I made some major changes to the site last week and nobody noticed. In case you think I’m over in the corner having a sulk and a sniffle, let me explain what the changes were and why it’s understandable nobody noticed.
They’re all double surname searches, like the long-standing Griffith’s double surname map search. That shows, for example, parishes in Griffith’s recording both Doocey and Colbert households. This had its origins back in the Jurassic era of Irish research. Under certain circumstances, you might have a documented connection between two Irish families, but no place of origin in Ireland. So you combed through the old Index of Surnames, which showed parishes where in Griffith’s households of a particular surname were located and how many, and extracted all parishes with both surnames. It was a well-honed, mind-numbing way of creating some clues to the place of origin.
So when I created an online version of the Griffith’s householder search, an obvious next step was to recreate the double surname technique.
Fast forward several years and similar mapped searches for the other major Irish sources became possible: nineteenth-century civil birth records, Catholic baptisms and the 1901/1911 censuses. It then took another four years for the penny to drop: I could also do double-surname searches for these. So last week, that’s what I did.
The reason nobody noticed is that, like the Griffith’s double search, you can only do one after you’ve already done a single search. So first Doocey, then Colbert+Doocey, for each of the four sources: nineteenth-century civil birth records, Catholic baptisms and the 1901/1911 censuses. Things buried so deep are hard to publicise.
So it’s not that I’m hiding my light under a bushel. No fear. No, it’s just … complicated.
A few caveats: like the Griffith’s double, they all exclude variant spellings. The coding was complicated enough, like standing on your head to scratch your ear, without adding variants. The equivalent of standing on your head, scratching your ear and juggling a dozen eggs.
Also, unlike the Griffith’s, I haven’t managed to get the composite totals onto a single map. Go figure.
And, of course, they’re only useful in very particular circumstances if the surnames aren’t that common. Don’t go sticking in Murphy and Kelly, please.