Person talk:Sarah Hendrick (3)

Needs followup [8 August 2013]

First place to start: realize that Haverhill VRs are primary quality not secondary. No they are not original, but that does not make them secondary. They are intended to be faithful (in information if not in format) copy of contemporary records kept by a government official. They have been transcribed, but the person compiling them was undoubtedly using original records (note how abbreviations are used to indicate the town copy, and also Essex county copies), had some expertise and familiarity, and was objective with no hidden agenda. Cutter is secondary, he is relaying information he found from other places, and worse, he does not tell us where it came from. Having worked with him a lot, I know it was often from family genealogies, because their passages are often recognizable in his prose, and that he did not necessarily confirm the information he takes because he makes a fair number of errors. We don't know his process, but the production of his book is of course subject to transcription, record-keeping and printing errors even if the information Cutter was using was correct to start with.

Second place to go: check the vital records. americanancestors.org has a large, indexed collection, maybe half the towns in Massachusetts. They show only one Sarah, Sara, or Sary Hendrick or Hendricks born in the period 1660-1665, and it is in Haverhill. The Haverhill VRs here only show a family for Daniel at this time. So who is the Henry Hendrick that Cutter mentions? Most likely it is Cutter writing Henry as the father for Samuel Ingalls, and then carelessly writing Henry as the father of Sarah as well. americanancestors.org shows no vital records for a Henry Hendrick from 1640-1700 anywhere in Massachusetts. Does a Henry Hendrick exist?

The discrepancy in the birth date, 5 versus 8 Aug, could have any number of causes even if you assume Cutter confirmed the data against the primary sources. For reasons outlined in the first paragraph, strengthened by the carelessness already exhibited in paragraph 2, I would say that 8 Aug is the presumptive choice, and that the chances of 5 being correct are small. However, the way to check this would be to go to the original. One way would be to rent the microfilm of the handwritten Haverhill records and see if it says 5 or 8. It may be clear, resolving the issue, but it may be hard to read and show that we are seeing two interpretations of a sloppy or faded number. The other potential problem is that I have found filmings of old records often used copies to avoid excessive wear on aged originals. So then it could be that the copy says 5 or 8, while the original says the other, and that is the source of this controversy. Unless you can see both, it will be hard to be sure.

Not my relative, so too much work to me. I am happy to assume Mr. Cutter is wrong. --Jrich 19:49, 8 August 2013 (EDT)

Am in agreement re:Cutter and have no dog in this fight. That is why I left the "needs followup" note. Do you have any objection to the addition of a pointer below the citation that directs to your comments above? I don't think that casual readers always know to look at the "talk" page. --Cos1776 21:00, 8 August 2013 (EDT)

Yes, wish the notice about the talk page existing flashed red if there was a message posted in the last, say, month or so, or since your last visit, or something like that. Anything that you think a reader will find useful. --Jrich 21:53, 8 August 2013 (EDT)