Sources from the Danish National Archives

Hello,

The sources held by the Danish National Archives (on- and offline) are all categorized by creator of the source ("arkivskaber") and series ("arkivserie"). For instance, the 1835 census of the population of Schleswig is categorized as follows:

Creator: Rentekammeret Danske Afdeling, Tabelkommissionen. ["Rentekammeret" was a state-level administrative unit dealing with financial matters.]

Series: Folketælling [census] 1835, Slesvig

I have often wondered whether I need to include the "arkivskaber" in the source list and reference notes or not. I have not (in EE chapter 6) found any examples of citations for census records including this information. As I see it, the element "jurisdiction" corresponds the most to the Danish "arkivskaber," however, the jurisdiction element seems to be a place (state or county) rather than the name of a state-level administrative unit.

One does not need to know the "arkivskaber" in order to find an online image from a Danish census, so in that sense it is not a necessary element. However, the "arkivskaber" is not the same for all Danish censuses, so it makes it easier to locate the desired record, if one knows the "arkivskaber."

So far I have omitted the "arkivskaber" element and constucted the reference note like this:

Folketælling 1835, Slesvig, Sønderborg Amt, Augustenborg godsdistrikt Jurisdiktion, Notmark Sogn, unpaginated, "Almsted," household 13b; digital image, <i>Rigsarkivet</i> (https://www.sa.dk : accessed 20 August 2016), path: "Arkivalieronline" -> "Folketællinger."

I have considered using deep links instead, but this website changes constantly which makes deep links useless. I therefore include a path instead. The deep link to the referenced image is https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/da/billedviser?bsid=187388#187388,31777686. Hopefully, anyone trying to find it using my citation will end up with the same image :)

Another reason for my concern is that recently, I heard that the archive intends to have its users find all digital images through the database called Daisy: https://www.sa.dk/daisy/daisy_forside. There, one can search by creator or series or both, in combination with time period. A search for series "folketælling" in period "1835-1835" provides a relatively long list of results, because the list includes results extending beyond the given period. If one searches for "Arkivskaber: Rentekammeret" and "Arkivserie: Folketælling" and period (1835-1835), the result is a much shorter list.

IMO, the reference note ought to state both the "arkivskaber" and that the "arkivserie" is "Folketælling 1835, Slesvig" so that the least possible number of results (three) show up (https://www.sa.dk/daisy/arkivskaber_og_arkivserie_liste?a=rentekammeret&b=folket%C3%A6lling+1835%2C+slesvig&d=1835&e=1835).

This issue applies to all the records from the Danish National Archives, so this 1835 census is just used as an example to make the issues more clear.

Any thoughts on this are greatly appreciated.

Lene D Kottal

 

Submitted byEEon Sun, 08/21/2016 - 14:47

Lene:

First one point should be made clear: I am not a Danish researcher. That said, we can discuss the principles of citation and then you, as the experienced Danish researcher, can make your own decisions as to what works best with the documents you are using. Ideally, other experienced Danish researchers will also weigh in on this discussion.

1. A citation typically begins with the identity of the creator of that source. This holds true whether we are dealing with an authored work, a published compilation, a governmental record, etc.

2. If the creator of a census is a "state" level government rather than a national government, then the state government is cited as the creator.

3. In addition to citing a government or agency in the "author/creator" field, our citation will also identify the archive or government agency that holds the document.

Given that "arkivskaber" means archive creator, the "categorization" given by the Danish National Archives is ambiguous to anyone who is not familiar with the history of Danish censuses. Does the DNA mean to say that the creator of the census is the state-level archive? Or does it mean to say that the creator of the catalog entry that describes the series is the state-level archive?

Or to put it another way (given the structure of the search screen at the deep link you posted), does the identity of the arkivskaber enter into consideration as a citation element only as one bread-crumb or waypoint that's needed to locate the census in this particular database?

 

Submitted byLene Kottalon Mon, 08/22/2016 - 13:53

Thank you for your input. This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for, as I am aware that I will not find many experts in Danish sources here.

1. The reference note in the QuickCheck model called Digital Images Online Commercial Site (EE chapter 6) does not begin with a creator. The source list entry begin with the jurisdiction, but the cited census (in EE) was a national census. Would Iowa then still be considered the creator? Or have I misunderstood your comment ?

2. When I wrote state-level, I meant national. We only have one state in Denmark (the sovereign state of Denmark), so that was misleading. I apologize for that.

3. The online record is cited in my example. Do I also need to cite the paper record (source of the source) and which exact department of the DNA holds that record? This information is not explicited given when accessing the online image, and some of it has to be found by finding the record in the Daisy database.

The Daisy database was made for users to find and order all records held by the DNA (which has several locations in DK). The <i>arkivskaber</i>  was the person or entity responsible for the records at the time of their creation. For instance, church books are to be found under the name of the parish (which is then the <i>arkivskaber</i>) and I would never omit the name of the parish in a church book citation, because then it would be impossible to find the correct record. In many other cases, the <i>arkivskaber</i> says nothing about the record itself, unless one knows the history behind the creation of the record - which is why I have omitted it for census records. However, knowing the <i>arkivskaber</i> makes it easier to find the record in the Daisy database.

Submitted byEEon Tue, 08/23/2016 - 11:22

Lene,

For the benefit of forum readers who do not have the 2nd edition that you cite, I'll put the example here. (That particular QCM, p. 240, is not in the current edition.)

The source list entry does, as you say, start with the jurisdiction. However, the first reference note (which is the citation format we discussed in our first round above), does not start with the jurisdiction. Two differences exist here:

  • Source List Entry: Here, the overriding need is to organize our source list efficiently, so that we can easily find a source when we need it. (See EE 2.50 Source List Arrangements: By Geographic Locale.) The U.S. government—more specifically, the United States, Bureau of the Census—is the creator of this record. Very few researchers want to organize censuses under that label. For U.S. censuses, they prefer to arrange their censuses by specific locale. Thus, the source list entry in this example begins with the locale. EE 2.51–2.53 also demonstrate other arrangements for source lists that some researchers prefer.
  • First Reference Note: Here, the identity of the creator is typically shown in the first field. In this QuickCheck Model above, that first field identifies both the creator (the United States government) and the year. We could, of course, create a census citation that begins explicitly with the name of the creator and then identify the year. For example:

United States, 1850 census, Marion County, Iowa, population schedule, etc.

However, that creates an extra field for software developers to deal with and it places the country identification before the census year, while most users—who will be citing a country's census dozens or hundreds of times within their research project—prefer to have the year first. To resolve both issues, it has become standard practice to combine the year and the creator's identity into one field: e.g., "1850 U.S. census," or "1836 Denmark census."

Now for those state-level censuses: The p. 240 QC Model that you reference is not a state-level census. The state of Iowa is not the creator. The QC Model for state-level censuses, in the 2d edition, is on p. 252 "Microfilm: State-Sponsored Censuses." Other undiagrammed examples are also at EE 6.46. You will notice that the format for the state level follows the same format used for the national census, but the wording of the "Census ID" field indicates that it's a state-level census rather than a national-level census.

 

Your last paragraph makes an important point: Different repositories handle materials in different ways. Our citations have to include the necessary data to find a record in the repository where it's housed. That's one reason why EE's chapter on Fundamentals of Citation starts off (2.1) with "Citation is an art, not a science."

Thanks for educating us all about the ongoing changes at the Danish National Archives.

Submitted byLene Kottalon Tue, 08/23/2016 - 14:10

Thank you for clarifying these issues a bit more.

I have tried to construct the reference note a bit differently:

Folketælling 1835 Slesvig, Notmark Sogn, Augustenborg godsdistrikt, Sønderborg Amt, population schedule, unpaginated, “Dorf Almstedt,” household 13b; digital image, Rigsarkivet (https://www.sa.dk/daisy/daisy_forside : accessed 19 August 2016), path: “Arkivskaber: Rentekammeret Danske Afdeling, Tabelkommissionen” and “Arkivserie: Folketælling 1835, Slesvig” -> “Søg i Daisy” -> “Folketælling 1835, Slesvig” -> “Dele af arkivserien er scannet og kan læses her;” citing original manuscript in unit no. 20 (Sønderborg Amt) of Arkivserie: Folketælling 1835, Slesvig.

I have added the source of the source, however, this is not explicitly stated anywhere. The entry in the Daisy database for this census covers both the microfilm and the originals and both are therefore referenced on the page leading to the digital images. I know that the originals were used, because I have spoken to an archivist about it and I have read about it, however, it is not stated in the Daisy database entry. Is it then acceptable that I write this? Or should I rather write that the original manuscript is not cited?

Thanks again.

Submitted byEEon Tue, 08/23/2016 - 21:23

Lene, you can add anything to your citation that you want to add, if you think it will help you or others to analyze the reliability of the information or understand the record. Typically, comments are added in a separate sentence (or more) after the citation. When we add information from personal experience or information we have gotten from an archivist or someone else, it's best to also add how we know this information—who or where we got it from.

Submitted bysuemron Sat, 08/27/2016 - 22:57

"Danmark Kirkebøger, 1484-1941," images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1971-33524-30460-69?cc=2078555 : 22 May 2014), Sorø > Slagelse > Sønderup > 3 (1816-1852) Fødte, Konfirmerede, Viede, Døde, Til- og afgangslister, Register > image 68 of 533; Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen (National Archives, Copenhagen).

 

This is the citation directly from FamilySearch

for a random page in the Danish church records.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the strengths and weakness of this citation.

I have been doing a lot of Danish research and would like to improve my citations.  I have been studying the concept of layered citations.  So I think that I understand this citation, though at first it just confused me.  I would like my citations to be easily understood by a family member who was not "into genealogy"

I think I would note that the images are digital images instead of just images.

I am wondering how necessary the naming of each record type in the register is and if just the words Parish Register would be sufficient.  

The "path" is potentially confusing to family members so I think I would (after a semi-colon)  name it Soro amt, Slagelse herred, Sonderup parish, 1816-1852, Parish Register, image 68 of 533: citing Rigsarkivet etc... 

 

Your comments are welcome.

 

Thanks,

Sue

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sue, of all the web providers who have digitized original documents (at least all those I am familiar with) FamilySearch does the best job of identifying the sources. That said, EE would tinker with this one in four ways.

1. Date. EE would specify what the date "22 May 2014" represents.  By longstanding convention, when we cite a stand-alone publication such as a book—or a website, which is the equivalent of a book—then the publication place and date are placed in parentheses. With websites, the URL is the place of publication. But the site does not always give us a date of publication. If we are given that date, then the date that follows the URL would be the publication date, posting date, or "update" date. If we are not given a date for the publication, then the date in parentheses is our date of access—telling us and our readers that the information was still published at that site on that date.  Because the date in this field could represent multiple things, we should specify what the represents, as below:

       1.  "Danmark Kirkebøger, 1484-1941," images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1971-33524-30460-69?cc=2078555 : accessed 22 May 2014), Sorø > Slagelse > Sønderup > 3 (1816-1852) Fødte, Konfirmerede, Viede, Døde, Til- og afgangslister, Register > image 68 of 533; Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen (National Archives, Copenhagen).

2. Source of the source data.  Also by long-standing tradition, when we cite original documents in an archive, semicolons are used to separate major elements of the citation, with the arrangement going from smallest element to largest—for example:

Author-creator, “Document Title,” specific page and/or date; file, collection, series; repository, city, state.

Your FS citation uses the semi-colon to separate the “layers” of the citation—i.e., Layer 1 being the data for the FS website and Layer 2 being the data for the archives that holds that original. As constructed, the FS citation implies that the FS website is a smaller part of Rigsarkivet. But it’s not. FamilySearch and Rigsarkivet are two separate things.  To clarify that for users are aren’t experienced with this source, EE would use an explanatory word or two to introduce the second layer (e.g., “citing …,” or “imaged from …,” etc.):

       1.   "Danmark Kirkebøger, 1484-1941," images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1971-33524-30460-69?cc=2078555 : accessed 22 May 2014), Sorø > Slagelse > Sønderup > 3 (1816-1852) Fødte, Konfirmerede, Viede, Døde, Til- og afgangslister, Register > image 68 of 533; citing Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen (National Archives, Copenhagen).

3. Specific item of interest.  This citation is actually a generic citation to the whole book—it identifies no specific record therein—although it’s written in “reference note” format. Two issues here:

  • On rare occasion, we might create a reference note that refers to the whole book. Normally, however, our only citation to the whole book (no specific page or entry) would be the one that appears in our bibliography (aka source list). For that, see No. 4 below.
  • Almost always, a reference note needs to identify a specific place in that book. Therefore, when using this reference note format, the standard citation would be this:

     1.   "Danmark Kirkebøger, 1484-1941," images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-33524-28913-75?cc=2078555 cc=2078555 : accessed 22 May 2014), Sorø > Slagelse > Sønderup > 3 (1816-1852) Fødte, Konfirmerede, Viede, Døde, Til- og afgangslister, Register > image 68 of 533, Register 3, p. 60, entry 4, Hans Christensen (1842); citing Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen (National Archives, Copenhagen).

4. Citing the whole source generically. When we create a source-list entry for this source, we have one of two options. If we have entries from different books in this FS database, we would want to carry a generic source-list entry for the database. If we are citing just that one book from the database, we would likely want to list that book specifically in our source list. Or we might want to do both in the source list.

To cite the website as the source:

"Danmark Kirkebøger, 1484-1941." Database with images. FamilySearch. https://familysearch.org : 2014.

To cite the specific church book as the source:

Sønderup (Sorø, Slagelse, Denmark), Kirkebøger 3, Fødte, Konfirmerede, Viede, Døde, Til- og afgangslister. Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen. Imaged in "Danmark Kirkebøger, 1484-1941," database with images, FamilySearch. https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1971-33524-30460-69?cc=2078555 : 2014.

Re your question about the use of “waypoints” or “paths” in a citation: I’ll answer this in a separate message below.

Submitted byEEon Sun, 08/28/2016 - 11:52

Use of waypoints, breadcrumbs, or paths in a citation to a complicated online database ...

Sue, you are likely correct that some users of your research will not understand the  >  symbol that is used to define the navigational path at websites such as this one. Realistically, this is a problem we face with every kind of citation. Newer researchers don't understand conventions until they learn them or until we explain them.  Ergo, we have two choices:

  • We could, as you suggest, use a different symbol or punctuation—but that would also confuse all those people who do understand the use of the standard symbol. Odds are, too, whatever other symbol or punctuation we would choose, the inexperienced researcher would still be confused by all the information in the citation—especially the non-English words.
  • We could use the standard symbol and see this as an opportunity to teach the inexperienced. smiley

EE is a strong believer in following standard practices—"rules of the road," we might call them. When we are driving and want to turn left, we use the appropriate blinker or the appropriate turn signal. We don't use a different signal that makes good sense to us but—because it's not standard—would not be understood by most people.

You have suggested the use of commas to separate those different waypoints in the FS citation.  Specifically:

Soro amt, Slagelse herred, Sonderup parish, 1816-1852, Parish Register, image 68 of 533:

Here, we need to refer back to two points made at No. 2 in my message to you above. 

  • By long-standing practice, we use semicolons to separate the major elements in a citation. Within each of those elements, we use commas to separate the individual parts of that larger element. This follows the same rules used in all writing: Items in a series, all on the same "level," are separated by commas, while items on the larger level are separated by semicolons. To apply this to the FS citation:
    • "Fødte, Konfirmerede, Viede, Døde, Til- og afgangslister, Register" are details all on the same level. They represent a register title that names similar items in a series: “Baptisms, Confirmations, Marriages, Deaths, Lists of Accession and Expuntions.”
    • “Soro amt, Slagelse herred, Sonderup parish, 1816-1852, Parish Register, image 68 of 533” are not all details on the same level. The first three are locations, at different jurisdictional levels; the next is a time frame; the next is a manuscript volume; the next is an image at a website.
  • Also by long-standing practice, U.S.-style citations and U.S.-style references to locations both start with the smallest and work up to the largest. However, the series of items that you separate with a comma do the reverse. You obviously used that arrangement because it's the arrangement used by FS in organizing its files; but peas and apples are being mixed here, without giving readers an explanation of what you're trying to do.

The elimination of the path and rewording of the waypoints raises another issue. A citation to an online database has two or three basic parts:  

  1. the identification of the database;
  2. the identification of imaged material or item of interest;
  3. the identification of the source, as given by the website. 

When we create a citation, we must be careful not to take details that belong to one part and mix it into a different part.  The path provided by FS  …

Sorø > Slagelse > Sønderup > 3 (1816-1852) Fødte, Konfirmerede, Viede, Døde, Til- og afgangslister, Register > image 68 of 533

… represents the specific labels that FS has assigned to files within its database. This is the specific data needed to locate that particular register at the FS website.  Your rephrasing eliminates the “signals” that identify this phrase as a path within that database and it alters the “official” identification of each file or subfile within that path. If we want to clarify what those words mean or substitute our own description of the location of the church that  created the register, that’s fine to do; but it should be done in a different layer that is clearly our own addition. Or better, we could cite the path appropriately and simply add a sentence that explains to the uninitiated what the path symbol means.

Returning to your phrase:

Soro amt, Slagelse herred, Sonderup parish, 1816-1852, Parish Register, image 68 of 533:

If someone goes to Soro, to the town of Slagelse and the parish of Sonderup (or to the National Archives that houses the register today) they will not find there a register in which there is an “image 68 of 533.” That image number applies only to FHL film and the FS database.  When we need to create a reference to the original parish and its register, then our citation would refer to the register name or number (in this case, register 3) and the page number in that register.

Submitted bysuemron Sun, 08/28/2016 - 18:12

Thank you for your clear and patient teaching.  This was very helpful.

I think I have one more question that relates to the bibliographic source for the specific church book.

Should there be a semicolon between the two layers? (the second layer starting with the word imaged?

 

This has been very help to my understanding of how to write a citation for databases in general.  Thank you again,

Sue

Submitted byEEon Sun, 08/28/2016 - 22:00

Sue, in bibliographic citations, a period is used to separate each major element. Reference notes are written sentence style, with commas, parentheses, and semicolons separating the major elements. It seems silly, but there's a logical explanation for the differences. I've detailed that elsewhere in the forum, in answer to someone else, so I won't go into the whole spiel again here.