Paleography
The signs of the legends of the ancient coins of the Iberian Peninsula (5th-1st centuries BC)
This index of Paleo-Hispanic signs and Greek and Latin letters has varying degrees of accuracy in terms of the identification of their phonetic values and their transcription. As far as the Greek and Latin writing is concerned, the signs do not present substantial problems of identification and valuation, since the spellings conform to the regular forms.
As for the Paleo-Hispanic signs, their phonetic evaluation is quite certain for the northern variant, more uncertain for the southern, and even more so for the southwestern or South-Lusitanian. The most singular forms have been differentiated, according to the position of the complementary strokes, their length, their inclination or orientation; however, it has been necessary to unify them so as not to distinguish a high number of forms, since the fact that the signs were engraved manually implies the existence of multiple variations. In the index, the Paleo-Hispanic signs are grouped into vowels, consonants, syllables, ligatures and unidentified signs. Greek, Punic and Latin glyphs are arranged according to the order of their alphabets; those that are invented or uncertain are listed in the group Uncertain signs.
The script with the most irregular and uncertain signs in terms of identification and phonetic evaluation is the Punic script, which we present in a single block. In it we include Punic (few) and Neopunic (most) signs, as well as the degradation of the latter used in the coinage known as Libyophenices (Arsa, Asido, Bailo, Iptuci, Lascuta, Oba, Turirecina and Vesci) and in other uncertain Punic coinage. There are many signs that, with similar schematized forms, often arched lines, were used to note different phonemes, which complicates their assessment and makes it rather uncertain. We also find quite different signs to represent presumably the same letter. The transcriptions of legends with fairly regular signs allow us to assess those that were drawn in a more schematic way, although the degree of uncertainty is high. The diversity of readings of the monetary legends that we find in the most recent works, which directly or indirectly have dealt with them, are an example of the difficulty of their identification (Solá Solé 1980; García-Bellido 1985; Alfaro 1991; Manfredi 1995; Sáez & Blanco 1996; García-Bellido & Blázquez 2001; ACIP; Pérez Orozco 2006). We caution the reader that some assessments of Punic/Neopunic signs and their transcriptions are highly uncertain.
The signs used by the Gallic imitations of Emporion and Rhode, as well as the Iberian imitations of Emporitan drachms, also present problems of grouping and identification. The Gallic imitations copy the Greek legends, so the signs of these coinages are considered corrupt Greek and when possible are included within the corresponding letter. However, the Iberian imitations used regular and corrupt Greek signs, but also Iberian ones in legible or illegible invented legends.
As for the Paleo-Hispanic signs, their phonetic evaluation is quite certain for the northern variant, more uncertain for the southern, and even more so for the southwestern or South-Lusitanian. The most singular forms have been differentiated, according to the position of the complementary strokes, their length, their inclination or orientation; however, it has been necessary to unify them so as not to distinguish a high number of forms, since the fact that the signs were engraved manually implies the existence of multiple variations. In the index, the Paleo-Hispanic signs are grouped into vowels, consonants, syllables, ligatures and unidentified signs. Greek, Punic and Latin glyphs are arranged according to the order of their alphabets; those that are invented or uncertain are listed in the group Uncertain signs.
The script with the most irregular and uncertain signs in terms of identification and phonetic evaluation is the Punic script, which we present in a single block. In it we include Punic (few) and Neopunic (most) signs, as well as the degradation of the latter used in the coinage known as Libyophenices (Arsa, Asido, Bailo, Iptuci, Lascuta, Oba, Turirecina and Vesci) and in other uncertain Punic coinage. There are many signs that, with similar schematized forms, often arched lines, were used to note different phonemes, which complicates their assessment and makes it rather uncertain. We also find quite different signs to represent presumably the same letter. The transcriptions of legends with fairly regular signs allow us to assess those that were drawn in a more schematic way, although the degree of uncertainty is high. The diversity of readings of the monetary legends that we find in the most recent works, which directly or indirectly have dealt with them, are an example of the difficulty of their identification (Solá Solé 1980; García-Bellido 1985; Alfaro 1991; Manfredi 1995; Sáez & Blanco 1996; García-Bellido & Blázquez 2001; ACIP; Pérez Orozco 2006). We caution the reader that some assessments of Punic/Neopunic signs and their transcriptions are highly uncertain.
The signs used by the Gallic imitations of Emporion and Rhode, as well as the Iberian imitations of Emporitan drachms, also present problems of grouping and identification. The Gallic imitations copy the Greek legends, so the signs of these coinages are considered corrupt Greek and when possible are included within the corresponding letter. However, the Iberian imitations used regular and corrupt Greek signs, but also Iberian ones in legible or illegible invented legends.