Strange Occupation

[GrahamC]

I have a James Ward who's occupation is given in the 1841 census of Sidmouth, Devon as "Excise Officer". In 1861 he is in Warminster as an "Inland Revenue Officer". No problem so far.

However in 1851 in Crediton he is shown as a "Tulana Revenue Officer". This is written quite clearly in the census image. What does it mean?

 

[Pauline]

I have a James Ward who's occupation is given in the 1841 census of Sidmouth, Devon as "Excise Officer". In 1861 he is in Warminster as an "Inland Revenue Officer". No problem so far.

However in 1851 in Crediton he is shown as a "Tulana Revenue Officer". This is written quite clearly in the census image. What does it mean?

I reckon the enumerator couldn't read James' writing! James wrote Inland on his form and the enumerator misread it as Tulana, so that's what he copied into the book.

It's easy enough to see how Inland could be misread as Tulana although less easy to understand how the enumerator didn't realise he'd got it wrong.

 

[Susan48]

I have a James Ward who's occupation is given in the 1841 census of Sidmouth, Devon as "Excise Officer". In 1861 he is in Warminster as an "Inland Revenue Officer". No problem so far.

However in 1851 in Crediton he is shown as a "Tulana Revenue Officer". This is written quite clearly in the census image. What does it mean?

Graham, I've had a look at the 1851 census image on Findmypast and I agree that on first sight it does look like 'Tulana'. However, if you look at other words on the same page you can see that 'u's' and 'n's' look very much alike. The initial capital could also be an 'I', and it looks as though the final letter - apparently an 'a' - has been inked over, presumably because the pen had run out of ink by the end of the word. It may just be that the upstroke of the 'd' was clear at the time and not gone over again, but doesn't show up in the image. For my money, it has to be 'Inland', but you may think my theory is complete hogwash - I don't mind!

 

[Bryman]

I have a James Ward who's occupation is given in the 1841 census of Sidmouth, Devon as "Excise Officer". In 1861 he is in Warminster as an "Inland Revenue Officer". No problem so far.

However in 1851 in Crediton he is shown as a "Tulana Revenue Officer". This is written quite clearly in the census image. What does it mean?

I would suggest that it means that the original scribe wrote very poorly. Look at "Ireland" in next column for some comparison.
Try reading it as "Inland Revenue Officer". The "T" is really an "I", the "u" is a poorly written "n", and the "a" is missing the riser of "d".

 

[GrahamC]

Thanks everyone. I'm happy with the explanation that it's the enumerator's mistake. I'm quite sure that he has written "Tulana".

 

[Bob Spiers]

Thanks everyone. I'm happy with the explanation that it's the enumerator's mistake. I'm quite sure that he has written "Tulana".

I am sure the Enumerator wrote in his CEB (Census Enumerator’s Book) what he believed the Householder had written in his Household schedule so the outcome lies in the hands of legibility and the principle of ‘Chinese Whispers’ that corrupts as it goes. As a researcher one can be reasonably certain on this occasion that the evidence afforded from previous Censuses is enough to prove the word intended was 'Inland'.

One can blame the Enumerator(s) for mistakes but as I learned from advising FMP on many occasions, logic plays no part as they will go on what they see written, not your interpretation, whatever the proof you offer.

In a way it reminds me of subtitles to accompany live interviews on TV which are created by speech recognition software. The results are occasionally hilarious, as anyone will know who has tried speech recognition software.

Logic or common sense that tells you there is no such word plays no part!

 

[GrahamC]

I am sure the Enumerator wrote in his CEB (Census Enumerator’s Book) what he believed the Householder had written in his Household schedule so the outcome lies in the hands of legibility and the principle of ‘Chinese Whispers’ that corrupts as it goes. As a researcher one can be reasonably certain on this occasion that the evidence afforded from previous Censuses is enough to prove the word intended was 'Inland'.

One can blame the Enumerator(s) for mistakes but as I learned from advising FMP on many occasions, logic plays no part as they will go on what they see written, not your interpretation, whatever the proof you offer.

In a way it reminds me of subtitles to accompany live interviews on TV which are created by speech recognition software. The results are occasionally hilarious, as anyone will know who has tried speech recognition software.

Logic or common sense that tells you there is no such word plays no part!

I couldn't agree more Bob.

 

[Liberty]

One of my relatives, Bertie Elkin, is down in the transcription of the 1911 census as 'professional foot maker'. When you look at the image it is quite clear that he was a footballer. (I googled his name and , although I had never heard of him, the people who compile football-themed websites had.) Presumably the census collector in Tottenham knew of Bert, but not the transcriber.