Locality changes

By cryptoref on Tue, 12/15/2020 - 14:32

Forums

I have an interesting situation in Oklahoma. The marriage records purport to be from Le Flore county (that's what the title on the volume says https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-Y339-QSFS 

But if you scroll to the first record past the index https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-Y339-QSJ6 you see that we aren't in Le Flore county, we are in Indian Territory, Central District. Which is legally right as this area won't become Le Flore county until 1907 when Oklahoma becomes a state.

The FHL broke this volume up onto a separate film but my first ancestor is on image 8 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-Y339-Q99Q and showing Indian Territory. Second marriage is at image 555 https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-Y339-Q9PR but we are after statehood and now it's Le Flore County.

It would certainly appear that those early Oklahoman's simply ignored the fact that they weren't really a county for some time, acted like they were, and when they really were, just changed the paperwork and charged ahead :) They aren't called Sooners for nothing.

Looking at 9.4, we get that one should start with, as usual, the issuing agency. So for the two I get the two following citations

Indian Territory, Central District, “Marriage Records, Vol C, Aug 1906-Nov 1907,” p 308 (stamped), No 3051, Luther Parker – Marjory Rosa Rogers, license 23 August 1906; consulted at FamilySearch, "Oklahoma, County Marriages 1890-1995," (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-Y339-Q99Q), image 8 of 961, FHL 004,532,563; bound by Le Flore County (Oklahoma).

Oklahoma, Le Flore County, "Marriage Records, Vol 2, Dec 1908 - Dec 1910," p 329 (stamped), unnumbered, Louis Parker - Martha Lynn, license 29 March 1910; consulted at FamilySearch "Oklahoma, County Marriages 1890-1995," (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-Y339-Q9PR), image 555 of 961, FHL 004,532,563.

Note that the card catalog at FamilySearch does not call out Indian Territory, all of those records are under Oklahoma.

 

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 12/15/2020 - 16:06

Cryptoref, you've done well. Situations such as this are confusing, but it helps—as you obviously did—to mentally separate the author/creator of the record from the locale in which the record is housed or accessed.

EE would tinker a bit with layer 2:

... ; imaged in "Oklahoma, County Marriages 1890-1995," FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-Y339-Q99Q), image 8 of 961, FHL 004,532,563; bound by Le Flore County (Oklahoma).

... ; imaged in "Oklahoma, County Marriages 1890-1995," FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-Y339-Q9PR), image 555 of 961, FHL 004,532,563.

Explanation:

  • When we cite an article in a journal, we cite "Article Title" first, then Journal Title.
  • When we cite an individually authored chapter in a book, we cite "Chapter Title" first, then Book Title.
  • Ergo, when we cite a database at a website, we cite "Database Title" first, then Website Title.

All follow the same sequence and pattern.

 

 

 

 

Submitted bycryptorefon Wed, 12/16/2020 - 10:54

Thanks EE. I thought it was pretty close. I've got to get better on my titles, I tend to flip them around.

In the first one, does the "bound by..." provide sufficient information to explain the situation or would you add more?

Submitted byEEon Tue, 12/22/2020 - 10:34

History-Hunter, in your own private citation you can always "add more" to explain a situation that you think you will later need to know.

P.S. Sorry I didn't see this sooner.