Digital Images from Archives.gov

By cwhermann28 on Wed, 02/02/2022 - 21:37

Forums

I am citing a digital image of a microfilm publication available from the Archives.gov website. The images were digitized by The Genealogical Society and are also availbe on the FamilySearch website, but the quality of the image from the Archives website is better.

If I were siting the image from Family Search, I would use a three layer citation with:

  • Layer 1 citing the document
  • Layer 2 citing the website
  • Layer 3 citing the source of the source

Looking at EE 11.11 pages 570-571 for online images: U.S. National Archives  -  they site the entire website as an online publication, including a location.  The one difference that I noted was the NA Identifier in the example takes you to a digital image, but the digital image is not from a microfilm publication.  Since the microfilm itself is a publication, is it necessary to site the website as a publication. In my case, the website seems more like a repository.  Also, the full citations in the examples are much longer and include a lot of information that someone would only need if they wanted to look at the microfilm at the specific National Archives location where housed.

Is there a reason I could not cite these using the same format I would use for any other online digital image such as:

Idaho, Tract Books, v 18, p 197; see Township 37 N, Range 4 W, Sec13, Wm. N. Gibb, May 13, 1878; browsable images, National Archives Catalog (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/206216503 : downloaded, 1 February 2022), NA Identifier 206216503 > image 99 of 699; imaged from microfilm publication M1620, reel 17.

Even with this citation I have a several questions:

  1.  Both Ancestry and FamilySearch typically just site the microfilm publication in their "source of the source", but do I need to include the Record Group and Series information as the source of the microfilm publication.
  2. Do I need to include the National Archives Location (in this case College Park, MD) in the citation.
  3. They way points I provided take you to the image, but if you download the image, it opens up in a different window with a different URL.  For consistency, since I noted I "downloaded" instead of "accessed", should this be the URL I provide.

Thank you for your assistance and guidance,

Curt

Submitted byEEon Thu, 02/03/2022 - 09:24

Well, that’s a switch! Usually, researchers cite NARA microfilm used at the FamilySearch site. This time, we have FamilySearch microfilm used at NARA’s site.

The simplest way to cite the essentials would be a two-layer citation:

  • Layer 1: cite the database and website (see black text, below);
  • Layer 2: cite the database’s source-of-the-source data (see red text).

“Original Idaho Tract Books: Volume 18: T31-49N R3–4W (continued): Latah, Lewis, Nez Perce Thru Volumes 20: T 41–50N R 1–2E; Benewah, Clearwater, Kootenai, Latah & Shoshone,” National Archives Catalog (https://catalog.archives,gov/id/206216503 : accessed 3 February 2022) > image 99, Wm. N. Gibb, May 13, 1878, W ½ NW ¼ & Fr½ SW¼ S14 T37N R4W S14, Home. Cert. 299; citing NA Identifier 206216503, imaged from NARA microfilm publication M1620, Federal Land Records for Idaho, 1860–1934 (1989?), roll 17, filmed by Genealogical Society of Utah  from Series: Federal Land Records for Idaho, 1989?–1989?, RG 64: Records of the National Archives and Records Administration.

Now, to think through the differences between your draft and the above:

Layers:

Your citation actually has four layers:

Idaho, Tract Books, v 18, p 197; see Township 37 N, Range 4 W, Sec13, Wm. N. Gibb, May 13, 1878; browsable images, National Archives Catalog (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/206216503 : downloaded, 1 February 2022), NA Identifier 206216503 > image 99 of 699; imaged from microfilm publication M1620, reel 17.

In a layered citation, each layer is separated by a semicolon. That semicolon signals a switch from one item to another. In the format you have used, you have bifurcated the citation to the original record. The data in your second layer is actually part of layer 1 in which tells the reader “see Book 18, p. 197, Wm. N. Gibb’s land described as …”

Title of volume:

You begin by citing the volume: “Idaho, Tract Books, v18, p. 197.” However,

  • the images published at the site you use do not display the title of the volume. The title you’ve assigned is a shortened form of the NA database title, but federal-level tract books can’t be identified that simply. They’re not like a small series at a courthouse. 
  • In shortening the title, do not omit the word “Original.” If NA includes that word in it's title, it's essential. The word is there for a reason. Tract books come in both original form and transcribed form. Sometimes there are numerous different transcriptions or revised versions, with the transcribed volumes and revisions having the appearance of being an original. That word “Original” indicates which series (or sub-series) at NA is being used.

Citing Land Descriptions:

In public land states, the legal land description is usually cited in this order: fraction, section, township, range—i.e., smallest to largest.

When we cite from a tract book or a BLM-GLO database entry, we need to include the fraction of the section, the certificate number, and the type of entry (if given).  A buyer may have multiple entries, for different purchases, at different times—each of which is in a different file of a different series depending upon the law under which the land was purchased.

Yes, this makes for a woefully long citation. With citations to material at NA, there’s almost no way around this.

Citing NA identifier

“NA Identifier 206216503” is not actually a waypoint on your path for this citation. You’ve given the exact URL for the volume (the URL includes the identifier number). Once we use the URL, we do not then have to look for and choose a link called "NA Identifier 206216503."  NA does like for us to include the number. In a citation without a string of waypoints, the proper place would be in the last layer where we cite our provider’s source.

Your Questions:

  1. Should you cite the Record Group and series? EE 11.8 goes into considerable detail on the difficulty and/or necessity of citing materials by NA’s archival structure when using images rather than the actual record. Under most circumstances, it is risky. When we are citing NA’s online catalog and that catalog gives us a citation to a specific series and record group, we may confidently include that in the “citing …” layer; but it is not essential to the identification of the record, if we cite the NA Identifier Number. In the suggested citation above, I have included it, but the citation could easily stop where the boldface stops in that layer.
  2. See Point 1, just addressed.
  3. Give that the URL you cited allows browsing of images, but if you click “download” it opens into a new page with a different URL, should you cite the URL where you view the image or the special download URL?  Cite the URL where it is accessed. The download mechanism can easily change.

Submitted bycwhermann28on Thu, 02/03/2022 - 22:33

Thank you.  The conversion from the 3 layer to 4 layer was a typo on my part, but even with that corrected, it does not address the other points you raised.

"the images on the site do not display the title of the book".  Lesson learned: I originally found the images on FamilySearch.  Volume 18 is one item on a DGS and their images do display the title/cover of the book.  When I found the images on this NARA site, I was looking for the page/item of interest, saw the title card, but did not check and did not review the entire set of images to confirm they were identical between the two sites.

Because the title of the book does not contain the word "original", I left it off my citation.  The notes for the collection on FamilySearch does note the images are from the tract books kept at the land offices.  Other collections of tract books on FamilySearch note they are images from the tract books kept by Bureau of Land Management in Washington D.C.  I had planned to address this in an annotation to the citation.  I do not know if NARA has the BLM tract books in there possession so I assumed use of the word original was their way of noting these images are from books maintained at the land offices.

But falling back on

cite what I have in my hand and where it came from

there is no way someone is going to find the title/binding for these volumes at National Archives website and therefore I see the value in citing the set of images as a publication.

As a side note - to complicate things even more, I need to cite the BLM tract books (imaged at FamilySearch) for the exact same land parcel because their record, which at first glance looks identical, also has a couple of notes regarding dates of cancelled applications that are important to my research.

Thanks again for your guidance and explanations.

Submitted byEEon Fri, 02/04/2022 - 08:16

"Their record, which at first glance looks identical, also has a couple of notes regarding dates of cancelled applications that are important to my research."

That is indeed the important lesson to be learned from the great example that you raised, cwherman.