Issues citing the Norwegian Census

By History-Hunter on Mon, 09/05/2022 - 16:15

Forums

Issues citing the Norwegian Census

I have found the entry for Ole Arnesen in the 1865 census of Norway. I believe I have correctly adapted the basic format for a census, but wonder how to handle the location designator within the imaged Norwegian census book. That number, while sequential and unique, seems to be neither a true folio number nor a true page number. It appears to have been added to maintain order during digitizing. Would the following be a reasonable method of handling this?

1865 census of Norway, Brandval, Hedmark, “Specialliste over Folketallet” [population census], list no. 3a, Brandvold “Præstgjeld” [parish], Brandvold “sogn” [local parish], Gjølstad og Lepengen “Skoledistrikt” [school district], 66 [penned sheet label], Fosbraaten (325e) [farm], Ole Arnesen (70) household; imaged, National Archives of Norway, Scanned Archives (https://www.digitalarkivet.no/ft20090721660532 : downloaded 5 September 2022), item 64 of 177. Local ref: Genealogy__Arnesen_(Ole)__FE__CENS_1865-00-00__001.

Note: The above URL points to the title page of the imaged census book and the item number indicates the image number of the document referenced in the first layer. I chose to use "item" rather than "image" to avoid any confusion, since "imaged" was previously used as a "bridge-word". The last sentence is my own file reference for the downloaded image.

Submitted byEEon Tue, 09/06/2022 - 09:03

 

Hello, History-Hunter.

I agree with you that the penmanship of the circled number does not seem to be the original penmanship of the enumerator.  I also see that there are two sets of numbers on each double-wide page. In each top left corner is a numbering scheme that applies only to the district. In each top right corner is a circled number that paginates the entire bound book.

At that point (being a U.S. based researcher), I ask myself: How does this differ from the stamped numbers and penned numbers that I’m accustomed to working with on U.S. censuses?

The situation is the same. More often than not, there’s a penned number that applies to the bundle of pages each enumerator created, or (for 1880 and later censuses) each enumeration district. Then there’s a stamped number that’s added by the Census Bureau when it collated the pages from multiple districts into one single book. That seems to be the same situation here.

Ergo, I’d treat this circled number the same way I’d treat a stamped number, as discussed at EE 6.8.

Incidentally, in studying the imaged source, I noticed one thing you might want to tweak:  Your citation basically follows the standard order from largest to smallest:

"1865 census of Norway, Brandval, Hedmark, “Specialliste over Folketallet” [population census], list no. 3a, Brandvold “Præstgjeld” [parish],

In other words:

Year & Country > municipality, county > type of census > List No. > parish >

Within this schemata, you are telling users to look for “List 3” and then, from List 3, select “Brandvold Præstgjeld.” 

Image 4 of the filmed book shows a list (“contents”) that seems to correspond. It’s labeled “Mainlist for Brandvold Præstægjld,” under which there is a “3 a,b” that’s identified as “Gjølstad and Lepengen.”

In other words: following the heirarchy stated in the book, then List 3a (Gjølstad and Lepengen) is a subset of  Brandvold Præstægjld, rather than Brandvold Præstægjld being a subset of List 3, no?

That you for the feedback and the reference relating to my question on the penned numbers.

I see that I made an error in the penned page number in the image. It should be 73, not 66. My sincere apologies.

In addition to "item" number, the website has the ability to select images by what they label "Side" [tr.: "Page"]. In the parish registers of the same website, this page number is typically identical to the penned page number in the associated image. In the census records, it is not always so. The website page is 64 and the penned number is 73. So; by following EE 6.8, I hope that the citation reader will understand that "p. 73 (penned)" refers to what is on the image. If the reader understands the EE layered concept and sees that the page number is in the layer pertaining to the image, I would expect that they should interpret it correctly.

The issue with the order also bothered me, since I am still trying to figure out the curiously intertwined ecclesiastical and political divisional hierarchy in Norway. As suggested, both possible lists (3a & 3b) for the "Gjølstad and Lepengen" school-district would appear to be within Brandvold "Præstægjld" [parish]. My concern is whether they are also both within Brandvold “sogn” [local parish]. I will need to ask one of my Norwegian colleagues about this and adjust accordingly. That said; I do understand your point. Thank you.

History-Hunter, one clarification.

In the section of the volume you are using, there are two numbering schemes going on. Both are "penned." In the U.S. census example I used, where two systems were in use, one was penned and one was stamped. Therefore, saying "penned" or "stamped" is appropriate to specify which numbering system we are using.

In your case, both are penned. Therefore, saying "penned number" accomplishes nothing. In such cases, we look for other characteristics that distinguish one from another.  In this case, there are two distinctions:

  • One number appears at upper left; one appears at upper right.
  • One number is circled; the other is not.

The clearest, simplest way to specify which "page 73" you are referencing would be to say p. 73 (circled).

I've determined that the school-district is a subset of the local parish. I hope you don't mind my wanting to post  what I now have in order to "finish off" the post.

I believe the following would be an EE-compliant version of the citation. Note that, due to my vast number of references to various collections within the National Archives of Norway site, I have chosen to keep the source list entry quite general.

First Reference Note: 1865 census of Norway, Brandval [municipality], Hedmark [county], "Specialliste over Folketallet" [population census], Brandvold "Præstgjeld" [parish], Brandvold "sogn" [local parish], list 3a (Gjølstad og Lepengen "Skoledistrikt" [school district]), p. 73 (penned), Ole Arnesen (70) household; imaged, National Archives of Norway, Scanned Archives (https://www.digitalarkivet.no/ft20090721660532 : downloaded 5 September 2022), item 64 of 177. Local ref: Genealogy__Arnesen_(Ole)__FE__CENS_1865-00-00__001.

Subsequent Note: 1865 census of Norway, Brandval, Hedmark, pop. cens., Brandvold, Brandvold, list 3a (Gjølstad og Lepengen), p. 73 (penned), Ole Arnesen (70) household.

Source List Entry: National Archives of Norway. Scanned Archives. https://media.digitalarkivet.no/en : 2022.

History-Hunter, one last point. I meant to comment upon it in our first round, but didn't. Your first reference note contains source-of-the-source data after the citation to the website.  However, you put it in a separate sentence. Doing that is a signal that it's a different source--i.e., that you're citing two different sources in that note, each in its own sentence. EE would take that "Local Ref" number that the website provides and place it immediately after the identification of the website, prefaced by "citing ..."

. . . ; imaged, National Archives of Norway, Scanned Archives (https://www.digitalarkivet.no/ft20090721660532 : downloaded 5 September 2022), item 64 of 177; citing Local ref: Genealogy__Arnesen_(Ole)__FE__CENS_1865-00-00__001.

Actually; Genealogy__Arnesen_(Ole)__FE__CENS_1865-00-00__001, is my own filing reference for material relating to the noted citation. It is not something that the National archives cited. I believe I mentioned this at the bottom of my initial post.

Thanks for clarifying. I did not interpret it that way. I did notice that you put it in a separate sentence--which in citation language, means a different source. Given that some archives use "Local Ref. No." for their own ID, the phrase "Personal File No." might be clearer to users of your citation.  In either event, EE would suggest making it the last layer in your citation rather than a separate sentence.