Issues, Types, and Variants

 
Issues and coin types
In the MIB catalog, the production of each mint is organized into periods, which also include the coin types. In some cases, these can be grouped by mintings; however, most denominations do not provide enough information to establish such associations. Typically, each mint presents its types as independent and successive entries, organized by minting periods, which constitute their only reference framework.
 
Coin type catalogs aim to identify mintings and order the production of each mint or authority with the greatest possible accuracy. A minting refers to the coining of one or more denominations, promoted as a unitary act by the competent authority, which can later be repeated after a period of time. When these scheduled series are formed by several denominations, they are easily identified if they share similar designs or if they have common elements such as symbols or legends. In such cases, the MIB catalog presents the denominations in groups and describes them sequentially from highest to lowest value. In mints like Valentia or Kese, it is easy to recognize the different denominations of a minting by their symbols or legends. In other mints, such as Emporion, grouping is not possible because most of their types do not provide enough clues to reconstruct the original groups. This is a production that employed a large number of dies, and it is not easy to identify the initial or final stages of their different series. Similar situations occur in the mints of Obulco or Gadir, where most types lack formal elements that could reveal their possible connections. Although symbols were generally applied as unique identifiers for specific mintings, they were also repeated in extended series, where they became just another design element. For example, Castulo coins with a hand symbol show a great variety of styles, which also exhibit different metrological patterns, suggesting the existence of successive mintings.
 
Mintings that produced only one denomination or coin type were quite common. While numerous mints minted a single type (Basti, Otobesken, Samala, Ikesankom, Tirsos, Kaisesa, Karalus, Karaues, Roturkom, Titum, Uarkas, Labini, Ilurco, Ipora, Ventipo, Ilipla, Halos...), many others issued a variety of mintings, but always focused on specific values without attempting to form series (Iptuci, Iliturgi, Carbula, Ursone, Ulia, Acinipo, Carteia, Irippo...). In these cases, each type clearly refers to a minting, and no additional precision is needed. Chronological periods therefore often include types that themselves represent mintings but also include different denominations that could belong to the same series but have not been grouped due to lack of information. Since this is the most common situation in the MIB catalog, mints usually show their types within their presumed periods, and only, in exceptional cases, are some types grouped by issues.
 
Types and styles
Issues and their types can be distinguished based on designs, legends, or symbols applied to one or more values, and sometimes by their metrological standard. However, decisions by monetary authorities were not always recorded so clearly in the ancient issues of the Iberian Peninsula. Frequently, they maintained a uniform metrological standard and did not include distinguishing elements, so issues or types can only be identified by style—a criterion that is not infallible and can be subjective. When engraving details change abruptly, the distinction is clear, but when they change gradually in extended series that maintained the same designs, the groups become more difficult to define, and distinguishing the presumed mintings may become unfeasible. Therefore, one difficulty in MIB arises when trying to differentiate types within those series that kept their design unchanged, but whose style clearly evolved. In some cases, information from treasures of different periods has been key to establishing different types.
 
The units of Bilbilis with the Bi symbol, for example, were produced by different engravers who made the dies with the same elements but different styles. For the MIB catalog, a total of 22 types and variants have been identified, distinguishing the portraits, ornaments, and hairstyles, which seem to constitute independent groups. In other long series, such as the ka-s-tu denarii from Turiazu, the stylistic continuity was remarkable, but in coins produced in different minting phases, the stylistic differences become evident, making it necessary to characterize different types. These definitions may result in some examples not fitting clearly into any type, either because they belong to a transitional phase or because they show singularities that have not been categorized as independent types to avoid excessive entries. All types in the MIB catalog are illustrated with an identifying image, but their descriptive entry includes all the coins that make up that type, made with varying numbers of dies, providing greater precision for cataloging. The fact that each entry is illustrated with a broad sample of specimens provides a more precise definition of each type, which is a digital advantage that paper catalogs cannot offer.
 
The denarii of Bolskan, Baskunes, or Sekobirikes show a great diversity of engraving styles. The entries for the latter in the MIB catalog rely on details such as the number and shape of the curls in the hairstyle, the only singularities that allow the identification of different minting moments. While the correlation between issue and style is not perfect, it is a useful criterion to create groups that provide a more accurate view of the production details. However, sometimes formal differences can be due to the less systematic work of the engravers who prepared the dies for the same minting with diverse finishes or variable legends. This happens, for example, with the denarii or asses of Iltirta, where very homogeneous obverse dies are linked to reverses whose legends use changing signs, resulting in a continuous and arbitrary succession of different epigraphs.
 
There are cases in which the series are extended, but their stylistic homogeneity prevents distinguishing types within them. This occurs with the denarii from Kese and units from Arse or Saitabi, large series that should include different minting phases but lack formal elements that allow clear identification of issues due to their highly systematic style, production, and metrology. Another criterion that has led to different entries is the changes in the orientation of the main figures, such as portraits, horsemen, or dolphins, which have been categorized as different types. This occurs, for example, with the units of the lancer horseman from Arse, where the male head on the obverse appears facing both left and right. This criterion of the MIB catalog does not seek to reflect decisions made by the monetary authorities but rather to highlight relevant changes in the composition of the design.
 
Types and variants
MIB is the first Iberian coin catalog organized by types and variants. The RPC volume on Hispano-Roman coinage already used this organizational model when its Spanish edition was published, though in that work, the variants were purely epigraphic (Ripollès 2010). When coins of a type show differences due to unsystematic production, it is useful to characterize them as variants, allowing for more precise cataloging references. Although their legends or figures may present singularities, they are considered part of the same type and are better understood when described as variants of the same. Thus, in the MIB catalog, the numerical entries correspond to types, and when variants are included, they are differentiated by letters (1a, 1b, 1c...). If there is any doubt when cataloging a coin regarding which variant it belongs to, the generic reference to the type number is sufficient.
 
The degree of uniformity in coins of a type depends on the homogeneity with which their dies were engraved. The greatest difficulty lies in deciding whether stylistic differences in coins with the same design or modifications of secondary elements should give rise to distinct types or variants within a type. In the first case, they would be characterized as the result of prolonged work in successive issues, and in the second case, as the result of unsystematic engraving work in a single issue. Although the main objective of the MIB catalog is to reconstruct the original productive scheme, the minor singularities originating from the engravers’ work are also of notable relevance from an artistic, iconographic, and epigraphic standpoint. For this reason, these formal variants produced in the short term within types with unsystematic production have been singled out to provide a comprehensive repertoire that includes all relevant artisan nuances.
 
A coin type is characterized by physical and/or formal characteristics that clearly distinguish it from other types in the catalog. Thus, the concept of a type is ultimately defined by the aggregation of all coins that share its defining characteristics, even if their dies show some stylistic differences. This is the point where it must be decided whether these nuances are significant enough to be distinguished as variants within the corresponding type to better understand the production. These variants, within the type, provide a clearer view of the work of those workshops or engravers who were not very systematic. In general terms, reverse engravings show more variation than obverses due to the higher number of elements that lend themselves to diverse combinations. Variants within a type obey various causes but presumably always originated within the context of the same issue; variations in legends, use of alternative signs, presence of secondary elements, different positions of the same, or engraving errors.
 
In Belikiom, for example, variants 1a and 1b are characterized by the different orientation of the ki sign, which is inverted in the second due to an engraving error. In the Sesars denarii, the different forms of the signs give rise to numerous independent variants that are more intelligible when grouped within the same type. In Obulco, the magistrates L. Aimil and M. Iuni's series shows multiple differences based on secondary marks, legends, or the orientation of their elements, but always under the authority of the same magistrates, which in this case conditions them to be described as variants of the same type. Another type of variation is related to legends that, in different dies of the same series, can be placed on a line, beneath it, on the air, or in a cartouche (Bolskan, Arsaos, Sekaisa, Iliturgi...). The engraving of the complementary elements of the design also helps to distinguish variants, as in Malaca's case, where different dies of a type were engraved with rounded or angular tongs. Another example is the stars on Iltirta coins, which, depending on the die, had a different number of points. Although these details may seem insignificant in the context of the workshop’s production decisions, they are of interest as evidence of artisanal singularities.
 
In the MIB catalog, types and variants are generally accompanied by a brief text description in a field called "key," which aims to help recognize the uniqueness of each type compared to the other entries. The goal is to provide the user with key information that allows them to understand the essence of each type or variant. This synthesis aims to highlight its originality, provide certainty in cataloging, and save time in deductions or comparisons, something particularly important when types or variants have been established based on stylistic or epigraphic differences.
 
The diverse panorama of civic series that contributed to the monetization of the Iberian Peninsula shows a complex reality, primarily due to the lack of systematization in many of the productions. The types and variants in the MIB catalog are reasonably homogeneous entries that attempt to organize the original production of the mints by identifying their issues and formal repertoires, but there are important limitations that prevent the application of theoretical principles in a methodical manner. Differences in the engraving of figures may, in some cases, be the only evidence of the existence of different production phases, and therefore, they have been meticulously recorded. Formal aspects in their entirety are the only ones that currently contribute to reconstructing a reliable scheme of the issues and types that made up the ancient monetary production of the Iberian Peninsula.