[DCRM-L] Incunabula - Coding the year of printing

[John Lancaster]

If it's certain (as far as we can be certain) that the date was 
expressed "local style" (that is, "10 January 1494/95" means 1495 by our 
Gregorian calendar), then the date is recorded as 1495. (MARC 046 can be 
used to make sure 1494 is covered for searching.)  If however the 
"1494/95" expresses uncertainty as to which year is meant, then it is 
recorded as "1494 or 1495".  In either case, an explanatory note is 
called for.

The common form of expression ("1494/95") is inherently problematic, 
because without further elucidation, its meaning is uncertain - but 
there it is, embedded in many decades of usage.  I don't use the 
"1494/95" form myself, but sometimes it has to be quoted.

ISTC usage is a little different - they seem to assume that the form 
"1494/95" means 1495 in all cases (despite the sentence beginning 
"Occasionally ...", and perhaps that's the way it's standardized in ISTC 
records.  Also, "after 1500" might better be expressed in a catalogue 
record as "not before 1501".

John Lancaster


Noble, Richard wrote:
> How have those of you who regularly catalog incunabula dealt with the 
> situation addresses in the following passages from 
> http://istc.bl.uk/help.html ?
>
> The analogous situation in the place and period I started out with, 
> Britain c18, was that of legal year dates between 1 January and Lady 
> Day (25 March): transcribed year recorded in the data as Gregorian 
> year--e.g. 1724/5 = 1725. But for this earlier period would q dates be 
> appropriate in MARC ff, reflecting the residual doubt in these 
> cases--e.g. Venice 25 January 1483/84 would be treated as "1483 or 1484"?
>
> This does affect searching in the WorldCat, which is frustrating 
> enough as it is for a temporary incunabulist.
>
> ISTC Help:
>
> "In printing towns where the year-number commonly changed on a day 
> other than 1 January, such as Venice (1 March), Florence (25 March), 
> and Paris (Easter), year dates from the early part of the year are 
> often expressed in such forms as 1491/92, 1499/1500. Occasionally a 
> printer can be shown to have used both styles of dating, common or 
> local, indifferently, and decision is accordingly uncertain unless 
> documentary or physical evidence (from types or woodcuts) is 
> available. On rare occasions the date as printed is impossible in any 
> system."\
>
> "Because of the variety of expressions of date of printing (e.g., 
> "[14]78", "not before Aug. 1479", "between Apr. 1484 and 1486", "15 
> Feb. 1499/1500", "after 1500"), ISTC uses a separate field for the 
> standardized year of printing. The dates just quoted are standardized 
> as 1478, 1479, 1484-86, 1500, and 1501. These year-codes are not 
> displayed but are drawn upon in searches involving date-ranging and 
> sorting. They also enable rough statistical work to be undertaken, 
> though owing to the large quantity of undated and not closely datable 
> incunabula, the results of such enquiries are always likely to be in 
> varying degrees imprecise. Undated books where there is not enough 
> evidence to hand even to estimate a date are said to be "undated", and 
> these are not coded for date-ranging purposes."
>
> RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
> <Richard_Noble at Br <mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu 
> <http://own.edu>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20170207/6424b1d1/attachment.html>