|
2. Collecting, Sifting, Sorting, and Matching
17 18 19 20 21 22 Page 23 24 25

1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Records per DecadeFigure 3. Number of Records per Decade

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.

5 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
Foreign Jews 70
Unresolved events 2’211

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Table 1. Allocation of events.

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.

Page 23

Source: https://www.stuehlingen.online/Book/?page_id=1112

Skip to toolbar