Organization, Representation and Description through the Digital Age

Information in Libraries, Archives and Museums

Christine M. Angel, Caroline Fuchs, Christine M. Angel, Caroline Fuchs

• Publisher: De Gruyter Saur
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9783110395990
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Library & Information Science
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Cataloging standards practiced within the traditional library, archive and museum environments are not interoperable for the retrieval of objects within the shared online environment. Within today's information environments, library, archive and museum professionals are becoming aware that all information objects can be linked together. In this way, information professionals have the opportunity to collaborate and share data together with the shard online cataloging environment, the end result being improved retrieval effectiveness. But the adaptation has been slow: Libraries, archives and museums are still operating within their own community-specific cataloging practices.

This book provides a historical perspective of the evolution of linking devices within the library, archive, and museums environments, and captures current cataloging practices in these fields. It offers suggestions for moving beyond community-specific cataloging principles and thus has the potential of becoming a springboard for further conversation and the sharing of ideas.

Part I:Cataloging Technologies and its Influence on the Organization and Description of Information

Michael W. Handis

1The Historical Use of Catalogs in the Arrangement of Knowledge in Libraries, Archives, and Museums: A Survey

Introduction: The library, archive, and museum environments

“It is impossible, in fact, to attach too much importance to the advantages resulting from an intelligent and methodical order in the arrangement of a library. Of what utility would be the richest treasures if it were not possible to make use of them” (Cotton des Houssayes 1906, 44)? This is also true of archives and museums as well as libraries. It is only after cultures create written language do they then need to create repositories to collect and hold the information created. Libraries and archives came into existence around the same time in the differing histories of the world. Museums, too, are the products of advancing cultures, which seek to celebrate civilization’s cultural accomplishments. The catalog, the assembling of information about a collection and the key to discovering the holdings of that collection, is a common tool: “Throughout history, library catalogs served a variety of purposes. From inventory lists of valuable property to marketing tools designed to solicit donations, the library catalog has played a varied role in serving both the library and its users” (Clarke 2014, 1).

Not only libraries, but also archives and museums use catalogs to document collections and donations. Archives have finding aids, but usually the information about collections are in a catalog. The finding aid is usually an in-depth listing of what is in a specific collection, with the summary information being included in a catalog. Museum catalogs contain a plethora of information, if exhibition catalogs are any indication: the accession number, donor, history of the object, area from which it came, what it is, etc.

The term “catalog” will be used in the broadest sense in this chapter, meaning the recording of individual items in a collection (for libraries, a book list), breaking those items into broad fields of knowledge, and then as a way of giving access to a collection through author, title, and subjects. The assembling of even basic information is the first step in the creation of the catalogs that still survive from medieval and modern times.

There are a variety of ways that collections of materials can be organized. Consulting the finding aids for archival collections is often the only way to confirm what materials are held in the collections. Public libraries organize their collections differently from academic and special libraries. Public library patrons are expected to browse the various individual collections, such as travel or local history, shelved separately from the main collection. In contrast, academic and special library patrons primarily use the collections for research, using the library catalog to search for what they need. The Dewey Decimal Classification System (DDC) and the Library of Congress Classification System (LCC) are different catalog numbering systems, but both create shelf organization by subjects and authors. Such in-depth organization is a result of mass literacy and print publications, producing more and more materials that needed an ordered organization to make them easier to find. Such detailed systems of organization are only needed when a collection is large, containing perhaps 1000-plus titles. Nonetheless, there were several elaborate systems created in different parts of the world over many centuries.

Sometimes the organization of a collection seems to defy logic, such as the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow (founded 1364), which organized its collections to honor the benefactors of the institution and not by subject or author (Nowak 1997). Of course, the central question is, what was the purpose of this catalog? Was it used to promote the library, or to honor the donors so that they might make future donations? This practice of adhering to the way a donor arranged his/her collection was not necessarily the best organization for other patrons who might use the library. In the case of the Jagiellonian Library, keeping donated materials in their original organizational schema meant that multiple catalogs needed to be consulted for use of the library collections, since each collection would have its own catalog. It is possible that an integrated catalog, one catalog listing all holdings in the library regardless of what collection it was in, could have been created but with the technology of the time it was not easy to create such a catalog let alone maintain or keep it up-to-date.

The first library catalog created in China was for the Han Emperor Cheng (reigned 33–7 BCE), who wanted to know what materials were held in the imperial library. It took scholars nearly two decades to organize the collection and record it in a catalog that was presented by the son of the original compiler to Cheng’s successor. Though this first catalog was created simply to tell the emperor and the court what was in the imperial library and not an attempt to document and organize all of Chinese literature up to that time, this cataloging system influenced the way materials were cataloged in China up until the beginnings of the twentieth century, when Western cataloging practices were introduced.

Athens, the Hellenistic successors, the Pinakes, and Rome

Libraries and archives evolved around the same time in world history, and which came first is impossible to determine. Museums existed in the ancient world, but it appears they came after libraries and archives. In ancient times, a library was more than a repository for books. Libraries served as scholar-centers and, later in the Roman Empire, as public areas for events. Archives housed primarily those documents that were generated by the governments of the time to be used as historical records and materials to consult when governing. Museums at this time were primarily outdoor, “… the public monumental portico-temples of Rome as museums where public collections of art were exploited by ancient generals, politicians and emperors for political ends” (Macaulay-Lewis 2009, 2). The Greeks also had parts of their gymnasia, the exedra, where people sat and watched the athletic competitions while amongst displayed works of art. As will be discussed, these great outside areas for art were started during the Hellenistic Age (323–30 BCE).

According to Dorothy May Norris, the Babylonian library built at Akkad/Agade by Sargon I in the seventeenth century CE had a classified catalog organized by subject, which gave instructions on how to find the books (Norris 1969). However, recent scholarship by Eleanor Robson into ancient Babylonian and Assyrian libraries has found little or no evidence that these libraries had librarians, catalogs or any type of finding aid (Robson 2013). She attributes this to the radically different functions that Babylonian and Assyrian libraries played as opposed to Roman libraries, specifically the practice of restricted users, with no dedicated library buildings (libraries were either in palaces or temples), and which therefore had no public presence (Robson 2013). Also, these libraries’ collections were not similar like the ones in Roman libraries (Robson 2013), meaning that Roman libraries were open to the general public and Babylonian and Assyrian libraries were reserved only for the priests or government officials.

It must be mentioned that, although no catalogs or finding aids have been found as yet, many of the discovered tablets at Nineveh from the library of Ashurbanipal (reigned 668–627 BCE) were still in clay containers that had an attached clay tag recording a number; for multi-tablet works, the tag bore the number of the tablet, the first line of the previous tablet as well as the title of the entire work (Norris 1969). Tablets found at Kalhu (eighth-century BCE) had tags that recorded the names of the scribes that wrote the tablets as well as the from which they came (Robson 2013). At Edfu in Upper Egypt there is evidence of a catalog of books that is engraved on the library walls, but in all probability this was just a list of the books (Norris 1969) rather than an attempt to organize the materials for retrieval.

Kim Ryholt sought to uncover the roots of the Alexandrian Library, built by the early Ptolemies in Egypt (323–222 BCE), with the long history of libraries in Egypt. Though established as a center of Greek learning, the Alexandrian Library certainly did share the long tradition that of libraries in ancient Egypt. However, the Egyptian libraries’ intents resembled those of the Babylonian and Assyrian libraries: “On the contrary, there are indications that these libraries zealously protected their writings which were frequently described as ‘secret’ throughout the three millennia which our sources cover. The primary reason for restricting access to the literature may well have been to protect it from abuse and to retain its potency” (Ryholt 2013, 37).

Ryholt then notes the stories recounted by Strabo and Porphyry that Pythagoras, Plato and Eudoxus could not get the Egyptian priests to communicate any of their knowledge to them (Ryholt 2013). These priests, like those in Babylonia and Assyria, would not make public any information contained in the libraries. Because of this radically different role that libraries shared in Egyptian life, they would have had limited impact on scholarly work in regards to textural criticism, medicine, the sciences and lexicography, for which the later Alexandrian Library became famous and which had an impact on Greek scholarship (Ryholt 2013).

“In the Western world our patterns of thinking are derived from Greek philosophy and science, but this is not necessarily true of other cultures” (Broughton 2004, 16). The taxonomies created in the West are rooted in Aristotle’s writings, which influenced Linnaeus and Sir Thomas Bacon. In the West, the Alexandrian Library catalog, the Pinakes of Callimachus, is considered the first library catalog.

One in a long line of librarians at the Alexandrian Library, Callimachus (ca. 305-ca. 240 BCE) wrote the Pinakes while a young man at court (Blum 1991). He also wrote a plethora of other works. Callimachus’ Pinakes has been described as:

… this monumental, 120-vol. inventory of Greek literature categorized authors according to genre or discipline and arranged in alphabetical order. Each name was followed by a brief biography and a predominantly alphabetically arranged register of works. The incipit and number of lines were noted for each, as were questions of authenticity as necessary. Callimachus’ critical inventory served simultaneously as a national ‘bio-bibliography’ and as an overview of the history of literature. (Cancik et al. 2006, vol. 6, col. 264)

Francis J. Witty classifies Callimachus as from “… a line of scholar-poets … who were taught how to do scholarly research by Aristotle and his successors” (Witty 1973, 237). Classicists have focused solely on his poetic works, many of which are still extant, which cannot be said for his research works (Witty 1973, 237).

The Alexandrian Library had a large collection of scrolls on different subjects; there were also multiple copies of the same work. “Publishing” in the ancient sense meant having scribes, usually slaves, copy a work by hand. Authors would commission copies of their works to give to friends, libraries, or important people that they were trying to impress. Popular works were liberally copied as there was no concept of copyright in the modern sense; once an author released his work, anyone was free to make copies and, over time, discrepancies crept into the text, either accidentally or deliberately. The Library served the philosophers in the Museion, the “hall of the Muses,” where these scholars tried to determine the identity of the original text and what had been added or changed over time. This is known as textural criticism, and multiple copies of a work were needed to do a comparative study in order to better determine the authentic lines.

The full name of the Pinakes was Tables of Those Who Were Outstanding in Every Phase of Culture, and Their Writings—in 120 Books (Witty 1958). The Alexandrian Library collection is believed to have been divided into the following subjects: epic writers; dramatic writers; writers on law; philosophical writers; historical writers; oratorical works; rhetorical works; and, miscellaneous works (Norris 1969).

There were further subdivisions under each subject, “… the entries were either arranged alphabetically under the names of the authors, or else, chronologically” (Norris 1969, 4). Witty lists an entry used by some scholars to “prove” that the Pinakes was an alphabetical catalog whose main entry was author. The bracketed references refer to the ancient writers who either quoted from or referred to the Pinakes; and where these references have been reprinted by Rudolf Pfiffer and given a number (Witty 1958):

I know also that Callimachus in his Pinax

of Miscellaneous Literature has included

books on cake making by Aegimius, Hegesippus,

Metrobius, and even Phaestus.

[Athenaeus xiv. 643E; Pfeiffer 435] (Witty 1958, 135).

Callimachus recorded quite a bit of information about the author. None of the 120 scrolls have survived; parts of the Pinakes have been identified in parts of works written by other people. The ancients would “quote” a source without citing what, exactly, was the information that they were copying, as the above translated quote demonstrates. This has resulted in attempts to identify that which came from the Pinakes from the text of the author. Witty identifies and reprints all the parts of Greek literature in which it is believed that the Pinakes is quoted or is being referenced. The following is example of an entry under the subject oratory:

According to Callistratus, Diotimus claims

that he (Demosthenes) delivered his first

public oration before an audience of Athenians;

and those who compiled the tables of

orators entitled it On the Symmories.

[Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ad Ammaeum epist. 4; Pfeiffer 432] (Witty 1958, 134).

Although Callimachus is not...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part I: Cataloging Technologies and its Influence on the Organization and Description of Information
• Part II: The Transition from Analog to Digital. Web 1.0
• Part III: Finding Structure. Making Connections. Web 2.0
• Part IV: Transition to Web 3.0
• About the authors
• Index