Gazetteer of Poznań 1902

The Prussian Province of Poznań had 2 administrative districts, Poznań and Bydgoszcz. The Poznań district had 28 powiaty (counties) and Bydgoszcz had 14 powiaty. The value of this gazetteer is that it gives both Polish and German names of locales which can help you locate them on a map. The gazetteer also gives the Catholic parish for the locale.

There were eleven columns of information in the original gazetteer, but only a few columns are represented in this online index. The omission of the rest was a function of my limited time and interest. Someone else might want to add that information. Rather than repeatedly spelling out place names, the gazetteer compiler assigned a number to each locality depending on its context of use. So most of the columns had abbreviations or numbers rather than spelled out words or names. I have found instances where the same number was used to refer to two different places. In other instances, places didn't have numbers where expected. I did not read how the gazetteer was prepared (it's in Polish) but I suspect it was a compiled from many sources-- some of which may conflict with one another. This could also lead to one locale being listed more than once with different information. I wouldn't say the gazetteer is riddled with errors but I would be cautious if something doesn't make sense.

The results of a search should be in alphabetical order like we are used to in the United States. You may need to read through the results in case what you are looking for is not where it should be. This occurs in names containing the letter Ł (or its lower case version). Here's why.

Results will list Locale 1 and possibly a Locale 2. If Locale 1 is a Polish name, then Locale 2 is a German name and vice-versa. The powiat name is given in adjectival form (where the implicit word powiat is modified by the adjective). The district, Poznań or Bydgoszcz is distinguished in the same field. The Catholic parish to which the locality belongs is given. In some instances it either wasn't given or the locality may have been large enough to support more than one church. The Type column says something about the character of the locality-- city, village, etc. The bottom of the results page will summarize the abbreviations and translations of the terms used. Some of the terms were not translated and just treated as an accepted part of the name.

Enter information into any of the fields below. It is not necessary to fill in both fields. In fact, doing so is only recommended when the name is very common.

exact match: enter the name exactly the way you want it found (e.g., Adam will find ONLY Adam).

match first: enter the first part of name to be matched (e.g., Adam will find Adam, Adamik, Adamowski).

wildcard search: enter any part of the name (e.g., Adam will find Adam, Adamik, Adamowski, and Hadam).

Provided you are using "match first" or "wildcard search", you may use the % character to represent any number of letters and the _ (underline) character to represent one specific letter. Additional explanation here.

The Polish language has more letters than English and their alphabetical placement is not like an English speaker might expect. The rules for assigning alphabetical placement is called a collation. There is a Polish collation but we are not using it because this site is geared primarily towards an English speaking audience. The collation used for this gazetteer gets us pretty close to how we alphabetize in the US by treating the extra Polish letters as though they are the same as what they look like in our alphabet. So although n comes before ń in the Polish collation, the collation I use here treats them as the same letter. The bad news is the collation has an error in it. The Polish Ł should be treated the same as an L (same for lower case) but instead is treated as though it occurs after Z.

Obviously Poles were not consulted about the collation and its implementation. When Poles complained about the error, they were told it wasn't an error! Excuse me? I suppose if you are given bad information and act on it correctly then perhaps it's not an error in their eyes. What about a fix? The powers that be refused to fix the problem. Apparently they tried to fix some other error once and the fix caused all kinds of grief for those already using the broken collation. Instead, they now come up with new collations that fix the known errors. So why don't I just use an updated collation and solve the problem? Web service providers decide what resources users are allowed access to and a better collation is not one of them. Just like the "fixed" collation caused problems, web service providers don't like to upgrade their systems to avoid "breaking" someone's website.