Dear reader, remember that this is an AI study, that it may contain errors; treat it as indicative and verify it for yourself.
One entry shared by two villages. The T75 hearth figure covers this village together with the village of Kwasy — the tariff does not separate them and no share of either can be derived from it. The same extract stands on that village’s card, at the village of Kwasy; it enters the totals only once, here.
Offices: Niemira (son of the standard-bearer of Mielnik (chorążyc mielnicki) · wife of the standard-bearer of Mielnik (chorążyna mielnicka)
spellings on the cards: Zawady, Zawady i Kwasty, Fol. Zawady
district of łukowski · parish of Zbuczyn · cards 2
the village of Nięmięrzyna, wife of the standard-bearer of Mielnik (chorążyna mielnicka); an austeria (an inn with lodging) [O83 (IX)]
Population 1787
115
of whom Christians
109
of whom Jews
6
persons per hearth
1.8
Year
Source
Entries
Hearths
T75
Hearth tax register 1775
1
31
T89
Hearth tax register 1789
5
65
T90
Hearth tax register 1790
1
0
T94
Hearth tax register 1794
1
0
Caveats on the years' registers (2)
What the compiler noted beside the entry itself, and what the table above does not show:
T89 — THE MOST IMPORTANT EXTRACT OF BOTH CARDS and the only one which breaks Zawady down into its buildings. It is the extract of an ESTATE COMPLEX (klucz), not of one village: the heading says „Zawady z przyległościami”, and beneath it stand five numbered entries — five settlements — and the total „Razem 65 dymów”. The card's reckoning closes to the single hearth: 24 + 10 + 6 + 20 + 5 = 65. ONLY ENTRY 1 (24 hearths) CONCERNS ZAWADY ITSELF; the remaining 41 hearths are Stary Krzesk, Kwasy, Królowa Niwa and Wesołka, and under those headings they are entered in the card index by cross-references to this very card (Kwasy, card: „T89 – zob. Zawady – par. Zbuczyn;”; Wesółki, card 1): „T89 zob. Zawady – par. Zbuczyn ;”; Krzesk Stary, card 2): the note „zob. T89 pod Zawady w par. Zbuczyn”). Nowhere else are these figures repeated — checked in the merged `karty.json`: the string „Razem 65” is not there a single time. ¶ THE OWNER OF THE WHOLE ESTATE COMPLEX — the Niemiras, sons of the standard-bearer of Mielnik (chorążycowie mielniccy) — is named once, in the heading, and for that reason I enter him at entry 1, just as at Krzesk Stary Józef Łaski was entered at the first entry of his estate complex. He concerns, however, all five entries. ¶ The siglum is a plain „T89”, without the zero subscript — the content of the line is the content of a register (a breakdown of the buildings closed by an underlined total), and so there is no doubt here between T89 and T₀89.
V48 — A LIST ASSIGNED TO ZAWADY WITH CAUTION, NOT WITH CERTAINTY. Card has no name of a village in its heading (the middle of the strip empty, checked by contrast and with a high-pass filter), and the only name which falls on it reads „Zagroble”, not „Zawady”. The V48 extract for Zawady stands already on card („V48 – Zawady.”), and so this is neither a repetition of it nor a variant of the spelling, but a DIFFERENT NAME. The assignment to Zawady cannot be confirmed from the card — it rests on the place in the card index and on the allotment of the task. Against it speaks the fact that the three lines standing lower say „niema”, that is, that the name is on none of the three maps, whereas beside the name „Zawady” in the heading of card the keeper of the card index added the scale of the map „(1:75000)” — and so he did find Zawady on a map. I do not enter „Zagroble” into the village's the recorded variants, so as not to bring into the index an unattested identification. TO BE RESOLVED BY THE OWNER — see the the note at card.
The card-index entries
Every extract for this locality in the wording of the cards, year by year. One block is one occurrence: this person, in this year. At a collective item the same card text stands beside every person named — because the card names them together and they must not be separated. The hearths given at a collective item are an equal division among those named, not a reading.
1789 T89Hearth tax register 1789
Niemirason of the standard-bearer of Mielnik (chorążyc mielnicki)
T8924 hearths1 manor house, 1 brewery, 1 inn, 1 cottage with 2 householders, 18 cottages with 1 householder, 2 cottages with a gardenhereditary owner1) Zawady - dwór, brow., karcz., chat. o 2 gosp., 18 chat. o 1 gosp., 2 chat. z ogr.; = 24 d.
THE ONLY ENTRY OF THE EXTRACT THAT CONCERNS ZAWADY ITSELF. The buildings add up exactly: 1 manor house + 1 brewery + 1 inn + 1 cottage with 2 householders + 18 cottages with 1 householder + 2 cottages with a garden = 24 hearths, and that is what the card gives („= 24 d.”, underlined with a double wavy stroke). Beside „chat. o 2 gosp.” the card SETS NO FIGURE — just as beside „chat. z ogrodem” on cards 1) and 286 — so I read one cottage; the reckoning confirms it, for without that one it would come to 23, and with two to 25. ¶ THE KEY WORDS checked under magnification and certain: „brow.” = browar, a brewery (one), „karcz.” = karczma, an inn (one), both in the singular and with no figure before them. The word „propinacja” this line DOES NOT CONTAIN. ¶ The annotation `dziedzic` comes from the heading of the extract („wieś dziedziczna Niemirów”). ¶ The figure „18” is certain; the „2” before „chat. z ogr.” is certain.The card gives not a single forename: it writes solely in the plural, in the genitive — „wieś dziedziczna Niemirów, chorążyców mielnickich”. Hence the given name is empty, the surname in the heading form „Niemira” (the singular nominative of „Niemirowie”), the office in the singular „chorążyc mielnicki” (the card: „chorążyców mielnickich”, that is the sons of the standard-bearer). HOW MANY OF THEM THERE WERE THE CARD DOES NOT SAY; the plural points to at least two and agrees with the cards of Krzesk Stary, where the same holding belongs to „Michała Niemiery z bratem” (T90, T94) and to „Antoniego Niemiery i brata jego” (T₀89). The persons of these records I DO NOT MERGE — that is a later stage. The form of the surname: this card writes „Niemirów”, card 1) „Niemiery”, card 2) „Niemiry”, cards and 559 (O83) „Nięmięrzyny”; the pattern from `nazwiska.json` is „Niemiera”, but I record the form that agrees with this card.
O83 O83A description of 1783 [the expansion of the siglum to be confirmed]
Niemira„Nięmięrzyny”wife of the standard-bearer of Mielnik (chorążyna mielnicka)
O83O83 (IX) – Zawady – wieś Nięmięrzyny, chorążyny mielnickiej; austeria
A short characterization of the village, without figures, hence the hearths figure is empty. The number in brackets I read as the Roman „IX” (I + X, with a stroke above and below), just as at Kwasy, Krzesk Stary and Karcze. ¶ THE WORD „AUSTERIA” — read with particular care, because it is a word from the list of key words. It stands in a line of its own, INDENTED and set exactly under the word „Zawady” of the O83 line, that is in the place in which this card index continues a line that has run too long (the O83 lines wrap in the same way on cards and 539). For that reason I assign it to O83, and not to the T89 standing below it. It is written with a finer pen, but in BLACK ink, not blue (measurement of the darkest pixels: R9 G11 B16, B−R = 7; for comparison the O83 line R5 G6 B10, B−R = 5, and the blue T90 line B−R = 43). The letters are legible: a-u-s-t-e-r-i-a. ¶ I DO NOT ADD THE ANNOTATION `dziedzic` BESIDE O83: the card says „wieś Nięmięrzyny”, and not „wieś dziedziczna”; the word about hereditary tenure falls only in T89.A WOMAN. The card gives no forename of her own — it names her solely by the husband-derived form of the surname in the genitive, „Nięmięrzyny”, and by her husband's office in the feminine form, „chorążyny mielnickiej”. Hence the given name is empty, and the recorded form of the name is copied out literally, with ogoneks under both „e” (under magnification two descents below the line can be seen, the same as beside the „ą” in the „chorążyny” standing next to it) — the heading form of the surname: Niemierzyna, the wife of Niemiera. A DISCREPANCY WITH THE NEIGHBOURING CARD, WHICH I DO NOT SMOOTH AWAY: on card (Kwasy) the same person bears the office „chorążyny ZIEMI mielnickiej”, here „chorążyny mielnickiej” — the word „ziemi” is NOT on this card, checked under magnification. I do not join her with the Niemiras of T89 on the same card, nor with Antoni Niemiera of card — that is the task of a later stage — but the surname is the same.
This locality in the full edition of the hearth-tax registers — together with a search across all persons, a modern map, Perthées’s engraving of 1786 and a statistical summary.
