Thing to discuss for next meeting: a mint mark and fields field?

Alejandro García Lidón

While importing some types from RIC IX with Elena and Ruth, we were thinking about where to include the mint marks and fields (i.e: -/*/SMHB) of the coins. Would it be a good idea to create one for the obverse and reverse?

rca

Alejandro García Lidón
... yes, do so!
In Antiquity you will need it for the As behind the bust and so forth. And everybody entering medieval/modern coins will be very happy with it, as the position of mintmarks in these periods are at random.

By the way: we use a slightly different way to enter mintmarks (and legends; system works for all periods):

En règle générale, les pièces ne comportent une
description des types ou des légendes (Av. et Rv.)
que lorsqu’elles divergent des ouvrages de référence
ou que, pour un même renvoi bibliographique,
plusieurs possibilités existent. En revanche,
les marques d’atelier et les types monétaires
du Bas-Empire sont systématiquement spécifiés.
Le système de restitution et de présentation des
textes inscrits sur les pièces utilise les signes diacritiques
suivants:
[ ] lacunes: le texte disparu n’est rétabli que lorsque
sa restitution est certaine
( ) variantes possibles d’une restitution
< > supplément (oubli du graveur)
= passage du champ de gauche au champ de droite
/ passage à la ligne suivante
// passage à l’exergue

Exemple

OF I
S R
––––––
LVGP

est transcrit: OF / S = I / R // LVGP

Basé sur la méthode, épigraphique, de Leiden et celle, numismatique, de l’École de Vienne (cf. FMRÖ, II, 2, p. 9), ce
système a été développé par le Groupe suisse pour l’étude des trouvailles monétaires (GSETM) et complété par l’ITMS.

Alex

Decisions:

Alejandro García Lidón proposal and rca comment about mint marks: we will discuss this topic in next meeting January 27th.

Interventions -> Analysis section:
1.- We need to try to input some data and test if the sections works well. Please comment your conclusions, suggestions, etc.
2.- It's necessary two new fields for compositions section: Code and Notes. Code will be used to match the data values of the analysis with museum or catalog code and notes for add some comments.
3.- We need to define the analysis sumatoria and medias of values. for ex: 1 coin with 2 interventions with 3 samples the first intervention and 2 samples in second intervention. The media should be the sum of the 5 interventions / 5? or median of the first intervention and media of the second intervention divided 2?.

(n1+n2+n3+n4+n5 )/ 5
((n1+n2+n3)/3 + (n4+n5)/2)/2

For values:
n1 = 4.1
n2 = 4.0
n3 = 3.5
n4 = 1.21
n5 = 1.37

The media of first formula will be: 2,84
The media of second formula will be: 2,58

@Markus suggested to upload screenshots of the analysis sections, so:

1.- In Numismatic object you have a portal filed to create new interventions:

This portal has two fields:

1 an autocomplete field that call to lab section:

2 A portal field to introduce compositions:

So, you can create multiple interventions for a numismatic object with multiple samples and multiples labs per intervention.

The question could be: does the lab and composition have to be in the same section (1 lab multiple samples) or the actual structure is correct?

Best

Manuel Gozalbes

The point is to find a global solution for any coinage. The starting point is that mint marks, as they generally depend on standardised and non-standardised glyphs, should be recorded in the "Legends" section. On this basis, seems not necessary to create a new section for them. If we agree on this, there are three ways for attaching these marks to the type, considering that they use SVG drawings from the Thesauri.

To consider the marks as legends. It's a practical solution for productions where these marks are uncertain (legend? mint mark?). It's the solution adopted for the monedaiberica.org project, but it doesn't seem appropriate for other coinages like Roman imperial.
To add two new fields for "Obverse mint mark" and "Reverse mint mark" in the "Type" and "Numismatic object" coin sections. Four new fields in total. This solution adds complexity to the system. I don't like this because the meaning of the current fields "Obverse symbol" and "Reverse symbol" is somewhat close to "mint marks".
To adapt the fields "Obverse symbol" and "Reverse symbol" to include also glyphs. Currently those fields only show information from the "Designs" section (star, crescent...). I suggest connecting the fields "Obverse Symbol" and "Reverse Symbol", both to the "Designs" and "Legends" sections. This change facilitates to add any kind of mark. Beyond that, it is also posible to rename these fields as "Obverse Symbol / Mark" and "Reverse Symbol / Mark".
I think number three is the best choice: it is flexible and powerful without adding complexity to the data model.

rca

no idea why some parts are in bold .... ???

Alex

rca

Hi Rahel:

Because you are using lots of "-" characters that means "bold", if you want to separate paragraphs with a line, you can use the "_" character (3 _ characters means line)

For ex:

This text is between two lines

Note: I take the liberty to change your post... I hope with you permission.

Best

Alex

I suggest talking about the structuring of coins analytics. What is the correct way to organise interventions, labs and compositions?

Best