Accuracy of Antenati (Italian Civil) records

[MarcuccioV]

So since I've waved the white flag on the last war I started here -- I'm now firing the first shot on a new one -- the accuracy of Italian civil records found on Antenati.

The records show (at least as far as the death acts are concerned) that ALL my ancestors (my maternal side) were ALL born in the recorded town (in this case, Valmontone in Lazio), beginning in 1871 (the first year for records of the town that have been microfilmed -- aside from church records and previous records that were destroyed).

My DNA results show a different story -- that many of the family members on that line (recent generations) were from Campania (highest %), Lazio, Abruzzo, Sicily and Puglia.

So did the newly-appointed administrators of the "new" Italian government just "guess" where someone was from (if it was outside of the local town) if no one could prove otherwise..? Since this was a new process for them (albeit based on the previous "Napoleonic" records), I'm curious as to how accurate it really was..?

Okay, let the artillery barrage begin...

[Italysearcher]

First, civil records in Valmontone began in 1871. There was a short period 1809-1814 when they would have done civil records but they no longer exist. Parish records exist and go back to the 1600's.
The Stato Civile did not 'guess' if the place of birth was not known when someone died. They left the space blank on all the records I have seen. Valmontone was part of Rome and people came from all over Italy and the world. DNA does not tell you how recently people came from other parts of Italy. They could have been soldiers who never went home.
Search the parish records then you will know for sure.

[MarcuccioV]

ALL my known ancestors in the post-1870 records show to have been born in Valmontone -- even some where the witnesses were simply the 'beccamorti' (funeral directors/gravediggers). If that person was widowed and had no local family, how would they know the birthplace (especially if they came there as an infant or small child)..? It's not like they had the parish records with them (and the writing appears fluid, not like it was added later) when the death act was written.

I have US ancestors from the 20th century whose death certificates indicate "I don't know" for the decedent's birthplace even when witnessed by close relatives (children in some cases).

I have one ancestor who (by researching surnames) was more-than-likely born in the neighboring village of Labico -- unfortunately, she died prior to 1871 so her only info is on her child's death act (who died in 1902)...

[saccolicious]

Of all the pieces of information on a civil death record, yes birth place is probably the least accurate. In my work transcribing records for several towns in Abruzzo, I've found that records from 1865 and later tend to be almost always accurate on birth place, but when you go back to the 1810s, 20s, 30s, they start to be less so. But only with respect to people born outside the town. I believe that people in the town knew when their neighbors were from another town.

One way that you can kind of test whether or not they were born in the town is by figuring out how common their last name is. You can also look at whether the sindaco spelled the last name consistently or not. When a person was from another town and had a new/uncommon last name, their last name was frequently spelled incorrectly, and changed from record to record, whereas the families who were native to the town were almost always spelled consistently.

[darkerhorse]

You can also look at who appeared in person to give the information.

Obviously, the closer the informant was to the person in the record the more accurate you'd expect the information to be.

When a friend or someone else outside the immediate family gave the information I've seen errors with mother's surname etc.

I suspect errors were more often the fault of the informant rather than the official.

[MarcuccioV]

You can also look at who appeared in person to give the information.

Obviously, the closer the informant was to the person in the record the more accurate you'd expect the information to be.

When a friend or someone else outside the immediate family gave the information I've seen errors with mother's surname etc.

I suspect errors were more often the fault of the informant rather than the official.

This is my suspicion exactly. In many of the death acts, the witnesses were not names associated with the deceased (although they were ancestral names of the town). Such as my example that the witnesses were simply the body removal crew. This was often the case.

One can even surmise a spouse not knowing their mate's birthplace for certain, or even being too senile to understand or give the correct info (sad, but possible). There are also a few instances where incorrect parentage was documented.

In short, I'm not blaming the official per se, just questioning the validity of the info.

You could say I'm still trying to drive a square peg into a round hole, LOL...

[darkerhorse]

Best then to triangulate.

[MarcuccioV]

Best then to triangulate.

Just an example: my Gf's surname (Mattia) is relatively uncommon in his native Roman town of Valmontone, but is quite popular in Agrigento in southern Sicily (it is also peppered throughout Italy, but not in as high a concentration). And my DNA shows considerable enough Sicilian to be outside a margin of error -- plus every matrix I've uploaded to agrees that there is Sicilian ancestry (some more, some less). You've seen his picture and how dark he was.

So I have to assume more likely than not that he had at least one ancestor from that area. When they may have arrived in Valmontone (and why) will likely remain buried with them...

[rlw254]

These just aren't assumptions you can make when doing genealogy.
https://www.mappadeicognomi.it/index.ph ... a&s=Genera

Using the exact same logic you can say they instead could have come from Milan or Lecce.

You need to exclusively follow a paper trail that is established by civil registration records and parish records when the civil records are unavailable. Guessing just because a name is common somewhere else is only going to give you problems. DNA can help, but keep in mind what we said about ethnicity estimates from your other thread. Unfortunately we can't just go with the scenario that we want to be true when we are unable to find the correct paper trail.

[MarcuccioV]

I'm simply playing averages. My original question was simply the validity of the information. I don't want to start another "you say po-tae-to I say po-tah-to kind of war of words again. I'm going to leave it at "maybe" and be done with it. No more arguments. Pax.

[darkerhorse]

These just aren't assumptions you can make when doing genealogy.
https://www.mappadeicognomi.it/index.ph ... a&s=Genera

Using the exact same logic you can say they instead could have come from Milan or Lecce.

You need to exclusively follow a paper trail that is established by civil registration records and parish records when the civil records are unavailable. Guessing just because a name is common somewhere else is only going to give you problems. DNA can help, but keep in mind what we said about ethnicity estimates from your other thread. Unfortunately we can't just go with the scenario that we want to be true when we are unable to find the correct paper trail.

Semu d'accordu.