> I have a couple in my family tree that married in Tazewell, > Illinois, USA in 1824. In 1823 this would have been Sangamon > County, in 1824 it became a non county area and in 1827 it became > Tazewell County. What is the proper way to indicate a non county > area? I'd like to be able to save other researchers the extra work > if possible. > > Skippy <[email protected]> My recommendation is: "Tazewell (now in Tazewell County), Illinois, USA." If you really want to cut down the workload for other researchers, however, you will also include a complete source citation. There are few missteps more common nor, to me, more depressing than using a detailed locality description in place of a complete source citation. Many a writer realizes that putting locations in the modern-day political geography will make the place easier to find on current maps, and will argue from their that it makes the location easier to find in past records as well. That is not always so. The original poster's example above clearly shows how county boundaries can change while people are living and forming families in the region. At the other extreme, some writers embrace the usage of historically accurate locations but presume that the location of the *record* logically and unfailingly follows the location of the *event*. Again, that is not always so. I have several individuals in my database who took out marriage licenses in one county and got married in another. All the dates and places will be recorded in the first county. Should I record all the places as being in the same county? Not if I'm committed to historical accuracy. It is hardly helpful to readers for an author to put to much faith in the continuity or all-inclusiveness of any series of governmental records or political jurisdictions. Complete source citations relieve us of that burden. Austin W. Spencer "Austin W. Spencer" <[email protected]>