Anhand von formalisierten Nachlasslisten aus den amerikanischen Kolonien bzw. Bundesstaaten South Carolina und Massachussetts sollte festgestellt werden, wie verbreitet Waffenbesitz in diesen Kolonien bzw. Bundesstaaten im 18. Jahrhundert war.Es wurden mehrere Untersuchungszeiträume ausgewählt, für die dann die Grundgesamtheiten der Inventare zusammengetragen wurden. Aus diesen Grundgesamtheiten wurden dann Stichproben gezogen. Die gezogenen Inventare wurden auf Nennung von Schusswaffen hin überprüft, die Ergebnisse statistisch ausgewertet.
“It was in the light of the above studies that the strategy for this project was devised.Originally, in the very early conceptual stages, I had intended to sampleall years of the eighteenth century in Massachusetts and South Carolina, but itbecame clear that the “glorious profusion” of the probate inventories quicklybecomes an embarras de richesse. One is faced with thousands upon thousandsof such inventories. Thus, I decided to analyze a number of years instead of theentire century, finding the years between 1732 and 1791 particularly suitableand logical at the same time. 1791 was easily determined in light of the fact thatthe Bill of Rights, including the second Amendment, was ratified in that year.The starting point was much more difficult to define. South Carolina became aroyal colony in 1730 after a period of upheaval and administrative chaos, suggestingthat year as a significant caesura in the colony’s history. In the end,however, the determining factor was the relative scarcity of probate recordsbefore that time. Only a handful of inventories have survived from the proprietaryperiod and those for the interregnum number around 400. Only withthe onset of the new record series of the Recorded Instruments of the Secretary ofState in 1732 is there a solid base of sources available. With the timeframe 1732to 1791 established, I decided to refrain from using equidistant intervals butrather to pick some years specifically. Particularly, I wanted to see whether thecolonial wars of the period had a visible impact upon the amount of firearmslisted in inventories. In addition, I chose a small ‘control group’ early in mytimeframe by random selection. I handpicked the years 1752, 1759, 1765 and1771, 1779, and 1786 to investigate the situation for the French and Indian andRevolutionary Wars, respectively, the longest and most destructive wars on theAmerican continent during the eighteenth century. The random selection processof four more years from the first decade of my timeframe yielded the years1735, 1739, 1740 and 1743. For these ten years, I wanted to analyze the probate inventories ofMassachusetts and South Carolina for the presence or absence of firearms. Additionally,I wanted to be able not only to make inferences about the levels ofarms ownership in the colonies and states in general, but, if possible, add a geographicdimension: Did, for example, inventories on the ‘frontier’ show moreguns than those of Boston? Or did South Carolina inventories in areas withmany slaves have a greater occurrence of firearms than those where slavery wasless prevalent? As inventories frequently do not give the name of the placewhere the decedent lived, the counties were the only category available as ageographic determinant. In South Carolina, where probate was administered inCharleston for the entire province during most of the eighteenth century, nosuch determination was reliably possible for the years before 1785.[…]“ (Michael Lenz; S. 83f)
Themen:Namen, Namenszusätze, Geschlecht, Staat, Regions-, Ortsverzeichnis, Jahr,Anzahl der Waffe(n), Art der Waffe(n), Anzahl Sklaven, Gesamtwert Vermögen,Fundort im Verwaltungsschriftgut, Bemerkungen.
Kombinierte Auswahl und Zufallsziehung der Untersuchungsjahre,
Zufallsstichprobe der Inventare.
