|
|
huh? [10 April 2013]
Not clear what the point of "It should be noted that this situation, while not common, is not unknown in the published vital records for the various Massachusetts towns.
" is? How does the fact that perhaps a similar mistake get made on a different person, if it does, affect this person? Was it a batch of records submitted at the same time? Is several records for the same date having the same discrepancy? It seems to me that regardless of the source of the error, what is important is that there is a potential error for this person, regardless of how many other times there may have been a similar error, unless some relationship between the errors is shown. --Jrich 13:20, 10 April 2013 (EDT)
- This sort of thing is easier to analyze when working with the Barbour series in Connecticut. There the source of the data is indicated for each entry, typically from various town records, very often land records. If a person's death, for example, was recorded on more than one "official" document, Barbour shows them all and the source citation serves as an aid for further research. Mass. VRs typically indicate only that a duplicate record existed, not indicating the two or more sources (or pages) consulted by the individual compiling the VRs for publication. No argument about the potential for an error, but trying to indicate that it's not that unusual.--jaques1724 15:07, 10 April 2013 (EDT)
- For Salisbury, "dup" means "duplicate entry" (presumably, as opposed to taken from duplicate copy like CTF or CTR) So then, one would probably need to order the microfilm of the hand-written records (or visit town hall, since microfilms are often taken of copies, because the originals are so worn), and see if one entry was mis-transcribed, or obviously recorded non-contemporaneously, or if perhaps one entry appears to be influenced by the previous entry, as sometimes happens. Some of the better compilations in Massachusetts transcribed the original record in original order and gave page numbers in the original source, such as the Watertown Records. So the shortcomings you are referring to are really dependent on the compiler, and not the location of the records. But even in cases where the source is given in some detail, that really doesn't always indicate which value is correct, or even which one was recorded and/or transcribed correctly. --Jrich 22:08, 10 April 2013 (EDT)
|
|
