Microfilm creator and repository

Hi,

The FHL stores microfilm made by other archives. In the catalog, it is stated who created the microfilm and where it is stored. Is it essential to identify the creator of the film in the citation?

It looks at bit confusing to me to write "...; citing The Danish National Archives microfilm 50899, The Family History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah, The United States." The creator is the The Danish National Archives, and the repository is The FHL.

The catalog entry for the film above is here: https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/482644?availability=Family%20History%20Library

How would you recommend handling this?

If the name of the creator should be identified, I have two follow-up questions:

  • Is it acceptable to translate the name of the creator? The stated name is the official English-language name used by the archives.
  • FamilySearch identifies the creator as "Landsarkivet, København" which no longer exists. Denmark previously had four regional archives placed under The Danish National Archives, but in 2014 the regional archives in Copenhagen was closed and the holdings were moved to the repository of The Danish National Archives in Copenhagen. The other three regional archives were "merged" with The Danish National Archives, so that all departments are now called The Danish National Archives. Anyhow, the regional archives have always been a part of The Danish National Archives. Should the citation reflect the name of the regional archive, which no longer exits?

To add to the confusion, sometimes FamilySearch catalog entries state the name of the creator of the microfilm in the author field, sometimes they only state it in the notes below the box at the top of the catalog entry, as in this case.

I look forward to some input on this issue.

Thanks,

Lene D. Kottal 

Submitted byEEon Fri, 06/18/2021 - 10:17

Lene, for our readers, let's go back to basics and build on that foundation. In a situation such as this, three separate things need citing:

  1. The original record;
  2. The FHL microfilm (or FamilySearch digital images);
  3. The source of the film or images.

Each of these represent a layer of the citation. Evidence Style citations separate the layers with a semicolon. The most-basic ground rule here is that information that is an identifier for one layer should not be mixed into another layer.   In your second paragraph you write:

“… citing The Danish National Archives microfilm 50899, The Family History Library …”

This statement does mix together bits and pieces of Layer 2 and Layer 3.  The number 50899 is the number assigned by the Family History Library to the film that it accessioned several decades ago. Film number 50899 is not an accession number of the Danish National Archives, which would be cited in Layer 3 as the source for the FHL film.

FHL microfilm 50899 is now available online as FamilySearch digital film 8112571. In addition to the cataloging data to which you have pointed (thank you), the film target at image 3 identifies the record this way:

 

You did not identify a specific record from this film and I do not read Danish, so I cannot detail an example for Layer 1. From the cataloging data, the film target, and what is visible at each image, it clear that Layer 1 would use the basic format for citing a probate register. Below, I’ll plug that basic format into Layer 1 below and then add Layer 2 (the citation to FamilySearch where we found the image online).

        1.  Creator—i.e., Local agency that created the probate record, Title of Register (or series name and number), page, item of interest; imaged at FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSVS-N7SD-R?cat=482644 : accessed 18 June 2021) > digital film 008112581 > image 23.

Now we are at the point of addressing your specific question: what do we say in Layer 3 with regard to the origin or location of the record that has been imaged?  The snippet above shows two things with regard to the source:

  • Images on digital film 008112581 do not carry a citation.
  • The target does not tell us where the records were imaged.

The cataloging data at the link you provided does tell us a bit more.

 

 

The key line is this:  Mikrofilmet fra manuskript i Landsarkivet, København … which I am roughly translating to English (correct me if I miss a nuance) as “microfilmed from manuscript at the National Archives, Copenhagen.” 

That is how FamilySearch identifies its source. That is what we would cite in the third layer of the citation where we report what the provider gives us for the source of its image. The result would be this

         1.  Creator—i.e., Local agency that created the probate record, Title of Register (or Series Name and number), page, item of interest; imaged at FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSVS-N7SD-R?cat=482644 : accessed 18 June 2021) > digital film 008112581 > image 23; citing "Mikrofilmet fra manuskript i Landsarkivet, København" [microfilm from manuscript at the National Archives, Copenhagen].

Your background knowledge of Danish records and repositories is priceless. However, your personal knowledge is a different issue from (supplemental to) the citation to this filmed image.  In the citation, you identify what you used and what your provider tells you about it.  After you close out the sentence that fulfills that purpose, you are then free to start a new sentence or paragraph and add on any discussion you want to make about changes in the archival system that affect the current location of the record.

Having said all of that, let’s circle back to your first sentence:

"The FHL stores microfilm made by other archives. In the catalog, it is stated who created the microfilm and where it is stored. Is it essential to identify the creator of the film in the citation?"

Are you saying here that the Danish National Archives was the creator of the film and that it supplied a copy of that film to the Family History Library?

I’m not interpreting the cataloging data that way.  That situation does happen. The U.S. National Archives has thousands of microfilm publications that it has provided to FHL. In those cases, both the FHL cataloging data and the initial frames of the film itself will identify the U.S. National Archives microfilm publication by NA's number and title. Ditto for Library and Archives Canada.  (See, for example, the discussion here.) But in this case, neither the FHL cataloging data nor the initial frames of the film tell us that the filming was done by the Landsarkivet itself.

Elizabeth,
Thank you for your guidance.

I'll start with your last point, because it shows why I had issues with this citation. I understood the FHL cataloging information as if Landsarkivet had made the film, but of course they didn't. The microfilm number does not fit the Danish microfilm numbers, and the Danish microfilms do not have a film target in English. FHL made the film (and a copy, which is now stored at the Danish National Archives in Copenhagen).

Here's my suggestion for a full reference note (including non-citation elements) based on your comments:

Vordingborg Amt [county], Forseglings- og registreringsprotokol 1790-1808 [estate sealing and inventory record book], folio 3 recto, 19 April 1790, inventory and appraisal of the estate after Baron Wedel Jarlsberg; imaged at FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSVS-N7SN-Y : accessed 18 June 2021) > digital film 008112581 > image 8 of 424; citing "Mikrofilmet fra manuskript i Landsarkivet, København" [microfilm from manuscript at the regional archives, Copenhagen]. The regional archives no longer exist; the original records are now kept at The Danish National Archives, Copenhagen.

The catalog entry and the film target states that the creator was the two counties Vordingborg and Tryggevælde, but the title page of the manuscript (image 4) says that it was only Vordingborg, so I have only written Vordingborg in layer 1. The reason for this discrepancy is probably that the chief county administrator for Vordingborg was also the chief county administrator for Tryggevælde.

Another issue just occurred to me:
I usually shorten URLs as much as possible and FamilySearch URLs don't require anything after the question mark to reach the correct image. However, I am sure I don't use FamilySearch as much as you, so if you think stripping everything after the question mark is a bad idea, I would like to know.

Thanks again for your comments.
Lene

Submitted byEEon Sat, 06/19/2021 - 08:56

Well done, Lene. As for stripping the long URL down to everything before the question mark, I do this at most sites, including FamilySearch. However, when using a new site or a new collection at a site, I will test the stripped URL by pasting it into a different browser that will not have the page in its cache.