¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 The process yielded 4826 dated records, extracted from 209 source documents and broken down further into 10,040 individual events, that is, dated items linked to a specific moniker. Events do not cover the period from 1600 to 1750 evenly (see fig. 3).
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Undoubtedly, many of the event attributions to specific persons are incorrect, and 22% of events lacking an attribution is disappointing. With a massive expenditure of effort it should be possible to improve these deficiencies. But is it worth it? It might provide us with a few more interesting details, but it is unlikely to change the overall picture.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Unfortunately, primary sources mentioned males almost exclusively. Nevertheless, it was possible to identify some 46 wives and daughters either by name or at least by that of both husband and father.
Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0
Despite the large number of events processed, a final yield of 190 identified men and 46 women appears paltry (see table 1). Never the less, it is reassuring that almost 80% of the 10’042 identifies events could be allocated to identified persons.
|Category||Number of events (name mentioned)|
|Named persons in Stühlingen (190 men & 46 women)||7’538|
|Designated functionaries, not otherwise identified||14|
|Residents of Endingen||14|
|Residents of Lengnau||15|
|Residents of Gailingen||29|
|Residents of Tiengen||108|
|Residents of Randegg||41|
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 The method employed resulted both in high redundancy and blind spots. Women, children, and other dependents remain largely invisible. Rabbis, cantors, teachers, and ritual slaughterers were rarely covered by a protection list and were captured in this study only if people engaged in business or fell afoul of the law. Family names started to appear in 1649 for Weil/Weyl, 1662 for Meyer, 1679 for Gugenum/Gugenheimb, 1680 for Bickert/Pickert, 1692 for Bloch/Blokh, and 1704 for Bernheimb. These names could then be assigned retrospectively to patrilineal ancestors and their other descendants in turn. For thirty-six out of the 190 individuals no family name could be identified.