Categotry Archives: Methodology

by

Resources for Conducting Bucks County Property Research

Categories: Maps, Methodology

A map of Middletown Township from E.P. Noll’s 1891 atlas of Bucks County, featuring my all-time favorite 19th century name, Emesis Flowers. Source: Library of Congress Digital Collections.

The attached guide to property research resources is primarily intended for folks who already have some experience on the subject, so the explanatory matter is limited to how to navigate the specific resources and what information might be found within them. For those who are completely new to property research, an excellent place to start is Terry McNealy’s book How to Find the Story of An Old House: A Guide to Research Sources and Techniques in Bucks County. I believe this is still being sold in the Mercer Museum’s museum gift shop, but copies are also available at the Mercer Museum Library and the Bucks County Free Library. It covers the fundamentals such as how to read a deed and how to perform a chain of title, as well as enumerating a number of resources, many of which are also included here, but with a more thorough description.

I created this guide back in 2021, both as a sort of cheat sheet for the resources I lean on the most for conducting property research, and as a resource I could share with my colleagues at the Mercer Museum Library. It has since been adapted as a pamphlet offered to researchers at the library, but I figured it would do a lot more good to share it online, especially because you can actually get quite a lot done using free online resources.

I update it periodically to add new resources and to update existing entries when, for example, one of the online resources gets revised and links get broken or the interface changes. When that happens, I’ll post the updated version here.

by

Exploring the Archives: African American History in Bucks County

Categories: Archives, Bensalem, Black History, Bristol, Bucks County, Doylestown, Falls Township, Langhorne, Maps, Methodology, Middletown, Slavery, Solebury

This virtual lecture was presented for the Mercer Museum on October 15th, 2020.

Synopsis

This presentation provides an overview of the archival resources available at the Mercer Museum Library, and shows how they can be used to research the African American history of Bucks County. It highlights interesting documents from the collection dating back to the 1680s, and demonstrates how challenging and often fragmentary evidence can be used to piece together the stories of people who have long been marginalized in the historical record.

Note: Some things have changed at the library since this presentation was recorded. Research appointments are no longer required, some of the contact info for research services has changed, and we have expanded our digitization services.

Check the museum’s website for more information about in-person research, research services, photographic rights and reproductions, and our digitization services.

by

Strangers Row Takes Shape

No comments yet

Categories: Digitized Data, Graves, Methodology, Solebury, Tags: ,

After hours of slogging through data to construct a database of graves for Solebury Friends Meeting, I’m finally able to sort the data to reveal some interesting patterns. The map below shows Strangers Row, listed as Section B of the graveyard. As you can see from the aerial photo, it’s nearly empty. The rows follow the same trajectory as the lines of headstones below it in Section C.

Note: The row numbers begin at the lane and count up going east. The plot numbers begin against the wall and count up going south. The grave location is recorded as Section-Row-Plot, so the grave listed as B-01-02 is Section B, Row 1, Plot 2.

The green arrow marks the grave of our Stranger Found Dead, 1880. As you can see, headstones finally appear consistently in Section B, Row 6.

This is what I’ve learned so far by analyzing the information in my database:

  • The plots were first come, first serve. When I sorted the graves by row and plot number (B-01-01, B-01-02, etc.), they were almost perfectly chronological. This is a significant difference from other sections, where families purchased plots and were buried sequentially in a line. (ex. in Section A members of the Blackfan family are buried in A-08-01 through A-08-08, even though their death dates range from 1825 to 1905.) The one regular exception to this rule is that when a spouse died, a plot was sometimes reserved next to them. This exception is responsible for most of the out-of-sequence graves. This pattern begins to break down in Row 10 around the 1930’s.
  • Graves are undated until the late 1860’s. Assuming the undated graves were also dug in chronological order, all but three graves before 1866 are undated. Only four graves after 1866 are undated. This roughly corresponds to the oldest section of the graveyard, Section A, where only a handful of dates are listed in the 1860’s and earlier.
  • Headstones appear consistently in the 1880’s. There are virtually no headstones in Section B until Row 6, which begins in the 1880’s.
  • Strangers Row is full of children. In the undated section, children account for 52% of all graves. In the dated section, they drop to 31%. Many or most of them are buried without their parents. (ex. There are 4 Alcotts, 7 Birches (from 5 different fathers), and 8 Fishers, all children without parents.)
  • There are some families, but their graves are not contiguous. For example, Eli Doan is buried in B-01-11, his wife is in B-02-42, and his children are in B-02-01 and B-02-02.  There are 10 Kitchens, but only two are buried next to one another. This is the opposite of the rest of the graveyard, where adjacent plot numbers correspond to surname instead of date. There are no family plots in Section B.

An important question remains: Where does Strangers Row end? I pose this question both geographically and temporally. Is there an actual row of demarcating the end of Strangers Row? Is there a date at which Meeting decided to treat Section B like any other part of the graveyard? It’s possible that even after it was no longer Strangers Row in the older sense, Meeting found it convenient to use Section B to bury the “odds and ends,” people who did not own family plots.

I’ve got some more dredging to do. First of all, I’d like to compare family names in Section B to other parts of the graveyard and try to find the parents of some of the buried children. I’d also like to investigate the Moons, Doans, and Ely’s buried in Section B. As far as I know these families were Quaker, so I was surprised to find them buried here.

That’s all for now, but I’ve got a lot more work to do if I want to identify the social and economic factors that landed these poor souls in Strangers Row.

by

Data Crunching

No comments yet

Categories: Digitized Data, Graves, Methodology, Solebury, Tags:

My initial assessment of the Solebury Friends grave data presented a number of problems.

First, the online list is alphabetical by surname and broken up into nine pages. This was a total pain when I decided to count the children buried in the first three rows. I had to run a text search in my browser for the row numbers and read every grave listing, recording hash marks for those listed as children, then repeat the process twenty seven times (3 rows x 9 pages) and add up my results. To make matters worse, many of the graves are missing dates and names. A lot of them have a family relationship (son of, wife of) listed in lieu of a first name.

How can I extract meaningful information from this data?

I decided to organize the information in a database to  make it easily searchable and to allow me filter and aggregate the data more efficiently. Because many individual plots are missing information I hope to identify trends that will tell us about Strangers Row as a whole.

Can we establish a date range for the undated graves? Are there really a disproportionate number of children?

It’s been a grueling process, but the database is beginning to yield some interesting results. Look for an update later today.