Yes, early census takers were fond of abbreviating first names but most of
the time they were at least consistent. If they abbreviated one John they
abbreviated all of them. To find 3 Johns and a Jno all on one page seems odd!
I did most of my census research back in the days before indexes and
computers (days of cranking the microfilm reader and creating Family Group Sheets
either by hand or typewriter). I found names of some of my families back then
that do not appear in the current indexes (at least under recognizable names).
Some but not all can be found using the soundex feature. Yes indeed, some
very creative census transcriptions out there! In a perfect world the indexing
would be done by people who are familiar with the county and the inhabitants
of that particular county and who could more readily recognize a name no
matter how bad the penmanship of the enumerator. As Joyce suggests we should post
notes about corrections to the
ancestry.com index. I have tried
unsuccessfully for years to make a correction to ancestry.com's 1840 Arkansas index.
Several pages containing individuals living in Carroll County, AR are included in
the middle of the Conway County, AR census and are indexed as living in
Conway County. Notes on the top and bottom of those pages indicate they are
individuals in Carroll County but whoever compiled the index obviously did not
see the notes. I have not checked recently. They may have made the correction.
All in all researching now is easier than it was 35 years ago so I shouldn't
complain!
Vonda
In a message dated 4/21/2007 6:20:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
jec2(a)gte.net writes:
It was quite common for John to abbreviated as Jno, Charles as Chas, James
as Jas, Thomas as Thos, William as Wm, et cetera in centuries prior to the
20th. It gradually waned over the years, but various census enumerators
continued to use the abbreviations throught the years. I use them occasionally.
The problem is not the abbreviations, but the change in cursive writing and
modern transcribers ability to read the older cursive.
Some J's looked like I's or vice versa, so it behooves us to look carefully
and verify the modern transcriber's interpretation. The transcription problem
needs to be kept in mind with the indexes as we find them on the internet.
Look at all transcriptions with suspicion until you make your own review of
the "original" writing.
Jim Crownover-
************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.