Re: [S-R] microfilm puzzle
- Maybe this hint of family incest explains some of your behaviors
--- In SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Tarkulich"
> This does not surprise me at all.
> First, it was very common for multiple families to live under the
> Second, it was very common for several people to have the same
> set of given names was fairly limited by custom and tradition andthe same
> families lived for generations. This is why "alias" names wereoften given
> to each person. Sometimes they are written in the ledger,sometimes not,,
> lost to history.absolutely
> That is why you as a researcher must be very careful to be
> certain you have identified the correct person.my village
> Here is another variation on a similar issue. This one exists in
> today.ROOTS@yahoogroups.com] On
> 1. Maria Tarkulic married Peter Dzuba. She is now Maria Dzuba.
> 2. Maria Dzuba married Peter Tarkulic. She is now Maria Tarkulic.
> Go figure!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SLOVAK-
> Behalf Of tom f. geisssomething
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:24 PM
> To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [S-R] microfilm puzzle
> While viewing microfilm for Spisska Nova Ves, I encountered
> unusual. It was on a page of Weddings. Here is what I read.Jos.
> WITNESSES ( sponsors?)
> Oct 10, 1864
> Michael Kocsus (#537)
> (metalifossor ex miles)
> Maria Gurko
> Joannes Gurko
> Sept 12, 1864
> Joseph Bukovin (#537)
> Franciscus MA
> (veky fabri cantus)
> Maria Gurko
> Two things stand out. First , Oct. 10 was before Sept 12, in
> they were not in order. (These were both on the exact same page,one near
> the top, ; the other at the bottom). Second, both GROOMS had thesame
> house number. Also Bukovin seemed to have the same basic tradeboth times.
> (I'm assuming it's the same person)??playing a
> Now, eithe thee were two Maria Gurkos, or someone was just
> Of course, I'm quite sure that Maria Gurko did indeed marry
> Kocsus, since I have a record showing that they had a child fiveyeas later,
> in 1869.
> Vey strange indeed????? Tom