Forums
Before the NGS Family History Conference, I visited the Indiana State Archives for the first time. I dutifully photographed the label on the box, the label on the folder, and the item within. After re-reading Chapter 4 of EE4, I thought I knew what elements go in each layer. But the label and its online index for the item have me stymied. There may be more items on the label that I don't need, or perhaps I'm not understanding the items.
The item is a service card for Joseph H. McFall of the Indiana National Guard in 1898. It is the only item in the folder, and the box has many folders, arranged alphabetically.
The indexed reference for the card is here: https://researchindiana.iara.in.gov/DigitalRecords/Detail.html?WORK_FILENAME=NDX00123&WORK_RECORD_ID=37223.
My attempt at a citation is:
Service card for Joseph H. McFall, 24 Apr 1898; Indiana National Guard Service Records 1898-1940, Adjutant General, Acc.no. 2007266, Box 340; Indiana State Archives, Indianapolis.
Service card for Joseph H…
Ah, yes, Lisa. The online description of records at state and national archives do, too-frequently, differ from what we see when we use the original documents.
First, let’s address the issue of citing the original that you actually used—starting with basic principles for citing manuscript collections. There is one fundamental point that is repeated in all EE chapters that deal with manuscript collections. Here are two of the instances:
EE4 §3.15 Manuscripts Held by a Formal Archives in the United States:
“Manuscripts held by a formal archive in the United States call for citations that begin with the smallest element ... and then progress to the largest element (the archive and its location).” [Internationally: largest down to smallest.]
EE4 §4.3 (Archival Arrangements) International Differences:
“United States: Reference Note citations typically start with the smallest element in the citation (the specific item) and work up to the largest (the archive and its location).” [Internationally: largest down to smallest.]
EE4 §4.1 is also important. It identifies and describes the various levels that, in U.S. order, would go from small to large (hence my use of lesser-than symbols below):
DOCUMENT < FILE < COLLECTION < SUB-SERIES < SERIES < RECORD GROUP < ARCHIVE, LOCATION
Against this foundation, let’s consider your suggested citation, in which I’ll color the different level of info to separate them:
Service card for Joseph H. McFall, 24 Apr 1898; Indiana National Guard Service Records 1898-1940, Adjutant General, Acc.no. 2007266, Box 340; Indiana State Archives, Indianapolis.
Essentially, the progression you followed shifts back-and-forth from the less-than direction to the greater-than direction, then back to lesser-than:
document < collection < record group > collection no. > file/box < archive, location
The order should be
document < file/box < collection name: collection no. < record group < archive, location
Put another way, documents are in files, which are in collections, which are in record groups, which are in archives.
So, to cite the original service card (with red semi-colons separating the four layers), we’d end up with this:
Service card for Joseph H. McFall, 24 Apr 1898; Box 340, Indiana National Guard Service Records, 1898-1940: accession no. 2007266; Papers of the Adjutant General's Office; Indiana State Archives, Indianapolis.
Now, let’s address the issue from the standpoint of those who use the online resource to which you pointed. As you know, if we cite this, we are not citing the service card. We are citing an online database. In that database, the data-entry clerks took details off the service card and typed them in. Hopefully, they did so correctly, but we have no guarantee of that.
That, of course, makes a major difference between citing the original card and citing the database. If an error exists in the database, online users would not notice it—until and unless we actually use the card or someone who has used the card challenges us with different information.
Following EE’s basic principle that
an Evidence Style citation would cite the database at the website. Then the citation would say that the database and website are “citing [thus-and-such].” The result would be this:
“Indiana Archives Digital Index to Records: Category: Military,” Indiana Archives and Records Administration (https://www.in.gov/iara/services-for-public/search-archives-holdings/indiana-archives-digital-index-records/ : 28 June 2025) > “Joseph McFall,” Marion County, extract from service card; citing Box 340, Indiana National Guard 1898-1940: Accession No. 2007266, Adjutant General [Papers], Indiana State Archives, Indianapolis.
Note that I put “Joseph McFall” in quotation marks. When I queried for Joseph H. McFall, or Joseph H McFall, I got no results. I had to drop the middle initial from the query to get a result. Even though the database entry has a middle initial in the “middle name” field, the query form allows only for first name and last name.
One last issue that may hark back to your original question:
When we look at the database entry for Joseph H. McFall at the URL you gave ...
… we’re given a series of fields that are not in logical sequence. My first reaction, when I saw the “accession” number in the next-to-last field, was to wonder what exactly was accessioned under that number: Was it the previously named “Sub-Type” (aka collection) or was it the agency records itself?
To answer this question, I queried the archive website for the accession number and found this:
Here we are told that the Service Records of the Adjutant General’s Office were accessioned under that number. Thus, in the citation to the original card, I attached the accession number to that collection name that you copied off the box, rather than the record group name. The record group may have a different number of its own.