Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Trajan denarius - not in RIC
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Curtis, post: 24882903, member: 26430"]Ah, yes, the RIC 337, I believe. Here's my example, which I must've picked up about 15 years ago, but didn't record where. (Consigned it once but it came back unsold. I really like this design in general, so now I'm glad it did!)</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1597803[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center">[<i><b>Sorry - should've been a new post!!!</b></i>]</p><p><br /></p><p>The entire thread raises one of my favorite topics in ancient coins:</p><p><i>categorization processes </i>(or, <i>the social construction of "the type"</i>).</p><p><br /></p><p>At a glance, nicely laid-out volumes like RIC or RPC always give the impression of fixed categories -- as if the boundaries are somehow given to us naturally -- inherent in the coins themselves.</p><p><br /></p><p>But they are not. Someone has to decide. And those decisions are made differently by different people at different times and for different purposes, often with dramatically different results.</p><p><br /></p><p>(If any "natural" category exists, it's the die-pair. But maybe not always; sometimes the mint workers didn't care which went with which.)</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><b> In general, many fewer "types" existed earlier in the history of numismatics.</b> Two hundred years ago, all of the Trajan COS VI / Mars Denarii above were considered basically the same.</p><p><br /></p><p>In the 1860s, Henri Cohen divided them up some more. In 1926, further with RIC II. But, a decade later, BMCRE3 reduced some types (the same author/editor, Harold Mattingly!). And now, in the past decade or so, a new type has finally been created for the OP coin: "Woytek 566v."</p><p><br /></p><p>Other scholars chop it up differently: for some, TRAIANO vs TRAIAN and OPTIM vs OPTIMO would NOT count as different legends, since they abbreviate the same words. (One author might recognize four obverse types, another just one.) Most would, though, consider mine and [USER=93702]@Clavdivs[/USER] ' rev. different, as it lacks PARTHICO.</p><p><br /></p><p>But such rules -- or relying on inscriptions at all -- can't work for all coins. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> <b>Many Greek have no inscriptions whatsoever.</b> But once someone studies them, or "someone else" studies them, <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-does-rare-mean-for-an-ancient-coin.399706/#post-8552807" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-does-rare-mean-for-an-ancient-coin.399706/#post-8552807">a coin that was previously common may suddenly become "unique"</a>! (The opposite may also happen: <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/%E2%80%98we-can%E2%80%99t-take-any-of-this-for-granted%E2%80%99-gaza%E2%80%99s-fight-to-keep-its-treasures-safe-at-home.407589/#post-24703841" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/%E2%80%98we-can%E2%80%99t-take-any-of-this-for-granted%E2%80%99-gaza%E2%80%99s-fight-to-keep-its-treasures-safe-at-home.407589/#post-24703841">my Samarian Obol was "unique"</a> for its first couple decades above ground until its publication led to the identification of a bunch more ex.)</p><p><br /></p><p>Some mints kept the same inscription while the style of the imagery gradually changed over generations (e.g., <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?term=syracuse+tetradrachm+arethusa+quadriga&order=0" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?term=syracuse+tetradrachm+arethusa+quadriga&order=0" rel="nofollow">the Syracuse Quadriga/Arethusa Tetradrachms</a>, for ~200 years starting c. 485 BCE).</p><p><br /></p><p>Returning to the (Eastern) Roman types, in the Byzantine period the legends became such gibberish that there are dozens of different scrambled legends for the same "type" of Solidus, but no one would think to call most of them different "types" or even "variants" (e.g., <a href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?term=solidus+1154+constantine&order=0" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?term=solidus+1154+constantine&order=0" rel="nofollow">Constantine IV Pogonatus, Sear 1154</a>).</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> <b>What about... </b></p><p><br /></p><p>Legend breaks? Usually they don't "matter," but sometimes they may: Milne (1918 [<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/370158" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/370158" rel="nofollow">JSTOR 370158</a>]) argued they were used like control symbols to represent different officinae/workshops at the Alexandria mint (see, e.g., my Gordian III [<a href="https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/7.2/3874" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/7.2/3874" rel="nofollow">RPC VII.2 3874, spec. 8</a>] with unusual break for its "type"; there's a forthcoming update for Keith Emmett's book that may break the type up further, but I don't know yet what he'll say about Milne's workshops hypothesis).</p><p><br /></p><p>Or Magistrate (?) names? Some coin "types" come with dozens of different possible magistrate names but otherwise don't vary at all. I've got a few coins that are the only known (or only photographed) example of their magistrate (e.g., <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/coins-of-yours-that-no-one-else-on-ct-has-and-other-hijinks.387014/page-6#post-24840604" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/coins-of-yours-that-no-one-else-on-ct-has-and-other-hijinks.387014/page-6#post-24840604">the Caria, Myndus Drachm here</a>, among other <i>unica</i>). For me, the question is: To whom, when, and for which purposes does it matter? (Put bluntly, "Who cares?")</p><p><br /></p><p>Or other control symbols? When is it a "type," a "variant," a new "die," or not worth recording at all?</p><p><br /></p><p><b>There's no one right way to classify them all. </b>Like any social process, defining the boundaries of the types is always a matter of interpretation and practical purpose. Some ways may be better than others, at least for certain purposes. But never fixed.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Curtis, post: 24882903, member: 26430"]Ah, yes, the RIC 337, I believe. Here's my example, which I must've picked up about 15 years ago, but didn't record where. (Consigned it once but it came back unsold. I really like this design in general, so now I'm glad it did!) [ATTACH=full]1597803[/ATTACH] [CENTER][[I][B]Sorry - should've been a new post!!![/B][/I]][/CENTER] The entire thread raises one of my favorite topics in ancient coins: [I]categorization processes [/I](or, [I]the social construction of "the type"[/I]). At a glance, nicely laid-out volumes like RIC or RPC always give the impression of fixed categories -- as if the boundaries are somehow given to us naturally -- inherent in the coins themselves. But they are not. Someone has to decide. And those decisions are made differently by different people at different times and for different purposes, often with dramatically different results. (If any "natural" category exists, it's the die-pair. But maybe not always; sometimes the mint workers didn't care which went with which.) [B] In general, many fewer "types" existed earlier in the history of numismatics.[/B] Two hundred years ago, all of the Trajan COS VI / Mars Denarii above were considered basically the same. In the 1860s, Henri Cohen divided them up some more. In 1926, further with RIC II. But, a decade later, BMCRE3 reduced some types (the same author/editor, Harold Mattingly!). And now, in the past decade or so, a new type has finally been created for the OP coin: "Woytek 566v." Other scholars chop it up differently: for some, TRAIANO vs TRAIAN and OPTIM vs OPTIMO would NOT count as different legends, since they abbreviate the same words. (One author might recognize four obverse types, another just one.) Most would, though, consider mine and [USER=93702]@Clavdivs[/USER] ' rev. different, as it lacks PARTHICO. But such rules -- or relying on inscriptions at all -- can't work for all coins. [B]Many Greek have no inscriptions whatsoever.[/B] But once someone studies them, or "someone else" studies them, [URL='https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-does-rare-mean-for-an-ancient-coin.399706/#post-8552807']a coin that was previously common may suddenly become "unique"[/URL]! (The opposite may also happen: [URL='https://www.cointalk.com/threads/%E2%80%98we-can%E2%80%99t-take-any-of-this-for-granted%E2%80%99-gaza%E2%80%99s-fight-to-keep-its-treasures-safe-at-home.407589/#post-24703841']my Samarian Obol was "unique"[/URL] for its first couple decades above ground until its publication led to the identification of a bunch more ex.) Some mints kept the same inscription while the style of the imagery gradually changed over generations (e.g., [URL='https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?term=syracuse+tetradrachm+arethusa+quadriga&order=0']the Syracuse Quadriga/Arethusa Tetradrachms[/URL], for ~200 years starting c. 485 BCE). Returning to the (Eastern) Roman types, in the Byzantine period the legends became such gibberish that there are dozens of different scrambled legends for the same "type" of Solidus, but no one would think to call most of them different "types" or even "variants" (e.g., [URL='https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?term=solidus+1154+constantine&order=0']Constantine IV Pogonatus, Sear 1154[/URL]). [B]What about... [/B] Legend breaks? Usually they don't "matter," but sometimes they may: Milne (1918 [[URL='https://www.jstor.org/stable/370158']JSTOR 370158[/URL]]) argued they were used like control symbols to represent different officinae/workshops at the Alexandria mint (see, e.g., my Gordian III [[URL='https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/7.2/3874']RPC VII.2 3874, spec. 8[/URL]] with unusual break for its "type"; there's a forthcoming update for Keith Emmett's book that may break the type up further, but I don't know yet what he'll say about Milne's workshops hypothesis). Or Magistrate (?) names? Some coin "types" come with dozens of different possible magistrate names but otherwise don't vary at all. I've got a few coins that are the only known (or only photographed) example of their magistrate (e.g., [URL='https://www.cointalk.com/threads/coins-of-yours-that-no-one-else-on-ct-has-and-other-hijinks.387014/page-6#post-24840604']the Caria, Myndus Drachm here[/URL], among other [I]unica[/I]). For me, the question is: To whom, when, and for which purposes does it matter? (Put bluntly, "Who cares?") Or other control symbols? When is it a "type," a "variant," a new "die," or not worth recording at all? [B]There's no one right way to classify them all. [/B]Like any social process, defining the boundaries of the types is always a matter of interpretation and practical purpose. Some ways may be better than others, at least for certain purposes. But never fixed.[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Trajan denarius - not in RIC
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...
