Endnotes for the GLdH-database
While entering the data listed on the Generale Lijsten der Hoofdgelden (GLdH) a number of errors in the original record-keeping surfaced. The numbers in the database were adapted accordingly. In the list of endnotes below you find all these errors sorted by index number (lowest to highest) with a comment on what has been adapted in the database.
Index number
2098
2586
2806
4550
4624
4821
6176
6951
7412
7414
7417
8093
8655
9173
9317
9426
9529
9627
9638
9922
9996
10102
10264
10353
11043
11680
11877
11919
N/A
N/A
Endnote
The sugar total was 4600 I/O the recorded 4575 – corrected in annual total
The data provided by Clement Andriesz were not added up in the page total – corrected in annual total
Recorded were 98 enslaved people, but in calculations 89 was used – corrected in annual total
The sugar total was 725, I/O the recorded 720, but in calculations 725 was used – corrected in row
Recorded was 1 adult owner, but in calculations 3 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 2725, I/O the recorded 2775, but in calculations 2725 was used – corrected in row
Recorded were 5 owner children, but in calculations 3 was used – corrected in row
Recorded were 0 enslaved children, but in calculations 1 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 2825, I/O the recorded 2325, but in calculations 2825 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 3550, I/O the recorded 3650, but in calculations 3550 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 3400, I/O the recorded 3800, but in calculations 3400 was used – corrected in row
Isaac Tourton 1722 – in surrounding years 1721 and 1723 Tourton was listed in this exact same spot but not so in 1722. However, his data were processed in the calculations for that year – row added to the database
Recorded were 7 owner children, but they were not calculated nor do they appear on lists from surrounding years – entry deleted
The sugar total was 4150, I/O the recorded 5150, but in calculations 4150 was used – corrected in row
Recorded were 7 enslaved children, but in calculations 5 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 1350, I/O the recorded 1325, but in calculations 1350 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 2425, I/O the recorded 2450, but in calculations 2425 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 1800, I/O the recorded 1750; in the calculation of owner totals errors were found (-1 adult +4 children), the cause could not be determined – nothing changed in the database but corrected in the calculations
The sugar total was 3000, I/O the recorded 2875; in the calculation of owner totals errors were found (-1 adult +4 children), the cause could not be determined – nothing changed in the database but corrected in the calculations
Recorded were 3 adult owners, but in calculations 4 was used – corrected in row
Recorded were 3 adult owners, but in calculations 2 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 2425, I/O the recorded 2450, but in calculations 2425 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 100, I/O the recorded 75, but in calculations 100 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 5925, I/O the recorded 5950, but in calculations 5925 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 650, I/O the recorded 620, but in calculations 650 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 825, I/O the recorded 925, but in calculations 825 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 375, I/O the recorded 275, but in calculations 375 was used – corrected in row
The sugar total was 1350, I/O the recorded 1550, but in calculations 1350 was used – corrected in row
1723, folio numbering: folio numbers 119 and 123 are missing but the totals noted at the bottom and top of each page are correct, error in page numbering, no pages actually missing
1731, folio numbering: folio numbers 323 and 324 are missing but the totals noted at the bottom and top of each page are correct, error in page numbering, no pages actually missing