Citing image sets of monument and gravesite photos

By History-Hunter on Sun, 10/15/2023 - 12:23

Forums

When I take photographs of monuments, I typically take a set of photographs that show any surfaces bearing inscriptions and also any foot stones etc. Multiple burials are often noted on the same monument (and associated foot stones). So; I really want to maintain and cite the photographs as a set. I should note that the cemetery in the examples is a bit odd, since it is legally comprised of three sub-cemeteries.

How can one best capture this in an EE-style citation?

Here is one possible option, based on the conventional monument situation examples..

1.   St. John’s Merivale Cemetery (1876 Merivale Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) monument photographs, Pinecrest Cemetery section, Thomas Baird Murison and J. Albert T. Gauthier families, personally read & photographed by [PHOTOGRAPHER], 22 April 2017; photographs privately held by [PHOTOGRAPHER], [ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE], 2017. This set of four (4) colour photographs (set 20170422, frame 150140, 150208, 151735 & 151755) shows inscriptions for; Thomas Baird Murison (1888–1958), wife Ruby Louise Wells (1901–1972), son T. Craig (1924–1960), son Donald D. (1932–1985), daughter Hilda E. Murison (1921–2003) and J. Albert T. Gauthier (1926–1999).

However; I wonder if emphasizing the set as a collection-artifact might actually be a "cleaner" solution for sets I've taken myself.

1.   [PHOTOGRAPHER], St. John’s Merivale Cemetery (1876 Merivale Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) monument photographs, Pinecrest Cemetery section, Thomas Baird Murison and J. Albert T. Gauthier families, 22 April 2017; privately held by [PHOTOGRAPHER], [ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE], 2017. This set of four (4) colour photographs (set 20170422, frame 150140, 150208, 151735 & 151755) shows inscriptions for; Thomas Baird Murison (1888–1958), wife Ruby Louise Wells (1901–1972), son T. Craig (1924–1960), son Donald D. (1932–1985), daughter Hilda E. Murison (1921–2003) and J. Albert T. Gauthier (1926–1999).

 The two options are of similar content and length, but the latter arrangement makes more sense to me.

Submitted byEEon Mon, 10/16/2023 - 11:29

History-Hunter, this is exactly why EE's "Fundamentals of Citation" chapter begins with the statement that citation is an art, not a science.  Either of your approaches would work. Both meet the two criteria for a citation that I invoked in my response to spcchap earlier this morning (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/node/2200):

At the most basic level, a citation has two purposes:

  1. Location: Identify the source so that others can find it.
  2. Evidence analysis: Identify your source well enough that you (or others) will understand what you used and its evidentiary strengths and weaknesses.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Mon, 10/16/2023 - 15:01

Thank you for your feedback.

I think I'll use the second example. It "seems" to better reflects how I file the numerous cemetery photo-sets I've taken.