Regarding the necessity of including \x History before the chronological
subdivision of a LCSH heading, SCM H1075 (p. 2) says of chronological or
They are usually associated with a historical treatment
of a topic and are established or used under topics
after the subdivision --History, for example,
Women--History--To 500. With topics and topical
subdivisions that the Library of Congress treats as
inherently historical (cf. H 1647, sec. 4), chronological
subdivisions are established without interposing the subdivision
--History, for example, Russia--Social conditions, 1801-1917.
Your example appears to be in the category of headings requiring the --History
subdivision interposed between topic and chronological subdivision. Your
topic is not "inherently historical". For what it's worth, a subject search
of MUMS' permanent bibliographic file for "farmers 19th" returned 23 postings,
all of which used --History before the period subdivision.
Systems Training Librarian
University of Maryland Libraries
College Park, MD 20742-7011
>A question has arisen in our Description Section at The Library
>of Virginia concerning periodic subdivisions in the 650 field.
>Is it o.k. to use the heading:
>650 0 Cotton farmers \z Virginia \y 19th century.
>Or does it have to read:
>650 0 Cotton farmers \z Virginia \x History \y 19th century.
>I have not read anything that says you can't use the first
>heading above. In LC's SUBJECT CATALOGING MANUAL : SUBJECT
>HEADINGS under H620 it states that using the subdivision
>-History followed by a "century" subdivision is the "MOST
>COMMON METHOD." Does that mean you can't do it without the
>subdivision " - History?"
>It seems to me that using the term "- History" is repetitive,
>and also does not accurately reflect the material being
>First of all, if it is 18th or 19th century, it would be
>"historical" in nature, wouldn't it? Why add the subdivision "
>Secondly, adding the subdivision "-History" implies a narrative
>or analysis or treatment of the subject in question. Like a
>book on cotton farming in the 19th century. The material being
>described is orginal manuscript material from cotton
>plantations. It's the material itself. It wasn't collected to
>document the history of cotton farming. Am I clear in this
>distinction?? Hope so.
>The question is: Can I use the first heading listed above, or
>am I breaking the rules? The second heading is the "most
>common," but does that mean it's the only valid one?
>The Library of Virginia
>800 E. Broad Street
>Richmond, Virginia 23219
>[log in to unmask]