 56 years before her death.  Note that he died roughly six months later.