Hail and Farewell

Dear Reader,

As you know, I haven't been writing much here in recent months. It's not that I've lost interest in genealogy — far from it! But I need to put my efforts into creating narratives for family members — pieces that are longer and more detailed than what works within the confines of this fomat.

So, this is a farewell to the Family Lines blog. If anyone is interested in communicating with me about subjects or family names* I've written about in the past, I can still be reached at famfinder@sonic.net.

It was always my intention not only to share personal research discoveries but also to offer a few tips that might help readers in their efforts. Here are some of them again:

1. In genealogical research, the first rule is to work back in time from the present. But don't stop there. Move laterally to include spouses (and their parents), siblings, and children of your ancestors' siblings. Sometimes their stories are the most interesting of all, and in any case, their lives will often give clues to help you trace your direct line.

2. Remember the public libraries in your areas of interest. Many of them have online catalogs these days and may hold unique items such as local newspapers, indexes, photographs and other genealogical treasures. I have found their reference staffs unfailingly helpful.

3. Look for genealogical and/or historical societies in those locales. Join up and submit queries to their newsletters. Membership lists will often include surnames being searched. They, too, are often repositories of special material you may not be able to find anywhere else.

4. Don't set unrealistic goals that can just discourage and overwhelm you. Choose a line to work on, and then a single generation of that line. Break it down further — say, all the folks who lived in one county, or the young men of an age to have served in the Civil War.

5. Never, ever, expect your family's history to be "done." You may choose to wind up a particular project at some point, but there will always be more for someone else to work on. On the other hand, don't let its open-ended nature keep you from writing about it. Go with what you have — you, or somone else, can always add more later.

6. Remember that showing where you got your information is absolutely vital. If Grandma said it was so and that's all you know, put that down (with Grandma's full name). If you read it in a book, list the book's title, author, publisher and date of publication. If your source is a copy of a copy of a pirated family tree (you know who you are) list as much as you can about the tree's authorship, and where it is posted. Then the next person to pick the threads will know where she or he stands.  Treat ALL undocumented statements as clues, not fact, and try to confirm them.

Those are some tenets I try to follow. I hope they help you. 

So long.

*My lines, briefly, are:

Cain, descending from Thomas Cain (d 1795), mostly in Delaware and Indiana. From there the family spread out to various parts: New Jersey, Tennessee, Kentucky and California.

Howard, descending from Frederick Howard (1795-1853) who apparently was born in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, but moved first to Kentucky and then settled in Indiana.

Tanner/Blount/Waldron with roots in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

Can't let them go

Any serious (or even casual) genealogist can tell you that there are always going to be tantalizing puzzles, nagging gaps, and teasing bits of information that beg to be dealt with. Often they are not even about direct ancestors or close cousins, but the presence of an unanswered question alternately attracts and exasperates, and simply cannot be left alone.

Here are a few of mine:

Lewis Hartwell Thompson, was born 1836 in Virginia, died 1913 in Fairfield, Solano County, California, and is buried in Corning, Tehama County.  My great-grandfather’s brother-in-law, he was said to have once been a member of the notorious Vigilantes at San Francisco’s  “Fort Gunnybags”  

I’d like to know something about his early life, and who his parents were.

Lewis's son, Albert Kelsey Thompson, was born 1868 in Oregon. The 1900 census for  Vallejo, also in Solano County, lists him as a single day laborer. His parents are in San Francisco, as is a brother. But he is not shown ten years later, unless he is the “A.F. Thompson, age 42, b U.S.” (wrong middle initial, right age) aboard the Steamship Catania, moored at San Franisco’s Powell Street Wharf. There is no mention of him in his father’s 1913 obituary, and he is not buried in the Corning family plot.

What became of Albert?

My great-great-grandmother, Jaley Grant, was born  about 1787 in Virginia, and married Frederick Howard 1817 in Bath County, Kentucky. She is in the 1860 census for Crawfordsville, Montgomery County, Indiana, with widowed daughter Maranda Kelsey (who later married the above-named Lewis Thompson), but by 1866 Maranda is out West and one can surmise that the aging Jaley has probably died.  But when? Where?

Oh the questions, the questions.

******

On a completely different subject:

Did you know there is an Icelandic app for kinship? Apparently most of the population shares descent from a group of ninth century Viking settlers, and an app has been ceated to access the online database which holds genealogical details of nearly all of them.  A recent Associated Press article said: “In Iceland, a country with a population of 320,000 where most everyone is distantly related, inadvertently kissing cousins is a real risk.”

“Bumping” smart phones with the app sounds an alert if the owners, contemplating intimacy, are closely related.

Oh.

Background details

Seeking names, dates, places, relationships -- it’s the great fun of genealogical research. So much fun, in fact, we may forget that some background reading is in order now and then. No instant gratification here, so it is not easy to tear oneself away from the treasure hunt long enough to sit down with a book and notepad (digital or analog).

In writing up a narrative for my paternal line, descended from Thomas Cain who settled in Delaware in the 1700s, I wanted to fill out the picture with some details on living conditions, social life, and what the surroundings were like, so it became necessary to turn to just such background material.  Here is how you can do the same.

The first step of course is to learn what is out there.  In the old pre-computer days, one went to the library and looked for appropriate subjects in the card catalog. Even children’s books could be helpful (and still can) in explaining matters (besides, they have pictures).  If nothing came up, the next step was to ask the reference librarian if she or he could make some suggestions. Books not held locally could be borrowed on inter-library loan (ILL) though the process often took many weeks.  And it was necessary to know the exact title, not just a subject.

It is a lot easier now.  For one thing, there is WorldCat, the online catalog of the holdings of numerous public and academic libraries.  The researcher can inquire about books on his/her subject of interest without a precise title, and find records galore,  with information on where the items are held. Another place to search is the Family History Library catalog, also online, at FamilySearch.org.  They do not lend books, but … there are plenty of options. Your local public library may be able to find a copy from an institution that does lend. This is the old ILL procedure, but today many libraries enable that process online as well. At most, you may have to go to your local public library and hand in your request in person. In my experience, the turnaround times are much shorter now.

In all your searches for a “book” don’t overlook the possibilities of digitized works -- books you can read online.  With a tablet or laptop computer you can download whole volumes for reading whenever and wherever you choose.  Or you can simply read the books online as long a you are connected to the internet.

FamilySearch.org has a “Books” choice, at the top of the home page. Enter a title or keywords on the Books site and you will get a list of items.  Also, books that have been digitized will be so designated in the Family History Library catalog.

Google has a section named (at this writing) “Google Play.” More online books are found there, for reading online or downloading. And you can find other sources by simply typing in a book title or keywords such as "Delaware Kent history" (without quotes) on Google’s main page.  

But suppose your subject is too obscure or narrow to be covered by a whole book? Try PERSI, the PERiodical Source Index, which is an index of nearly 10,000 genealogical newsletters, magazines, journals and other publications. If your library subscribes to Heritage Quest you can search PERSI online for articles of possible interest (the index is just for title and subject, not every word), or you can search the same service via Ancestry, if you or your library subscribe.  Articles  may then be requested by mail.  

Did I say most of this is free?  Downloading older digitized books, from Google and other services, costs nothing. (They are clearly marked.) There may be a minimal fee associated with ILLs (though I have never had to pay one.)  PERSI requests have a basic $7.50 charge for up to five articles, and when the material is sent you will be billed an additional 20¢ per page. There is of course no charge for searching online catalogs or having the local public library’s reference person assist you. 

Nancy, who are you?

 Do you read “The Legal Genealogist” blog? Informative, well-written, and entertaining -- though how the author ever finds time to do her own research is beyond me, since she posts every day. On January 12 she wrote about a mysterious Nancy, who died in 1886 and is buried in a Texas cemetery. It is one of those tantalizing problems that keeps the family historian digging.

And the article reminded me of my own puzzle -- another Nancy, whose children had the surname Howard and, after she  died,  were farmed out to various Montgomery County, Indiana, families.  Try as I might, I have not been able to find out anything more about their mother.

She came to my attention because two of her youngsters were placed in the home of Alpheus Gregg, where they are counted in the 1850 census.  Alpheus had been married to my relative, Amanda Howard, until her death in 1848 (same year as Nancy), and the Howard children’s presence there makes some researchers believe they are Amanda’s from a previous marriage. But I knew Amanda, my great- grandfather’s sister, was the daughter of Frederick Howard, and had been born in 1822.  Furthermore, she was too young to have been the mother of the eldest of these Howard children.

So the question is: who IS Nancy Howard? Her name came from a court record collection,  the Guardians’ Docket of Montgomery County, Indiana (1825-1874), which has been digitized and is online at the website for the Crawfordsville Public Library (bless ‘em). 

I have searched marriage records for a possible husband/father, not just in Montgomery County, but neighboring counties and nearby states as well. I have looked for men with the same given names (Augustus , Tilghman, Robert and George) in case a son was named for his father. To confuse matters further, there was a Tilghman Howard who  was prominent in Indiana politics at the time, but his biographies tend to disprove any connection he might have had with my Nancy. 

Still tantalized, still trying to find the answer.

Those nagging questions!

Sometimes research is so frustrating I wonder -- fleetingly -- why I even bother with genealogy.  Mistakes, mine and those of other people, can be so trying -- at least until I find the answers. 

Here are a few problems that have hampered me:

One -- I mentioned this before --  was about the mysterious “James” Sherwood, from Virginia, who showed up in the 1850 census for Bartholomew County, Indiana.  I was stumped, as this was a family whose previous head was my ancestor, Thomas E. Sherwood.  I knew Thomas, born in KY,  had died much earlier, leaving a wife and several children.  It seemed probable that Thomas’s wife has also died, and that this new person was a caretaker relative, but from a different state? And who was the young Susan Sherwood who had abruptly inserted herself into this family?

The answer finally came when I found proof that Thomas’s wife was not dead at all.  Furthermore, she had a daughter, Susan Fisher, from a previous marriage.  A long hard look at the census record (which quite clearly showed James, age 4, MALE) finally helped me realize that “James” was really Jane, and Susan “Sherwood” was actually Susan Fisher.  

Here’s another case, quickly solved, but only because I knew someone involved:

Digging into the 1940 census for a family group from Lake County, Indiana. I found the family of my son-in-law’s grandparents.  The census clearly indicated that his mother had a brother named “Camilla.”  Oh?  Well, not exactly.  Tim knew Camilla as “Auntie Cam,” and she was definiately not a male!  

Can’t be too hard on the census takers, though.  After indexing a few pages of the 1940 census I am seriously in awe of their efforts in gathering all this information, and am surprised there aren’t more obvious errors. (Yes, I am a newbie volunteer, and find it's a lot of fun.)

Of course census records aren’t the only source of bafflement. Just this week I was trying to straighten out some Tanners and Raulersons in Florida. I had long ago copied data for Bertha, wife of Wesley Tanner, from a Family History Library index of death records.  Her parents were listed as  F.E. Henderson and Virginia Moody so, rookie that I was, I just assumed Bertha’s birth name was Henderson.

But I could find nothing helpful about Hendersons in that Florida area at the time.  Furthermore, after Bertha died, the children were listed in the 1940 census as “grandchildren” in the household of Stephen Franklin Raulerson and his wife Clara V.    Huh?

Piecing together information from other sources, I was able to determine  that Clara V. was Clara Virginia Moody.  “F.E. Henderson,” I can only surmise, is a serious misreading of the name “S.F. Raulerson.”  That would make Bertha's full name Bertha Raulerson. Of course, to confirm my suspicion, I will have to look at the original image. (Should have done it before!)

The lesson here is simply to be persistent.  Try to look at oddball records from a different perspective. And do be sure to look for more than one source for each piece of information. (Note to self: never accept an index entry as the final word.)

Counting people, counting days ...

With the 1940 census coming out so soon, all the talk is about how to make the best use of its information, and, particularly, how to work with it before the indexing comes online.

If you know about Steve Morse’s “one-step” tools (at stevemorse.org , NOT “.com”) you probably have a handle on how to start looking for people in many different files.  If not, you really need to go to his site and do some exploring.  Great tools!

Since I was born before 1940, my interest in this census is more than genealogical.  I’d love to see the neighbors’ names and their family situations at the time (whose mother was the old lady in the household next door?  Was my playmate’s father really a policeman?). Morse’s procedures make it possible to zero in on specific “enumeration districts,” which provide a means of finding households without a name index if you can locate the street.

Knowing this, my first aim has been to create a list of potential search candidates.  I have Reunion, the genealogy program of choice for many Mac users, but the process is probably similar for most programs which have a “search” feature -- though the terminology may differ.

I selected “Find” in the topmost menu bar, then “Anything.”  This brought up a form which allows for selecting those persons who meet a particular set of conditions.  In my case I chose individuals (U.S. residents, of course) who were known to have died after 1939. This produced a list of over 300 people.

But I also have many persons without known death dates who may have still been alive in 1940. Of course if they were born in 1790, it’s not too likely they were counted in this most recent census. So I chose two conditions: persons born after 1850 (being generous), and with a [blank] date of death. This garnered another 250 names.

The next step was to note the surnames used by the married women as that is how they will be shown in the census. (I did it one name at a time; your program features may allow the spouse’s name to be listed in the original report.) 


Later: I found a way to list the spouses' names, and any other desired data by -- of all things -- consulting Reunion's online manual. Highly recommended!

These results gave me a great starting point.  Of course some people are so obscurely connected I may ignore them, or they have been so thoroughly researched I can set them aside (but -- just take a look at all the interesting questions that were asked in that census! They are listed on the National Archives website in the section listed as: 1940 Federal Population Census, Pt. 1, General Information.)

This method of developing a list of likely candidates is useful for other searches as well. You might devise lists of males born between particular dates who would have been required to register for the drafts in WW I or WW II.  These records may show the person’s next of kin, where he lived at the time of registering, and a description of his physical appearance.  

On your mark, get set, go!

Look and look again

In college days we were told to devote at least two hours to study for every hour in the classroom.  A corollary, for me, is that it’s important to spend at least as much time -- right away -- to examining research results as was expended in planning the original search.  And it is important to go back and look at the material more than once.

The same theory applies to family heirlooms, which are, after all, just as research-worthy. Don’t simply acquire, store and forget.  Old photos could have names on the back that were a vague mystery at first glance, but later have more meaning.  (Take care to examine the front, too -- sometimes really faint writing will show up under close scrutiny.) Costume and hair styles may help date the images and and a photographer’s imprint could provide the all-important location.

As for old letters -- let me tell you!  Years ago, after just a quick look, I filed away a stack of Howard/Cain family correspondence because it was not from the time period I was working on.  It languished, nearly forgotten, until this past week, when I pulled out the box so I could stash away another item. Inside I re-discovered many letters written by my father around the time he enlisted in the Army in WW I. They were sent to his parents and sisters, and besides the wealth of personal information inside, the addresses pinpointed for me where these individuals were living at the time.  

Another previously overlooked find was a 1916 letter from my grandmother’s half-sister which gave me a clue to the whereabouts of her son. I have been trying to trace him for years!

In yet one more missive from this collection, my great-grandfather wrote how he was presented with a gold-headed cane by fellow Masonic members when he retired as Grand Master of the Sunflower Lodge in Wichita, Kansas.  The cane is still in the family, but the details of its 1891 presentation had vanished from our collective memory.

After careful scanning the letters will be placed with their envelopes in a suitable storage environment and I’ll be able to use the scanned images for further study and possible transcription. [For more information on preserving correspondence go to http://www.warletters.com/preserve/  Though the site is specifically about saving wartime mail, the guidelines are universally applicable.]

It is likely there will be more discoveries and unexpected clues when I zero in on the contents of these letters.

I am reminded once more that research more often than not has unpredictable results.  Searching for specific data or scrutinising a set of documents for any possible clue (as I will be doing), may not yield what we think it will.  I can recall times when I was going through vital records for one specific bit of information and instead came up with data I had not even known existed.  And that goes for the second-time-around look, too.

So let me say it again -- as much for myself as for you -- look, and look again!

Several questions and a few answers

Now that the end of the calendar year is nearly here, and most of the holiday madness is simmering down, it seems like a good time for us as genealogists to stand back, take stock, and reconsider our goals, both large and small.

First of all, what ARE those goals?  Did you start this pursuit with a concrete plan in mind, beyond finding Grandpa’s birthdate?  Or unravelling the story behind Aunt Lilly’s divorce?  Or learning more about the “semi-adopted” child in that family picture? Once you’ve started work, a goal can and will change, but it’s a good idea to re-examine it now and then, at least mentally.

Wandering off on unexpected paths is so easy -- that’s part of the fun of digging into family history -- but once in a while it really helps to remind yourself of what’s been done and ask yourself what your overall aim is -- or has become. Is it to publish a comprehensive genealogy of all your ancestors? To write about the events in a single family? To contribute completed family group sheets to the local genealogical society’s files? Or just to satisfy your own curiosity?

While these aims are not mutually exclusive, it is easier to plan research if you have not only goals, but priorities. So take a few minutes to think about what you’ve done, why you did it, and whether it is taking you in a direction you truly want to go.

*********

So often people not yet in the grip of genealogy will offer excuses for their reluctance to get involved: “My aunt already did ours,”  “It seems so expensive,”  or, “I  just don’t have time.” (Of course they may simply mean they aren’t interested, but don’t want to admit it -- poor things!)

Those of us already addicted are likely to use the same kind of reasoning to explain why we don’t make more progress.  While we know “Aunt’s book” is no excuse at all (more likely, it would be a great starting point), we can add a few more justifications, such as “I don’t have enough room for my stuff,” or “I can’t travel to all those courthouses and cemeteries.”

I’ve already written about how to do genealogy on the cheap (“Deep pockets not required,” June 1, 2011), but what about the other supposed constraints?  Time is a big factor, and I am certainly as guilty as anyone of squandering it, but being organized and having a plan really helps.  An hour of focused research, background reading, or chart creation can be more productive than a whole day of drifting from one website to another, with no particular intent.  Next time you have 20 minutes, write down a research question (now that your goals and priorities are firmly in mind -- aren’t they?) and outline how you might work to solve it.  Then, when there is a free hour or so, determine to zero in and follow it up -- instead of letting yourself be distracted by the latest email, newsletter article, or Facebook message.

Space is another problem, but not an insurmountable one.  Actually, the more space you have, the more it tends to fill with clutter -- and distractions.  I am fortunate to have a small bedroom for my “office,” but sometimes have to take my work out to the kitchen table just to avoid all the potential diversions in that tiny room.

In the pre-computer age -- you remember that, don’t you? -- a couple of notebooks or a handful of file folders were all many of us had. And these days we don’t really need much more than that right at hand in order to get work done.  Documents and photos can be scanned into the computer for immediate reference, and the originals safely stored away.

As for not being able to travel to see at firsthand those important records -- it is regrettable, but need not be a deterrent.  More and more cemetery data is available online; for instance findagrave.com  has many volunteers who will provide photos of individual headstones, if they are not already posted. There are books recording graves in various localities, and many local historical/genealogical organizations have extensive files, some online. As for courthouses -- it is always a great idea to visit them yourself, but, again, volunteers can often be found who will do the legwork for free or for a small fee.  Finding fellow researchers and/or family members in the area may provide the information you need. I’ve mentioned this before -- joining a genealogical or historical society in your region of interest is probably the next best thing to being there yourself.  A good source for this kind of information is the USGenWeb Project.

So, no formal resolutions for the New Year, but give yourself a pat on the back for all the accomplishments of the past twelve months, look again at your large and small goals, and take the time to outline some practical plans for the coming year’s research.

Led astray by the census! Or, being sensible about public records.

My Sherwoods have been a fascinating -- and exasperating -- puzzle. I wrote some about this last time, but there have been new developments, and they might shed light on some of your genealogical problems.

My ancestor, Thomas E. Sherwood -- what IS that middle name? -- seems to have been born in Kentucky between 1790 and 1800, and is in Bartholomew County, Indiana, by 1828, when he is involved in a land sale with Azalad Maskal, a relative of his wife’s previous husband.  Got that?

Elizabeth Evans Maskal Sherwood had three children (including my great-grandmother, Nancy Jane) then died, about 1835. Thomas married again very shortly, to a woman whose name was recorded as Jane Fisher. They had two children and Thomas died three years later.

Some of  Thomas’s children were still young enough to be in the family household as late as 1850, and since that year’s census is the first to name everyone in the household, with age and birthplace, it seemed like a good place to follow up on this group.

I could find just one Sherwood household in the county.  It was headed, the enumerator wrote, by James Sherwood, male, white, age 40, b VA.  Three youngsters were listed, two of whose names I recognized.  The third was a girl, Susan, age 18, also b VA. All had ditto marks for the Sherwood surname.

So who was this James?  He seemed about the right age to be a brother of the deceased Thomas. And even if Thomas lived and died in Kentucky he could have been from Virginia, especially since that state’s counties extended to include Kentucky until 1792.

To me, it appeared from this census record that Thomas’s second wife, Jane, had also died and a Sherwood relative had stepped in, bringing a child with him.  

Then … I found evidence that Jane Sherwood had not died, as she is shown in court records as late as 1857 acting as guardian for Susan FISHER and the two youngest Sherwood children.  

This made me revisit the 1850 census and take a hard look at “James”, the 40-year-old male. It soon became obvious that despite the well-defined handwriting -- no mistake in interpretation -- this was JANE, and Susan [Sherwood] was Susan Fisher.  The enumerator must have asked one of the children, or a neighbor, and misunderstood the reply.  I’ve seen mistakes in census records before, but none like this!

The lesson here is: look at ALL records with a skeptic’s eye.  Seek out additional sources. Go back again and again to that puzzling entry and study it carefully. 

Of course now that I know Jane was guardian of a Fisher child, I am ready to seek a record of her earlier marriage, to the child’s father, and of course, her own birth name.

Are they or aren't they? The Tanner search

It is a given that when you start work on a line in genealogy, you investigate what might already have been done.  NOT because you will  incorporate the findings into your own tree, but to see what might be out there, and if any clues are to be found.

I have heard for years that my mother’s line came from the “Coffee County (Georgia) Tanners,” but never could find any solid evidence. 

Finally I decided the only way to prove -- or disprove -- the Coffee County connection was to do look more closely at that line.  Ward’s History of Coffee County (Atlanta, 1930) has a section on the Tanners, and it was my intention to start by creating a separate database for these individuals.   Well, let me tell you …

How do you deal with multiple nicknames, absence of dates or places, and zero documentation?  Betty and Lizzie are listed as two women, Hampton is also shown as “B.H.” and first and middle names are used interchangeably. These folks might as well have been characters in a Russian novel.

In trying to more closely identify who reputedly belonged to whom, I went online and found a database called “Descendants of Cal Tanner,” which seemed to tie in with the Coffee County gang, though again minus details.  I also  looked at some other "trees" posted here and there online, just for clues.

There seemed to be connections among the trees/charts and I was able to straighten out a few puzzles (Betty/Lizzie was the same person; B.H. was Berry Hampton) and add a few more children.  

However, after putting together a couple of generations from these sources, it became clear that going further with Coffee County project would not help me with my research.  My John Tanner was NOT the son of the patriarch of this line -- though he had a son with the same name. 

But I’m glad I did go as far as I did.  Sometimes it really helps to disprove something, if only to keep us on track.  

********

Need a break? Tired of banging on that brick wall?  Try filling in some gaps with the many census records and vital records databases to be found on FamilySearch.org. They add new material all the time, and it is SO gratifying to find a birth date, marriage record, or parent name with a quick search of this free service.  (And there are source citations which can lead you to the original, if it is not displayed.)  

Beyond boundaries

Back from the Utah Genealogical Association Institute, and my head is spinning. Five days of lectures from some of genealogy’s best-known professionals, meeting with like-minded researchers, and having time to do research at the Family History Library.

The course I selected was “Advanced Methodology,” and it dealt with ways to look at and analyze information, to squeeze every bit of utility from it. In other words, HOW to examine data, rather than WHERE to find it. (Though there was some of that, too)

It is hard to single out the most important statement or concept --what meant most to me might not have been someone else’s favorite. But I did note down a few things.

“Ignore artificial boundaries,” one lecturer said, almost as an aside. That struck a chord. We all know about the importance of determining county boundaries at a given time in order to learn where the records are kept. But how often do we limit ourselves to just that county and its changing outlines? People went elsewhere to get married, buy land, and even to be buried. And they did not just cross into other counties. They also went across state lines when convenience and practicality dictated. If you can’t find Uncle Walter’s grave site in western Indiana, where the census-taker placed his family, could he have been interred in eastern Illinois?

I have people who went from Ohio to Indiana for their marriage licences, and others who claimed to own land in Maryland when the Delaware tax collector came around, and in Delaware when the Maryland guy showed up. There was much back and forth, and these folks would not have thought it at all unusual. A study of a region’s topography may show the most likely out-of-county or -state destination. Hills and valleys, streams, swamps, rivers -- all influenced even day-to-day travel patterns. (Migration, too, of course.)

As the lecturer said, the demarcations we think of as permanent and precise are, after all, artificial, and pretty much ignored by nearby residents.