Doug,
I've often pondered the same. Considering only the small piece of the universe that I know,
Crawford in
RRC- Catalogues the three different Pompey
Minatia types, which have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
reverse types, under a single number, 470/1
- Catalogues with different numbers (367/3 and 367/5) two essentially IDENTICAL
denarii of
Sulla, Cr367, one with
legend L.MANLI T
PROQ and the other with
legend L.MANLI
PROQ- Catalogues the entire coinage of
Rome under
Caesar in 44BC as a single number (Cr480) and under the Triumvirs of 42BC as a single number (Cr494), but repeats this behaviour nowhere else in the
catalogue. It would have been consistent with
his treatment of the rest of the corpus to have split the coinage into its
moneyers - who always
mint separately - Mettius, Buca etc.
Flexibility to add extra numbers is a key to cataloguing. Despite the above examples, I think
Crawford's approach was admirable in defining the main
catalogue number according to the issuer/mint/year (variations in any of the preceding cause a new main number, but not variations in
type), then the main subsidiary number according to major
type variations, and then the variation letters added. All older catalogues (eg
Sydenham)
had a simple one-dimensional number which means that a new
type really throws the numbering. In
Crawford's system a new
type by an existing moneyer is created simply by adding e.g. 367/6 to follow 367/5, without disturbing the sequence.
Crawford dealt with the few cases where a
complete moneyer needed to be added by adding a capital A or B to the closest
catalogue number, e.g. 367A/1 would be a new
type by a new moneyer dated around the same time as 367.
There then
comes the thorny question of what a "
type" is. In the RR it is perhaps easier than in the Empire. A moneyer for a given year defines a main
catalogue number e.g. 367. It's the "issuer" that defines the
type. Where this is less clear, then periods may need to be defined (eg according to the titulatire of
Octavian which moves from IMP
CAESAR to
CAESAR DIVI F).
Then, within a main
catalogue number, a
type number is (normally) defined where EITHER the figurative pictures change significantly, e.g. head-left rather than head-right,
Mars rather than
Venus etc., OR the
legend is quite different in some meaningful way that is not just a change in orientation (upward rather than downward) and not just an expansion or contraction of a name or abbreviation (the 367
Sulla varieties should have failed that test!). A change in title (e.g. presence or absence of IMP, or of S.C.) would be significant, but not the same message just spelled differently.
These smaller variations (e.g. minor changes in text)
merit a variation number e.g. 367/5b as distinct from 367/5a. Now we are at a third level, and once again new variations can be introduced without altering the basic number. A similar approach can be taken for minor varieties in
type, e.g whether a
sceptre is in right hand and globe in left, or vica versa, or the presence of tongs, hammer or anvil on the
Puteal Scribonia. Although small changes however, these are clearly deliberate - a switch between tongs and hammer, or between placing a
legend above rather than below the
Dioscuri, are not slips of the engravers tool.
Finally there is a fourth level, which relates to variations that are probably accidental rather than deliberate. Although this is a matter of judgement it's usually easy to spot. IMPE rather than IMPER or IMP, or some small accoutrement on the
reverse type having been missed off a die. These are dealt with by a footnote "Two dies were noted with the
legend IMPE" or similar.
Next, a really fundamental point:
All the best catalogues over the ages refer to an actual coin example as illustration. This has tremendous
merit because if there is controversy about the cataloguing then someone can
pop into the
ANS, look at the coin and resolve it. I am reminded of an episode in the
West Wing, where a character with time on
his hands due to awaiting trial, finds out that there is a variation in the readings of a comma in the US constitution. Quite properly, he gets the congressional librarian to look at the original, and the librarian concludes that "it could be a smudge or could be a comma". Many such instances occur in
numismatics, and one I like to point to concerns the below pictured coin, an As of the
Pompeians in
Spain minted by the legate Eppius; Richard Shaefer in
his write up of the Goodman bronzes (reported here on my website:
http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/Introductory.html#GoodmanBronzes ) noted that
his example of the
type oddly disproves a previously accepted
type, and replaces it.
His offstruck
obverse is absolutely clear in its reading
PIVS IMPE, whereas
Crawford quotes
PIVS IMP F. The reading
PIVS IMP F give in
Crawford rests on
Bahrfeldt’s statement in NZ 1909 that of the 38 examples he found in European museums and
collections, three showed
PIVS IMP F, one in Kiev and two in
Paris. The Kiev example was probably lost in WWII but the other two are in the d’Ailly
collection in
Paris. Richard Shaefer has examined all the EPPIVS
Asses in the d’Ailly
collection but none show the F clearly. Thus, surprisingly the Goodman specimen is enough off centre to be the first published example with a
complete lower
obverse legend, clearly reading
PIVS IMPE.
Sextus Pompey was telling the Roman world that he was not just the son of a famous man but
had been acclaimed
Imperator himself, hence this coin is also historically important.
Woytek, in Arma and Nummi, goes on to illustrate this actual coin which he discusses in the text, a classic example of how the careful eye of an amateur student can lead to an established numismatic fact published in the greatest books and journals."
The point is, BECAUSE
Crawford cited the actual coins in
Paris, Richard could visit
Paris, and see for himself that, as with the smudge/comma in the constitution,
Crawford's reading was ambiguous and thus Richard could confidently replace
Crawford's reading with
his own. Lacking such an actual coin to refer to, we would be left in confusion between
Crawford saying that the coin reads IMP F, and Richard reading the coin as IMPE.
Finally, another fundamental point:
Since the best 20th century catalogues e.g.
Crawford but many others, all cite ACTUAL COINS, then the best 21st century catalogues should consider re-using the old numbering which refers to an actual description of an actual coin, and then rearranging the order of the
catalogue (whilst
still keeping the numbering the same) and slotting in new
types which have been found, or alternately, if adopting a new numbering system, linking it in a concrete way to the old system through referring to the same actual coin examples. Thus "NewCat/123/A = Crawford/456/2 (same coin, BM12345)".
That way ambiguity is avoided which could result from choosing different examples of actual coins as
type illustrations, leaving the reader pondering is Cr/456/2 really the same as NC/123/A or something different.
If I ever get around to recataloguing the
Republican series, the number will be of some format that either keeps
Crawford and just moves the dates around and add infills, or of a new format that provides a direct link to the
Crawford. For example I am contemplating dividing the Republic into some 30-50 historic periods, in line with the arrangements of my coins here:
http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/index.html#quick and then for each period keeping the
Crawford number but with a prefix number that indicates the period, e.g. XIX-456/2. That way, I can do the historical rearrangemetn that I think is appropriate eg reflecting the
Mesagne hoard date, whilst keeping the existing
catalogue numbers
intact.
And on your final question: web versus paper: I think there will be less of a dilemma in the future. As illustration, I am currently preparing a print-out of my web-site and its associated
catalogue or RR coins, for personal use as well as family gifts. The whole website unbelievably runs to some 450 printed pages, which of course have no concurrence at all with the website page layouts. However, it has proved quite a lot easier than I thought; a PDF writer programme enables to run live-printouts of the current status of the website, properly organised according to
catalogue number; I then intend to print a limited number of copies. In six months, when someone wants another copy and the site is now 473 printed pages, I can very easily check which of the webpages have changed, do a new pdf of those pages and reassamble the whole into a "June 2010" version which will be more up to date than the "
Christmas 2009" version. The point is that such techniques will in future years become normal: when you want a new print of
RIC VIII in the year 2018, you will visit the website, click "assemble and print", and somewhere in the bowels of a publishing house 1 copy will be printed and mailed to you, including updates to that date.
RPC has gently started leading the way, with amends to
RPC now being published online (and free) in pdf format only, but in the same physical format as the book so they could be printed by you and bound in. I suspect in 5 years, the entire
RPC will be available in such a format, correctly rearranged with the
new coins added on the appropriate page, and with the provision of bank transfer data (we will all be like the Europeans by then and have foresaken credit cards and paypal in favour of direct internet transfers) your own copy will be printed, bound in hardback and shipped to you (probably by air from
China!) without the intervention of a single human hand.
From the perspective of the cataloguer the important point is to develop your resources in such an electronic format that will be amenable to this technology as it becomes more widely accepted. That means databases with inividual records and some form of sorting, rather than fixed web-pages or fixed text-pages. Once again, in producing my own
catalogue print, the fact that I was inputting my coins into a database that could be printed in
catalogue format, rather than into a fixed-format webpage, has made the process a lot easier. Have a look at Blackwells "Espresso Book Machine": in two years they will be pervasive and capable of printing in colour and
binding in hardback.
http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/jsp/editorial/browse/espresso.jspSo the
choice between digital and paper format will not be a
choice in the future: information will be updated digitally, and printed on demand.
Wow, that was a flood of thoughts Doug, but you awakened a subject I am keenly interested in.
