---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 00:02:13
From: John Buelow <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Cataloging: 300 subfield c, map fragments
 
[this message is being cross-posted on AUTOCAT]
 
 
Before the age of mechanical papermaking and not infrequently thereafter,
many manuscript maps were drawn on two or several sheets pasted together
beforehand.  Cartographic Materials 5B, especially 5B2a, leads me to
suppose that such maps, if still intact, should each be described as--
 
(a)  1 map : ms. ; 123 x 79 cm.
 
, although I am sometimes tempted to add a 500 note--
 
(b)  Map comprised of four sheets assembled before drawing.
 
Unfortunately, older, especially manuscript maps are not always in good
shape.  A map drawn on 4 sheets pasted together to make one sheet may now
be in 4 pieces again, though the extent of no piece coincide with the
original sheets.  It may also be in three or six or more pieces, some very
small.  Thus--
 
(c)  1 map: ms., dissected in 6 pieces ; 123 x 79 cm.
 
or
 
(d)  1 map : ms., dissected ; 123 x 79 cm.
 
The following diction might be better whenever the map seems to have fallen
apart without the abettance of any knife wielding librarian--
 
(e)  1 map : ms., fragmented ; 123 x 79 cm.
 
A final complicating factor comes about as a result of conservation effort.
 The various pieces may be mounted on one or more pieces of linen or other
material.
 
(f)  1 map : ms., fragmented, mounted on linen ; 123 x 79 cm., linen 75 x
80 and 51 x 80 cm.
 
Will anyone confirm which of these formulas are acceptable?  Have those
revising Cartographic Materials come up with better ways of describing
damaged manuscript material?  If so, I'd be very grateful for immediate
information.
 
 
John Buelow
New York Historical Society
[log in to unmask]