Approved:

 

Thesaurus: Provenance Evidence

Term: Markings

Hierarchy: [Physical amendments]

Scope Note: Use for intentional or accidental marks applied manually in or on materials.

Broad Term: [Physical amendments]

Narrow Term: Annotations

                    Autographs

                    Codes

Devices

Edge-marks

Illegible markings

Initials

Inscriptions

Monograms

Mottoes

Numbers

Seals

Shelf marks

Stamps

          Stencils

          Watermarks

Related Term: Bindings

 Insertions

 Labels

 Papers  

History Note: Change to current term approved, January 2009.

Comments: It was felt that a change was needed to this term to include not only the intentional mark of ownership, but also marks made by owners that may be unintentional. The approved scope note change encompasses both concepts.

 

---

 

Post your comments to DCRM-L (you must be subscribed)

Post your comments to the editor

---

 

 

Proposed Term:  Markings

Thesaurus: Provenance Evidence

Submitted by: David Jensen

Term record as found in AAT [1](mandatory):

 

marks (symbols)

Scope note: Standardized symbols, notations, or other markings on objects that convey official information, such as the object's origin or maker, its authenticity, or a change in its official status. For lettering marked on something for documentation or commemoration, use "inscriptions."

 

UF:

mark (symbol) (C,U,AD,American English)

markings (symbols) (C,U,UF,American English)

marques (symbols) (C,U,D,French-P) 

marque (C,U,AD,French)

 

Hierarchy: Objects Facet

 

Broader term:

<identifying markings and symbols>

 

 

Term record as found in LCSH [2](mandatory):

 

Markings seems to be some type of free floating subdivision:

Airplanes—Markings

Airplanes, Military--Markings 

Firearms--Markings  etc.

 

Marks:

There are subject headings with include the work “marks” but they do not seem to have anything to do with what our issue is.

 

Term record as found in GMGPC [3](mandatory):

Markings, USE: Marks (Symbols)

Scope note: Marks in, on, or applied to works; not usually considered part of the visual imagery; often an aid to dating or establishing provenance. 

UF: Markings, Marks

NT: 

Blind stamps 

Chops 

Dealers' marks 

Emblems 

Inscriptions 

Ownership marks 

Register marks 

Seals (Impressions) 

Tax stamps 

Trademarks 

Watermarks

 

Term record as found in GSAFD [4](mandatory): Not found

 

 

Term record as found in MeSH [5](mandatory): 

Markings: none

Marks: has Printers’ marks

 

Term record as found in MIM [6](mandatory): 

Marks: none

Marings: none

 

Term record as found in the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition [7](mandatory): 

Mark:  A device, stamp, brand, label, inscription, etc., on an article, animal, etc., identifying it or its holder, or indicating ownership, origin, quality, etc.

 

Marking:

The action of putting a mark, marker, token, indicator, etc., on something. In extended use: the action of distinguishing, identifying, or giving emphasis to something.

 

Term record as found in Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary of the English Language (mandatory): 

Mark: sign, indication: an impression (as a scratch, scar, or stain) made on something

  

Marking:

1: the act, process, or an instance of making or giving a mark 2 a: a mark made b: arrangement, pattern, or disposition of marks

 

Term as found in Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd edition (optional):

 

Term as found in source/hierarchical displays/definitions, other sources, &c.:

Provenance Evidence Terms

Term: Markings

Scope Note

Use for any distinctive feature impressed manually or mechanically on materials to designate provenance.

Broader Term

Physical amendments (Gathering term; do not assign)

Narrower Term

Annotations

Narrower Term

Autographs

Narrower Term

Codes

Narrower Term

Devices

Narrower Term

Edge-marks

Narrower Term

Illegible markings

Narrower Term

Initials

Narrower Term

Inscriptions

Narrower Term

Monograms

Narrower Term

Mottoes

Narrower Term

Numbers

Narrower Term

Seals

Narrower Term

Shelf marks

Narrower Term

Stamps

Narrower Term

Stencils

Narrower Term

Watermarks

Related Term

Bindings

Related Term

Insertions

Related Term

Labels

Related Term

Papers  

 

 

Hierarchy:  

Proposed SN:

 

UF: 

 

Warrant (if necessary):

 

BT:

Warrant (if necessary):

 

NT:

Warrant (if necessary):

 

RT:

Warrant (if necessary):

 

HN:

 

_________________________________________________________________

AAT [Getty’s Art & Architecture Thesaurus]

GMGPC [Library of Congress’s Thesaurus for Graphic Materials]

GSAFD [Guidelines on Subject Access to Individual Works of Fiction, Drama, etc. (2nd ed.)]

LCSH [Library of Congress’s Subject Headings]

MeSH [National Library of Medicine’s Medical Subject Headings]

MIM [Library of Congress’s The Moving Image Genre-form Guide]

 

Comments: 

 

This is a can of worms.  I honestly am not sure what the proposer wants.  It almost sounds like he wants “coloring books” rather than random marks made by a child (?).  I think the issue boils down to random marks vs. making something as a sign of ownership.  (Perhaps I even got this wrong.)  The OED ties “mark” to ownership while “marking” seems more general.  I don’t want to get into whether a child’s marking up a book is a sign of ownership or not.  But I think that we could fashion a scope note for “mark so that it refers to random markings, and add a new term, something like “Ownership marks” for manual marks of ownership.  For mechanical marks of ownership, wouldn’t that be like stamping something?  In other words a completely different term.  GMGPC has examples of “marks” and they look far different from random markings.

 

 

See below the discussion so far

 

 

David Jensen : in the provenance thesaurus, the scope note for "Markings" says,

"Use for any distinctive feature impressed manually or mechanically on

materials to designate provenance."

 at risk of putting too much emphasis on the preposition "to" as

exclusively implying deliberate intent, i am reluctant to use "Markings"

for hand-coloring of illustrations, such as  by a child. _ _ i would

like to suggest a new subdivision under "Markings", although each idea

which comes to mind has drawbacks.

 "Hand-coloring" and "Coloring by hand" and "Illustration

hand-coloring" all seem too easily confused with coloring-as-published

(although the parenthetical "(Provenance)" ideally should dispell any

confusion for people who are actually paying attention to what they

see).

 "Owner coloring" and "Juvenile coloring" and "Custom coloring" all

seem unsatisfactory since they probably are not phrasings under which a

person doing a search would "naturally" look.

 despite the length of the phrasing, "Coloring by owners, etc." seems

safest for clarity, and for not excluding circumstances where children

have gotten their water-colors etc. into somebody else's books !

 if no useful phrasing can be agreed upon for a new subdivision,

perhaps the scope note for "Markings" could be broadened a little, to

encompass something like, "... or resulting in customization, such as

via juvenile coloring of illustrations."

 and by the way, although i can imagine a case being made that

child-coloring (whether embellishment OR defacement !) should not be

addressed in the provenance thesaurus, nevertheless i think that there

is precedent, such as the term "Fists", for representing the results of

previous owners, without serving to identify them. _ _ hence i am

inclined to believe that addressing the phenomenon of

coloring-by-children is relevant in the provenance thesaurus.

 

Nina: As someone who marked many books as a child, I can see what Mr. Jensen is

getting at...just because it was important to add color to the boring

parts, does not mean that your little sister no longer owns the book.

So, I think he's concerned that the current SN for Markings can only be

used when those markings designate provenance. I can see his point.

Personally, I think the SN could be shortened to read, "Use for any

distinctive feature impressed manually or mechanically on materials." This

suggestion doesn't help Mr. Jensen now, but I'm not sure he can use the

term as is. I wouldn't.

 

Ryan: I agree. The current SN doesn't match his proposed use. Also, the phrase "impressed manually or mechanically" to me suggests a stamp. I guess "impressed mechanically" refers to stamping(?), while "impressed manually" refers to, what, MS markings? This is very unclear. I'm not sure how easily SNs are changed, but a better SN might be something like "Use for any distinctive marking by owners."

Deborah: What a ridiculous scope note. How come I never noticed it before? To my mind, the most awkward part is "to designate provenance."  But first, I'll start off by saying that coloring by children or whomever does qualify as "Markings," even though Jensen wants to use something more specific. 

 

Next, how to change the scope note. "Provenance" isn't limited to ownership; it applies to any person or body through whose hands an item has passed. And the thesaurus is Provenance evidence. Therefore, any kind of mark made by someone is evidence of provenance, regardless of whether the hand making the mark can be identified.

 

I suggest that a new scope note be written from scratch. And whoever does the research can perhaps figure out where the "impressed mechanically" comes from and what it means. 

 

Depending on whether and how you change the scope note, it should probably go through Bib Standards.  If it's fiddling with a word or two, no. But if you're making a substantive change, then yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bruce Whitman:

 I bet the source is "Marks in Books", the catalogue that Roger did for a show at Houghton. (Have a look at it if you don't know it.  I had not really thought closely about this, but here goes.I don't know what "strict ownership" literally means -- if Deborah

Leslie loaned me her copy of AACR2 and I scribbled some ravings in it,

would she consider those marks as constituting provenance? Carter

mentions the importance of booksellers as owners, no matter how briefly,

though they are owners in the economic (or strict) sense, so that seems

cogent. A child's scribbles may be worth mentioning in a record, but

surely they do not constitute provenance, do they? On the other hand, if

we let provenance loose from ownership, and just think of it as various

manners of records indicating where a book "lived" at any  given time,

then "marks in books" seems a good catch-all. The child who scribbles in

mom's copy of The Story of O didn't own the book and may not even have

read it, but it IS a mark that records an event in that copy's life, and

somehow that makes it interesting, or potentially so

 

 

 

 

Nina:

I also looked at Stoddard's Marks

in Books. Alas, no mention of the  unintentional scribble, but lots of information about intentional markings. I'm not sure if there is one single term to describe these intentional markings, although I do lean

towards "Ownership marks"; and perhaps "markings" for the scribbles.  Stoddard mentions "Reader's marks": "Reader's marks (45-64) show translators, students, scholars, authors, proofreaders, public figures, country clergy, auctioneers, printers,prompters, and bibliographers reacting, reporting,  commenting,recording revising, recollecting."--p. 2.

 

 

 Do you have access to catalogs of children's books? I'm wondering if

there are any descriptions of "unintentional marks by children with

crayons"--or whatever.