Forums
I have multiple digital images of original numbered file folders. Each image contains the file folder and loose papers that are in it.
These images were supplied by the staff of the repository, sent to my cousin who then sent them to me. (He had requested them by file number.)
Example:
Edward Holehouse, 13 Febuary 1891, folder no. 2701; Overseers of the Poor Collection, loose papers in numbered paper folders, Lowell Historic Board, Lowell, Middlesex, Massachusetts; digital image supplied by staff to [cousin’s name]; supplied by [cousin’s name], 31 December 2015;
Question 1: Did I place the description of the collection “Loose papers…” in the correct place?
Question 2: Should I include the fact they were supplied by email both to my cousin and then to me?
Question 3: Do I need both layers of “supplied by”?
Question4: Did I overthink this so much I’m way off base?
Debbie, you've done well. One
Debbie, you've done well. One question that readers of your research might have (and you, as well, after your memory of this file goes cold) is this: What kind of document does "Edward Holehouse, 13 February 1891" represent? Is a document that pertains solely to him? Is it a list of some type on which he is just an entry on the list? A brief identifier of the document would help with the evaluation of your source.
As for your specific questions:
1. When we cite a document, from a file, that is in a collection, we don't have to say "loose papers in numbered paper folders" because that is what we expect from a document<file<collection citation. It does no harm for you to explicitly say this in citations you create for your working files; but it would likely be deleted by any editor working with you on a publication.
2&3. Both of these questions relate to "provenance" and the issue of how much provenance needs to be recited. The decision you made is a good one. It addresses the issue of authenticity by reciting the chain of title—and that chain is short enough to be feasible. If it had gone through a half-dozen hands before reaching us, we might debate the wisdom of naming everybody in the custodial chain. If the duplication of "supplied by" bugs you (and the issue of repetition of words and phases in close proximity does bug many good writers), you could substitute something such as "forwarded by" in the second instance.
4. No, you didn't overthink and you're not off-base.
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
First, thank you for your very quick response and de-bugging me with “forwarded by”.
These records contain so much information they are a genealogist dream.
The definition according to the Greater Lowell Genealogy Club:
"The Overseers of the Poor office was responsible for dispersing aid to the poor of Lowell. This collection consists of 6000+ individual files of people who applied for aid, ranging from transportation money to burials of the poor. The family history information contained in these files is extensive and often chronicle the complete travel history of many who came to Lowell looking for work." - Lowell City Hall Archives
It also contains birth/death/marriage names, dates, and locations, parents, in-laws children, and more.
That being said let me try this:
Edward Holehouse, 13 February 1891, folder no. 2701, [extensive family history, chronicled travel history, and reason aid was requested]; Overseers of the Poor Collection, Lowell Historic Board, Lowell, Middlesex, Massachusetts; digital image supplied by staff to [cousin’s name]; forwarded by [cousin’s name], 31 December 2015.
Thank you again,
Debbie
Debbie, what a wonderful
Debbie, what a wonderful collection! If I understand you correctly, there is a file with the name "Edward Holehouse," right? Is that date (13 February 1891) on the file label also? If not, given that you are specifying that date, then what we need to add is the identity of the specific document that carries that date.
The name and the date are
The name and the date are both on the file label and within the file listed at the initial application date.
Thank you
Debbie