Printing Sweden (and Finland)

This week I have, to my surprise (and probably yours) made a small start on the hunt for my Scandinavian ancestors. I printed out family group sheets for all the ancestors on the Swedish side of my family. There are over 50 family groups sheets now placed in alphabetical order in a binder I found in the basement. 


How do I already have over 50 family in my Family Tree Maker database? Because in 1980 a cousin, Torkel Nordstom, published a genealogy of his ancestors in Släkt och Hävd (read a smidgen more here). Ages ago I entered in much of this information into an earlier incarnation of FTM, which means none of it is properly cited. Although I'm not sure this matters because I know exactly where I got the information and we have a copy of the journal. One reason for this particular ancestor-hunting project, is to see if Torkel "got it right" and to see if I can find more than he could since so much of the data is now available on-line.


Those of you who have been with this blog since the beginning might remember that I had planned to digitize most of my data and use Microsoft OneNote (here and here). I do still like that idea, but this project has a time limit - I purchased a three-month subscription to ArkivDigital. Therefore, I thought writing things down on paper might be better than switching screens and cutting and pasting on the computer. Only time will tell if this judgement was correct.


One thing that surprised me when printing out the group sheets is how many of my presumed ancestors lived in Finland. I knew at least one family had ended up there, but I had forgotten it was so many. These ancestors are likely Swedish though, and not Finnish as there was much Swedish emigration to Finland. Additionally, Sweden was a big fish in the European pond in the 17th century and had influence everywhere. At least this is what I remember from reading The Concise History of Sweden (read the post here)


And just to round out this virtual tour of Scandinavia, here is a post from Randall Stephens, an historian at Eastern Nazarene College on his recent adventures in Norway. Stephens is currently a Fulbright Roving Scholar in American Studies in Norway.

Sorting Saturday - What do I do with THIS?

What do I do with this stuff?

Earlier this week I sat down on the floor in my office with my last paper genealogy files piles up next to me. One was 'misc,' another was photocopies of most of my Mamaw's notes and then there was one each for my four main family lines: Epperson, Hood, Nordstrom and Eldridge.

I with the 'misc' folder and it was mostly information on libraries I hadn't been to in over a decade or articles that I could find on the internet.  The old library information went into recycle pile and the articles went into 'find on the internet' pile. That was the easy part.

The family folders were a bit more complicated. There were bits and bobs that weren't need anymore and so joined the library pamphlets in the recycle bin. There was a small collection of handwritten notes, that were put in yet another pile, 'to be typed.'  But what about all the other stuff? There are copies of emails, correspondence, funeral cards, newspaper clippings, my grandmother's hand-written family tree, church bulletins, photocopies from books, copies of death certificates from the Ohio Historical Society, and Christmas cards. Oh, and of course, my copies of Mamaw's notes need to be kept too.

It makes sense to scan the pages I've photocopies from books and then add them to the 'digital documents' folder on my hard-drive. But what about the ephemera and correspondence? I mean I can't simply throw away the funeral card for my papaw or the church bulletin announcing the birth of my sister's first child.  If I scan the copies of ancient emails, do I need to keep the paper copies too? I mean the 'e' stands for electronic, it wasn't originally paper in the first place. Do I need to keep photocopies of newspaper articles?  I suppose, I'll have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Scan and keep or scan and toss.

As for Mamaw's papers and the funeral cards and such, I think it makes sense to scan it all. A digital copy will make it easier to find and share the information. Digital copies can also be put in my OneNote family notebook.

It sounds so easy, doesn't it. And scanning is easy; just not very exciting. Then after everything is scanned I can store all of the originals in an archival box.

But what do I do with the funeral card for one of my favorite professors from college or the one for the mother of a friend from college who recently died? They aren't my family and don't fit readily into one of my family files. But they are part of my history. Do they get scanned? Stored in a separate file or in the Epperson file? Should I attach a note?

It's all such a muddle. Organizing isn't nearly as much fun as searching through the census on a microfilm reader. And in the meantime my 'to type' file has been sitting on the desk, taunting me.

Citations – The Historian’s Perspective



Citations aka Footnotes



Recent postings on the subject of citations (here, here and here) reminded me that at the APG in Knoxville, I had encountered, if not members of the “cult of citations,” then people who believed  Evidence Explained was something akin to a sacred text.

To paraphrase the encounter.  Commenter one:  “You must use Evidence Explained to cite your sources.”  Me: “What on earth for? I wrote an entire PhD dissertation without Evidence Explained.” Commenter two: “Because genealogists use sources that historians don’t.”  Me (in my head): “What in the world do you people think historians do?”

I have since become aware that arguing about citations seems to be something of an amateur sport in genealogical circles. In academic history debating interpretations of the past can become a blood sport, but I have never heard anyone fuss about where the commas go.

Historians live and breathe footnotes. We too want to cite our sources accurately.  We also know that footnotes are one of the best way to find new sources, whether primary or secondary. We like to check up on how other scholars use sources. Footnotes are also a receptacle for all sorts of extraneous information that while interesting didn’t quite fit in the text of the book or article.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like doing citations any more than the next person. They are tedious and boring (but less so than in past; more on that anon), but necessary. In my personal notes and drafts, I created my own idiosyncratic system and I would imagine most of my colleagues have done the same. When it comes time to submit our work for examination or publication, we simply identify the format required and get on with it.

But why do historians just do them?

In part, I believe it’s because we see the actual citation as part of a larger footnoting process as described above.  It is the information in the citation that is important, not the order in which it is presented. Only when too many works are cited incorrectly or cite the wrong page number or archive, will I start to question the quality of the research and analysis itself.  One incorrect citation out of 400 may irritate me (if I even notice) but won’t affect my opinion of the work as a whole.

Academics also seem more aware that there are MANY different citation formats. While we are not unconcerned with where the commas go, we know that if you use one citation format for one journal, it could be different for the next one.  So we are concerned with adhering to the format required by an examination committee or publisher. 

The main citation formats for humanities disciplines are the Chicago Style, Turabian, or MLA.  Many schools in the UK request the Modern Humanities Research Association (MHRA) format. Professional journals often have their own preferred format. The main difference, as far as citation formats, is  whether it is (parenthetical), like the MLA or footnotes/endnotes¹ like Chicago, Turabian or MHRA.  After this significant distinction the only differences are really in what order the information goes and where to place what punctuation.

Keeping track of sources a well as creating the footnotes and the bibliography can be problematic, even for academics, especially beginning ones who are just learning the sources commonly used in their field. 

Luckily, I went to graduate school when this process was becoming, well, almost easy.  Why? Because of software. Reference. Manager. Software. It is like manna from heaven. I purchased Endnote 5 while doing my PhD (they are now up to version X4), and it was the best $100 I spent. Many of my friends did footnotes the old fashioned way and seemed much more stressed over this aspect of their work than I did. Citation software is a combination of a relational database and formatting software. You input the source data and it will format it into footnotes for almost any type of document you can think of. If you need to change your citation style, you click a button and it will do all the work.

Another excellent feature is that Endnote can connect to most library systems.  Why is this good? Use the search feature to find your book and then Endnote will download the entry from the library into your database. This alleviates the burden of data entry, at least for books; you will still have to enter manuscript data by hand.

Endnote can be integrated with MS Word to create your footnotes and bibliography. However, it cannot, to the best of my knowledge, be integrated with any of the genealogy software out there. I would imagine that with some clever cutting and pasting, you could format the citation in Word and then copy it into your genealogy program. I’m not sure if these programs could be better integrated; I suppose it could be a topic of conversation with developers at next year’s RootsTech.

The makers of Endnote have been constantly improving and adding features to the program and it may have more bells and whistles than a genealogist may want. But, fear not, there are other programs, many of which are free.  I have only used Endnote, so I cannot comment on any other program. The footnoteMaven has a brief post about Noodlebib here. Comparisons of some of the more widely used programs can be found here and here.

Zotero - this one is from the Center for New Media & History at George Mason University.

RefWorks

Son of Citation Machine

Cite U Like

Noodlebib

Another good source for all things writing is the Online Writing Lab at Purdue. Visit their Chicago Style page.

Citing your sources is critical, if only to remind yourself where you found something. The format is probably immaterial if no one but you will see it.  If you are going to share your data with others who may not be familiar with the books, documents and archives used for the type of family research you do, you probably ought to use one of the standard citation formats. But it doesn't really matter which one, just pick one and be consistent.

Happy Citation-ing!

Sorting Saturday - The Things You Can Find on the Internet

Okay, hands up. Who, among you out there, thought that I just wouldn't be able do any more organizing this week or perhaps ever? Well, I'm happy to tell all the naysayers, that I got through not just one skinny folder, but two. However, honesty compels me to admit that the only reason I did it is because of a self-imposed requirement to post to this blog once per week. I also didn't even start on said folders until the afternoon of Friday, February 4th.

I know you are all dying to know, what was in the two skinny folders and what did I do with it? Well, one folder was marked "Articles" and the other "Search Hints." Most of these items were dated 1995 and 1996 and I don't think I had looked at them more than once since putting them in the files. I ended up only having to scan one article, everything else was found on the Internet. That means I now have digital copies or links to everything and all the paper went in the ever-expanding recycle pile.

I thought I would share the digital resources I found, in case, you too, would like to divest yourself of paper files.

I had two copies of "cousin relationship charts" which I have never used.  I found several on the Internet, although none exactly the same as the ones I had copied.  But who cares.  The chart variations I found and liked can be found here by way of Rootsweb, here at Genealogy.com, a diamond-shape one at Wikimedia, one from GenTutor here, and yet another here.

I had a tip sheet dated 1989 from Family Tree Maker (back when it was still owned by Borderbund Software) on how to preserve family photographs. Since, understandably, this sheet didn't mention digital files or photography, I decided some updating was in order. The National Archives and Library of Congress both have pages dedicated to photo and digital preservation. I also found a leaflet on photo preservation from Cornell University.  The yellowing tip sheet on preserving your family collections from the Northeast Document Collection Center was quickly replaced by a link to their website. Another good site with suggestions for preservation can be found at the New York State Library.

In the mid-nineties, I had copied several articles from Ancestry Magazine. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Ancestry has made most of its archive available, for free, online. You can find their archive here. Unfortunately, it can only be browsed and not searched. There is a print-friendly format, but I simply "sent" them to OneNote, where they will probably sit, unread, for another decade-and-a-half.

The last item I replaced was a pre-1999 article from the Columbus Dispatch. This clipping was "Research Family's Health History for Patterns" from Joy Wade Molton's column, Find Your Ancestors. I couldn't find the column online, but I did find sites with similar information here and here both from the Wall Street Journal and here from the CDC.

I now have less paper and more up-to-date information; that is a very good thing. Let's just hope I can stay motivated - there are not many skinny folders left.

Sorting Saturday or How Organizing Is Like Dieting

Over the winter break I did a splendid job organizing my digital files.They are beautiful and I can usually even remember where I put things. Next project - the actual paper files. For at least seven days running, I wrote on my "to-do" list - sort through one genealogy paper file. Finally, I changed the item to "pick one genealogy file to sort through." This was very easily accomplished, I took two files out from the file drawer and put them on the table and crossed it off the list. The two files I so proudly pulled from the cabinet then sat on said table, collecting dust, for several weeks.

Then on Monday a memory emerged from the depths of my brain and settled squarely on my soul. I remembered that here, on this very blog, I had quoted Lisa Louise Cook's idea of spending just one hour per week on genealogy. I believe I even bragged, "I can do that."  Apparently, I was mistaken.  Apparently, I can not find just one hour per week.  Apparently, I am a fraud.

After feeling pretty sorry for myself all day Monday, Tuesday I picked those two files up off the table and began going through them. I am happy to report that the two files are empty. How did I accomplish this amazing feat in a mere five days? By typing up handwritten notes I had already typed fifteen years ago, by putting some items in other files, by giving an article on some barely related family (Eprosons) back to my mother, and by putting many useless pages in the recycling pile. I did also type some notes that hadn't  been typed and found some things I had printed out on the Internet, so I just put the website address in OneNote.

Do you know why I procrastinated? Because my subconscious mind knew this project would be T-E-D-I-O-U-S. It would require critical thinking and decisions about pieces of paper. I knew I would feel despondent and vexed and talk to myself: "Is this list of cities and their locations which you made in 1991, really necessary to keep? Surely you can look up where Larvik is again?" Or "Do you really need a ancestry file that was printed out in 1997 with unsourced material?" I could go on.... Now that my conscious mind is now fully aware that my subconscious mind is much smarter, I'm not sure if I'll now get through the remaining files.

But if I want to proceed with my quest for ancestors, I must sort through and figure out what I already have. Otherwise, I will spend countless hours finding information that I have already found. This would be worse than typing notes that had already been typed. I suppose this whole organization project is like dieting - you must set obtainable goals, take joy in small successes, and not beat yourself up when you fall off the wagon.

For next week, I think I will sit next to the wagon and sort through a thin file marked "Articles." In between me and the wagon will be tea and biscuits.

Lisa Louise Cooke, Hard-Drives and Me

As noted in my last post, I listened to Lisa Louise Cooke’s hard-drive organization podcast for the second time. At the top of the first one, she mentioned that she encouraged her listeners to spend one-hour a week on genealogy. I am so glad I heard that again as it made this whole project seem much more manageable. No matter how busy I am, I can probably come up with an hour a week. 

I listened to the rest of the podcasts while trying to stay balanced on the elliptical. I could feel myself becoming overwhelmed again, particularly because Cooke groups everything by family and I have realized I prefer to group things by type. Another difficulty is that I was resistant to filing documents and notes for my family history research separately from those collected for my other research projects. Since I am an immigration historian, I collect many of the same documents that family historians do. Additionally, my job requires constant note-taking and writing. I really did not like the idea that the research I did on my family was different and ought to filed separately from everything else.

The podcasts finished about the same time I was done with my workout, so I put the problem out of my mind and ran some errands before going home.  Then, with a big mug of tea, I sat down at my laptop to sort out the whole hard drive organizational conundrum.  And I cracked it!  I wonder if it was the exercising or the tea that helped solve the problem?

Here is an annotated version of what I came up with:

1. Windows Documents Directory
1. Notes
1. Books
1. A-G (by author, not title)
2. H-M
3. N-S
4. T-Z
2. Genealogy Misc (I added this while actually doing the organizing, it wasn't part of the original plan. I ended up with a whole bunch of ancient files that I wasn't sure what to do with, so I put them here)
3. Manuscript (this will include notes and transcriptions from actual documents and will be subdivided by repository)
1. National Archives of Scotland 
2. Presbyterian Historical Society
3. National Library of Scotland
4. Western Reserve Historical Society
2. Digital Documents  (this will include digital images of the actual documents)
1. Books
2. Census
3. Military
4. Passenger Lists
5. Wills & Estates
3. Research Aids and Forms
1. Family Group Sheets
2. Family Trees
3. Other
4. Pedigree Charts
4. Papers Projects and & Presentations (drafts of things I’ve written, researched or presented)
1. Book
3. MA Thesis
4. Historian's Family Blog
5. OGS Conference
1. Presentation
2. Proposal
6. PhD Dissertation
7. Project Ideas

These folders will be interspersed with all the other ones in my Windows Document folders, but that doesn’t bother me. What I like about this system is that it integrates my family history and other research.  If you do want to have a separate genealogy folder, you could simply place folders similar to mine in a folder called "Genealogy."

The best part is that I actually did it. The project only took about two and half hours, and that includes time I spend reorganizing files that had nothing to do with historical research. The files might not all have the best names, but they are all in the right place. 

I think I ought to have piece of chocolate with my next cup of tea, don't you?

Lisa Louise Cooke, Photographs and Me

Label Your Pictures (preferably in pencil!)

While at the gym the other day, I listened to Lisa Louise Cooke’s podcasts on organizing again. I had wanted to talk about her plan for photos, but I couldn’t remember all the details. I still like her ideas, but won’t be able to implement them fully for a while.

If you have Windows she suggests that you use the official “Pictures” folder. Then make a new folder for your family history photographs (pictures of people, not documents). Hers is called “Lisa’s Tree,” mine is called “Amanda’s Ancestors.”  You could call yours anything as long as you put all the pictures in the file consistently.  I thought about “Family History Photos,” but Amanda’s Ancestors is the name of my OneNote Notebook and since the file begins with "A" it will be at the beginning of the folders list (I have LOTS of picture folders). Then in this folder, make new folders for each of your family lines. Within these surname folders make folders for each family group. Photos of unmarried individuals are filed with their parents until they establish their own family. 

Cooke also suggests making location folders within the surname folders too, so you can include pictures of where they lived. Start with the state and then make new folders for county and cities as needed. This is a good idea too, but I will modify it and group the photos by state. As I’ve noted before, my father’s family didn’t move around much, so it seems silly to have a Tennesee folder for every branch of his family. Besides, at some point I expect I will have pictures of places where ancestors lived, but will not have pictures of the actual ancestors.

Right now, I don’t have that many digital copies of family history pictures. Consequently, I just have surname folders and location folders. As I collect more digital photos, I can add family group folders within the surname folders as well as other states, counties and cities.

Here is an example of how my picture folder might look someday:

1. Amanda’s Ancestors
1. Eldridge
2. Epperson
1. Joseph & Sarah Fuller Epperson Family
2. Joseph Bolen & Bennie Eldridge Epperson Family
3. Joseph Oscar & Mary Kate Bolen Epperson Family
2. Hood
3. Nordstrom
4. Tennessee
1. Bradley
2. Knox

An example of how this filing system would work: photographs of my papaw, Joseph Bolen Epperson, would be filed in his parent’s family folder, “Joseph Oscar and Mary Kate Bolen Epperson Family” until his marriage. After his marriage, his photos would be filed in his own family folder, “Joseph Bolen and Bennie Eldridge Epperson Family.”  The family group folders will be listed alphabetically. However, if you would prefer them to be listed chronologically, you could simply start the folder name with the year the family was created. 

Example:

1. Amanda’s Ancestors
1. Epperson
1. 1872 Joseph & Sarah Fuller Epperson Family
2. 1903 Joseph Oscar & Mary Kate Bolen Epperson Family
3. 1931 Joseph Bolen & Bennie Eldridge Epperson Family

For more details on Lisa Louise Cooke’s digital picture filing system, listen to her podcast here.

Organizing my Family History Research - Second Report

What did I see when my eyes finally adjusted to the light outside the pit of despair? Well, first I saw that the storm clouds of doom had passed as finals had been marked and grades posted. Then I saw that the train wreck of good intentions had slowed down - one sweater had been completed, the second lacked only the sleeves. I also began to see my way out of the organization muddle.

I will create a single OneNote digital notebook called "Amanda's Ancestors." I think it has a nice ring to it, don't you? Within Amanda's Ancestor's will be a section for each surname, and within each section as many pages as needed.  If Microsoft imposes a limit on sections and pages, I might just find out what it is.

I will maintain my own filing system created while doing my PhD. There is nothing wrong with it, it works for me, and I'm used to it. Here's a summary of the system:  Book and Article notes are placed in folders called "Book Notes" and named in the format Author - Date - Title. Manuscript notes are filed in a folder called "Manuscript Notes" and are filed by the call number in their repositories. The few census records I have copied from Ancestry are filed by county and township. Since my PhD dissertation was about an entire community, this worked well because everyone lived in the same five or six townships. I think this filing system will still work for my family research because many of my lines are all from the same counties, whether in the US or in Europe. The one section that needs work is photographs and I liked Lisa Louise Cooke's ideas for that. You can listen to them here and here.

For my family history project, I can copy pertinent information to the relevant OneNote sections and pages.  For example, the page from the 1910 Bradley County Census with my grandfather's family on it can be copied to his page (and to his father's and mother's page) in the Amanda's Ancestors Notebook.

Things are looking up in the organization department. Now that the presents have been opened and the family has departed I can turn my mind to sorting through the real folders full of miscellaneous papers and contemplate research questions. I should probably also knit some sleeves.

Organizing my Family History Research - First Report

This December I have been relentlessly followed by a storm cloud of doom and a train wreck of good intentions; otherwise known as finals week and a knitting basket full of unfinished Christmas gifts. In order to distract myself from imminent disaster, I thought I would study up on some of the organization tips kindly provided by readers Michelle Goodrum and TCasteel.  I am very sorry to report that this attempt at distraction only landed me in a pit of despair.

It started off well. TCasteel pointed out that census records are easily available online and can be downloaded, so it doesn't make sense to keep paper copies. Easy peasy. I only had a handful of handwritten census worksheets, so I found them all on Ancestry.com and saved them (in poorly named files for now) to my hard drive. The old census sheets are now in the "someday to be recycled" pile, where they will probably remain until Spring.

While reading through the posts from AnceStories and listening to the podcasts from Family History Made Easy suggested by Michelle Goodrum, I realized I do want to go digital as much as possible. I also want to utilize OneNote in some fashion as it combines what is nice about digital files and old-fashioned paper notes. I can also keep a copy of it on Windows Web Apps (or whatever it's called).  These two sources did provide useful information, which I will detail in another post, because while thinking about all of these suggestions, my brain went into overdrive. And things quickly went horribly wrong.

How many OneNote Notebooks? One for each family or one for Me and My Ancestors? If I did one for each family, wouldn't they keep increasing in number and make me insane? If I intend basically to paste copies of pertinent information in each digital notebook, where to store the originals? By person as suggested, by region, by document type? I also want to learn about the places and events of the past as well, should they get their own notebook, be filed with each person? Does this mean I should organize my family history research separately/differently from my other research files?  Which family members might have good information?  Would they share? If they did, where should I file it? Do I want to do only main lines or collateral families too? Where would all this get filed?

The questions and possibilities just wouldn't stop, the wheels of my brain were spinning out of control. All of a sudden, I was totally overwhelmed. I wanted to quit the whole project altogether. Not only was there a storm cloud of doom over me and a train wreck of good intentions headed towards me, I had now pitched myself over the edge into the pit of despair.

It seemed like a good time for a cup of tea. Tea makes everything better. It seems that my entire brain had not gone completely haywire. It told me, as I slowly sipped my tea, "Before you can know how to organize your notes, you have to know what your research goals are."  I took a deep breath. Another voice said, "There's nothing wrong with how you organized your dissertation research and no reason to change, despite what the podcasts and blogs say." Then, a deep sigh of relief.

What did I find when I hauled myself out of the pit of despair? Well, that my friends is a story for another day.

First things First: The Historian Needs Organizing

It seems to me that my first project ought to be to organize what bits of paper I already possess. With Christmas break coming up, I'll have some extra time to devote to this project.

Right now all my family documents (such as they are) exist in actual and virtual file folders. The real ones consist of one file per family (Hood, Nordstrom, Eldridge, and Epperson), plus a fifth miscellaneous one which contains useful items like library maps. Oh and there is a bonus folder of notes I took while I was in Knoxville that have languished in the said folder since August. The items in these files range from copies of letters, death notices and those little programs you get at funerals, photocopies of newspaper clippings, handwritten notes and who knows what else.

The virtual files on my computer live in four places. There is the genealogy folder, the images from Ancestry folder, an FTM folder, and photos scattered throughout the official Windows picture folder.  Many of the the files within the genealogy folder are copies of notes. I got in the habit of typing up all my notes when I worked as an architectural historian. By the time I got to my PhD I skipped handwritten notes entirely; information went straight from the source to the computer.

I must admit the papers and notes I collected while doing my PhD are just as disorganized. I was always moving things from Scotland to the United States, on top of not being sure how to organize them in the first place. Actually, I think I am just a disorganized person. Everything in my house looks neat and tidy, but open any drawer, cupboard or file cabinet and the illusion is quickly shattered.

There was a discussion on the APG conference in Knoxville about organization and offices. Some people are terribly tidy, others were not; some used file folders, others notebooks; some had TONS of space, others not so much. One woman had NO paper files because she had no room for them - if it wasn't digital it became digital.

I have a medium amount of space and a small budget. Actually there is limited shelf space, but I could create more file cabinet space. But I do love the idea of notebooks. I am comfortable using the computer and kind of like the idea of making as much as possible digital.  Would I miss being able to handle actual paper?

There are too many choices and I need help. Since I'm basically starting from scratch, I thought I'd ask you for advice. How do you organize your family history files? What do you think is a good system? What works for you? Are there good "how-to" books?  Files or Notebooks? How cheaply can this project be done? Any experience using OneNote? Anything that ended up being a bad idea? Real or virtual?

Send your thoughts via the comments or contact me via email. I'll publish a summary of what everyone suggests and announce what I decide to do. Then, if all goes according to plan, I'll actually do it.