Forums
I need some guidance on a citation for burial slips and index cards I received from a genealogical research office of Green-Wood Cemetery. I've reviewed Chapter 5 of EE and think that section 5.8 applies. However, I am unclear about to whom the "submitted by E.B. Laughlin, Inc., 13 May 1983," refers. Is this the company who submitted the interment information and the date they did that?
Here is what I've come up with after reading and re-reading Chapter 5:
Green-Wood Cemetery, Genealogical Research Office (Brooklyn, New York), burial slip and index card for Albert Pastoor (1911), no. 354015; 24 May 2013. Citing Lot no. 14964, section no. 134-135, grave no. 268.
In this case, the only information I have about the who submitted this is the undertaker's name so I was trying to decide if I should add "submitted by Henry J. Ford, Undertaker," but the only dates listed are dates of death and interment, not submission.
Am I missing anything? The date just standing alone seems unclear. Do you have any suggestions?
Thank you.
Hiztorybuff
Hiztorybuff, you are right.
Hiztorybuff, you are right. At 5.8 "Orders for Interment (Burial Permits, Transit Permits, Etc.)," E. B. Laughlin, Inc., is the name of the company that submitted the order for burial, together with the date of submission. As explained in the first sentence at 5.8: "The operators of modern cemeteries typically require mortuary firms to submit a formal order for interment."
However, the details you give from the document suggest that you may be citing the cemetery's own card file/slip rather than a document created by an outside source. If so, the cemetery office's cards would be more akin to 5.7 or the QuickCheck Model on p. 209.
You also write:
The date just standing alone seems unclear. Do you have any suggestions?
Typically, when we cite a dated document, we identify the document and cite its creation date immediately after it. That position silently says: This document (letter, form, application, whatever) was created on this particular date.
If you are indeed citing a slip from the cemetery's card file, then the card is not likely to indicate the exact date it was created. In that case, when you cite the date, it would be appropriate to add a word or a few words to say what the date represents.
Yes, the document I am citing
Yes, the document I am citing is the cemetery's own index card and burial slip, and is undated except for the dates of death and interment. So, in using EE's 5.7 model, would it be more appropriate to cite "undated index card" or "4 Apr 1911, date of interment." Would you cite both the date of death and date of interment? I'm thinking the dates are not relevant in this case, except maybe the year, since the index card is filed by year and surname.
So my new citation would look like:
Green-Wood Cemetery (Brooklyn, New York), index card for Albert Pastoor (1911), citing lot 14964, grave 268, section 134-135.
Thank you.
Hiztorybuff
>Would you cite both the date
>Would you cite both the date of death and date of interment?
The basic principle here, Hiztorybuff, is that the citation identifies what is needed to locate or understand the record. The content of the record, typically, is more appropriately included in our narrative or our research note, rather than the citation.
I wanted to add that I
I wanted to add that I decided to cite the burial slip and the index card separately since they were two separate items. My citation for the burial slip is:
Green-Wood Cemetery, Genealogical Research Office (Brooklyn, New York), burial slip no. 354015, citing Albert Pastoor, lot 14964, section 134-135, grave 268.
I forgot to add the office to the index card citation. I cited the lot, section and grave in different orders since they appeared in different orders on both documents, but I'm thinking that the grave being the "smallest," it should be last.
Good thinking, Hiztorybuff.
Good thinking, Hiztorybuff. It's always best to identify exactly what we're using. If we rely upon data from two different items, then we identify the two different items and link each to the data that came from that particular item. And, yes, your order of elements works well.
I recently contacted three
I recently contacted three cemeteries regarding burial information about a single individual, but all three responded with an offer to supply information on all individuals buried in the same and adjacent lots. This resulted in the arrival of three 9 x 12 envelopes with copies (extracts) and photocopies of records for between twelve and twenty-two individuals, each. Here is my question:
For citation purposes, would you treat these as multiple, individual documents from the burial records of the cemetery, or would you treat the documents as a page of correspondence from the cemetery? Please ask me to elaborate if you do not understand my question.
Paul,
Paul,
You sure hit a bonanza, record-wise. As for how to cite them, when you say a "page" of correspondence, are you referring to EE 5.6 ("Correspondence with Extracts")? The examples uses a case in which an office responded with a letter that simply extracted or abstracted data into the letter itself. It did not provide attachments or image copies of anything, as in your case. That was indeed a one-page bit of correspondence.
In your case, you have multiple documents attached to the correspondence. The basic citation is the same. You'll begin by citing the correspondence in standard form for correspondence. In the 5.6 example, that basic citation is this:
1. Woodlawn Cemetery Office (Everett, Massachusetts) to Katherine E. Flynn, letter, 24 May 2002, providing .....
After the word "providing," you would identify whatever it is the office provided that you are using as the evidence for your own assertion: an image of X, a transcript of Y, or an abstract of Z.
With this approach, your Source List has one item, regardless of however many attachments there may be. When you need to cite one attachment, you cite the basic source (the correspondence), then add the details for that first attachment. When you need to cite another attachment, you use the same process.
Thank you for the referral to
Thank you for the referral to 5.6, which I never would have found without it. Most appreciative of your help. My only dilemma now is how to file the source documents. I tend to file DOCUMENTS by jurisdiction, type, then event date. If I file each extract in this manner, then the correspondence grouping falls apart, unless I use copies. If I file by correspondence, then I don't find the cemetery records where I EXPECT to find them. I know, quit whining and start processing the records.
Thanks, again,
Paul