Citing FamilySearch Databases vs Catalogs/Collections

Dear Editor,


Hopefully my query falls within the scope of this forum! I'm struggling to understand and differentiate between the various 'collections' at FamilySearch in order to craft an accurate citation...


Take the following image (leaving aside the issue of persistent URLs): https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS7R-XQ8J-5


To get here, I did a global search on the homepage for 'Harold Lamonby Saker'. One of the results is from the database titled "South Africa, Pietermaritzburg Estate Files 1846-1950," as noted in FS's provided citation. Upon viewing the image itself and checking the Information tab, it is apparent that the Catalog Record is titled something different: "Deceased estates, 1846-1950". This particular estate file falls within the film described as "no. 748-1132 1948", which corresponds with the file provided on South Africa's National Archives National Automated Archival Information Retrieval System (NAAIRS). Before this database was indexed on FS, images had to be browsed manually, with the aid of the details provided on NAAIRS. 

 

Given this information, which database should my citation mention? Is the catalog/collection even considered a database in this context?

 

I am of the 'cite the database first' persuasion, especially where I am likely to use multiple images from the same collection, so I would start off with that. The problem then arises as to how I include detail/waypoints for finding the image again. Before the collection was indexed, it was vital to know the film and image numbers; now it is easy enough to search globally and quickly bring up the image. But this is not the case for every database on FS, and it still seems important to be able to show someone how to get to the image independent of the search facility (especially if the cited URL is for the homepage and not pointing directly at a record or database).


(A side issue is a database which has DGS numbers only - no film numbers - for example, this cremation record: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G9S9-NGQJ).


For the estate file, I was thinking a first full citation along these lines, but it doesn't seem quite right to me (particularly the 'path' cited in layer 2 – and whether I use the root URL or the URL that links directly to the image being referenced):

 

Master of the Supreme Court (Pietermaritzburg, Natal), "Deceased Estates, 1846-1950," death notice, file 926/1948 for Harold Lamonby Saker; consulted as "South Africa, Pietermaritzburg Estate Files 1846-1950," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ : accessed 20 May 2019), FHL microfilm 1,768,608 > image 968 of 2407; citing "Natal Archives Depot, Pietermaritzburg."

 

I would appreciate your input!

Submitted byEEon Tue, 06/11/2019 - 12:44

Oh, what a tangled web we weave

When we set out to read

Manuscript materials digitized, processed, and published online!

In search of reliable answers to your questions, I'm going to walk back through what you've done and think out loud as I'm doing it.

First, let’s address the issue of what to use as a “title” to a set of records—cataloging data or …?  In EE’s discussion of FHL’s imaged materials, you’ll find this:

EE 2.27

To create our citation, we should copy precisely the label from each filmed book or file. If a register or file is not labeled, we should look for the target that the GSU imagers placed at the start of the material. If the target is missing or seems to be inaccurate, consult the catalog entry and create a generic label (record type and time period) using the descriptive note for that film. Be aware, however, that the FHL catalog description frequently uses a generic label to describe the contents of an entire roll. The actual title of a specific register or file may not appear in the cataloging entry.

Re the first boldfaced passage:

We copy the label from each filmed book or each filmed file--not the label that the FHL catalog puts on the whole roll of film, because a roll of film often contains several different items. The set of words that FHL’s catalog uses for the whole roll is not considered a "title," but a “descriptor.”

Re the second boldfaced passage dealing with cataloging data vs. specific content used:

In your case, when we click back to the start of the roll (image 3) to see what identifiers are given, we do find a target. It tells us this:

TARGET DATA:

Title of Record: Documents of Estates, 1-2671

Locality of Record: Natal, South Africa

Location of record set when filmed: State Archives, Pietermaritzburg

The film target does not identify the agency in Natal which created that record. FHL’s cataloging data does provide that information, as well as some differing “labels”:

 CATALOGING DATA:

                Title of Record: Deceased estates, 1846-1940

                Author: Master of the Supreme Court, Pietermaritzburg

                References: South Africa, Pietermaritzburg estate file, 1846-1950

Still, nowhere, in either locale, do we see the database title that you give: “South Africa, Pietermaritzburg Estate Files 1846-1950.” We also note the absence of two other information statements that many FamilySearch databases carry:

  • There is no suggested citation in a window at the bottom of the image.
  • There is no collection title > path  shown at the top of the screen.

As best I can tell, that database title “South Africa, Pietermaritzburg Estate Files 1846-1950” is discoverable only through two other approaches:

  1. At FS’s main search page, we query for Saker’s name. There the “hit” for the death notice takes us to FS’s record extract, where we find a suggested citation that does include the FS database title you are using.

"South Africa, Pietermaritzburg Estate Files 1846-1950," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QLR2-KXLY : 17 March 2018), Harold Lamonby Saker in entry for MM9.1.1/QLR2-KXLR:, 1917; citing Probate, Pietermaritzburg Archives (Formerly Natal State Archives), South Africa.

  1. At the main search page, instead of querying for the name, we use the “Find a Collection” search box. That takes us directly to the collection, where we can then query for the name.

No wonder we’re all confused!

Here we might use two approaches:

  1. Just copy what FamilySearch offers. However, that omits some critical detail, in EE’s opinion.
  2. Create our own, as you did, with a careful effort to distinguish between

Layer 1: The details needed to identify the original.

Layer 2: The details needed to identify the database.

You’ve done well with creating your own. There’s just one bit of blurring. In Layer 1 (the data for the original) you use FHS' label as a title for the record and place it into quotation marks (“Deceased Estates, 1846-1950”), thereby making it an "official" or "formal" title.  If someone were to go to the archives at Natal and seek that record by searching for a record set with that exact title, would they find a collection there with that exact name? Apparently not. When I use the search form at NAAIRS (http://www.national.archsrch.gov.za/sm300cv/smws/sm300gi?20190611191254064D7968%26DB%3DNABE) I get the following results

  • Query for that phrase as an exact title: no results.
  • Query for “Estates”: no results.
  • Query for Saker’s name: I’m given a database entry for him saying that he appears in Depot “NAB.”  Source“MSCE,” Type “LEER,” volume 00, System 1, reference 926/1948. There is no hotlink to take me to the record so I can analyze more deeply.
  • When I look up all those acronyms on the NAAIRS site, none of them lead to a record collection called “Deceased Estates, 1846-1950”

In short: That phrase seems to be a generic construction by FamilySearch. Therefore, if we put it in quotation marks as an exact quote of a collection title, then it should appear in FS's Layer 2, not the original's Layer 1.

All of this leaves us with no exact collection title for the original that’s imaged.  Without an exact collection title for the original, we are left to devise our own description for the title field—in which case we don’t put quotation marks around that generic description. EE 2.22 and 2.62 guide us there.

Missing details

Above, in discussing FamilySearch’s suggested citation, I mentioned that it omits data EE would consider essential for this set of records.  Specifically, FS (and you)

  • cite the one exact document
  • cite it to just one image

Given that this one document is a “death notice,” which is normally a standalone record, the reader of your citation is likely to assume that the one document is the only relevant item for Harold Lamonby Saker. To the contrary, the file is 10 pages long (plus cover), with much other data. The citation needs to make this clear, so that users know to look for more.

All things considered, EE’s citation would tweak yours only lightly, to cite the larger file, after which the specific document is stated. The three layers below are visually separated by color:

Master of the Supreme Court (Pietermaritzburg, Natal), Deceased Estates, 1846-1950, file 926/1948: Harold Lamonby Saker, specifically “Death Notice”; consulted as "South Africa, Pietermaritzburg Estate Files 1846-1950," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ : accessed 20 May 2019) > microfilm 1,768,608 > images 967 through 977 of 2407, specifically image 968; citing "Natal Archives Depot, Pietermaritzburg."

Submitted bySarah Bellon Tue, 06/11/2019 - 19:24

Dear Editor,


You've done remarkably well considering that this was your first time exploring these records, and I appreciate your extensive walkthrough. It took me a good while to get a grasp on the existence and arrangement of South African resources, so I appreciate your efforts here.


Your frustration in using NAAIRS is something encountered by almost all genealogists using these records. Through some sleuthing, I did manage to find an explanatory page on the website which does indeed give a formal title to the code "MSCE": "Master of the Supreme Court. Estates (1840 - 1971) (On NAAIRS until 1971)" (http://www.national.archives.gov.za/sources4.htm). I'm not sure if that changes what we would include in layer 1, but at least it confirms that FamilySearch hasn't pulled a title out of thin air. But, alas, the digitised collection on FS only covers 1846-1950! As far as I know, the original estate files are still held at the archives in Pietermaritzburg, and there is a third-party ordering service available to get copies of files not digitsed by FS, so perhaps the title of that record set should somehow make its way into the citation. A researcher visiting the archives could conceivably find the estate file in the holdings of 1840-1971...


I agree that mention needs to be made of the remainder of the file. Your citation highlights the fact that the "death notice" is the thing being specifically viewed, but I'm wondering whether we just leave that off and cite the estate file as a whole...


One more query: the province of Natal no longer exists - it has been amalgamated into a new province called KwaZulu-Natal. Does this need to be expressed in the citation, perhaps using square editorial brackets? Or is it enough to use the "old" wording to reflect the creation era of the records?


The below citation is my take given everything canvassed. I believe 'tweaking' formal titles was addressed recently in one of History-Hunter's posts (maybe the ScotlandsPeople one?) - so my only hesitation with the below attempt is my edit of the title provided by NAAIRS (from "Master of the Supreme Court. Estates (1840 - 1971) (On NAAIRS until 1971)" to "Estates, 1840-1971"). Is it clear enough that the original holdings are more broad than what has been digitised by FS?


Master of the Supreme Court (Pietermaritzburg, Natal), "Estates, 1840-1971," file 926/1948, Harold Lamonby Saker; consulted as "South Africa, Pietermaritzburg Estate Files 1846-1950," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ : accessed 20 May 2019) > FHL microfilm 1,768,608 > images 967 through 977 of 2407; citing "Natal Archives Depot, Pietermaritzburg."

Submitted byEEon Wed, 06/12/2019 - 09:48

Yes, Sarah. That works, but read on ...

> Your citation highlights the fact that the "death notice" is the thing being specifically viewed, but I'm wondering whether we just leave that off and cite the estate file as a whole...

There are times when we would cite a whole file. But if we make a specific assertion, the citation we attach  in support of that citation, should cite the specific document that makes that assertion. If the document is multiple pages, we would also want to cite the specific page.  An analogy might help to explain the reasoning here: If you pull a piece of information from a book, would you just cite the whole book, without giving the specific page or chart or table, on the premise that a reader (or you at a later date when your recollection has gone cold) can just search the whole book to find the context from which you took that information?]

>the province of Natal no longer exists - it has been amalgamated into a new province called KwaZulu-Natal. Does this need to be expressed in the citation, perhaps using square editorial brackets? Or is it enough to use the "old" wording to reflect the creation era of the records?

Yes, EE would put the new locale in editorial brackets, saying something such as [now KwaZulu-Natal].