Introduction to MIB
Monetary type catalogs build upon studies conducted by previous researchers. The first descriptive catalog of ancient Iberian numismatics was by A. Heiss (1870), notable for the excellent plates by L. Dardel. In the Iberian academic sphere, the work of Antonio Delgado from Seville was the first to combine a modern text with illustrations of all described types (Delgado 1871–1876). Nearly half a century later came Antonio Vives' work, the first to offer direct illustrations of pieces using photographs of plaster casts (Vives 1924–1926). These works jointly presented Iberian and provincial civic productions from the imperial period. After several decades without significant catalogs, the first volume of the Roman Provincial Coinage series appeared in 1992, including Hispania’s imperial series after 44 BC alongside those from other provinces (Burnett et al., 1992). Shortly after, Leandre Villaronga published the first modern catalog dedicated exclusively to all Iberian coins predating Augustus’ reign—a challenging set to categorize due to its diversity. His work, Corpus Nummum Hispaniae ante Augusti aetatem (CNH), published in 1994 is a comprehensive compendium with photographs of each type, translated into Catalan and English in 2011 with slight modifications under the title Ancient Coinage of the Iberian Peninsula (ACIP). This latter work is thus the most recent and comprehensive on the subject. Its 2,724 types provided a substantial foundation for MIB, which currently includes around 4,200 types and variants.
The MIB catalog is structured based on proposals from recent mint monographs and Villaronga’s works (1994 and 2011), themselves grounded in earlier works by Vives (1924–1926) and Delgado (1871–1876). These classifications and type descriptions have been invaluable for creating a new catalog. Nonetheless, the MIB catalog originated from the contents of an extensive archive developed over more than four decades—the only resource enabling validation of known types and identification of new ones. Its roots date back to the 1980s, when Iberian coins began appearing frequently in auctions with photographs of sufficient quality for research. This new information source was compiled in what was then the Department of Prehistory and Archaeology at the University of Valencia. National and international auction catalogs were cut out, and their images were mounted on cardboard sheets alongside corresponding lot data. This graphical file also included pieces preserved in major European numismatic cabinets (Milan, Bologna, Florence, Rome, Naples, Paris, and Stockholm) and American institutions like ANS, New York. Over 25 years, the archive grew to include more than 20,000 coin cards. With the new millennium, auction companies began publishing digital images on their websites, demanding a new archival model involving downloading images and incorporating their information into a Filemaker database, which amassed 58,369 new records between 2006 and 2017. That year, the digitization of paper files began, and the Filemaker records were imported into Numisdata/Dédalo, the new management system.
Numismatic catalogs serve as reference works for classifying coins and are unique in their dual purpose: research and collecting. Iberian coinage was often unsystematic, with stylistic differences between dies leading to distinct catalog entries. MIB aims to reconstruct the original production organization while recognizing stylistic variants resulting from prolonged minting periods or less systematic engraving processes. The greatest challenges in MIB arose when standardizing uncertain or undefined data on mints, imitations, issues, types, or variants. Organizing all mints' production under consistent criteria is an impossible task given the diverse production context of the period. Despite these challenges, MIB was compiled using methodological criteria, which will be explained. While some inconsistencies and exceptions are inevitable, the theoretical framework underlying MIB's structure and entries can be demonstrated through examples.
In MIB, mints are grouped by cultural domains and ordered primarily geographically, despite difficulties in locating unknown workshops. Criteria previously adopted by catalogs such as those of the Real Academia de la Historia (Ripollès and Abascal 2000), the Royal Coin Cabinet in Stockholm (Ripollès 2003), the Bibliothèque nationale de France (Ripollès 2005), and the Cores collection, which introduced significant changes (Cores and Cores 2017), served as a testing ground. While cities mainly issued coins during this period, some issues, such as the Hispano-Carthaginian series, fall outside this framework. These are Hellenistic productions from 237–206 BC, promoted by dynasts, whose authorship and minting locations remain unknown (Villaronga 1973).
The numbering of MIB types could either proceed sequentially or restart at one for each mint. The latter, more intelligible system assigns each workshop its numbering but risks confusion if mint names are omitted. Villaronga used this method in CNH but switched in ACIP to a single sequence ending at 2,724 for pre-imperial types. In MIB, type numbers are paired with mint identifiers, creating a unique reference (e.g., 1/78 or 78) usable with varying precision.
In catalogs based on coin-issuing cities, inscriptions typically help identify over 190 workshops. Ensuring the digital catalog faithfully represents these inscriptions across browsers has been one of the project’s greatest challenges (Ripollès et al., in press). Yet many types lack designs or inscriptions identifying their issuing authorities. This is true of uncertain Punic issues, which inscriptions are partially legible but unlinked to known locations. Occasionally, new mints, like the Punic workshops at Albatha or Tagilit (Blanco and Sáez 2008; Alfaro 2000) and the Iberian mint at Labini (Villaronga 2005; Faria 2006; Rodríguez Ramos 2006), are identified, though many remain unknown.
Imitations, a diverse group, further complicate characterisation. In the Iberian context, “imitation” can refer to both official and irregular series. They replicate original workshop designs with varying success. Iberian pieces imitating Emporitan or Massalian silver issues preserved prototype quality, while bronze series copying local or imported designs often distorted original metrology. Silver series, excluding contemporary forgeries, originated from institutional authority, whereas bronze pieces likely came from unofficial workshops profiting from circulating low-value coins.
In silver imitations, Emporitan-style drachms (ACIP 289–452) exemplify productions which issuing authorities are often unidentifiable. In MIB, types with recognizable inscriptions are attributed to specific mints (e.g., Iltirta, Belse, Eru, Orose, Tarakon, Barkeno, Etokisa, Biskarki, Bekose, Betase, Kum). Standardized metrology and verified metal quality suggest imitation refers solely to design. Rhode and divisors of Emporion or Massalia show similar characteristics. In MIB, unattributed imitations can be located as groups or searched by fields like model (e.g., Emporion) and character (imitation).
Bronze imitations are linked to more flexible production contexts. They interpret external designs with lower quality, involving multiple workshops over time. A paradigmatic example is imitations of Roman Republican asses and semises (Ripollès and Witschonke 2015; Ripollès and Gozalbes 2016). Asses are rarer and closer in weight to official ones, while semises are common and lack metrological standardization.
Determining whether a type is official or an imitation can be challenging. Technical or artistic criteria may be inconclusive, as low-quality official series and well-executed imitations overlap. Recognizing imitations is easier for systematic, homogeneous official productions but harder for variable-quality series. Bronze divisors from Castulo and Obulco exemplify this dilemma. Some coins display poor craftsmanship that could belong to subpar official issues or high-quality imitations, prompting debatable classifications. Hybrid imitations, such as Obulco obverses paired with Castulo reverses, combine designs into entirely original products.