the Shockoe records for cause of death, location of death [usually  
one's home], and occupation in many cases, were interesting and, one  
assumes, were fairly accurate [confirm, confirm, confirm]. So if you  
have someone buried in Shockoe, it's worth looking into. You really  
have to search websites to find out what some of those old diseases  
were, though. "Summer complaint" and "Phthisis" and others. I am  
highly suspicious of the layout of the various plots, though. Some  
have a large number of people in one relatively small area of ground  
[and yes, some were buried atop others, but still...]. Others say  
there was no burial in one spot when, with the sun low, you can SEE  
that there was a burial there, the ground is sunken in.

Nancy

-------
I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.

--Daniel Boone



On Feb 2, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Paul Drake wrote:

> All should remember that a headstone is "hearsay" in its most  
> classical
> form; you don't know who provided the facts, who carved the  
> headstone, when
> it was carved, when it was placed there, and not even who paid for it.
> Still though, just because we attach that label - hearsay - to such  
> markers,
> shall we ignore the information found there?  Of course not!!  Even  
> the
> location of the grave, what structures may have been there, and who  
> else is
> buried nearby might be very valuable evidence.  So, we note everything
> written there and learn something about that cemetery.  Then we use  
> what we
> determine to be accurate, and we keep our notes as to what else we  
> learned.
>
>
> By the way, just as a headstone is classical hearsay, the  
> information we
> gain from what else we find in that cemetery is circumstantial  
> evidence in
> its most classical form.  Again, do we discard what we found  
> because someone
> has labeled such information with that legal term?  The answer is  
> the same,
> NO! Always look past those goofy labels and realize that virtually  
> every
> scrap of evidence may honestly be branded with more than one of  
> those terms.
> So, sort all that you find, ignore how others have branded such  
> bits, and
> place all of those somewhere on an imaginary continuum revealing  
> reliability
> somewhere between "totally useless" and "conclusive without doubt".
>
> Paul
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the  
> instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html