I take no responsibility
The Legal Genealogist is not to blame.
I had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I take no responsibility at all of any kind for the horror that is known as the Russell Indexing System.
I am deep in the weeds of tracing the history of the house I live in. No, I really have no idea why I started this. Needed a distraction from the real world, I suppose.
But here’s the problem.
I live in a state where I do no research whatsoever. I live in New Jersey — and not a single one of my ancestors ever lived in this state or anywhere else in the north, for that matter.1 I’m far more accustomed to researching in the records of Virginia and Alabama and Texas than I am in dealing with records north of the Mason-Dixon line.
I am so used to finding all of the deeds of grantors or grantees named — say — Russell all together in the index under the letter R, in alphabetical order so all of the Russells are together, and immediately following the Russels and before the Russelts — and almost always in simple chronological order: a 1795 deed before a 1796 deed. Sometimes the indexing system will record the first names in columns so it’s easy to skim down and find all the deeds to or from Robert rather than the deeds to or from James.
So you can color me absolutely unamused to find that the Recorder of Deeds in my county in New Jersey uses the Russell Indexing System for land and probate records.
That system is “a popular indexing system used in many courthouses around the country. It is similar to the Soundex system, in that it groups surnames based on certain key letters. The index includes a chart in which you choose a column based on the surname’s key letter and a row based on the first initial of the given name to determine the page number on which the individual is indexed.”2
Or, as the FamilySearch Wiki explains, “This index is not based on the first letter of the surname. Instead, it is based on key letters (L, M, N, R, and T) that follow the initial letter of the surname. For this reason, is sometimes called the LMNRT or L-M-N-R-T index. Surnames Camp, Chapman, Coffman, and Cushman would appear under the key letter ‘M;’ Carr, Coker, Creecy, and Cubberly would appear under the key letter ‘R.’ First names are arranged alphabetically within each key letter. The entries are then arranged chronologically within each combination of key letter and first name.”3
It’s the brainchild — if you want to call it that — of what began as the Siegel-Russell Indexing Company and later just the Russell Indexing Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, somewhere back in the early 1900s. At least that’s the first reference I can find to the system anywhere.4
And it’s ridiculous.5
You wanna know how ridiculous? Say I’m looking for deeds granted by anybody named Bartlett. And I don’t know whether the grantor will be John or Mary or Robert. In my county, I’m going to first find the grantor index with the B entries. And there’s more than one roll of microfilm with the B entries. To find Bartlett, I can’t simply go to the alphabet for BA and find Bartlett. Oh, no. I have to drop out the A and use R as the key letter. So I’m looking under B for R.
But if the first name of the grantor starts with A, it’s in section 14. If B, it’s section 24. If C it’s 34. The letters H and I are combined in section 84; K and L in section 104; N and O in section 134 and so on down to W through Z which are combined in section 174.
So there are 17 sections where the entries might be found for the same last name and different first names. John would be in section 94, Mary in section 114 and Robert in section 144.
Got that?
We’re not done yet. Let’s use Mary as our example for a minute. Because it’s not just as easy as turning to section 114 and working through it alphabetically. Oh no…
First we have to find section 114. And all I can say is, thank heavens for digitized records, because every section has a different number of pages, and turning pages to get to a section that doesn’t begin until image 971 of 1056 images — ouch.
And when we finally find section 114, it’s going to divide the entries even further. So it begins by adding a second layer of key letters — and remember those are L M N R and T.
Let’s say there’s no key letter after the R — a surname like Brace for example. Those are listed first with an indication of what page in the section has that surname. Then the surnames with the key letter L — Brill, for example, followed by those with the key letter M, like Brum, and so forth. So for Bartlett, the key letter after R is T, so we go to the R T entries and…
And not even those are in alphabetical order. That section begins with the name Britt, followed by the name Braitsch, then Bright, then Bretow, then Britton. Because they sneak in — without telling you — a third level of key letter. Bartlett has an L after the R and the T. It ends up being the 32nd entry of the R T entries (and third of the R T L entries), on page 62 of section for R, where that surname can be found.
And if we want to find entries for Robert Bartlett rather than Mary? Well, the first roll of microfilm of the B entries ends with page 11 of section 116, and the R given names are in section 144. So we can’t even find all the Bartletts on the same roll of microfilm.
Sigh…
It is not my fault.
I am not to blame.
I had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I take no responsibility at all of any kind for the horror that is known as the Russell Indexing System.
Just putting that on the record.
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Not my fault!,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 23 Sep 2020).
SOURCES
- Okay, so my parents did, and my paternal grandparents settled in Chicago when they emigrated from Germany. But those are way too recent for me to count them as “ancestors” even if they technically are. ↩
- Kimberly Powell, The Everything Family Tree Book: Research And Preserve Your Family History (Adams Media eBook: 2006). ↩
- FamilySearch Research Wiki (https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/), “United States Index Systems,” rev. 1 Aug 2020. ↩
- See generally “Proposals: Official–Allegheny County,” Pittsburgh Press, 6 Nov 1908, p.27, col. 8; digital images, Newspapers.com (https://www.newspapers.com/ : accessed 23 Sep 2020). ↩
- Yeah yeah yeah. I know some of you think it’s wonderful. You’re weird. ↩
. . .but I do feel so very accomplished when I successfully find what I am searching using the Russell Indexing System!
I can understand that!
Well . . . by the time you are through with this research you will be an “expert,” well, more then the rest of us. You can include this topic and training on the same in future genealogy presentations, at NGS or Legacy or both.
It’s a shame that we cannot go back in time and throttle those responsible and demand . . . what were you thinking?!!!!
There are others who are far far better at this than I will ever be. And some of them even (gasp!!!) like the system.
Ugh! I am from NJ and my wife and I have numerous ancestors all over the mid to northern end of the state. I have run across this system several times and don’t believe I’ve yet mastered it. Thanks for a good description of its intricacies. I think I have to head back to the drawing board for some relatives.
You have my sympathies. 🙂
What irks me, is the older deed indexes that were probably in nice alphabetical order were redone into this system. Where are those books? How can I be sure they got my guy’s deed transferred without error? I have Gorrells in Beaver Co, PA and I struggle with this system.
Looking at the deed books themselves in my county, they don’t appear to have any indexes at all. So these may be the first indices ever created for the deeds, which makes them better than nothing. But “struggle with this system”????? That’s for sure.
You’re the first person I know who has figured it out. I usually just go page by page…and sometimes find what I’m looking for.
In just one roll of microfilm, that would mean going through 1057 images — and if I was looking for Robert, it wouldn’t even be on that roll! So no choice but to figure it out.
Pennsylvania has many counties that use the same screwball system. I cringe whenever I have to look for land records in either state. I absolutely hate that system and it takes so much time to find anything. Like Randy, I often go page by page because I’m afraid the name I want will be one of the zillion exceptions and I’ll miss it.
I only go page by page once I find the grantor or grantee — in my example, the B entries for grantors in my county just to 1922 take up roughly 1500 index pages. NO WAY I could go through that many pages.
Re the change in the company name…..Did Mr. Siegel divorce Mr. Russell because he couldn’t stand to use their joint product? Wouldn’t surprise me!!!
I didn’t get that far — so a quick look… Andrew W. Siegel — who had been prothonotary of Lycoming County — died in 1930. It was likely at that point that the surviving partner, Robert S. Russell, changed the name.
I can think of only one thing to say. One or both of them had too much time on their hands!
Sigh… you’re probably right.
All I can say is I am glad my relatives lived in states with normal indexing systems!
Folks out here think this WAS normal.
Think of all those public officials that had to create indexes. My hat is off to them! btw, Russell is one of the better ones – there are much worse out there 🙂
If you think the Russell system is easy, you sure haven’t worked with a really good no-nonsense alphabetical index.
No-Nonsense – For example, the index I was working with a few weeks ago in early 1800s Italian records – alphabetical by first name! I had to go through every entry, but that was way better than having to go through every record (which I often need to do). Anyway I find the different way of indexing interesting; Some I think were designed to facilitate creating the index rather than using it.
Dammit Cuz! Not only did you show me this horror, then you commenced to explain it to me. My head hurts.
Are you kidding me? I can’t believe someone came up with this organizational system, never mind implemented it. Thank you for the brilliant descriptions – I laughed I admit but you have my full sympathies.
Yes, I have NJ ancestors too. I can only wonder WHY they came up with this system? Alpha is too tricky? Even Soundex is more logical! Nice wiki entry on various systems https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/United_States_Index_Systems
That wiki entry is in footnote 3.
Everyone on my mother’s side settled in and around Pittsburgh, so I’ve used these indexes extensively. I’ve actually come to enjoy it, but the doctors won’t allow me to have any sharp objects near me at all anymore.
100% disagree. I could see why strict alphabetical systems would work well in the South, where traditional English surnames are more common, but they are a lot harder to work with when you have to account for spelling variations for non-English populations. In the Russell Index system, names like Hoffman/Huffman, Mueller/Miller, Schneider/Snyder are always in the same index section, where they wouldn’t be if strictly alphabetical. This is a very common problem all throughout Pennsylvania, so I’m not surprised that a system made by Pennsylvanians would approach it that way. If you work with it long enough, it becomes second nature. (For disclosure, I live in Pennsylvania, and have been to all the counties here; I have also been to most counties in New Jersey, so I’ve been exposed to other index systems.)
I’d also mention that not all Russell Index systems are perfectly alike. It’s not unusual for a county’s oldest Russell Index, which will often cover the first hundred years or so, to group last names together within an index section instead of indexing strictly chronologically.
See footnote 5. (grin)
“A distraction from the real world” indeed. Thanks for the best laugh I’ve had in months. And yes, I have some Pennsylvania ancestors, but have not yet tackled the land records.
I agree about the head-hurting effects of this indexing system. Why did my ancestors decide to move to Pennsylvania?
The Russell System is the premier land title indexing system. I have used it for 43 years. It was never meant for genealogists. It was meant to efficiently index land documents in a way the they can be found without looking through thousands of irrelevant documents just to find one. It was also never intended to be on microfilm. The documents are listed chronologically because constructive notice is the hallmark of the land transfer system. I could literally talk for hours about the Russell System and its many benefits. I’m sorry you had such difficulties
I suspect you had used one of the other systems for 43 years and then been confronted with this, you might be singing a different song. But if you like it, have fun with it.
I just found this explanation of the most confusing thing I’ve ever encountered — it might take a couple more reads to understand it, but thanks!! So grateful!!