Print

Print


Many naval forces of early modern (ca. 16th-18th centuries) European countries were indeed not permanently-organized units but rather units organized and placed under one commander for a particular operation; Aaron's phrase "a bunch of ships under a commander " encompasses the idea although historically, in practice, it was sometimes more accurately "a bunch of ships plus a bunch of embarked land forces under a commander".   

The modern term "Task Force" sort of gets at the concept -- although I hesitate to use the *term* "Task Force" because it's anachronistic and confusing in that there are plenty of regularly-organized naval units in the twentieth century with the actual term "Task Force"; i.e., it's a type of unit in a hierarchy, e.g. 110 United States. Navy. Task Force 58 (no 97005351)

In the early modern period, though, these "assemblages" of forces *might* be named -- but  sometimes named in a way that is grammatically unwieldy to modern-day catalogers, and documented in inconvenient places.  

Sometimes the name might be just documented in contemporary correspondence, orders, etc. and only buried somewhere in the text of a modern monograph in hand about a campaign,  battle, etc. involving that force and that you're trying to catalog.   And sometimes the name will sound to the modern cataloger's ear more like a generic descriptive phrase than a "name", but once one digs into contemporary usage it does seem to be a name.  I have seen this more with eighteenth-century rather than seventeenth-century or sixteenth-century instances though.

Returning to the more immediate issue, the combined force that Philip II sent to invade England in 1588 and commonly known in Anglo-American literature as the "Spanish Armada" may have had a formal  name; according to Spencer Tucker's Wars that Changed History: 50 of the World's Greatest Conflicts (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2015), 152, the force was known as the "Grande y Felicisma Armada" or "Armada Invencible". [forgive me -- can't get the right diacritics in with this particular character set] 

(Wikipedia claims Grande and Felicisma Armada, but offers no citation.  If making the NAR, Wikipedia plus the above reference work might do, but if actually making the NAR I would want ideally to cite something a little more authoritative and perhaps get one of the Spanish-language scholarly studies of the campaign to decide between the two names in the Tucker reference)

Lastly, John Hostage's reference to H405's two categories of "Expeditions, military" was very apropos in my opinion and relevant to the 1588 campaign.  According to how catalogers have assigned it, Armada, 1588 (sh 85007230) seems to be about the entire campaign and not the fleet itself.  It's a NT on the SAR for the heading for the overall war: Anglo-Spanish War, 1585-1604 sh2010015314, which has NT connections to other named military/naval campaigns and battles of that war.

Catalogers have been assigning Armada, 1588 consistently to works that are about not just the naval battles but the entire 1588 invasion attempt.  It's assigned pretty consistently to works that cover also English ground forces' defensive preparations, the actions and of the major Spanish ground forces in the Low Countries included in the invasion plan, et. al. -- in other words, the whole campaign.

The subject authority record could probably use a scope note though.

If you've read this far, please allow me to extend an invitation!  Anyone interested in these kinds of issues is of course more than welcome to join the Military NACO Funnel!  Issues and problems in name authority work and subject authority work often overlap, as they did in this case, so no matter which side of the PCC house brings you to cataloging military and naval related materials, please join us if you are interested!

Happy Cataloging to All!

Mark Danley


_________________
Mark H. Danley, Ph.D.

Librarian, Information Resources
United States Military Academy Library

Jefferson Hall
758 Cullum Road
West Point, NY 10996-1709

845-938-8268

[all statements above represent my individual professional opinions and are not official U.S. Army or Department of Defense policy]

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kuperman, Aaron
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [PCCLIST] SACO headings

The question would depend on how the Spanish structured their naval forces in the 16th century.  If the “Armada” (a formal fleet, and a corporate body) was merely an ad hoc “armada” (a bunch of ships under a commander without a formal corporate structure).  Wherever there is an authority record (NAF or LCSH), there should be a good explanation.  I doubt one could have a rule applicable to all “armadas”. 

 

Aaron Kuperman, LC Law Cataloging Section. 

This is not an official communication from my employer

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Bratton
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] SACO headings

 

It seems strange to me that a ship would be a corporate name AAP but a whole fleet of them would be a subject AAP.  Shipyards are also corporate name AAPs.  The Armada example looks like an exception rather than the rule.

 

There are also corporate AAP examples like:

 

Great Britain. Royal Navy. British Pacific Fleet

 

Maryland. State Fishery Force

 

Japan. Kaigun. 88 Kantai

 

Robert

 

--

Robert Bratton

Cataloging Librarian

Jacob Burns Law Library

George Washington University

Washington, DC

 

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Ann Heinrichs <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote:

FYI, the ol' familiar Spanish Armada is a Subject (Armada, 1588).

 

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Allison Rich <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote:

Thank you, Rowena and Nathan:

We have a work on this event:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armada_of_1779

I am not finding any allowance for Fleets in that list.

Does this mean it's created in NACO?

Many thanks again for your further replies, Allison



	Here it is:

	 

	https://www.loc.gov/marc/authority/ambiguous-headings.html

	 

	Rowena Griem

	Catalog Librarian for Germanic Languages

	Yale University Library

	P.O. Box 208240

	New Haven, CT 06520-8240

	 

	 

	 

	From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Allison Rich
	Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 12:04 PM
	To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
	Subject: [PCCLIST] SACO headings

	 

	Hello all:

	I cannot seem to locate the page which tells you which headings are NACO and which are SACO.

	I suspect we have one which will be a SACO headings (it's a fleet, like the Armada, 1588 heading) but I would just like to confirm.

	Thank you for sending the link.

	Allison

	-- 
	 
	********************************
	"Outside of a dog, 
	a book is probably man's best friend,
	and inside of a dog, 
	it's too dark to read. 
	- Groucho Marx"
	 
	Allison Rich
	Rare Materials Cataloguer
	ESTC and NACO Coordinator
	 
	John Carter Brown Library
	Providence, Rhode Island
	[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
	 
	******************************** 

 

 

-- 
 
********************************
"Outside of a dog,
a book is probably man's best friend,
and inside of a dog,
it's too dark to read. 
- Groucho Marx"
 
Allison Rich
Rare Materials Cataloguer
ESTC and NACO Coordinator
 
John Carter Brown Library
Providence, Rhode Island
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
 
******************************** 





-- 

Ann Heinrichs

Metadata/Cataloging Librarian

The Paul Bechtold Library

Catholic Theological Union

5401 S. Cornell Ave.

Chicago, IL 60615
http://www.ctu.edu/library

[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>