---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:55:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: Laurence Creider <[log in to unmask]>
To: Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Geographic question (fwd)

While Deering is now absorbed into Portland, it has probably retained some
sense of identity.  If so, you can construct a subject heading for it as a
city section.  Cf. SCM H720.  You would probably end up with something
like Deering (Portland, Me.).  If you find you need to subdivide
geographically, you can only go down to the city level. Unfortunately, you
cannot go down to the city section.  On the positive side, if you can
wangle an author entry for the former town, you can enter that as a
corporate body (Deering, Me.).  You just can't use that for your subject
headings and cutters.  There is a record in the OCLC authority file for a
151 Deering (Portland, Me.) 94023694, but there is no record for Deering
(Me.).
I hope this is of some use.
        Larry Creider

Laurence S. Creider
Head, General Cataloging Unit
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88011
Work: 505-646-4707
Fax: 505-646-7477
[log in to unmask]


On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Johnnie Sutherland wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:45:26 -0400
> From: Paige Andrew <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Geographic question (fwd)
>
> Roberta,
>
> Allow me to jump into this question and try to help. It is one that we all
> struggle with, particularly the first time that it is encountered, and I've
> never felt 100% comfortable with the way these "no longer existing" towns and
> cities are handled but it is at the very least a methodology to follow. Library
> of Congress says, in the LC Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings, in
> instruction H708 on "Linear Jurisdictional Name Changes in NARs" that it is
> their policy to "assign as a subject heading or as a geographic subdivision,
> only the latest name of a political jurisdiction [my stress here] that has had
> one or more earlier names, as long as the territorial identity remains
> essentially unchanged."  I've never completely understood the "territorial
> identity" part of this although an obvious example is the breakup of Yugoslavia
> into separate constituent countries.  So, in your case, if the city of
> Portland, Maine "swallowed up" the town of Deering in the past then give as the
> subject heading for the map Portland (Me.) and also use the geographic cutter
> for Portland. Use a note to explain that Deering existed at a particular time
> in history and now is a part of Portland so that your patrons will not be left
> with too many questions.
>
> I hope this helps!
>
> Paige
>
> At 01:30 PM 8/13/01 -0400, you wrote:
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 11:32:23 -0400
> >From: Roberta Ransley <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Geographic question
> >
> >Hello Map listserv:
> >I'm cataloging a map of a town that no longer exists. The town of
> >Deering (Maine) broke first from the town of Westbrook and then
> >was annexed to Portland. I find in the cutter that there isn't one for
> >Deering; there is one for Westbrook and Portland. Should I just use
> >Portland cutter? Make a note? Thanks- Roberta Ransley, Osher
> >Map Library.
>
> Paige Andrew
> Faculty Maps Cataloger
>    and Associate Librarian
>