Chicago style writing notes vs bibliography confusion

[MartinM]

I need to settle a debate I'm having with myself (and also with my roommate, who's an English major and keeps giving me wrong advice, bless her heart ).

I'm a third-year in archaeology, and I'm writing a paper on ancient burial practices in Egypt. I've got my sources, I've got my arguments, and I'm ready to write. But I keep getting tangled up in the difference between what goes in a footnote and what goes in the bibliography in Chicago style writing.

My roommate keeps saying, "Just put everything in both! It's fine!" But I know it's not that simple! There are rules!

Here's what I think I know:

• First footnote for a source: Full citation with all the details.
• Subsequent footnotes: Short form (just author, short title, page number).
• Bibliography entry: Also full citation, but formatted differently (last name first, different punctuation).

But here's where I get confused. What about sources I read but didn't directly cite? Do those go in the bibliography? My professor mentioned something about a "works consulted" list, but I thought Chicago just had a bibliography.

And what about primary sources? I'm using some ancient texts that have been translated. Do I cite the ancient author or the modern translator in the footnote? In the bibliography?

I want my paper to be a model of Chicago style writing excellence. I'm aiming for publication in our undergraduate research journal, so every detail matters. Can any Chicago experts out there clarify the relationship between footnotes and the bibliography? What's the point of having both? Understanding the "why" usually helps me remember the "how." Thanks, friends!

 

[BenFoller]

Chicago is our bread and butter and it's SO confusing at first. You're actually right about everything in your post. First footnote = full citation. Subsequent = shortened. Bibliography = full citation formatted differently. BUT here's the thing about sources you read but didn't directly cite: Chicago style traditionally calls the list at the end a "Bibliography" which includes everything you consulted, even if you didn't cite it. Some professors want a "Works Cited" list instead (only things you actually cited). Check your syllabus or ask your professor which they prefer. For archaeology papers, most want a full bibliography of everything you read because we do so much background research. Also for primary sources—YES that's a thing! For ancient texts, you cite the ancient author in the footnote (Homer, Iliad, etc.) but the bibliography entry is for the MODERN translation you used (like the specific book with the translator's name). The Villanova library guide has great examples for this. You're aiming for publication? That's awesome. Take the time to get it right now and it'll be second nature by grad school!