--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
>Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 20:42:28
>From: John Buelow <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: cataloging ms. maps as series
 
 
A very involved map cataloging question follows.  Map lovers who don't
catalogue may be interested in reading about the maps concerned; there
might be a good research project for you here at the NYHS.
 
 
PART 1
 
The Society owns a few hundred large scale manuscript surveys of various
sections of New Jersey, mostly farmsteads along rivers or creeks.  These
maps are hardly ever contiguous but some abut or overlap others.  They were
drawn by different hands and are not absolutely consistent in style.  Many
bear neither titles nor statements of responsibility; some don't even carry
the names of property owners.  Virtually none shows a date, though the
drawing styles strongly suggest the 18th century and, when a date of
situation can be narrowly established, these dates have also been 18th
century.  Sheet sizes and scales vary.
 
I am tempted to treat this first "set" of survey maps as a monographic-type
series and write a proper series authority record for it, EVEN THOUGH
manuscripts are not usually considered amenable to series treatment at all.
 I would trace these under the name "New Jersey Surveys" which appears, in
a later 18th or 19th century hand using a quill pen, on the verso of some
members of the set.  I would analyze each map on a separate record and
might even classify them separately--because our stacks are closed, a
screen index of call numbers can be a useful tool for readers who wish to
browse.  (The maps are actually stored in random order under a local
drawer-marking system, and will not in any event be filed together).
 
 
PART 2
 
The Society also owns at least seven smaller-scale sheets which index the
aforementioned surveys.  Parcels of land are either numbered or bear
surnames.  The surnames which I've so far identified belong not to property
owners, but to the men who had charge of the Surveyor-General's office in
New Jersey at various times in the 17th and 18th century.  One of the
numbered sheets has a smaller leaf pasted to it which seems to confirm this
interpretation.  The leftmost column of numbers matches those on the main
sheet; additional columns give "No. Acres, Date survey'd" and "To Whom
Surveyed."   Dates of the listed surveys run from 1682 to 1757.
.
Just two pair of these index sheets are contiguous; however, none have neat
lines and all are of a consistent size and scale.  If one matches six of
them to a modern map of New Jersey, it is clear that they fit perfectly
into a skewed grid such that 40 to 43 sheets of the same description would
cover the entire state; these missing sheets may well turn up within the
next few months.  The area mapped by the seventh sheet cannot yet be
determined, for it occupies hardly a twentieth of the sheet, and that hard
up against the margin.  This sheet in particular is nowhere near "complete
in itself."
 
As we discussed last week, I am thinking of calling this second "set" of
index maps "1 map on 40 sheets," EVEN THOUGH that number is much larger
than the 12-sheet maximum proposed by the Map Cataloging Manual and even
though the assembled map would be huge--roughly 3 by 7 meters.  I would
include it on the "New Jersey Surveys" series record by listing it as
accompanying material.  Two of its sheets do bear the same "New Jersey
Surveys" titling on their versos.
 
 
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
 
(i)
Individually, the surveys will probably be used most often by people owning
property in areas near the surveyed parcels.  Some of this type of interest
is legal; most of it is simply antiquarian.  All of it would be well served
by strong analytic access.  If a small set of surveys can be found by a
simple search strategy which will also bring up maps of later date covering
the same land parcels, that would be a boon.
 
(ii)
On the other hand, taken as a set, these surveys have the potential to tell
a lot about the history of settlement during a crucial period of
colonisation.  They may also tell something about the working procedures of
surveyors and journeyman cartographers.  For the benefit of historians, it
would seem advantageous to provide access to these maps as a group.
 
A FEW ALTERNATIVES
 
(a)
The best alternative to what I've suggested might be the cataloging of each
set or both as ordinary map series: archival-type collections.  But I can't
use the simplest sort of collection level record, the sort carrying little
more than a scope note, because each map has its own unique local call
number.  An analytic listing of sheet titles in a contents note or on the
holdings screen is surely necessary.  Some of these titles would be devised
by yours truly and regularly based on modern city, township and borough
names; others could come from the items themselves and be in various forms.
 "Survey'd Property of Tom Jones" might be most common.  Consistency would
be a bugbear, unless I were to devise a title  for every map whether or not
it already had one.  Any reader familiar with his neighborhood would then
at least be able to guess, after scanning a list of a few hundred names,
which 2, 3, 10 or 12 surveys might possibly cover the particular acreage in
which he had an interest. --The only objection to this method, is that is
doesn't seem fully to serve the needs of type (i) readers.  The LC
geographic subjects and cutters would, I suspect, be sorely missed.
 
(b)
The same principles could be used, if the survey set were broken into
several which each followed modern county lines.  The chief problem with
doing so is that neither the surveys nor their indices respect county
borders ancient or modern; one of the existing sheets covers parts of five
counties.
 
(c)
One might also break the larger sets into 40, one for each index sheet, if
only all 40 were available from the outset of cataloging. I need to know
that  the remaining sheets do exist, and I need to be able accurately to
assign each of the surveys to a single index sheet.  This seems impossible.
 I won't be able to find most of the missing 33 sheets before I've finished
cataloging the surveys to which they refer.  Our collection is widely
dispersed on several floors and only a few maps can be pulled at once.
 
(d)
One might also catalog the survey maps individually, either ignoring the
relationship among them made explicit by the index, or acknowledging it in
a note.  The note would justify an added entry to one or to the set of
index sheets.  --This is really the only alternative available under a
strict reading of the manuscript rule rule about manuscripts not ever being
series.  But I'm not sure that it will serve type (ii) readers well enough.
 
(e)
Unfortunately, the index sheets cannot be used as visual finding aids for
the surveys.  We do not yet know how many index sheets still exist.
Moreover, these indexes are not keyed to survey title, accession number or
call number.
 
 
QUERY
 
I would very much welcome any advice.  Your ideas may better follow the
letter of the cataloging rules, may be more cost effective or may simply
make more sense to experienced eyes, than the one I've proposed.  Am I on
the right track, or am I missing something?
 
Thanks,
 
John Buelow
[log in to unmask]
--- End Forwarded Message ---