the marc archival and manuscripts control (amc) format

This article was downloaded by: [San Jose State University Library]On: 23 November 2014, At: 13:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cataloging & Classification QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20

The MARC Archival and Manuscripts Control (AMC)FormatJanet Gertz PhD, AMLS a & Leon J. Stout MA, MLS ba Special Collections Cataloger and Senior Assistant Librarian, Special Collections, PennState University, University Park, PA, 16802, [email protected] University Archivist and Librarian, Special Collections, Penn State University, UniversityPark, PA, 16802, [email protected] online: 25 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Janet Gertz PhD, AMLS & Leon J. Stout MA, MLS (1989) The MARC Archival and Manuscripts Control (AMC)Format, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 9:4, 5-25, DOI: 10.1300/J104v09n04_02

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v09n04_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wccq20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J104v09n04_02

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J104v09n04_02

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The MARC Archival and Manuscripts Control (AMC) Format:

A New Direction in Cataloging Janet Gertz

Leon J. Stout

ABSTRACT. The development and use of the MARC Archival and Manuscript Control (AMC) format is described. The format's unique characteristics stem largely f r ~ m the needs of the archival community for both a uniform means of control of materials at the collection level and a powerful tool for exchanging information about archival holdings. AMC cataloging does not replace, but rather forms an additional component of traditional archival arrangement and description activities. Unique aspects of AMC catalo ing are described, including differing approaches to access points, f@ o m of entry, title, physical description, notes, subject headings, and call numbers.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMC FORMAT

The new MARC Archival and Manuscript Control (AMC) format is being greeted by archivists and manuscript curators with cautious optimism. Articles and sessions at archival meetings about A M C and MARC formats in general are appearing with increasing fre-

Janet Gertz (PhD Yale, AMLS Michigan) is Special Collections Cataloger and Senior Assistant Librarian, Special Collections, Penn State University. Address correspondence to W342 Pattee Library, University Park, PA 16802 (electronic mail can be sent to [email protected]). Leon J. Stout (MA Penn State, MLS Pittsburgh) is University Archivist and Librarian, Special Collections, Penn State University. Address correspondence to C107 Pattee Library, University Park, PA 16802 (electronic mail can be sent to [email protected]).

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol. 9(4) 1989 O 1989 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights resewed. 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

6 CATALOGING & CLASSIFICATION QUARTERLY

quency.' Librarians, and catalogers in particular, may find some aspects of the new format and some of the records produced unusual at the very least. Many of the innovations result from the nature of archival materials, how they are processed, and how they are used. To a certain extent, they also reflect the professional history of archivists'- the last "rugged individualists" of the information community.

Archival and manuscript materials are inherently unique and multifaceted. This is reflected in the apparent differences between large archival accumulations of organizational records and collections of manuscripts of historical or literary origin which may range in size from several items to several thousand cubic feet of material.

Archivists, technically those who oversee records of government, universities, labor unions, religious bodies, foundations, corpora- tions and other organizations, find that the most dominant charac- teristic of twentieth century records is their bulk. So overwhelming is the problem that another profession- records management- has evolved to efficiently oversee and destroy the ninety-five percent or so of all records that archivists decide do not have enduring value. The five percent or less remaining- the "archival" records-may amount to several thousand cubic feet of material in even a me- dium-sized repository. Giants like the National Archives have to deal with billions of pieces of paper.

Manuscript curators face a variety of problems. These range from the item-level, finely detailed cataloging desired by users of literary manuscripts, to problems of deciding what to save from the enormous amounts of file materials accumulated by a U.S. Senator, a task analogous to an archivist's collection management decisions. All, however, can fruitfully use the MARC AMC format for gain- ing intellectual control3 over their collections.

Archivists are traditionally reluctant to describe the processing of archival and manuscript materials in library terms. Instead of "cataloging," they prefer to use the term "description," and "arrangement" is used in place of "classification." There is good reason for doing so. Archival description is not a process of bibliographically distinguishing a work from other similar works and archival arrangement has nothing to do with subject classification schemes.'

Archival and manuscript collection processing attempts first to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Jonet G e m and Leon J. Stout 7

physically isolate and group materials by creator (individual or organization) and then to identify as far as possible the original sub- groupings of papers and recreate the order ili which that originating agency or person maintained and used the materials. The description of this material is usually accomplished by creating a "finding aid," often termed an inventory or register, generally consisting of a brief history of the organization or biographical sketch of the person, a narrative scope and content note, and a list of the file folder titles in boxed order. Researchers usually first consult a guide to the archives' holdings containing brief descriptions of the various collections and then selected finding aids for individual collections to determine which boxes are to be examined.

It was not always so. As recently as forty or fifty years ago archival and manuscript materials were routinely cataloged as discrete items. In many repositories, letters and other documents (usually precious colonial or revolutionary papers or correspondence of significant autograph value) were pasted into albums by subject or date and the individual volumes numerically sequenced.

The courthouse inventory projects of the-~e~ress ion 's Historical Records Survey (1936-1942) and the development of work procedures for America's new National Archives (established in 1934) initiated a new approach to handling these types of materials-an approach necessitated by the overwhelming bulk of the materials. Surveyors for both the HRS and the National Archives discovered hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of records that had to be orga- nized and described relatively quickly.

The reality of modern records resulted in the necessity of grouped description. Archivists were forced to arrange and describe materials in groups rather than by cataloging each letter or memo. Over time, archivists handling the records of nongovernmental organizations and manuscript curators collecting the papers of modern poli- ticians and other notables faced the same problem. Even an author's papers might encompass numerous file drawers and as the mini- mum wage rose, the possibility of dealing with these materials at the item level disappeared.

Attitudes toward this evolution have changed gradually as well. Archivists are no longer apologetic that they must resort to this tactic in order to make their materials available for use. Most of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


today's archivists assert that this is the only way it should be done and that to think otherwise is to label oneself as out-of-touch and perhaps even irresponsible given the slim financial resource base of most archives. Any grant application proposing calendaring or cataloging of individual letters or documents will quickly feel the sting of the peer reviewers' pens.

Given this, it is perhaps not surprising that the initial effort at a MARC format for this community died a quiet and unlamented death. The MARC Manuscripts Format, developed by the MARC Office at LC without the input of LC's own Manuscripts Division, was deemed unsuitable by most archivists. Even LC's own Manu- scripts Division refused to use it. Like the AACR chapter on manuscripts, it concentrated on cataloging for items and collections that were treated as discrete entities, thus ignoring the hierarchical nature of archives and the critical role of contextual relationships among archival and manuscript materials. Archivists saw it as an automated solution that was forty years behind the times.s

But archivists took quite seriously the notion that automation could help solve their enormous problems. A number of institutions had used main frame computers to create database management systems to enhance both intellectual and physical access to their collections. Some of these systems (SPINDEX, for example) described collections at the file folder level, creating permuted keyword indexes to folder titles to help reference ~ervice.~ Some of these systems also included data elements that could record collection management information detailing use, processing status, time-lengths of restrictions on access, etc. Other institutions took advantage of text formatting programs to produce the inventories and registers that serve as descriptive finding aids in most archives.

The turning point for the archival profession as a whole came through the work of the Society of American Archivists' National Information Systems Task Force (NISTF). This body was ap- pointed in 1977 to recommend how to approach a national information system for archival and manuscript materials. NISTF con- cluded early in the process that it could not design a national system nor could it define its parameters, except that it would not be a monolithic database. NISTF decided its task must be to "establish the preconditions for archival information exchange."' It sought to determine how to standardize data in a machine-readable format.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Janet G e m a d Leon J. Stout 9

One critical stepping stone for the work of NISTF was a study carried out by Elaine Engst of Cornell Univer~ity.~ She demon- strated that archives and manuscript repositories, regardless of type, size, or format of description employed, used the same small number of basic data elements in their descriptive systems. These find- ings first led to the development of a data element dictionary in 1982 which standardized practice for archive^.^ It provided formal definitions of how various data elements were to. be used (not which ones were to be included or what the data in them should look like). The second and final product was a new MARC forrnat for Archival and Manuscript Control- the means for exchange of archival information.

There are many aspects of this new format which are unique. Not the least of these is this manner of evolution. This was the only format developed outside the library community and the only one now jointly maintained by MARBI and a nonlibrary professional organization, the Society of American Archivists, which carries out this work through its Committee on Archival Information Exchange (CAIE).

UNIQUE CHARACTER OF ARCHNES AND UANUSCRIPTS

The AMC format by its very nature will cover a multitude of genres of materials. This is necessary because of the basic nature of archival and manuscript collections. Archival records are defined as having a corporate origin, while personal papers or historical manuscripts stem from individual efforts. But archivists are no longer dealing merely with accumulations of letters, office files, or diaries. Today's collections (archival or manuscript) can include printed, pictorial, cartographic, audio-visual, or machine-readable materials.

It is important to realize that these gatherings constitute historical evidence, not a finished mode of communication such as a book or journal article. They were created to be a record of what an organization or a person accomplished or needed to remember. Only a conscious decision by an archivist or the solicitations of a manuscript curator cause them to be in an archives or manuscript repository, requiring some form of physical and intellectual control.

It is because of this unique form of origin that archivists and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

10 CATALOGING & CUSSIFICATION QUARTERLY

manuscript curators have adopted the basic principles described in the previous section: materials are arranged first by provenance, that is they are kept separate by their office of origin or creator, and thereafter they are arranged in their original order (if possible) as both the most practical and most reliable means of guaranteeing their integrity. To impose an artificial arrangement scheme would jeopardize the papers' validity as historical evidence.

Because archivists are committed to provenance and original order, they tend to treat the materials hierarchically for purposes of organization. Thus in an archive the highest level of arrangement would be the "record group" - the accumulation of all the records generated by a department, bureau or independent agency. Exam- ples in the National Archives might include the records of the De- partment of the Interior or the records of the United States Military Academy. These could be subdivided one or more times into "sub- groups" representing lower levels of hierarchy such as the records of the Division of Finance of the Department of the Interior. The manuscripts equivalent at the highest level would be the collection of an indkidual's papers (sometimes termed a "manuscript group"). Some vrocessors further divide a collection into sub~roups based on the vaiious activities with which a person is involvid. '

Thereafter, archivists turn from provenance to original order to determine further subdivisions. The next level would be the "series," not to be confused with the librarian's term referring to separate items sharing a collective title. The archival series is an accumulation of records having similar characteristics such as document format, filing order, or subject matter. Examples might include minute books, ledgers, a chronological letter file, a series of note- books containing construction details about a group of buildings, or a hospital's patient files. Below that level, archivists attempt to keep the individual file folders, volumes or other filing units or items in the order that their creators kept them.

The ultimate end of processing a &llection, which starts with preserving the materials and arranging them in logical, hierarchical order, is its description so that it may be identified and retrieved for research use. Archivists have traditionally relied upon card files or lists to tell us where a collection is shelved in our randomly arranged closed stacks, lists of folder titles in collection finding aids to tell us where materials are filed in the boxes of a particular col-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Janet Gertz and Leon 1. Stout I 1

lection, and card catalogs or indexes to printed repository guides to lead us to specific materials by or about a person, organization, place, event, or topic within a repository. Users have further relied upon interinstitutional or subject guides like the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections (NUCMC) or Women's History Sources to lead them to repositories which may have materials of value to their research interests.'"

The AMC format now offers to archivists the same benefits of shared name and subject access that have long been available for other media, and, within the familiar framework of a MARC record-but one tailored to the special needs of the archivist and the researcher-it conveys descriptions of collections of all sizes and levels of complexity. The remainder of this article provides a com- mentary on this special tailoring.

CATALOGING WiTH THE AMC FORMAT

As the foregoing discussion makes clear, archives cataloging must describe and provide access to materials which, as originally created, exist in unique copies in unique arrangements, are unpublished, have'no title pages or other single source of bibliographic information but rather in their totality themselves constitute the source of information; and frequently range over a variety of unrelated subjects. Furthermore, the need to identify and describe relations among records is of prime importance for archival theory and practice, but has no real parallel in the cataloging of other media.

Archival and manuscript materials fall into four basic categories: (1) manuscript collections-related materials generated and gathered by a person or family during day-to-day existence; (2) archival records - materials generated and gathered by a corporate body in the course of its regular operations; (3) artificial aggregations of unrelated manuscript and archival materials brought together delib- erately by a collector, or accumulated gradually by a repository as individual items, and grouped together by subject or other criterion; and (4) single historical documents, literary manuscripts, or other individual items such as diaries. Since the least common category for most archivists is the single item, the emphasis in the AMC format lies on the collective level (categories 1-3) rather than item- level cataloging; however, the format is designed to accommodate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


individual documents, including medieval illuminated manuscripts and incunabula. It also provides the opportunity for full archival cataloging of microform copies of complete or partial collections.

Since manuscript and archival materials differ in so many ways from books and other published media, the cataloging rules, as detailed in Hensen's Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts (APPM), necessarily diverge from the rules for other genres. As a result, in order to transmit this cataloging, the AMC format deviates in some significant points from the other MARC formats. Among the close to eighty variable fields specified for the AMC format are a number of fields and subfields not used by other MARC formats, designed to accommodate the special features of archival and manuscript materials and the needs of archivists for the management of their collections. Furthermore, familiar fields, subfields, and tags may be exploited in unfamiliar ways in AMC. Because it is often necessary to provide information that refers to only one series or portion of an archival record group or manuscript collection, the repeatable subfield $3 (materials specified) acts to break various fields into several segments, each of which describes a discrete portion of the collection.

.Some of the more noteworthy idiosyncrasies of the AMC format and of manuscripts and archives cataloging are described below. The appendix contains an outline of selected fields and subfields. Details, bibliographies, and fuller examples can be found in the primary source books for AMC cataloging: Hensen APPM, Sahli, and Evans and Weber, and, depending on network affiliation, the OCLC or RLG guides to the AMC format.

CHOICE OF ACCESS POINTS AND FORM OF ENTRY

The main entry for a collection is the person, family, or corporate body primarily responsible for the creation of the records in that collection. The fact that someone else may have subsequently com- piled or collected the materials into their current grouping is irrele- vant. Only in the case of an aggregate of independent items deliber- ately gathered around a particular subject or other focus does the collector become the main rather than an added entry."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Janet Gem and Leon J. Stour 13

The form of entry for the IXX, 6XX and 7XX fields is a matter of some concern for archivists, since archival practice in establishing names conflicts in some ways with AACR2. The difficulty lies in the fact that AACR2 calls for establishment of the most common form of a name, rather than the fullest form with its dates and quali- fiers, which are often particularly useful for archivists in identifying obscure or ambiguous names. Catalogers of published materials generally deal with authors explicitly named on the title page or equivalent chief source of information; archivists must extract names from the body of the collection, using, for instance, signa- tures on letters, or memoranda and letterheads, supplemented by any available secondary references. The matter is further compli- cated because creators of manuscript and archival materials are often private individuals with no public reputation comparable to that of an author or editor of a book. The fullest form of the name is therefore necessary for proper identification.

AACR2 also requires direct entry of many subordinate corporate names, omitting some or all levels of the organizational hierarchy. This runs counter to archivists' needs, since archival practice in arrangement and description of materials relies heavily on knowledge of the hierarchical structure of the corporate body that created the materials. While archivists recognize the need for consistent forms of names, many have preferred to use fuller, non-AACR2 forms of established names, coded accordingly. In establishing new names the fullest available form is generally used." Where the name has already been established in direct entry form, one solution to the problem proposed by the New York State Archives is to make added entries for intermediate levels of the hierarchy when deemed necessary."

TITLE, EDITION STATEMENT, AND IMPRlNT

While a book or other published item normally bears a formal title assigned by the author or editor, archival and manuscript materials to not have author-generated titles. Collections are not deliber- ately created works, but, rather, accumulations of unpublished records or papers never intended'for wide distribution. A title must therefore be supplied by the archivist, usually in a generic form

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


incorporating the main entry, for example "John Doe papers," "ABC Company records," "Naval history collection," or "Mary Roe diary."

The title of a record group or collection will normally also include the span of dates covered by the materials, entered in subfield $f. When the full span gives an inaccurate idea of the time period covered, the span of dates of the major part of the materials may be given in subfield $g (bulk dates) in place of or in addition to the full dates.

Because the supplied title frequently includes the main entry, the AMC format provides the option of not repeating the main entry in the 245. Instead, the 245 $k (form) may replace the $a. Examples:'"

100 3 $aShort-Harrison-Symmes family with $a: 245 00 $aShort-Harrison-Syrnrnes family papers

$f1760-1878

110 2 $a XYZ Corporation without $a: 245 00 $kRecords $f1939-1973 $g1965-1972

Archival and manuscript materials are by definition unique and cannot occur in multiple editions. The 250 field is therefore generally omitted except in the case of literary manuscripts. In the same way, because the materials are unpublished, there can normally be no place or agent of publication. Since the dates are generally sub- sumed in the title field, the 260 imprint field is therefore usually omitted in AMC records, although it may be employed in cataloging single items such as codices.

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

Manuscript collections and archival record groups encompass di- verse physical items, often housed in heterogeneous boxes, files, or volumes. As a result, the materials are generally described in one of two ways: (I) in terms of the linear or cubic footage they occupy and/or the number and type of containers used (the archival tradition); (2) in terms of the number of individual items comprising the collection (the manuscript tradition). Subfield $a is used for footage

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Janet Geriz and Leon J. Stout 15

andlor number of items, while subfield $f is used for the type of unit, and the $3 subfield may be used if there is need to describe portions of the collection separately, e.g.:

300 $a17 $fboxes $a(7 linear ft.) 300 $a42 cubic feet 300 $a87 $fitems $a(l box) 300 $3diary $a1 $fvolume (463 pages) $c17 cm. x 34.5 cm.

In addition to delineating the physical makeup of the collection, archivists frequently describe the organization and arrangement im- posed on the collection. Field 351 specifies the subdivisions of a collection, for instance the series and subseries into which an archival record group may be divided, and briefly states the hierarchical relationship of materials connected by provenance. The physical arrangement of materials within subdivisions may also be indicated. Subfields used include $a (organization), $b (arrangement), $c (archival level).

351 $cseries $aorganized into 5 subseries $barranged by form of material

351 $csubseries $3permits for fishery operations, 1914-24 $balphabetical by state

NOTES

In order to fully describe the complex of materials contained in a record group or collection, as well as to provide management control, the AMC format relies on numerous note fields, some of them unique to AMC and others with distinct usages for archivists. The summarytabstract note (520 field) in particular may be called the heart of the record, since it provides a free text description of the contents and subject matter of the collection, and allows the archivist to highlight features which are of special importance or which are not adequately described elsewhere in the record. In the cataloging of a large, multifaceted collection, this field can grow to be quite lengthy.

Notes that relate to information provided in the 3XX fields in-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


clude the contents note and alternate physical form notes. For published items the source of information for the 505 is an actual part of the item; for manuscript and archival materials, however, the source of information is not the collection itself but, rather, the finding aid produced by the archivist. The reproduction and added physical form notes (fields 530,533, and 535) describe copies of all or part of the collection, often microforms, photocopies, or tran- scripts that are retained in the repository either'in addition to the originals or as the sole representatives of originals owned by some other repository or retained by the creator.

A number of notes deal with provenance and interrelations among collections. The 561 provenance note provides a brief history of how the materials being described were created and brought into their current form, and how they came into the possession of the repository. This history can often be quite convoluted. Unless carefully preserved by the creator, archival and manuscript materials are frequently subject to physical dispersion by accident or design, with the result that materials that are closely linked by provenance may be scattered among several different repositories. In order to aid researchers in tracking down errant materials, the 544 field (associated materials note) records significant holdings of provenance-linked materials at other repositories.

Because the hierarchic relations between groups of materials generated by different units within a corporate body are of prime importance for archivists, linking entry fields have been designated in order to permit a repository to explicitly delineate such relations among its holdings and to allow retrieval of related records. The 580 note, in conjunction with field 773 (host item entry field), indi- cates the relationship between two hierarchically linked records held by the same repository. The 773 field names and codes the higher member of the hierarchy of which the materials being described form a subordinate part, while the 580 note specifies the nature of the relationship. A main entry biography for persons or corporate history note (field 545) is also often included to identify the main entry, and to explain the nature and subject matter of the collection and any corporate hierarchy which is reflected in the organization and arrangement of the papers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Janet Gertz and Leon J. Stout 17

SUBJECTS AND ADDED ENTRIES

Due to the nature of their contents, manuscript collections and archival record groups can cover a multitude of subjects, and can include correspondence and other items created by a long list of added authors. Although the differentiation between 6XX as subject fields and 7XX as added entry fields is maintained in AMC as in the other formats, the choice between the two is not always as clear-cut as one could wish. Some authorities feel that the writer of a letter, for instance, is to an extent inescapably also the subject of that letter. Repositories that adhere to this interpretation tend to code correspondents in 6XX fields. Others prefer to treat authors of correspondence as added authors and code them in 7XX fields, while yet other repositories make duplicate entries. Discussion of the practices of a number of repositories, accompanied by justifications for the choice of 6XX or 7XX, can be found in Evans and Weber, 6XX section.

In addition to the familiar 650 and 651, AMC employs other 65X fields to permit access by form and genre of materials, personal occupations, and functions of corporate bodies, based on authorized lists of'terms. The 655 field provides access to the physical form and/or genre of the materials, e.g., diaries, memoranda, broad- sides, while the 656 indexes occupations reflected prominently in the contents of the collection. These are not limited to the occupation of the main entry, as in the case of the papers of a bookseller which include a significant amount of material about educators. Fi- nally, the 657 field deals with corporate activities or functions which generated the materials in the collection, for example "per- sonnel benefits management."

Employment of local subjects in lieu of or in addition to Library of Congress subject headings may occur when archivists find that LCSH lacks subject headings and form subdivisions relevant for their materials. Obviously, extensive use of non-standard subject terms based on in-house authority files can defeat the goal of common access to subjects in all types of records. In order to maintain global subject searches online, it is common practice that at least

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


one subject heading be LCSH, regardless of the number of additional local subjects that may be used.

Even without the complication of local headings, subject access for archival and manuscript collections can be problematic. Since a collection may contain materials pertaining to literally hundreds of subjects, the cataloger must choose among an embarrassment of riches. The old "rule of three" clearly does not apply, and decisions about whether and when to use broader and/or narrower terms are rendered particularly difficult. No matter how long a record's list of subjects and added entries may be, many other possible subject headings of necessity will be omitted, especially when catalogers are influenced by the collecting focus and local needs of the reposito~y.'~

CALL NUMBER

Most archival and manuscript collections have no Library of Congress or other subject-oriented call number; rather, archival collections are more often identified by locally assigned record group or collection numbers with subdivisions that signify hierarchical, iritellectual, or accession order, or even physical location, rather than subject classification. The 050 and 090 fields are therefore omitted from the AMC format. Access to the NUCMC entry number is of course provided through the 010.

ARCHNAL CONTROL

In addition to providing a vehicle for bibliographic description of archival and manuscript materials, the AMC format, as its name implies, offers archivists a control mechanism with which to record and monitor accession, processing, records scheduling, and use of materials. With the 583 action field and the 541 immediate source of acquisition field the archivist can specify what actions have been taken or should be taken in the future with regard to the materials. Subfields for actions, actors, dates and intervals of action, and other relevant information are used in conjunction with the $3 subfield (materials specified) to create detailed records of collection management. Examples:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Janet G e m and Leon 3. Stout 19

541 $3Materials scheduled for permanent retention $n25 $oreels of microfilm $aU.S. Dept. of Transportation $ctransfer under schedule $d1980/01/10

541 $cGift of $aGeorge Frantz, $dDecember 17, 1986

583 $3Patent case files $n12 $oreels of microfilm $]filmed $c1981/10/17 $jCentral Services '

583 $aAccessioned $cJuly 17, 1985 $kCJA 583 $3Quarterly production data $aaccessioned $dat end of

following quarter $fGeneral records schedule item 147 583 $aProcessing begun $cMarch 21, 1985 $kIMO

CONCLUSION

Catalogers may question the usefulness of a machine-readable cataloging format for unique materials that are not shared by many institutions. Although a form of copy cataloging may be possible on a small scale,I6 the essential value of the format is rather in providing archivists with a new tool for both control and information exchange. While archivists will continue to create in-house finding aids that researchers can examine for an overview ,of the contents of a given collection, users can now search a database of MARC records to select collections from many repositories which may be useful for their research. Whether through in-house microcomputer retrieval systems such as Michigan State University's Micro-MARC or institutional online catalogs, these bibliographic records provide new opportunities to make local patrons aware of the existence of useful archival and manuscript resources.

Furthermore, 'by placing these bibliographic records in national bibliographic utilities like OCLC, WLN or RLIN, archivists can provide improved interinstitutional access to their collections without relying on quickly outdated published guides. This capability '

opens up a new aspect of reference service, as archivists can more actively assist researchers to discover relevant materials at other repositories through assisting users in searching these databases. It also provides archivists with the opportunity to evaluate how other repositories have treated certain kinds of materials, such as apprais- ing similar records to decide whether or not to keep them or evaluat-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


ing how unusual kinds of records are most effectively arranged and described, and to promote greater uniformity in description than has hitherto been known.

Overall, it seems likely that the National Information Systems Task Force's initial goal of facilitating archival information exchange will be well served by the AMC format.

ENDNOTES

1. See for example the three articles on the AMC format in the Winter 1986 issue of the American Archivist: Nancy A. Sahli, "Interpretation and Application of the AMC Format," 49: 9-20; Katherine D. Morton, "The MARC Formats: An Overview," 49: 21-30; and Stephen L. Hensen, "The Use of Standards in the Application of the AMC Format," 49: 31-40.

2. "Archivist" will frequently be used to refer generically to both archivists and manuscripts curators in this article.

3. Archivists frequently refer to "inrellectual control" as opposed to "physical control" of collections. The former connotes comprehension of the subject content, while the latter refers to being able to locate and identify the collection and its parts in the archives.

4. Basic overviews can be found in David B. Gracy. Archives & Manu- scnptr: Arrangement and Description, SAA Basic Manual Series (Chicago: Soci- ety of American Archivists, 1977); Richard C. Berner, "Arrangement and De- scription of Manuscripts," Drerel Library Quarterly 11 (January 1975); 34-54; Uli Haller, "Processing for Access," American Archivist 48 (Fall 1985); 400- 416; and Megan Floyd Desnoyers, "When is a Collection Processed?," Midwest- em Archivist 7. no. 1 (1982): 5-23.

5. Library of Congress, MARC Development Office, Manuscripis: A MARC Format. (Washington: Library of Congress, 1973). Three addenda were provided in 1977 and 1980. The Manuscripts Format is almost ignored in archival litera- ture, but one can see the implied criticism of it in Burke's discussion of the AACRZ and NUCMC: Frank G. Burke, "Archival Automation and the Adminis- trator," pp. 3-18 in Lawrence J. McCrank, ed., Automating the Archives, Issues and Problems in Computer Applicotiom, (White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications, 1981).

6. A general overview of such programs can be found in H. Thomas Hicker- son, Arrhives & Manuscripts: An Introduction to Automated Access, SAA Basic Manual Series, (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1981).

7. Richard D. Lytle, "An Analysis of the Work of the National Information Systems Task Force," American Archivist 47 (Fall 1984): 360.

8. Elaine D. Engst, "Standard Elements for the Description of Archives and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Janet G e m and Leon I. Stout 2I

Manuscript Collections," 1980. An unpublished report to the Society of Ameri- can Archivists' Task Force on National Information Svstems.

9. "Standard Data Elements for Archives and ~ > n u s c r i ~ t lnformation Sys- tems: A Report to the Archival Profession." Februaw 1982. An unoublished report by the 'Society of American ~rchivisti' Task FO& on ~ationai Information Systems.

10. National Union Catalog of Manlcscript Collections, 1959161- (Washing- ton: LC Descriptive Cataloging Division, 1959161- ); Andrea Hinding et al., eds., Women's History Sources, A Guide to Archives and Manuscript Collections in the United States (New York: Bowker, 1979).

11. Cf. Stephen L. Hensen, Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts: A Cataloging Manual for Archival Repositories, Historical Societies, and Manu- script Libraries (Washington: Library of Congress, 1983): pp. 5-6.

12. Cf. Hensen, Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts, p. 6, for a discussion of the relevant cataloging procedures. For a recent discussion of issues raised by name authority control for manuscripts and archives, see Hensen, "Use of Standards," p. 31 ff.

13. Kathleen Roe, "New Descriptive Formats at the New York State Ar- chives," Paper delivered at the Spring meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Ar- chives Conference, April 29, 1988.

14. Examples throughout are taken from UARC Formats for Bibliographic Data, update no. 14, 9130186.

15. Interesting work on the choice of subject access for archival collections has recently been done by Avra Michelson, "Description and Reference in the Age of Automation," American Archivirt 50 (Spring 1987): 192-209 and Dale Reed, "Some Considerations on Archival Subject Access." Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of American Archivists. Auyst 28, 1986.

16. Roe, "New Descriptive Formats," reports that participants in the RLlN Seven States Project have discovered that since state government offices closely parallel one another in certain areas, it is sometimes possible for one state to accept another state's records with minor modifications. Repositories that catalog microform copies of original materials cataloged by the owner of the originals will also be able to make use of existing records.

LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED

Berner, Richard C. "Arrangement and Description of Manuscripts." Drerel Li- brary Quarterly 11 (January 1975): 34-54.

Desnoyers, Megan Floyd. "When is a Collection Processed?" Midwestern Archi- vist 7, no. 1 (1982); 5-23.

Engst, Elaine D. "Standard Elements for the Description of Archives and Manu- script Collections," 1980. An unpublished report to the Society of American Archivists' Task Force on National lnformation Systems.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Evans, Max J., and Lisa B. Weber. MARC for Archives and Manuscripts: A Compendium of Practice. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1985.

Gracy, David 9. Archives & Manuscripts: Arrangement and Description. SAA Basic Manual Series. Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1977.

Haller, Uli. "Processing for Access." American Archivist 48 (Fall 1985): 400- 416.

Hensen, Stephen L. Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts: A Cataloging Manual for Archival Repositories, Historical Societies, and Manuscript Li- braries. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1983.

. "Use of Standards in the Application of the AMC Format." American Archivist 49:l (Winter 1986) pp. 31-40.

Hickerson, H. Thomas. Archives & Manuscripts: An Introduction to Automated Access. SAA Basic Manual Series. Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1981.

Hinding. Andrea et al., eds. Women's History Sources, A Guide to Archives and Manuscript Collectionr in the United States. New York: Bowker, 1979.

Libraly of Congress, Automated Systems Office. MARC Formats for Biblio- graphic Data. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1980. Update no. 14, September 30, 1986.

Library of Congress, MARC Development Office. Manuscripts: A MARC For- mat. Washington: Library of Congress, 1973.

Lytle, Richard D. "An Analysis of the Workofthe National Information Systems .Task Force." American Archivist 47 (Fall 1984); 357-365.

McCrank, Lawrence J., ed. Automating the Archives, Issues and Problem in Computer Applications. White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications, 1981.

Michelson, Avra. "Description and Reference in the Age of Automation." Amer- ican Archivirt 50 (Spring 1987): 192-209.

Morton. Katherine D. "The MARC Formats: An Overview." American Archivist 49 (Winter 1986); 21-30.

National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections, 1959161- . Washington: LC Descriptive Cataloging Division, 19.59161- .

OCLC. Online System: Archives and Manuscripts Conrrol Format. Dublin, OH: OCLC, 1984.

Reed. Dale. "Some Considerations on Archival Subject Access." Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of American Archivists. August 28. 1986.

Research Libraries Group. RLIN Bibliographic Field Guide. Stanford, CA: Re- search Libraries Group, 1985 with updates.

. RLIN Archival Control Manual. Stanford, CA: Research Libraries Group, 1984.

Roe, Kathleen. "New Descriptive Formats and the New York State Archives."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Janet G e e and Leon J. Stout 23

Paper delivered at the Spring meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Archives Conference, April 29. 1988.

Sahli, Nancy. "Interpretation and Application of the AMC Format." American Archivist 49 (Winter 1986): 9-20.

-, MARC for Archives and Manuscripts: The AMC Format. Chicago: Soci- ety of American Archivists, 1985.

Society of American Archivists, Task Force on National Information Systems. "Standard Data Elements for Archives and Manuscript Information Systems: A Report to the Archival Profession," February 1982. An unpublished report.

APPENDIX. Selected AMC Fields and Subfields

245 title statement

$a title

$b reminder of title

So statement of responsibility

$f inclusive dates

Sg bulk detee

$k form

$8 version

300 physical description

$a extent

$b other physical details

Oc dimensions

$0 accompanying materiel

$f type of unit

$8 size of unit

$3 materials specified

351 organization and arrangement

$a organization

$b arrangement

$5 archival level


505 contents note

620 eummary/abstrsct note

$a summary/abstract

$b expansion of

summary/abstract

$2 source of information


530 additional physical form

available note

$a additional phyaical form

available

$b availability source

dc availability conditions

$z source of information


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

24 CATALOGING & CL4SSlFICATlON QUARTERLY

533 reproduction note

$a type of reproduction

$b place of reproduction

$C agency responsible for

reproduction

$d date of reproduction

Se physical description


535 location of originale /duplicates

note

$a custodian

Sb poatal address

Sc country of repository


541 immediate aource of acquisition

note

$a source of acquisition

$b addreaa

Sc method of acquisition

$d date of acquiaition

$e acceesion number

S t owner

$h purchase price

Sn extent

$0 type of unit

$3 materials apecified

544 location of related materiele

note

$a custodian

Sb addreae

Ic country of repository

Sd title of related materials

Se provenance


545 biographical or historical note

561 provenance note

l a provenance

$b time of collation

$3 materiala specified

580 linking entry complexity note

$8 linking entry complexity

note

$2 source of information

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Janet Gem und Leon J. Stout

583 actions note

$a action

$b action identification

$c time of action

$d action interval

$e contingency for action

$P authorization

$h jurisdiction

$i method of ection

8j site of action

$k action agent

$1 status

Sn extent

$0 type of unit


655 genre/form heading

$a access term for genre/form

heading

$x general subdivision

$y chronological subdivision

(z geographic subdivision

$2 source of genre/form

heading


656 index term - occupation

$a occupation

$k form

$X general eubdivision

By chronological subdivision

$5 geogrnphic eubdivision

$2 eourca of term


657 index term - function

$a function

$x general subdiviaion

$y chronological subdivision

$z geographic subdivision

$2 source of term

$3 materials epecified

713 host item entry

$a main entry heading

$g relationship information

$t title


851 location

$a name lcustodian o r owner)

$b institutional division

$c street addreas

$d country

5e loention of units

$f item number

$3 materiale apscified

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

San

Jose

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

56 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

the marc archival and manuscripts control (amc) format

Documents