I am looking for family information and dates for John Hartwick [Hardwick], a boatman, living in New Brunswick, NJ in the mid-1700's. John died intestate, his Inventory taken 19 Dec. 1783, Letters of Administration were filed by Joseph Vickers 2 January 1784, his son Barent or Barnt renounced his claim. Thank you Judy Cassidy

Greetings all, I have been asked by Karl van den Broeck to place a message on these groups requesting help for a project that he is working on. Karl is not a member of any of these groups, so please direct any responses that you have to him at: [email protected] Attn Dorothy Koenig: Karl may be interested in placing an ad in the New Netherland Connections. Please contact him directly for specifics (thanks!). ======================================================================== = Wanted: things that belonged to the Loockermans-family In the first half of the 17the century the Loockermans-family emigrated to New-Amsterdam. Anna, Govert, Pieter and Jacob Loockermans were born in Turnhout, a small town in the north of Belgium. Especially Anna and Govert became very important in New York. Turnhout will celebrate its 800th birthday in 2012. Karl van den Broeck, a journalist who was born in Turnhout end still lives there, is preparing an exhibition in which where the Loockermans-family will take a prominent place. Karl is still looking for artifacts, letters, furniture, pictures of the Loockermans-family. Especially Govert, Anne and Pieter are important for the research, but also Maria Van Cortlandt Van Rensselaer. The exhibition is organized by the municipal authorities of Turnhout. All artifacts that would be borrowed to the exhibition will be properly insured. In the family tree of the Loockermans-family you can find celebrities like Theodore Roosevelt, Kurt Cobain and Montgomery Clift. Descendants of Govert Loockermans still live in Dover, Delaware. Contact: Karl van den Broeck (e-mail) [email protected] Confidentiality Notice: This electronic message transmission, including any attachment(s), may contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged information from Chemical Abstracts Service ("CAS"), a division of the American Chemical Society ("ACS"). If you have received this transmission in error, be advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Please destroy all copies of the message and contact the sender immediately by either replying to this message or calling 614-447-3600.

I don't know if the godparent as source for a name isn't secondary. In general practice children were named for someone declared a saint by the Roman Catholic Church. It was hoped that this act would protect the child as a Patron Saint interceding for it. How else to explain my own ancestor's practice in which the children of Jean and Francois were named David, Daniel and Jacob with their descendants being named David, Jacob Benjamin Rachel, Susanah, Lea, Jemima, etc. Note that all the children are named for Old Testament persons thus distinguishing them as Protestants denying the superstition noted above. Robert Demarest Cuminale

I just came across a pamphlet, by Rosalie Fellows Gailey, titled Dutch Systems in Family Naming, New York---New Jersey. It is a reprint from the National Genealogical Society Quaterly, March 1953, December 1953. This might answer the questions that were being asked in recent weeks. Marleen Van Horne

Using the "Click to Look Inside!" feature for this source @ Amazon.com... http://www.amazon.com/Means-Naming-History-Stephen-Wilson/dp/1857282442#_ ...I was able to extract the following: Yet another element must be woven into the pattern by which first names were transmitted, for in many parts of Europe children were named after godparents. Baptism and naming has become even more closely identified in the late medieval and early modern periods... Naming at the font was also established in France and England by this time, and it survived the Reformation... The custom developed in France “towards the end of the Middle Ages and reached its height from the sixteen to the mid nineteenth century.” [24]… In Nantes in the sixteenth century between 80 and 90 per cent of boys were named after godfathers. Figures of over 90 per cent were found in… Flanders… So pervasive was the custom that it was also followed by Protestants... Two alternative models were used in the choice of godparents and hence their names. In one – the commonest – god parents were selected from among relatives…. Often the rulers were stricter, running parallel to and reinforcing those for the transmission of names from kin that we have already encountered…. for example, “one takes for the first child the paternal grandfather and the maternal grandmother, for the second the elder brother of the father and the elder sister of the mother.”[26] Here balance between the paternal and maternal kin was carefully maintained... The second model was to choose godparents from outside the circle of relatives. This was a way of providing children and families with a wider network of contacts and especially with patronage in higher social strata... (227-9) Unfortunately, the endnotes for this excerpt were not accessible but you can read more of the content for yourself and even search on key words throughout the book via the link provided above. Perry Jul 22, 2010 08:56:26 AM, [email protected] wrote: Barbara: Thank you for your insights. This looks like an interesting source to track down... Wilson, Stephen. 1998. The means of naming: a social and cultural history of personal naming in western Europe. London: UCL Press. http://www.worldcat.org/title/means-of-naming-a-social-and-cultural-history-of-personal-naming-in-western-europe/oclc/185673869 Perry

Barbara: Thank you for your insights. This looks like an interesting source to track down... Wilson, Stephen. 1998. The means of naming: a social and cultural history of personal naming in western Europe. London: UCL Press. [1]http://www.worldcat.org/title/means-of-naming-a-social-and-cultural-histo ry-of-personal-naming-in-western-europe/oclc/185673869 Perry Jul 22, 2010 12:22:37 AM, [2][email protected] wrote: I have looked at a lot of French records. French-Canadian but still French. My husband's line there is back to the 1600s. I saw no evidence of any naming patterns. Barbara At 05:18 PM 7/21/2010, you wrote: >Pam, Jim, Chris, Nora, Howard & All: > >A scholarly source on French other naming patterns would certainly be most >welcome! Unfortunately, I found no such source in my admittedly casual >quest. References 1. http://www.worldcat.org/title/means-of-naming-a-social-and-cultural-history-of-personal-naming-in-western-europe/oclc/185673869 2. mailto:[email protected]

I have looked at a lot of French records. French-Canadian but still French. My husband's line there is back to the 1600s. I saw no evidence of any naming patterns. Barbara At 05:18 PM 7/21/2010, you wrote: >Pam, Jim, Chris, Nora, Howard & All: > >A scholarly source on French other naming patterns would certainly be most >welcome! Unfortunately, I found no such source in my admittedly casual >quest.

Pam, Jim, Chris, Nora, Howard & All: A scholarly source on French other naming patterns would certainly be most welcome! Unfortunately, I found no such source in my admittedly casual quest. Perhaps no other culture adhered to naming patterns with the same devotion as the Dutch but, across many cultures and historical eras, parents have named children in honor of their own parents and themselves. Take another look at my recent GARRISON article for _New Netherland Connections_ (_NNC_) that provided the starting context for this message thread... http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~streeter/garrison.pdf The simple fact that John-4 & Hannah (-----) GARRISON named a daughter Esther/Hester was one of the most important--albeit *speculative*--clues that ultimately led to identifying John-4 GARRISON as the son of Johannes/John-3 & Hester (------) GERRITSEN/GARRISON. Without that clue, I would have never invested the time, effort and expense required to identify a living descendant of John-4 GARRISON and persuade him to take a DNA test for comparison with known GARRISON descendants of Gerrit-1 Jansen van Oldenburg, thereby confirming that John-4 was the son of Johannes/John-3 & Hester. In many other cases, considering naming patterns, or simply observing given names in common between previously un-linked families, Dutch and otherwise, has provided enough clues to develop a theory that was subsequently proven through conventional research and/or DNA testing. For example, see another article from _NNC_... Perry Streeter and Mike Morrissey, "Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Testing of Probable Eighth Cousins Confirms Their Kinship and Proves Their Matrilineal Lines of Descent from Aeltje Cornelis (COOL) (VAN COUWENHOVEN) STOOTHOFF; Simultaneously Proving Two Long-Held Theories Developed Sequentially Through Conventional Research; Mary (UPDIKE) RICHEY of Greenwood, Steuben County, New York Was a Heretofore Unidentified Daughter of Roliph-5 UPDIKE (John-4, Lawrence-3, Johannes-2, Louris11 Jansen); Eleanor-5 "Nelly" LANE (Gizebert-4, Mathias-3, Gysbrecht-2 Laenen, Matthys-1 Jansen) Was the Heretofore Unidentified Wife of Roliph-5 UPDIKE" (April, May, June 2005; Volume 10, Number 2) which is also available online as... http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~streeter/NNC/mtdna.pdf I don't know if I will ever be able to determine the origins of any of my GARRISON "grandmothers," Elisabeth GYSBERTS, Hester, Hannah and Elizabeth, but I don't see any way to potentially solve these puzzles other than putting forth theories for others with greater subject matter expertise and/or access to resources to help me prove or refute. If I had not taken this approach, we would still know nothing about the origins of Jane (GARRISON) KRUSEN, Mary (UPDIKE) RICHEY and many of my other early Steuben County, New York "immigrant" ancestors. Jane's branch of the family tree is still somewhat sparse... http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=streeter&id=I760 .but I have high hopes that, with the help of others, this branch will eventually grow denser, including Jane's lines of descent from colonial BARBER & FOSTER immigrants. For more *speculation* on these and many other family history mysteries of New Netherland and beyond, please see... http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~streeter/questions.htm Your collaboration could eventually yield another article for _New Netherland Connections_ or another scholarly publication. For more on _NNC_, please see... http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~streeter/NNC/ Thanks again to everyone else on this list who have been so helpful to me over the years! Perry www.perry.streeter.com

Thank you Pam and Jim, Both of your links to the specific posts within that thread are very informative. One can certainly get a good feel for Ms. Mills opinions regarding naming patterns. What I take from it is that she does not necessarily deny that they exist (she mentions that she has seen them within certain specific groups), but that she's more concerned with the fact that there has not been enough rigorous testing or study of the subject, and that the notion of the existence of such patterns has simply grown in acceptance somewhat organically. In other words, people believe they exist only because enough people over time have claimed that they exist (which is probably true for a lot of concepts). I think that the core of her argument is that the use of naming patterns as genealogical proof should not be accepted unless, or until, a scientific study has first been completed that does demonstrate that the pattern being used as proof does in fact exist. Thanks again, Chris On Jul 21, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Pamela J. Sears wrote: > Hi Chris, > >> Pam, Jim, et al, >> >> I'm curious, has Elizabeth Shown Mills published a "study," or at the >> least, her arguments against the existence of naming patterns and/or >> their usefulness when conducting genealogical research? If so, where >> would it be found? >> >> Chris Chester > > > According to on-line sources (such as the results from a Google > search), > Elizabeth Shown Mills is the author of 13 books and over 500 articles > that have appeared in magazines and/or journals. > > Jim Brady referred to her opinion ("study") on naming patterns as it > relates to baptismal sponsors, which is addressed here (and also > includes some of her books): > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/APG/2005-12/1134357258 > >> P.S. >> I suppose I should cite my source for those statistics above <g>. See >> . . .Elizabeth Shown Mills, "Family and Social Patterns of the >> Colonial Louisiana Frontier: A Quantitative Analysis, 1714-1803" >> (Senior Thesis [Honors], University of Alabama, 1981), 202. > > > Beyond that, I do not know of an article or book that is specific to > naming patterns, so you'd have to do some further research, or at > least > follow the APG thread cited above. > > A debate between Elizabeth Shown Mills and Patricia Law Hatcher on the > validity of naming patterns was planned at one of the regional ASG > conferences (back in 2008), but was canceled due to scheduling > conflicts. > > > Regards, > Pam > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message

Hi all, From: "Pamela J. Sears" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 7:46 AM Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Naming Patterns (Was ASKIN[G]/GARRISON/LUTEN/MARTINEAU/OLIPHANT; etc) > Hi Chris, > >> Pam, Jim, et al, >> >> I'm curious, has Elizabeth Shown Mills published a "study," or at the >> least, her arguments against the existence of naming patterns and/or >> their usefulness when conducting genealogical research? If so, where >> would it be found? >> >> Chris Chester > > > According to on-line sources (such as the results from a Google search), > Elizabeth Shown Mills is the author of 13 books and over 500 articles > that have appeared in magazines and/or journals. > > Jim Brady referred to her opinion ("study") on naming patterns as it > relates to baptismal sponsors, which is addressed here (and also > includes some of her books): > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/APG/2005-12/1134357258 > >> P.S. >> I suppose I should cite my source for those statistics above <g>. See >> . . .Elizabeth Shown Mills, "Family and Social Patterns of the >> Colonial Louisiana Frontier: A Quantitative Analysis, 1714-1803" >> (Senior Thesis [Honors], University of Alabama, 1981), 202. > > > Beyond that, I do not know of an article or book that is specific to > naming patterns, so you'd have to do some further research, or at least > follow the APG thread cited above. > > A debate between Elizabeth Shown Mills and Patricia Law Hatcher on the > validity of naming patterns was planned at one of the regional ASG > conferences (back in 2008), but was canceled due to scheduling conflicts. > > > Regards, > Pam I am not aware of any "studies" of the naming patterns among the Dutch (or others) in New Netherland (or in The Netherlands). But we've all seen the pattern occur (earliest children named for their grandparents) and have seen its usefulness in genealogy. When it "works" it is great; but I doubt it was _always_ used. My own NN families are such a mix of Dutch, Norwegian, German, Walloon, French and English that I have very, very few from my own work to serve as good examples of a single national group. There have been some studies done on English settlers in Amercia, though. The best I've seen is: "Forenames and the Family in New England: An Exercise in Historical Onomastics" by David Hackett Fischer. This was published in Generations and Change, edited by Robert M. Taylor, Jr., and Ralph J. Crandall (1986); Chapter 12 (pp. 215-241). The study is based on a family-reconstruction project of 1000 families in Concord, MA from the 17th to the 19th C. One of the interesting results is how the naming patterns changed over time. There is a table showing the percent of the time a grandparent's name is passed on (a column for each of the 4 grandparents) vs. year. Unfortunately, it doesn't say if these went to the first possible children or not. Another table shows use of the parents' names. The appearance of middle names was also tracked. There were zero up to 1720. And still less than 10% up to 1780. Then by 1830 75% or more had them. I had never been able to see a pattern to the naming of my English families until I read this. Another study is: "Naming and Kinship in New England: Guilford Patterns and Usage, 1693-1759" by John J. Waters in NEHGR vol. 138 (July 1984), pp. 161-181. Among other things, he discusses 4 different naming patterns observed among 97 families. Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fischer describes 4 different groups from Great Britain that came to American in colonial times. He describes the different naming patterns used by these 4 groups. As to French and Walloon families, I have never been able to see any pattern at all. Regards, Howard [email protected]

I disagree with her for Dutch naming patterns. I have worked in Dutch Reformed Church records for years, and there is a particular order many early Dutch used to name their children. Sometimes that person was also a sponsor (Godparent is a Catholic term). Nora On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Pamela J. Sears <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Chris, > > > Pam, Jim, et al, > > > > I'm curious, has Elizabeth Shown Mills published a "study," or at the > > least, her arguments against the existence of naming patterns and/or > > their usefulness when conducting genealogical research? If so, where > > would it be found? > > > > Chris Chester > > > According to on-line sources (such as the results from a Google search), > Elizabeth Shown Mills is the author of 13 books and over 500 articles > that have appeared in magazines and/or journals. > > Jim Brady referred to her opinion ("study") on naming patterns as it > relates to baptismal sponsors, which is addressed here (and also > includes some of her books): > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/APG/2005-12/1134357258 > > > P.S. > > I suppose I should cite my source for those statistics above <g>. See > > . . .Elizabeth Shown Mills, "Family and Social Patterns of the > > Colonial Louisiana Frontier: A Quantitative Analysis, 1714-1803" > > (Senior Thesis [Honors], University of Alabama, 1981), 202. > > > Beyond that, I do not know of an article or book that is specific to > naming patterns, so you'd have to do some further research, or at least > follow the APG thread cited above. > > A debate between Elizabeth Shown Mills and Patricia Law Hatcher on the > validity of naming patterns was planned at one of the regional ASG > conferences (back in 2008), but was canceled due to scheduling conflicts. > > > Regards, > Pam > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Chris, > Pam, Jim, et al, > > I'm curious, has Elizabeth Shown Mills published a "study," or at the > least, her arguments against the existence of naming patterns and/or > their usefulness when conducting genealogical research? If so, where > would it be found? > > Chris Chester According to on-line sources (such as the results from a Google search), Elizabeth Shown Mills is the author of 13 books and over 500 articles that have appeared in magazines and/or journals. Jim Brady referred to her opinion ("study") on naming patterns as it relates to baptismal sponsors, which is addressed here (and also includes some of her books): http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/APG/2005-12/1134357258 > P.S. > I suppose I should cite my source for those statistics above <g>. See > . . .Elizabeth Shown Mills, "Family and Social Patterns of the > Colonial Louisiana Frontier: A Quantitative Analysis, 1714-1803" > (Senior Thesis [Honors], University of Alabama, 1981), 202. Beyond that, I do not know of an article or book that is specific to naming patterns, so you'd have to do some further research, or at least follow the APG thread cited above. A debate between Elizabeth Shown Mills and Patricia Law Hatcher on the validity of naming patterns was planned at one of the regional ASG conferences (back in 2008), but was canceled due to scheduling conflicts. Regards, Pam

Hi Chris, You might start here and then look around at other replies in that thread: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/apg/2005-12/1134411627 But I'm not aware of her having published her thoughts on this in one piece. Jim -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Chris Chester Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] ASKIN[G]/GARRISON/LUTEN/MARTINEAU/OLIPHANT;Staten Island & NJ; 1600s+; plus FOUNTAIN/PERRINE/+ Pam, Jim, et al, I'm curious, has Elizabeth Shown Mills published a "study," or at the least, her arguments against the existence of naming patterns and/or their usefulness when conducting genealogical research? If so, where would it be found? Chris Chester On Jul 20, 2010, at 11:53 AM, James Brady wrote: > Hi Pam and Perry, > > Well since I've been dragged into this against my better judgement, > I'm also > not aware of any "studies" on Flemish or French naming patterns. > > If you read the whole APGlist naming patterns thread that Pam > referenced > you'll see one of the reasons why I'm no longer on that list. > Professional > and scholarly genealogists, with no experience in Dutch Colonial > genealogy, > such as we have, declaim that "naming patterns" are wives tales > since no > "studies" have proven them to exist. Rosalie Fellows Bailey can be > discounted, because while she was an FASG, she published in a less > rigorous > era. > > I'm all for rigor. And the scientific method. But the use of > "studies" to > prove naming patterns is problematic. Mills did a "study" to see how > many > children were named after their baptismal sponsors. How many > children would > have been named after their sponsors if a naming pattern like the > one early > Dutch colonists used was in use? NONE. The child's name would have > been > dictated first and if it matched a sponsor the causality would be > reversed, > or happenstance. > > How would you prove a naming pattern was used in the Dutch Colonies? > You > would need accurate, well-constructed genealogies to start with, but > to get > those you would need a genealogist who was very familiar with the > naming > pattern. In other words you would need a biased observer to get an > accurate > database that an unbiased analyst could use to hunt for naming > patterns. > Hardly scientific. > > Jim > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Pamela J. > Sears > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:37 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] > ASKIN[G]/GARRISON/LUTEN/MARTINEAU/OLIPHANT;Staten Island & NJ; 1600s+; > plus FOUNTAIN/PERRINE/+ > > > Hi Perry, > >> Pam: >> >> Thanks! I can always count on you for a helpful response :) >> >> I don't know anything about the origins of John ASKIN[G] but Walraven >> LUTEN was from Flanders... >> >> "Walraven Luten from Flanders wife & infant [NWI]" >> >> As copied from http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/ships/nnship11.shtml >> >> If Hester (DELAHAILL) (LUTEN) MARTINEAU was the wife named in the >> record above, then she was from Flanders as well. So it seems most >> likely that Walraven & Hester were Flemish or Dutch. Walraven & >> Hester >> named a daughter Hester and she, in turn, apparently named children >> John [name of father], Mary [name of maternal aunt], Abraham [name of >> maternal uncle] and Elizabeth >> so it seems like this family was honoring loved ones in traditional >> ways. >> >> On the chance that Walraven & Hester were French, like Hester's >> second >> husband, the French reportedly followed this pattern: >> >> "Every first-born son was generally named after the paternal >> grandfather. The second-born son was named after the maternal >> grandfather. >> >> The first two daughters were generally named after their >> grandmothers, >> order would flip-flop depending on whether one was dead or not. Since >> maternal mortality was high, you'll often see the name of a deceased >> grandmother being used over and over again." >> >> As copied from >> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070516062324AAIEiUZ >> >> Perry > My goodness Perry. Who is Genevievesmom? :-) > > I see no source citations (documentation) in the above, and this is > certainly not something I would use in a scholarly article [i.e. > Genevievesmom said its true]. In fact, Elizabeth Shown Mills (leading > genealogy author, speaker and former editor of the NGS Quarterly) > would > argue decidedly against any naming patterns, and has (repeatedly): > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/apg/2005-12/1134362369 > > The key issue, according to Ms. Mills, is this (in response to James > Brady): > >> But "well-known" doesn't equate to *documentation* of a pattern. If >> all we can say is "well-known," then what that means is "Everybody >> says it, and it's panned out for me a few times, so it must be true." >> :). We still need actual *studies* to *prove* what's asserted. > > > > Of course, those of us close to the issue of Dutch naming conventions > would heartily disagree, and perhaps cite the following for support: > > Rosalie Fellows Bailey's "Dutch Systems in Family Naming: New York-New > Jersey" (National Genealogical Society Special Publications, No. 12 > 1954), and Kenn Stryker- Rodda "New Netherland Naming Systems and > Customs." The Record 126 (1995):35-45 (New York Genealogical and > Biographical Society). > > > But, the above articles do not address naming patterns from the > perspective of the French or Huguenots or the Flemish and I'm not > aware > of one that does. > > > Regards, > Pam Sears > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Pam, Jim, et al, I'm curious, has Elizabeth Shown Mills published a "study," or at the least, her arguments against the existence of naming patterns and/or their usefulness when conducting genealogical research? If so, where would it be found? Chris Chester On Jul 20, 2010, at 11:53 AM, James Brady wrote: > Hi Pam and Perry, > > Well since I've been dragged into this against my better judgement, > I'm also > not aware of any "studies" on Flemish or French naming patterns. > > If you read the whole APGlist naming patterns thread that Pam > referenced > you'll see one of the reasons why I'm no longer on that list. > Professional > and scholarly genealogists, with no experience in Dutch Colonial > genealogy, > such as we have, declaim that "naming patterns" are wives tales > since no > "studies" have proven them to exist. Rosalie Fellows Bailey can be > discounted, because while she was an FASG, she published in a less > rigorous > era. > > I'm all for rigor. And the scientific method. But the use of > "studies" to > prove naming patterns is problematic. Mills did a "study" to see how > many > children were named after their baptismal sponsors. How many > children would > have been named after their sponsors if a naming pattern like the > one early > Dutch colonists used was in use? NONE. The child's name would have > been > dictated first and if it matched a sponsor the causality would be > reversed, > or happenstance. > > How would you prove a naming pattern was used in the Dutch Colonies? > You > would need accurate, well-constructed genealogies to start with, but > to get > those you would need a genealogist who was very familiar with the > naming > pattern. In other words you would need a biased observer to get an > accurate > database that an unbiased analyst could use to hunt for naming > patterns. > Hardly scientific. > > Jim > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Pamela J. > Sears > Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:37 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] > ASKIN[G]/GARRISON/LUTEN/MARTINEAU/OLIPHANT;Staten Island & NJ; 1600s+; > plus FOUNTAIN/PERRINE/+ > > > Hi Perry, > >> Pam: >> >> Thanks! I can always count on you for a helpful response :) >> >> I don't know anything about the origins of John ASKIN[G] but Walraven >> LUTEN was from Flanders... >> >> "Walraven Luten from Flanders wife & infant [NWI]" >> >> As copied from http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/ships/nnship11.shtml >> >> If Hester (DELAHAILL) (LUTEN) MARTINEAU was the wife named in the >> record above, then she was from Flanders as well. So it seems most >> likely that Walraven & Hester were Flemish or Dutch. Walraven & >> Hester >> named a daughter Hester and she, in turn, apparently named children >> John [name of father], Mary [name of maternal aunt], Abraham [name of >> maternal uncle] and Elizabeth >> so it seems like this family was honoring loved ones in traditional >> ways. >> >> On the chance that Walraven & Hester were French, like Hester's >> second >> husband, the French reportedly followed this pattern: >> >> "Every first-born son was generally named after the paternal >> grandfather. The second-born son was named after the maternal >> grandfather. >> >> The first two daughters were generally named after their >> grandmothers, >> order would flip-flop depending on whether one was dead or not. Since >> maternal mortality was high, you'll often see the name of a deceased >> grandmother being used over and over again." >> >> As copied from >> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070516062324AAIEiUZ >> >> Perry > My goodness Perry. Who is Genevievesmom? :-) > > I see no source citations (documentation) in the above, and this is > certainly not something I would use in a scholarly article [i.e. > Genevievesmom said its true]. In fact, Elizabeth Shown Mills (leading > genealogy author, speaker and former editor of the NGS Quarterly) > would > argue decidedly against any naming patterns, and has (repeatedly): > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/apg/2005-12/1134362369 > > The key issue, according to Ms. Mills, is this (in response to James > Brady): > >> But "well-known" doesn't equate to *documentation* of a pattern. If >> all we can say is "well-known," then what that means is "Everybody >> says it, and it's panned out for me a few times, so it must be true." >> :). We still need actual *studies* to *prove* what's asserted. > > > > Of course, those of us close to the issue of Dutch naming conventions > would heartily disagree, and perhaps cite the following for support: > > Rosalie Fellows Bailey's "Dutch Systems in Family Naming: New York-New > Jersey" (National Genealogical Society Special Publications, No. 12 > 1954), and Kenn Stryker- Rodda "New Netherland Naming Systems and > Customs." The Record 126 (1995):35-45 (New York Genealogical and > Biographical Society). > > > But, the above articles do not address naming patterns from the > perspective of the French or Huguenots or the Flemish and I'm not > aware > of one that does. > > > Regards, > Pam Sears > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message

Dear Richard, Thank you! I am not able to get into Manhattan and very grateful for your help. Best Wishes, Cleaver On Jul 20, 2010, at 10:09 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Cleaver, > Go to > > _http://www.newyorkfamilyhistory.org/_ > (http://www.newyorkfamilyhistory.org/) > > In the left hand column under Publications > click on the NYG&B Record > Way down at the bottom of that page is: > > Back issues > All issues of the Record from 1870 through 1960 are now available on a > series of CD-ROMs published by the Society. Copies will be made of > Record > articles for a fee of $5.00 plus .35 per page and the cost of > postage. Copies > are available for purchase by emailing [email protected] _ > (mailto:[email protected]) or calling the Publication Sales > Department at (212) > 755-8532, ext 209. > > Richard Williamson > Tucson, AZ > _http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~williamsondnaproject/INDE > X.htm_ > (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~williamsondnaproject/INDEX.htm > ) > and > _https://www.familytreedna.com/public/WilliamsonDNAProject/default.aspx_ > (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Williamson%20DNA%20Project/index.aspx?fixe > d_columns=on) > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message

Cleaver, Go to _http://www.newyorkfamilyhistory.org/_ (http://www.newyorkfamilyhistory.org/) In the left hand column under Publications click on the NYG&B Record Way down at the bottom of that page is: Back issues All issues of the Record from 1870 through 1960 are now available on a series of CD-ROMs published by the Society. Copies will be made of Record articles for a fee of $5.00 plus .35 per page and the cost of postage. Copies are available for purchase by emailing [email protected] _ (mailto:[email protected]) or calling the Publication Sales Department at (212) 755-8532, ext 209. Richard Williamson Tucson, AZ _http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~williamsondnaproject/INDE X.htm_ (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~williamsondnaproject/INDEX.htm) and _https://www.familytreedna.com/public/WilliamsonDNAProject/default.aspx_ (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Williamson%20DNA%20Project/index.aspx?fixe d_columns=on)

Dear List Members, I am searching for Vol. 132 of the NYG&B Record. I believe published in 2001. The reference is to Ryckie Van Dyck who married 1. Jan Dareth, 2. Jacob de Hinsse, and 3. Jacob Staats. On page 99 of Vol. 132 , The NYG&B Record proves through a land transaction that Ryckie was the window of de Hinsse, and married to Jacob Staats. Does anyone have this issue, and would you be willing to send me a copy? I will be most grateful, and happy to send a SASE, plus the cost of copying the article. Best Wishes, Cleaver L. White [email protected]

Mr. Miller, Thank you for bringing your more modern research to our attention. We thrive on such corrections and alerts. Richard ________________________________ From: Jim Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 10:25:17 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] Israel Knapp's death date About 10 years ago, I attempted to resolve the conflicting information on the death date of my ancestor Israel Knapp of Philipstown, Dutchess County New York, the husband of Mary Henion. My solution was neat, logical, e-mailed to every Knapp researcher I knew -- and, I now believe, dead wrong. This is my attempt to correct whatever misinformation I may have spread. Then, as now, there were three competing death dates to chose from: --1769 at age 62, from a transcript of the bible of his son David Knapp --1789 at age 62, from A.A. Knapp's "Nicholas Knapp Genealogy." --1795-97, based on published abstracts of his will (the period between when it was written and proved). Clearly, two of these dates had to be wrong, and the transcript of the bible record was the first to fall. Israel's children were born between 1771 and 1785; barring the presence of a very skilled medium, he did not die in 1769. I next reasoned that A.A. Knapp had realized the same thing and assumed that 1769 was a typo or transcription error for 1789. So far, my reasoning was sound. But my next leaps of logic turned out to be stumbles. A.A. Knapp made many mistakes in my line. I was not and am not inclined to trust his work. Multiple abstracts give the date of Israel's will as Aug 1, 1795. Therefore, A.A. Knapp must have been wrong, and the 1769 in the bible transcript must be a transposed 1796 -- which fits perfectly between the date the will was written and the date it was proved. The problem? A.A. Knapp got it right and the transcripts of the will got it wrong. A researcher who inspected Israel's original will reports that the date in the first line is a numeral and is hard to read. At the end, however, the date is spelled out: "the first day of August one thousand seven hundred and EIGHTY five" (emphasis mine). Assuming this information is correct, it brings us back to Israel dying in 1789, which fits well, as it turns out, with the 1790 census. A Mary Knapp is listed in Philipstown, with the right number of kids to be his widow -- and she's right near Gilbert Weeks, whose daughter married Israel's son. Israel's will was probated after her death in 1797. The revision of Israel's death date also changes his supposed birth date. Based on the 1796 death date, I subtracted 62 and got 1733/34. Based on the new date, 1789, that should be 1726/1727. -Jim Miller ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Pam and Perry, Well since I've been dragged into this against my better judgement, I'm also not aware of any "studies" on Flemish or French naming patterns. If you read the whole APGlist naming patterns thread that Pam referenced you'll see one of the reasons why I'm no longer on that list. Professional and scholarly genealogists, with no experience in Dutch Colonial genealogy, such as we have, declaim that "naming patterns" are wives tales since no "studies" have proven them to exist. Rosalie Fellows Bailey can be discounted, because while she was an FASG, she published in a less rigorous era. I'm all for rigor. And the scientific method. But the use of "studies" to prove naming patterns is problematic. Mills did a "study" to see how many children were named after their baptismal sponsors. How many children would have been named after their sponsors if a naming pattern like the one early Dutch colonists used was in use? NONE. The child's name would have been dictated first and if it matched a sponsor the causality would be reversed, or happenstance. How would you prove a naming pattern was used in the Dutch Colonies? You would need accurate, well-constructed genealogies to start with, but to get those you would need a genealogist who was very familiar with the naming pattern. In other words you would need a biased observer to get an accurate database that an unbiased analyst could use to hunt for naming patterns. Hardly scientific. Jim -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Pamela J. Sears Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 9:37 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [DUTCH-COLONIES] ASKIN[G]/GARRISON/LUTEN/MARTINEAU/OLIPHANT;Staten Island & NJ; 1600s+; plus FOUNTAIN/PERRINE/+ Hi Perry, > Pam: > > Thanks! I can always count on you for a helpful response :) > > I don't know anything about the origins of John ASKIN[G] but Walraven > LUTEN was from Flanders... > > "Walraven Luten from Flanders wife & infant [NWI]" > > As copied from http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/ships/nnship11.shtml > > If Hester (DELAHAILL) (LUTEN) MARTINEAU was the wife named in the > record above, then she was from Flanders as well. So it seems most > likely that Walraven & Hester were Flemish or Dutch. Walraven & Hester > named a daughter Hester and she, in turn, apparently named children > John [name of father], Mary [name of maternal aunt], Abraham [name of > maternal uncle] and Elizabeth > so it seems like this family was honoring loved ones in traditional ways. > > On the chance that Walraven & Hester were French, like Hester's second > husband, the French reportedly followed this pattern: > > "Every first-born son was generally named after the paternal > grandfather. The second-born son was named after the maternal grandfather. > > The first two daughters were generally named after their grandmothers, > order would flip-flop depending on whether one was dead or not. Since > maternal mortality was high, you'll often see the name of a deceased > grandmother being used over and over again." > > As copied from > http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070516062324AAIEiUZ > > Perry My goodness Perry. Who is Genevievesmom? :-) I see no source citations (documentation) in the above, and this is certainly not something I would use in a scholarly article [i.e. Genevievesmom said its true]. In fact, Elizabeth Shown Mills (leading genealogy author, speaker and former editor of the NGS Quarterly) would argue decidedly against any naming patterns, and has (repeatedly): http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/apg/2005-12/1134362369 The key issue, according to Ms. Mills, is this (in response to James Brady): > But "well-known" doesn't equate to *documentation* of a pattern. If > all we can say is "well-known," then what that means is "Everybody > says it, and it's panned out for me a few times, so it must be true." > :). We still need actual *studies* to *prove* what's asserted. > Of course, those of us close to the issue of Dutch naming conventions would heartily disagree, and perhaps cite the following for support: Rosalie Fellows Bailey's "Dutch Systems in Family Naming: New York-New Jersey" (National Genealogical Society Special Publications, No. 12 1954), and Kenn Stryker- Rodda "New Netherland Naming Systems and Customs." The Record 126 (1995):35-45 (New York Genealogical and Biographical Society). But, the above articles do not address naming patterns from the perspective of the French or Huguenots or the Flemish and I'm not aware of one that does. Regards, Pam Sears ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Perry, > Pam: > > Thanks! I can always count on you for a helpful response :) > > I don't know anything about the origins of John ASKIN[G] but Walraven > LUTEN was from Flanders... > > "Walraven Luten from Flanders wife & infant [NWI]" > > As copied from http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/ships/nnship11.shtml > > If Hester (DELAHAILL) (LUTEN) MARTINEAU was the wife named in the > record above, then she was from Flanders as well. So it seems most > likely that Walraven & Hester were Flemish or Dutch. Walraven & Hester > named a daughter Hester and she, in turn, apparently named children > John [name of father], Mary [name of maternal aunt], Abraham [name of > maternal uncle] and Elizabeth > so it seems like this family was honoring loved ones in traditional ways. > > On the chance that Walraven & Hester were French, like Hester's second > husband, the French reportedly followed this pattern: > > "Every first-born son was generally named after the paternal > grandfather. The second-born son was named after the maternal grandfather. > > The first two daughters were generally named after their grandmothers, > order would flip-flop depending on whether one was dead or not. Since > maternal mortality was high, you'll often see the name of a deceased > grandmother being used over and over again." > > As copied from > http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070516062324AAIEiUZ > > Perry My goodness Perry. Who is Genevievesmom? :-) I see no source citations (documentation) in the above, and this is certainly not something I would use in a scholarly article [i.e. Genevievesmom said its true]. In fact, Elizabeth Shown Mills (leading genealogy author, speaker and former editor of the NGS Quarterly) would argue decidedly against any naming patterns, and has (repeatedly): http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/apg/2005-12/1134362369 The key issue, according to Ms. Mills, is this (in response to James Brady): > But "well-known" doesn't equate to *documentation* of a pattern. If > all we can say is "well-known," then what that means is "Everybody > says it, and it's panned out for me a few times, so it must be true." > :). We still need actual *studies* to *prove* what's asserted. > Of course, those of us close to the issue of Dutch naming conventions would heartily disagree, and perhaps cite the following for support: Rosalie Fellows Bailey's "Dutch Systems in Family Naming: New York-New Jersey" (National Genealogical Society Special Publications, No. 12 1954), and Kenn Stryker- Rodda "New Netherland Naming Systems and Customs." The Record 126 (1995):35-45 (New York Genealogical and Biographical Society). But, the above articles do not address naming patterns from the perspective of the French or Huguenots or the Flemish and I'm not aware of one that does. Regards, Pam Sears