Comparing Barren County Land Records with AI

 

Two James Crawfords? 

One of the challenges of researching my CRAWFORD family is keeping track of the various men named James Crawford who lived in Kentucky during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. I've spent considerable time trying to distinguish these men, particularly those who lived in Garrard, Lincoln, and Barren counties.

For some time, I've had a deed documenting the sale of 200 acres of land on the waters of Marrowbone Creek in Barren County, Kentucky. The seller was James Crawford of Preble County, Ohio, whose wife was Martha.

Recently, while searching through Kentucky's South of Green River land records, I found a land grant for 190 acres issued to a James Crawford in 1810.

Was this the same James Crawford?

Because the acreage was different, my initial assumption was that these records involved two different men. However, I had never compared the actual land descriptions.

That seemed like a good opportunity to see whether artificial intelligence could help me analyze the records.

The Newly Found Document: 190 Acres on the East Fork of Big Barren River

My recent search of the South of Green River land records uncovered a grant issued to James Crawford in May 1810.

The grant was based on Certificate No. 592, issued by the Barren County Court in July 1804, and a survey dated November 10, 1804.

Kentucky's South of Green River land grant system allowed qualifying settlers to obtain patents for land under legislation encouraging settlement and improvement of vacant land.

The grant describes the property as:

A certain tract or parcel of Land containing one hundred and ninety acres by survey bearing date the tenth day of November one thousand eight hundred and four lying and being in the County of Barren on the East fork of Big Barren River.

The land description continues:

Beginning on four poplar thence north thirty East eighty eight poles to a Black Oak thence South Sixty East one hundred poles to two poplar thence North thirty East one hundred and thirty poles to three White oak thence North Sixty West one hundred eighteen poles to two poplars thence South thirty West two hundred and eighteen poles to two poplars thence South Sixty East eighty poles to the Beginning.

When I asked ChatGPT to extract the land description, it converted the lengthy paragraph into a table of survey calls.

Direction	Distance	Landmark
Beginning	—	Four poplars
N 30° E	88 poles	Black oak
S 60° E	100 poles	Two poplars
N 30° E	130 poles	Three white oaks
N 60° W	118 poles	Two poplars
S 30° W	218 poles	Two poplars
S 60° E	80 poles	Beginning

Suddenly, a paragraph of difficult-to-follow survey language became much easier to understand.

Unfortunately, the grant identifies the landowner only as James Crawford. It does not name a wife or provide other information that would allow me to confidently identify him.

The Earlier Document in My Files: 200 Acres on Marrowbone Creek

The second document is one I've had in my Crawford research files for quite some time.

It is a deed recorded in Barren County, Kentucky, Deed Book J, beginning on page 1.

On December 11, 1821, James Crawford of Preble County, Ohio, sold 200 acres of land in Barren County, Kentucky, to John Moorhead for $200.

Unlike the newly found land grant, this deed provides additional information about the seller.

The deed identifies James Crawford as a resident of Preble County, Ohio. His wife, Martha Crawford, also signed the document, making her mark. Both acknowledged the deed before justices of the peace in Preble County on December 11, 1822.

That information is particularly important to my research because it connects this transaction to James Crawford, husband of Martha Knight.

The land was described as:

A certain tract of land containing two hundred acres of the county of Barren & State of Kentucky on the waters of Marrawbone bounded as follows to wit: beginning at a maple & hickory running thence west 119 poles to a chestnut & hickory thence south 179 poles to two black oaks thence east 179 poles to a popular & dogwood thence north 179 poles crossing a branch to an ash and hicory thence west 60 poles to the beginning.

ChatGPT extracted the following survey calls:

Direction	Distance	Landmark
Beginning	—	Maple and hickory
West	119 poles	Chestnut and hickory
South	179 poles	Two black oaks
East	179 poles	Poplar and dogwood
North	179 poles	Ash and hickory, crossing a branch
West	60 poles	Beginning

This property was located on the waters of Marrowbone Creek, an area that has become increasingly important in my Crawford research.

Comparing the Two Properties

When I found the 190-acre grant, I initially assumed it involved a different James Crawford from the man who sold the 200-acre tract.

After all, the acreages were different.

However, that assumption was based primarily on the number of acres rather than a comparison of the property boundaries.

By asking ChatGPT to extract the survey calls from both documents, I could compare much more than the acreage.

Feature	1810 Land Grant	1821 Deed
James Crawford	Grantee	Grantor
Acreage	190 acres	200 acres
Waterway	East Fork of Big Barren River	Waters of Marrowbone
Survey date	November 10, 1804	Not stated
Landmarks	Poplars, black oak, white oaks	Maple, hickory, chestnut, black oaks, poplar, dogwood
Survey directions	Angled bearings, such as N 30° E	Cardinal directions, such as west and south
Wife identified	No	Martha Crawford
Residence identified	No	Preble County, Ohio

The differences are much clearer when the information is organized this way.

Not only are the acreages different, but the waterways, beginning points, and survey calls are also different.

The 190-acre grant uses angled compass bearings, while the 200-acre deed uses cardinal directions.

These descriptions do not appear to represent the same tract of land.

But does that mean they involved two different men?

Different Land Does Not Necessarily Mean Different Men

This is where I need to be careful with my conclusions.

My initial assumption was that the different acreages indicated different James Crawfords. The comparison has helped demonstrate that the descriptions are different, but it has also reminded me of an important distinction.

Two different tracts of land do not necessarily mean two different owners.

A man could have acquired multiple properties in Barren County. He might have purchased one tract, obtained another through a land grant, or sold different properties at different times.

It is also possible that the James Crawford who received the 190-acre grant was a different man from the James Crawford who sold the 200-acre tract.

At this point, the evidence does not establish either possibility.

What I can say is that the 1821 deed provides identifying information that the 1810 grant lacks. The reference to Preble County, Ohio, and the signature of Martha Crawford help identify the seller of the Marrowbone property.

The 1810 grant, however, identifies only James Crawford.

Thus, while I have reason to associate the 200-acre tract with James Crawford and Martha Knight, I still need additional evidence to identify the recipient of the 190-acre grant.

Why Marrowbone Creek Matters

The location of the 200-acre tract is especially interesting because of my ongoing research into the Crawford families and their neighbors.

I've been studying land associated with Moses Dooley on the waters of Marrowbone Creek, along with other families who appear in the Crawford network.

My research has also involved the movement of several Crawford and Sellers families from Kentucky into Ohio.

James Crawford, who married Martha Knight, and my James Crawford, who married Sally Smith Duggins, both have connections to this broader group.

Understanding where these families owned land may help clarify their relationships.

For that reason, the land descriptions themselves are important. If I can plot the tracts and compare them with early surveys and neighboring properties, I may be able to identify connections that are not obvious from names and dates alone.

How AI Helped

This experiment began with a new discovery.

While searching the South of Green River records, I found the 190-acre grant to James Crawford. I already had the 200-acre Marrowbone deed in my files, but I had not compared the land descriptions.

I supplied ChatGPT with my transcriptions of both documents and asked it to extract the land descriptions.

ChatGPT identified the acreage, waterways, beginning points, compass directions, distances, and boundary markers. It then organized the survey calls into tables.

That may sound like a small accomplishment, but it eliminated some of the tedious work involved in comparing old land records.

Instead of repeatedly reading two lengthy paragraphs and trying to remember which direction or distance belonged to which tract, I could compare the information in a structured format.

AI also helped me recognize the difference between two questions:

1. Are these descriptions of the same tract of land?

2. Do these documents involve the same James Crawford?

Those are not the same question!

The land descriptions suggest that the records concern different properties. However, they do not establish whether the two properties belonged to different men.

There are also limitations to this process. ChatGPT was working from my transcriptions, not independently reading the original handwritten records. Any transcription error could affect the results.

And while AI can organize survey calls, those calls still need to be checked against the original documents and, ideally, plotted to verify the boundaries.

AI helped me analyze the evidence. It did not prove the identity of either landowner.

What's Next?

Finding the 190-acre grant has opened another avenue for researching the James Crawfords of Barren County.

Several possible research steps come to mind:

• Locate the original 1804 survey. The survey associated with Certificate No. 592 may contain additional information about neighboring properties or the original settlement.

• Trace the 190-acre tract forward. Finding subsequent deeds involving this property might identify the James Crawford who received the grant.

• Trace the 200-acre Marrowbone tract backward. How did James Crawford acquire this land before selling it to John Moorhead?

• Plot both tracts. Mapping the survey calls could help determine their locations and relationships to other Crawford, Dooley, and Sellers properties.

• Compare neighboring landowners. The people who owned adjoining property may provide clues about which Crawford family was involved.

I am particularly interested in the Marrowbone tract because of the other families I have been researching in that area.

Conclusion

My recent search of the South of Green River land records uncovered a James Crawford land grant that I had not previously compared with the Marrowbone deed already in my files.

At first, I assumed the 190-acre grant belonged to a different James Crawford because the deed I already had described 200 acres.

However, using AI to extract and compare the land descriptions helped me look beyond the acreage.

The documents describe different boundaries and identify different waterways. They appear to represent two separate tracts of land.

But I still cannot conclude that they represent two different men.

That question requires additional research.

For me, this is another example of how artificial intelligence can be useful in genealogy. I didn't ask ChatGPT to solve my Crawford research problem. Instead, I asked it to help organize information I already possessed, including a newly discovered land grant.

The result was a clearer comparison and a better understanding of what the records actually prove.

Sometimes the greatest benefit of AI isn't finding an answer. It's helping us ask a better question.

And in this case, the question has changed from Why are the acreages different? to Who owned these two tracts of land, and can I establish whether they were the same James Crawford?

That's a question worth pursuing.