Guide to Biblical Coins

“One of the most comprehensive guides to date describing coins related to biblical
subjects or struck in the time period of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.” Hendin David Hendin
— John W. Betlyon, Biblical Archaeologist
“Indispensable for serious collectors of ancient Judean and related coinages…Hendin

is a gifted story-teller…” —Mike Markowitz, Coin Week Guide to
Guide to Biblical Coins

Biblical Coins
“The ultimate reference book for this series.” —American Numismatic Association
DAVID HENDIN is an expert in coins and

weights of the ancient Levant. His original
research has been published in more than 75
journal articles and book chapters, and he has Sixth Edition
written of hundreds of magazine articles.
Hendin is first vice president and adjunct
curator at the American Numismatic Society.
In addition to Guide to Biblical Coins, he
Photo: R. Hendin
Sixth Edition
is author of Ancient Scale Weights, Cultural
Change, Not Kosher (Forgeries of Ancient Jewish
and Biblical Coins), and Collecting Coins plus
eight non-numismatic books including the
national bestseller Death as a Fact of Life.
In 1985 and 1986 he was chief numismatist of the Joint Sepphoris Project under the
auspices of Duke University and Hebrew University and Duke’s Sepphoris Research
Project in 2011.
FORTY-FIVE YEARS after its first edition, Hendin has revised and updated this
book to reflect relevant discoveries in archaeology and numismatics of ancient Israel.
The metallurgy of Judean coins, symbols on Hasmonean coins, the Hasmonean coin
chronology, Herodian mints, irregular issues, the Jewish War, and coin denominations
are only a few of the topics that Hendin has updated. New to the sixth edition is
numismatic information about the Kingdom of Adiabene, the Ituraean Kingdom, the
Roman Governors of Syria, and coins with images of Old Testament stories. Many
hundreds of new and improved graphics help illuminate the text. The photo plates
have been expanded dramatically as have the images in the catalog and text. Includes The most popular reference ever written for Biblical and Judean coins.
a complete concordance between previous editions of GBC as well as other key Fully revised and updated. Extensive concordance and indices.
references, elaborate end notes, an expanded bibliography, a full index, and an index of
Latin inscriptions on the Judaea Capta coins.
Complete catalog of the Judaea Capta series.
More than 2,000 illustrations and photos.
American Numismatic Society ISBN 9780897223706
75 Varick Street, Floor 11
New York, NY 10013
numismatics.org
Cover: A Bar Kokhba coin hoard at the Te'omim Cave.
Photo courtesy of Dr. Boaz Langford.
9 780897 223706
Printed in the United States American Numismatic Society
Guide to
Biblical Coins
Sixth Edition
David Hendin
American Numismatic Society

New York, New York
2021
Copyright © 2010, 2021 American Numismatic Society
Designated Graphics © by J-P Fontanille
Sixth Edition
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized, in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including database, online access, photocopying, recording, or by
any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
American Numismatic Society

75 Varick Street, Floor 11
New York, NY 10013
Names: Hendin, David, author.

Title: Guide to Biblical coins / David Hendin.
Other titles: Guide to ancient Jewish coins
Description: Sixth edition. | New York, New York : American Numismatic Society, 2021.
| Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “The coins struck in an-
cient Judea between the fourth century and the second century represent a remark-
able and readily available primary source of information about the history, heritage,
and emerging culture of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Coins witnessed the return of
Jews from the Babylonian captivity, the wars of the Hasmoneans with the Seleucids,
the building and the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, the birth and
ascent of Christianity, and the creation of Rabbinic Judaism. This sixth edition comes
almost 45 years after the book was first published under the title Guide to Ancient
Jewish Coins. In this edition the author has removed and added coins, updated texts
to reflect current research, and attempted to improve the chronological nature of the
listings. These changes required a new numbering system. Once again, he has used a
numbering system that does not duplicate previous editions. A complete concordance
with standard current references and previous editions is included”-- Provided by
publisher.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021016990 (print) | LCCN 2021016991 (ebook) | ISBN
9780897223706 (cloth) | ISBN 9780897227414 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Coins in the Bible. | Coins, Ancient. | Coins, Roman. | Jewish coins.
Classification: LCC CJ255 .H46 2021 (print) | LCC CJ255 (ebook) | DDC
737.4937--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021016990
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021016991
1234567890
Printed in the United States

For my father
Aaron Hendin, M.D.

who taught me the real value of the coins
described herein
and for
Jeannie, Sarah & Bobby, Ben & Chrissy, Alexander

& Ali, Max, Charlie, Ariella, Jude, and Ezra
with much love
from generation to generation
vi
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................xi
Information and Acknowledgements................................................xiii
About the Catalog............................................................................ xvii
Rarity............................................................................................... xviii
CHAPTER ONE: Biblical Coins.......................................................1

What Are Biblical Coins?....................................................................1
Tradition of Collecting.........................................................................2
Coins Are Where You Find Them........................................................3
Finders’ Keepers?..................................................................................5
Collecting Coins Today........................................................................6
Ghosts of Old Jerusalem......................................................................8
Dead Sea Legends................................................................................9
Surcharge of the Money Changers.....................................................12
Prices and Values................................................................................16
How Coins Are Dated.......................................................................18
Ancient Judean Coin Manufacture.....................................................18
Irregular Coins of Judea.....................................................................22
Names of the Small Bronze Coins.....................................................26
General Observations on Judean Coins.............................................27
Fiduciary Coinage of Judea................................................................29
Conservation, Smoothing, Tooling.....................................................31
Cleaning Ancient Coins.....................................................................34
Coin Plague........................................................................................34
Fakes and Forgeries............................................................................35
CHAPTER TWO: Scale Weights to Coinage..................................39

Dust on the Scales..............................................................................45
Fraud with Weights and Scales..........................................................48
The Weight System of Judah..............................................................49
CHAPTER THREE: Persian Period: Philistia.................................55

Denominations in the Persian Period.................................................59
Gaza...................................................................................................60
Ashdod...............................................................................................62
Ascalon (Ashqelon)............................................................................62
Judea...................................................................................................63
Edom (Idumaea)................................................................................64
Test Cuts............................................................................................65
catalog: Ashdod.........................................................................66
vii
catalog: Ascalon........................................................................67
catalog: Gaza.............................................................................67
catalog: Philistia........................................................................69
catalog: Edom...........................................................................72
CHAPTER FOUR: Persian Period: Samaria and Judea...................73

Diaspora and Return..........................................................................76
Coins of Samaria................................................................................78
catalog: Samarian Coins...........................................................81
Coins of Yehud ( Judea)......................................................................87
Yehud Coins.......................................................................................87
Persian Period Weight Standards.......................................................88
Macedonian and Ptolemaic Standards...............................................90
Expressions on the Coins...................................................................94
Production of the Yehud Coins..........................................................96
catalog: Yehud Coins.................................................................99
CHAPTER FIVE: Ptolemaic and Seleucid Coins..........................111

Alexander Conquers the World........................................................111
Macedonian Coins in Ancient Israel................................................112
Rule of the Ptolemies.......................................................................112
catalog: Ptolemaic Royal Coins in Ancient Israel...................114
Seleucids and the God Made Manifest............................................119
catalog: Seleucid Coins of Ancient Israel................................121
CHAPTER SIX: Hasmonean Dynasty...........................................135

Revolt of the Maccabees...................................................................135
First Hasmonean Coins...................................................................139
Paleo-Hebrew on the Hasmonean Coins.........................................141
Pentatuchal Code and Graven Images.............................................143
Denominations.................................................................................146
Absence of Silver Coins...................................................................146
Symbols on the Coins......................................................................147
Helmet.............................................................................................148
Wreath..............................................................................................148
Cornucopia.......................................................................................148
Poppy vs. Pomegranate.....................................................................151
Filleted Palm Branch........................................................................153
Lily or Rose?.....................................................................................153
Anchor, Aphlaston, and Star............................................................155
Diadem.............................................................................................157
John Hyrcanus I (Yehohanan)..........................................................157
“Rosh” and the Chronology..............................................................159
Monograms......................................................................................160
catalog: Antiochus VII............................................................161
viii
catalog: John Hyrcanus I.........................................................162

Judah Aristobulus (Yehudah)...........................................................166
Chronology......................................................................................167
catalog: Judah Aristobulus I....................................................168
Alexander Jannaeus (Yehonatan, Yonatan).......................................168
Names and Titles..............................................................................170
Exploring the Overstrikes................................................................171
Dead Sea Find..................................................................................172
The Lead Pieces................................................................................173
catalog: Alexander Jannaeus....................................................174
catalog: Anonymous Hasmonean Issues.................................180
Successors to Jannaeus......................................................................181
catalog: Jannaeus Successors...................................................183
Mattityah Antigonus........................................................................183
The Menorah Coins.........................................................................185
catalog: Mattityah Antigonus.................................................189
CHAPTER SEVEN: Herodian Dynasty........................................193

Herod I (the Great)..........................................................................193
Herod’s Early Career........................................................................193
Herod, King of the Jews...................................................................194
Herod’s Coinage...............................................................................199
Denominations and Chronology......................................................201
The Helmet on Herod’s Large Coins...............................................207
Table, Cross, and Diadem.................................................................208
catalog: Herod I......................................................................210
Herod Archelaus..............................................................................215
catalog: Herod Archelaus........................................................216
Herod Antipas..................................................................................218
catalog: Herod Antipas...........................................................221
[Herod] Philip..................................................................................225
Graven Images, Laurel, and Thunderbolt.........................................226
catalog: Herod Philip.............................................................228
Agrippa I..........................................................................................232
catalog: Agrippa I....................................................................238
Herod of Chalcis and Aristobulus of Chalcis...................................242
catalog: Herod of Chalcis........................................................245
catalog: Aristobulus, King of Lesser Armenia.........................246
Agrippa II.........................................................................................247
Coinage under Claudius Ascribed to Agrippa II..............................249
Eras and Mints.................................................................................250
Denominations.................................................................................254
Agrippa II under Nero.....................................................................254
Judaea Capta Issues of Agrippa II....................................................255
catalog: Coins in the Reign of Claudius..................................257
catalog: Agrippa II as King.....................................................260
catalog: Agrippa II under Flavian Rule...................................262
ix
CHAPTER EIGHT: The Roman Governors of Judaea..................275

Governors of Judea under Rome......................................................277
Governors before Agrippa I.............................................................278
Governors after Agrippa I................................................................281
Irregular Coins.................................................................................284
Countermarked Coins......................................................................284
catalog: The Roman Governors of Judaea...............................285
CHAPTER NINE: The Jewish War...............................................293

Silver Coins of the Jewish War.........................................................299
Bronze Coins of the Jewish War......................................................303
Siege Coins and Civil War...............................................................304
Witnesses to the War.......................................................................305
Slogans on Jewish War Coins...........................................................308
Symbolism of the Feast of Tabernacles.............................................309
The Ritual Chalice and Pomegranate Staff.......................................310
Date Palm Tree.................................................................................311
Amphora and Vine Leaf...................................................................313
Temple Tribute and Other Jewish Rituals........................................314
catalog: The Jewish War..........................................................315
CHAPTER TEN: Bar Kokhba Revolt............................................325

Who Was Eleazar the Priest?...........................................................330
Mint and Methods...........................................................................330
Bar Kokhba’s Sheqel..........................................................................333
Finds in the Caves............................................................................333
Bar Kokhba Test Strike....................................................................336
Overstrike with a Story....................................................................337
Temple and Other Symbols..............................................................338
The Split “Abu Jara”..........................................................................342
Bar Kokhba Coins in Europe (and Kentucky!).................................343
catalog: Coins of Bar Kokhba.................................................347
CHAPTER ELEVEN: Judaea and Rome.......................................365

Roman Republican Jewish Reference Coins.....................................365
Bacchius the Jew...............................................................................366
catalog: Roman Republic....................................................... 368
Judaea Capta Coin of C. Sosius........................................................369
catalog: C. Sosius, Zacynthus................................................. 371
Judaea Capta.....................................................................................371
Vitellius Begins the Series................................................................372
The Flavian Dynasty.........................................................................374
Defining the Series...........................................................................375
Colosseum and Judaea......................................................................376
Domitian’s Judaea Capta..................................................................379
catalog: The Judaea Capta Coins.............................................382
catalog: Restored Coins of Trajan...........................................418
x
Nerva’s Fiscus Judaicus.....................................................................419

Another Theory on This Coin....................................................420
catalog: Nerva.........................................................................421
catalog: Hadrian and Judaea....................................................422
Roman Legionary Countermarks.....................................................423
catalog: Legionary Countermarks...........................................430
CHAPTER TWELVE: New Testament Coins..............................433

Coins of Jesus and His World..........................................................433
The Poor Widow’s Mites..................................................................434
Sheqels of Tyre...................................................................................438
The 30 Pieces of Silver......................................................................443
The Coin in the Fish’s Mouth..........................................................444
catalog: Sheqels of Tyre............................................................445
The Tribute Penny............................................................................446
catalog: The Tribute Penny......................................................449
Farthing............................................................................................450
The Travels of Paul of Tarsus............................................................450
Seven Churches of Asia Minor........................................................452
CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Related Issues.......................................455

Old Testament Quote on a Coin of Mazaeus...................................455
catalog: Mazaeus, Satrap of Cilicia.........................................456
Ituraean Kingdom of the North.......................................................457
catalog: Rulers of Ituraea and Chalcis.....................................459
Roman Governors of Syria...............................................................462
catalog: Roman Governors of Syria........................................465
Jewish Royal Family of Adiabene.....................................................467
catalog: Monobaz I, King of Adiabene...................................469
Noah’s Ark........................................................................................469
catalog: Noah’s Ark.................................................................470
Binding of Isaac................................................................................470
catalog: Binding of Isaac.........................................................471
ENDNOTES...................................................................................473
ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................501
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................502
CONCORDANCE.........................................................................533
APPENDIX A. Alphabets and Numeric Equivalents.....................555
APPENDIX B. Metrological Chart for Jewish Bronze Coins.........557
APPENDIX C. Index of Latin Legends..........................................559
INDEX............................................................................................563
PLATES..........................................................................................575
ABOUT THE AUTHOR..............................................................643
xi
Introduction
Coins are among the most important historical documents to have sur-
vived from ancient times; coins often help historians define the cultures
that produced them. Two principal benefits a nation derives from hav-
ing its own system of coinage are the abilities to proclaim establishment
of sovereignty and to control an economy. Since their invention in the
seventh century bce in Western Asia Minor, circulating coins have often
been the ultimate preserved documents, indicating sovereignty and defin-
ing independent nations. Because of overriding economic utility, the com-
munication and political-propaganda values of circulating coins are often
overlooked. This importance should not be underestimated, especially at a
time when coins were essentially the most advanced forms of mass com-
munication. Although this may sound simplistic in a day of instant mass
communications, when computers and smartphones are our constant com-
panions, one calls to mind a time when the dissemination of news and
information often took months, or even years. Unlike most artifacts, coins
are often dated. They bear portraits, symbols, political and religious mes-
sages, and even titles and names that may be unknown from other sources.
The coins struck in ancient Judea between the fourth century bce and
the second century ce represent a remarkable and readily available primary
source of information about the history, heritage, and emerging culture of
the Judeo-Christian tradition. Coins witnessed the return of Jews from the
Babylonian captivity, the wars of the Hasmoneans with the Seleucids, the
building and the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, the birth
and ascent of Christianity, and the creation of Rabbinic Judaism.
This sixth edition comes almost 45 years after the book was first pub-
lished under the title Guide to Ancient Jewish Coins. Each subsequent edi-
tion has been approximately 3,000 copies. This sixth edition comes just in
time for me to donate the copyrights and ownership of the book to the
American Numismatic Society, so the ANS can publish it into the future
and collect the revenues.
Each edition of Guide to Biblical Coins is not a dramatic revision, but
an expansion, as needed, for recent research in numismatics, history, and
archaeology. In this edition, I have removed and added coins, updated texts
to reflect current research, and attempted to improve the chronological na-
ture of the listings. These changes required a new numbering system. Once
again, I have used a numbering system that does not duplicate previous
editions. A complete concordance with standard current references and
previous editions is included (p. 533).
When I moved to New York in 1969 my horizons were opened to
a new world of numismatic organizations and collectors who helped me
expand my knowledge. This was conditional not only on my own work
and the assistance of many scholars and collectors but also was cheered
and encouraged by my many friends who were not necessarily involved in
xii
numismatics. I call out to the memory of my late friend Charles M. Schulz

(Fig. i), who was always thrilled to hear about adventures and excava-
tions in Israel. Reprinted here is a PEANUTS ® comic strip (Fig. ii) that
originally appeared on January 9, 1986. The previous summer I bundled
two years of vacation and became the numismatist at the Joint Sepphoris
Project of Duke and Hebrew Universities. (In real life I was senior VP and
editorial director at United Feature Syndicate, Inc.) Sparky (as he pre-
ferred to be called by friends) was fascinated with a series of articles about
the excavation I wrote for the Scripps Howard News Service, and enjoyed
more personal stories when I returned. I was surprised and delighted by his
“tip of the hat” with this comic strip, the original of which hangs proudly
on my wall. (Schulz worked about 6 months in advance of publication, so
he drew this strip shortly after I returned.)
This sixth edition retains essential material from the previous one and
supplements it with new information from a new generation of scholars
who have made progress in solving some of the mysteries. Plenty of work
remains for future students.
I recommend the endnotes to readers, since these provide not only
source material, but ancillary notes on relevant topics. Because of the in-
creasing recognition of the importance and influence of the Seleucid and
Ptolemaic coinage on the Judean coinage, I have added a few dozen of
these issues that were struck in the ancient land of Israel. In the critical
series of coins of Philistia and Samaria, I offer a representative sample
for understanding their historic significance. More complete volumes are
referenced on these subjects.
Figure i. Author with Peanuts creator Charles M. Schulz in 1979.

xiii
Figure ii. PEANUTS comic strip of January 9, 1986. Copryight © 1986 by Peanuts
Worldwide LLC, reprinted by permission of Andrews and McMeel Syndication.
Information and Acknowledgements

Please note that in the catalog of the coins, the legends sometimes vary slightly
between the sketches, the photographs, and the descriptions. This may occur
for several reasons, including die variations and differences in striking.
The sizes or weights are given for coins either in the author’s collec-
tion, or from known references or published averages. They are offered as
general guidelines, since both the size and weight of ancient coins can vary
from coin to coin; the silver coins usually vary less than the bronze.
I’m sincerely sorry that some people have expressed dismay because I
have chosen to designate dates using bce (before the common era), equiva-
lent to bc, and ce (of the common era), equivalent to ad. My thinking
here is not along religious lines, but historical ones. The designations bc
and ad do not do justice to history, counting from an arbitrary “year one,”
originally thought to be the birth year of Jesus. That was a confusing math-
ematical error made by a Russian monk named Dionysius Exiguus. Most
historians believe that Jesus was born between 11 bce and 4 bce. So, to my
xiv
way of thinking the bce and ce designations are more logical, since Jesus
was almost certainly not born in the year 1.
I am indebted to the many archaeologists, numismatists, and histori-
ans who have written important works on Jewish numismatics and ancient
history that I draw upon. They are listed in the notes and bibliography. A
substantial body of scholars deserves much of the credit; while the amount
of my original research has increased in this edition. I was trained as a
journalist, and have done a journalist’s job of sifting, merging, cutting, and
clarifying the information, and have supplemented it with good stories and
fresh data.
Thanks to all of the collectors who have discussed and made their coins
and photographs available: Ken Abramowitz, Richard Beleson, Brad Bow-
lin, Martin Brody, Guy Clark, Jared Clark, Ken Dorney, Eby Friedman,
Mark Hendin, Terry and Ron Hendin, Roy Hendin, David Jesselsohn,
Doug Kroll, Simcha Kuritzky, Richard McAlee, Andrew McCabe, Aba
Neeman, Moshe Rotberg, Neil Schechter, Elliott Singer, Harry Sneh,
Abraham Sofaer, David Sundman, Patrick Tan, Fred Vink, Daniel Wolf,
and J. Benjamin Yablok.
Thanks to the dealers who have shown me fascinating coins over the de-
cades. First, my friends in Israel: Jamiel Abou Eid (three generations), K. Ba-
idun (three generations), Haj Nabeel Hroob (two generations), Kamal Im-
man, Samir Kando (three generations), Menashe Landesman, Sami Taha,
J. Zadok; and worldwide: John Aiello, Salem Alshdaifat, Harlan and Aaron
Berk, Curtis Clay, Selim Dere, Victor England, Ira Ettinger, Mike Gasvoda,
Ira Goldberg, John Jencek, Jon Kern, Matt Kreuzer, Constantin Marinescu,
Eric McFadden, David Michaels, Bill Rosenblum, Steve Rubinger, Arturo
Russo, Guliano Russo, Wayne Sayles, Shanna Schmidt, Bill Stern, Italo Vec-
chi, William Veres, Ed Waddell, Alan Walker, and Kerry Wetterstrom.
I acknowledge with friendship and appreciation the special contribu-
tions of scholars and friends who always find time to provide reliable ad-
vice and help in developing new insights and aspects of research: Donald
T. Ariel, Rachel Barkay, Gabriela Bijovsky, Ronen Bachar, Rafi Brown,
Andrew Burnett, Robert Deutsch, Yoav Farhi, J.P. Fontanille, Haim
Gitler, Isadore Goldstein, Oliver Hoover, Arthur Houghton, Robert Kool,
Brooks Levy, Cathy Lorber, Andrew Meadows, Carol and Eric Meyers,
Yigal Ronen, Ilan Schachar, Haim Shacham, Yanev Sheuer, Danny Syon,
Oren Tal, David Vagi, Peter Van Alfen, Ute Wartenberg, Peter Weiss, Boaz
Zissu, and David Jacobson. Special thanks to Renee and Frank Kovacs for
their intelligent, scholarly, and frequent assistance over our many years of
friendship. I have collaborated with Nathan Bower of Colorado College
for more than a decade on numerous physical studies of ancient coins. Prof.
Bower put together a remarkable group of colleagues and students, and we
have published many papers together.
Warm thanks to my superb colleagues at the American Numismatic
Society: Autin Andrews, Gilles Bransbourg, Lucia Carbone, David Hill,
xv
Oliver Hoover, Joanne Isaac, Ute Wartenberg Kagan, Jesse Kraft, Emma
Pratt, Andrew Reinhard, Alan Roche, Elena Stolyarik, Peter van Alfen,
and David Yoon.
Photographs are provided courtesy of numerous dealers, private col-
lections, and the author’s personal collection. I note here that the majority
of ancient coins that are “published” each year are published in public sales
or auction catalogs created by the numismatic staff of coin dealers world-
wide. Many of them reach a high standard of excellence of scholarly as
well as commercial importance. I gratefully thank the following dealers for
permission to use coin images from their websites or auctions: Mike Gas-
voda, Victor England, and Eric McFadden (Classical Numismatic Group),
Chris Bierrenbach and Sam Spiegel (Heritage Auctions), Harlan and
Aaron Berk (Harlan J. Berk Ltd.), Ira J. Goldberg (Goldberg Auctions),
Guliano and Arturo Russo (Numismatica Ars Classica), A. Peter Wiess,
M.D. and Alan Walker (Nomos AG), Maxim Schick, and Yves Gunzen-
reiner (Leu Numismatik). Thanks to J. P. Fontanille for the graphics he
provided. For years of assistance and friendship, I thank my colleagues and
friends at the Israel Museum, the British Museum, the Israel Antiquities
Authority, and the Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology.
I also acknowledge friends who are no longer with us, but their stars
shine on all: Jay Galst, Steve Gerson, Fred Jacobs, Ed Janis, Alla Kushnir-
Stein, Leo Mildenberg, G. Momjian, Ehud Netzer, Uriel Rappaport, Mey-
er Rosenberger, Arturo Russo, Nasrallah Sahuri, Shucri Sahuri, Arnold
Spaer, Abu Ali al-Tawil, and Richard Witschonke.
My teachers of many decades have also died. Ya’akov Meshorer was
a dear friend who was most generous with his time and advice since we
first met in 1974. Dan Barag also spent many of his valuable hours sharing
insights and ideas with me and was always ready to discuss and consult.
If I had been studying at university with Meshorer or Barag I would not
have received as many hours of intensive study, friendship, and mentoring.
To this list of departed teachers, I add Alla Kushnir-Stein, to whom I had
the pleasure of presenting the Ya’akov Meshorer Numismatic Prize only a
few months before her death. Shraga Qedar was another dear friend and
mentor from whom I learned valuable lessons. I miss them all.
When I lived in Israel in 1967–1968, my first home was at Ulpan
Metzada in Be’er Sheva, where I studied Hebrew for a bit longer than
three months. Forty-three years later, in 2010, I was invited to participate
in a London conference on Judea and Rome. One of the organizers was
David Jacobson, a distinguished British scholar of Judean numismatics.
Several years later, in an email exchange, he asked me if I had lived in Be’er
Sheva in 1967. It turns out that we were well acquainted in those days and
I am pleased our friendship has been rekindled after so many years.
Herb Kreindler provided broad knowledge a vast library, and his
friendship for more than 50 years. Ronen Bachar is an Israeli numisma-
tist I met almost 40 years ago, when he was only 14 years old. Today he
xvi
is among the most knowledgeable experts of coins of the ancient Middle

East, and I value our long friendship. Don Simon has been my closest
friend through most of my travel adventures, and his ideas, encourage-
ment, and expertise have helped a lot along the way.
My greatly appreciated and dedicated content editors for all or parts
of this edition have been Andrew Burnett, Yoav Farhi, Eby Friedman, Da-
vid Jacobson, and Elliot Singer. Special thanks to my proofreader Theresa
Huntsman. Even with the help from these talented and dedicated friends,
and in spite of my best efforts, errors have no doubt crept into this book,
and they are my sole responsibility.
Over the years I have learned not to wax too eloquent about my inter-
est in ancient coins, for even the eyes of one’s friends and family can glaze
over quickly. I have been lucky. My wife, Jeannie, always encourages and
enhances my studies with her levelheaded good humor and essential wis-
dom. My children Sarah and Robert Cohen, Ben and Chrissy Hendin, and
Alexander and Ali (Novick) Hendin have lovingly tolerated, teased, and
sometimes shared my passion for these coins, their stories, and the land of
Israel. Grandchildren Max and Charlie Cohen, and Ariella, Jude, and Ezra
Hendin help keep the twinkle in my eyes.
My father, Aaron Hendin, M.D., first sparked my interest in ancient
coins. He died in 1991 and I still miss him. Some background information
for this book was taken from his manuscript Jewish History as Portrayed
on Coins, which was partially published in The Shekel. My mother, Lillian
Hendin, a long-time docent at the St. Louis Art Museum, encouraged the
insanity of having two collectors in the family. (She did, however, throw
away my baseball cards and comic books.)
Dad ended his essay with these words: “To hold in one’s hand a coin
of the brave Maccabees or the hated Romans helps one transcend time
and space and be more akin to our ancestors of old as well as our Israeli
brethren of today.”
Those words only begin to describe the fascination of the ancient coins
of biblical times. Each has been protected by the parched climate for some
2,000 years and then brought to light and given new life, not as a coin of
the realm, but as a key to the mind. The doors this key can open will be
limited only by your imagination.
David Hendin
April 2021
dhendin@gmail.com
xvii
About the Catalog

Obverses and reverses. The classic numismatic definition of obverse is
the side of a coin struck by the stationary or anvil die, while the reverse
is struck by a hand-held or striking die. As a general rule, there are many
more reverse dies than obverse dies in almost every known case. This is
probably because the striking dies are not encased and are more heavily
stressed than the anvil dies. In the past when there has been uncertainty,
the dated side or the side thought to be most important has been assigned
as the obverse. (In some cases, this may be technically incorrect, but tradi-
tion is strong. There is a good possibility that some Hasmonean coins and
Herodian coins are classified with technically incorrect obverse/reverse
designations.) This volume uses current standard typology.
Striking axis. The axis is the relationship between the obverse and the
reverse dies. For example, a modern U.S. coin is struck at a 6 o’clock axis.
One can see this by holding the coin between thumb and forefinger, one
placed at 6 o’clock and one at 12 o’clock, and swiveling the coin. In this case
the reverse will point downward, so the axis is 6 o’clock. If this was done
and the reverse pointed upward, the axis would be 12 o’clock, and so on.
Weights provided are either averages for a particular group (when
available, see Appendix B), known ranges, or the known weights of spe-
cific examples.
Diameters, when provided, are for known specimens. In general di-
ameters are not provided because the photographs (unless noted) are as
close to actual size as possible. Diameters may vary by several millimeters
from coin to coin.
Drawings are sometimes enlarged to enhance viewing, check text, or
photograph for actual size. Some photos and drawings vary slightly. This is
mainly due to many die varieties for most coins. Drawings are from Mad-
den 1881 edition or drawn by the author, Hasmonean wreaths and legends
from Meshorer TJC. Composites created by J. P. Fontanille are images of
multiple examples of actual coins, merged using computer graphics. Pho-
tographs are from public or private collections or used by permission of
dealers or auction houses listed in acknowledgements.
Inscriptions given are idealized based on multiple coins.
Translations (in parentheses) are generally given after the first use of
a Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek inscription.
The location of mints, dates, and minting authorities in general fol-
low the most current available research. Whenever possible, the coins are
listed according to mints and chronology as currently understood.
Varieties. No attempt is made to list every variety or die of each coin
type. Instead, a few noteworthy variations, including irregulars are listed.
Various error coins can occur in most coin types. They are shown here from
time to time only as examples of production errors that are often seen in
the Judean series.
xviii
Rarity
This edition replaces values with rarity because values become outmoded
so quickly. One can check recent realized prices at database websites or
those of many dealers. The websites I recommend are: CoinArchives.com
(subscription fee), CNGcoins.com, ACsearch.com (subscription fee), Six-
bid.com, Heritage.com, and Vcoins.com.
The rarity chart (Table i) is explained on the next page. The rarities
listed for the coins in this book are based on my five-plus decades of study-
ing more than a million coins, as well as information gleaned from many
institutions, collectors, scholars, references, and dealers. (The rarities of the
Roman coins are based on RIC, for example.)
Rarity is somewhat subjective when one considers that 484,000 of the
very rare 1909 S-VDB coins were struck. Sometimes availability of coins is
confused with actual rarity or desirability, but these are not always parallel.
Also note that rarity and monetary value are not necessarily reflective
upon each other. Certain extremely rare coins of the Herodian Dynasty, for
example, may sell for a fraction of the amount of other coins that are only
rare to scarce from the Jewish War series.
The rarity indicators provided here for ancient Jewish coins are offered
as they can be compared within the larger series of such coins, and against
other coins of their own subseries. The rarity of any Hasmonean coin is
thus judged against the universe of Hasmonean coins; likewise, the rar-
ity of Herodian or Jewish War or Bar Kokhba coins is judged against the
universes of each subseries.
xix
Rarity Number of Examples Frequency/Availability

Silver Bronze
CC — Extremely common Almost always available
Found in many collections

Many examples (e.g.,
Against the and catalogs, frequently
Hasmonean and
whole of Jewish on the market in groups,
Herodian bronzes)
C coinage, most although a particular C may
number in the
silver coins are not be available at a specific
hundreds of thousands
at least S. time.
of coins.
Coins appear more

In some series (e.g.,
If a series has abundant than they really
Hasmonean or
300,000 extant are, but because they are
Herodian) there
coins, and if scarce (perhaps 3–5% as
S could be hundreds
only 10,000 of many as a C in any series)
of examples since the
one type exist, more attention is paid,
universe of extant coins
then it is S. appear on a fairly regular
is so large.
basis.
In some series may
Within an Perhaps 1–2% as many as
number 300–500, while
approximate a C in any series, appear
R1 in others they could
range of 100– in fewer collections and
number only about
500 examples. catalogs.
10–20.
Perhaps 0.1–1% as many as
In some series may a C in any series. Found in
number around advanced collections and
Up to around 100–300 extant, while usually not available on the
R2
100 examples. in others they could market at any given time.
number only around May appear on the market
5–10. every few years.
About 0.001–0.1% as
Between one and
many as a C coin in any
Fewer than 25 100 examples extant
R3 series. Found in very few
known. depending on the
collections and appear in
series.
the market rarely.
Table i. Rarity chart explanation. Even with these parameters, rarity of ancient coins
is relative and often in flux due to new finds.
xx
1.1. The Ein Gedi Lamp Hoard of 139 prutot in a Herodian oil lamp was hidden in
a plaster wall by a Jew in 60 ce (see p. 16). This amount equalled ½ sheqel plus the
exchange fees, and was intended to bring good luck. (Photo: Israel Museum/Israel
Antiquities Authority.)
CHAPTER ONE
Biblical Coins
T
he word “biblical” refers to the Bible and its time. This includes
the sacred books of Judaism (Old Testament) or the sacred books
of Christianity (Old Testament, New Testament), as well as works
such as the Apocrypha, which are ancient documents but not canonized by
all religions. The Jewish Talmud ( Jerusalem and Babylonian) is not part of
the Bible but consists of commentary and explanations compiled around
the second to the fourth centuries ce and sheds light on earlier times.
The Jewish-Roman historian Josephus wrote several books recapping
the wars and history of the Jewish people through the first century ce,
providing information about places and times mentioned in the Bible. We
also have histories by Dio Cassius, Suetonius, and Philo of Alexandria,
among others.
What Are Biblical Coins?

The Old Testament often mentions money—we read of sheqels and darics
of both gold and silver.
Coins as we know them were invented late in the seventh century bce.
Most of the historic activity of the Old Testament took place well be-
fore that time, but most of the Old Testament was written down much
later—at a time when these coins did exist and were in wide circulation.
The people who codified the Old Testament incorrectly assumed that the
coins they were using had also been in circulation during much earlier
times. Thus, the use of money in the context of the Old Testament refers
to weights of metal and not coins. The post-captivity references in Ezra
(8:27) and Nehemiah (5:15, 7:69–71) might be references to actual coins
in circulation at the time, since the stories in these books took place in the
late sixth and fifth centuries bce. However, archaeological evidence shows
that neither darics nor sigloi are found in Israel, which suggests that these
references are likely anachronistic.
1
2 Guide to Biblical Coins
Josephus’s only direct reference to coins, during the Jewish War, is par-
ticularly gruesome:
For one of the [ Judean] refugees in the Syrian ranks was discovered
picking gold coins from his excrements; these pieces, as we have said,
they had swallowed before their departure, because they were all
searched by the rebels and gold was so abundant in the town that they
could purchase for twelve Attic drachmas coin formerly worth five-
and-twenty [throughout Syria the standard of gold was depreciated
to half its former value]. This artifice being, however, detected in one
instance, a rumor ran through the camps that the deserters had come full
of gold, whereupon the Arab rabble with the Syrians proceeded to cut
open the supplicants and search their intestines. No more cruel calamity,
in my opinion, befell the Jews than this: Actually in one night no less
than two thousand were ripped up.1
The New Testament often mentions coins, but there are many dif-
ferent terms, and the exact types of coins are unclear. In the King James
translation, for example, we find the words farthing and penny, among oth-
ers. However, these words often refer to coins that were in circulation at
the time of the translation—in 1611—and this has added to the confusion.
(See pp. 433–38 for further discussion.)
The New Testament, Josephus, and the Talmud all mention the Has-
monean Kings, Herodian Kings, Pontius Pilate, and other kings, prefects,
and procurators. Thus, the adjective “biblical” is appropriate because of the
proximity of these coins in time and place as well as the references to them
or the rulers who issued them. In 1864, Madden refers to “Jewish and
biblical numismatics” as the subject of his book. He cites earlier books in
English by Ackerman, Evans, and Poole that deal with “coins of the New
Testament.”2
Rogers noted in 1914 in Jewish Coins, “Perhaps the disappointment
of finding that there is so little [about coins] in the Old Testament and
Apocrypha is in some degree compensated for by the large place which
money occupies in the New Testament…. Many a lesson of divine teach-
ing is drawn from the fact of money: for example the parable of the talents
or pounds; the women searching for the lost piece of silver…. One miracle
at least, the finding of the piece of silver in the fish’s mouth; one Apostle,
S. Matthew, the publican, whose profession was to raise money, whet the
interest of Numismatists.”3

Tradition of Collecting
Humans have been collecting coins for thousands of years. Contents of
multiple ancient coin hoards suggest that some were actually collections,
Collecting Biblical Coins 3
not necessarily in the modern sense of well cataloged sets, but deliberate
accumulations of coins from earlier periods that held meaning for the in-
dividuals who saved them.
I was involved with two of these groups specifically relating to bibli-
cal coins. During the 1980s, a group of 16 gold, silver, and bronze coins
were brought to me for conservation. The coins were found inside a broken
Herodian oil lamp (c. first cen. bce–first century ce), and two large frag-
ments of the lamp accompanied the coins.4 After conservation, I identified
the coins as5 four Roman gold aurei from Domitian, Trajan, and Hadrian
(2); five silver denarii from Mark Antony,6 Trajan (3), and Antoninus Pius;
and seven Bar Kokhba bronze coins. (See p. 16 for the story of another
fascinating hoard.)
The hoard was significant for a few reasons. It was the first recorded
instance when coins of all three metals—gold, silver, and bronze—were
found together in a Bar Kokhba hoard.7 The Bar Kokhba coins literally ap-
pear to be a collection of bronze coins from the Bar Kokhba War. The sev-
en invalidated bronze coins include three coins with lyre or harp, one from
each year of the war, as well as a medium palm tree bronze dated year 2
and three small, palm tree bronzes of year 3.
The hoard provides moving insight into the psyche of a probable Jew-
ish survivor of the Bar Kokhba War. Its owner collected the coins in this
hoard until sometime after 151/152 ce, the date of the Antoninus Pius
gold aureus, the latest coin in the group.
A hoard found by archaeologists in the cave called “Me’arat Ha-Te
‘omim” (Cave of the Twins) on the western edge of the Jerusalem Hills,
is another meaningful collection.8 This hoard contained nine silver and
one bronze coin and a sewing needle. The earliest coin was a Hasmonean
bronze prutah, and the latest were two year 3 zuzim of Bar Kokhba. In ad-
dition to the valid currency in the hoard (2 Bar Kokhba zuzim, 1 Roman
provincial tridrachm, 5 Roman drachms or denarii), the group also con-
tained one Jewish war sheqel and the Hasmonean prutah of more than 150
years earlier.
This led us to conclude, “this family’s savings also constituted some-
thing of a collection.”9
Coins Are Where You Find Them

On a cold, wet January in the middle of the 1970s, I sat in front of my
friend’s shop near the Lion’s Gate in Jerusalem’s Old City.
The steady rainfall did not get me down because in Jerusalem it always
rains in January (except on the rare occasions when it snows). It is a cold
rain that chills to the bone, since central heating is hard to find in the
Middle East.
I was on vacation, so I sat and enjoyed friends, sometimes puffing on

a water pipe, trying to blend with the locals. On that day, I stared into the
cobblestone street, recently resurfaced with stones and fill from the Jerusa-
lem area. I saw a small, round object pelted by the rain. My friend Kamal
saw it, too. He went to pick it up, but it was stuck fast in the fill between
two cobblestones. I tossed him a pocketknife, and he pried it loose. It was
a small bronze coin of Alexander Jannaeus who reigned in Judea from
104–76 bce.
Ancient coins are found every day in Europe, Asia Minor, and the
Middle East. Occasionally, one hears about the lucky tourist who finds a
rare coin in the dirt. Most often, though, travelers will tell of youngsters
standing near excavation sites and offering handfuls of coins they swear are
“fresh from the ground.”
When I lived in Israel in 1967, I bought a handful of dirty coins from
a boy who suggested he had been digging around the area of Jerusalem’s
Old City. That afternoon, I saw the same boy replenishing his supply from
the cheapest junk in the same shop I was patronizing. I felt so foolish that
I pretended not to recognize him.
I have found a number of ancient coins over the last 55 years. Roman
and Islamic coins in the dirt at Bet Shean; bronzes at Caesarea and As-
calon; but my favorite find makes the best story.
An Arab friend promised to take me coin hunting in the mid-1970s.
He picked me up at my Jerusalem hotel at midnight and drove to a farm
outside of Hebron. He knocked at the door of the one-room house and
spoke for a moment in Arabic. Then he took his metal detector and two
lanterns from the car, and we went to a recently plowed field. We primed
and lit the kerosene lamps. We carried one and left the other one on the
ground. We systematically walked up and down the furrows, earphones in
place. When I heard the telltale “ping” for the first time, my heart raced. It
was a bronze coin, but a “junker.” We found a few other ancient pieces of
bronze, even a few more coins. My friend told me that this particular field
had previously yielded some nice Athenian tetradrachms.
An hour later, I was ready to give up with the worthless but interesting
souvenirs of the expedition. As I walked the metal detector back to the car,
I got a “ping” signal, loud and clear. My friend and I bent over and sifted
the soil underfoot in our hands. And, bingo, there it was: an Athenian tet-
radrachm. It was not the nicest one I have ever seen, but I treasure it (Fig. 1.2).
1.2. Pi-style Athenian tetradrachm

(enlarged), late 4th century bce,
found by the author in a plowed
field near Hebron. Washed with
water, otherwise as found.
Finders Keepers?
“Finders keepers, losers weepers” is mostly accurate for generic lost objects.
In ancient times, it did not necessarily work that way. The Talmud ad-
dresses the subject of lost coins and offers some interesting twists.
In Talmud Baba Metzia, the question is posed, “If one found a sela
coin in the market, and his friend encountered him and said to him: ‘the
coin is mine,’ and the claimant went on to state one of the following fea-
tures of the coin: ‘it is new’ or ‘it is a Neronian,’ or ‘it is of king so-and-so,’
he has said nothing of significance and the finder may keep the coin” (BT
Baba Metzia 25b ). Therefore, it turns out that “finders keepers” is an old
concept, and the Talmud was already repeating wisdom from earlier times.
However, what if a person’s name was actually written on the coin?
Ancient coins often carry graffiti, the scratching or stamping of symbols,
letters, or even names upon coins. Athenian and Ptolemaic tetradrachms,
and similar ancient coins often carry graffiti.
As usual, the Talmud’s discussion is wise: “But even if [the claimant’s]
name is written on [the coin], he has said nothing of significance because
there is no valid identifying mark for a coin” (BT Baba Metzia 25b ). Yes,
one can scratch his name on a coin, but the rabbis recognized that, “For
[the finder] can say: ‘Perhaps [the claimant] spent [the coin] and it fell
from another person.’”
Thus, a name or graffito only proves the coin was once in your hands,
not that you owned it forever. As the ArtScroll Talmud commentary notes,
“Since coins are commonly spent, we must consider the possibility that
the claimant previously bought something with one of his inscribed coins,
and it was the seller who subsequently lost it. Moreover, it is probable that
the claimant wrote his name on more than one coin. Therefore, even if the
claimant really lost a coin with his name on it, the coin that was found may
not be his. So, a signature on a coin is never considered a simian (reliable
sign or symbol).”
On the other hand, “if someone found a coin with a unique identifying
mark, it would be treated as any other lost object, which must be announced
and returned.” (This line of argument from the footnote refers to the influ-
ential thirteenth-century Spanish Rabbi known as the Ramban.)10 In this
case, we not only see an ancient reference to graffiti on coins (Fig. 1.3),
but also get a glimpse into the way the ancient rabbis discuss the contents
of the Talmud.
Another interesting point in Talmud Baba Metzia is the mention
of the lost coin as a “Neronian.” This description identifies the coin as a
“Neronian sela.” These are the tetradrachms of Nero, struck at Antioch dur-
ing Nero’s reign (Fig. 1.4). They represented an important portion of the
coinage of ancient Israel in the second part of the first century ce.
There is reference to these tetradrachms in M. Kelim (17:12), “In a
light-hole which was not made by the agency of man, the size required is
1.3. Alexander III tetradrachm reverse (en-

larged) struck at mint of Memphis, with
Aramaic graffiti on reverse to left and right
of head of Zeus.
as large as a big fist, such as the fist of Ben Battiah. Said R. Jose: And this
[fist] is as large as a big head of a man. If [the light-hole], however, was
made by the agency of man, [the Sages] fixed the size to be as large as a
hole made with the large [carpenter’s borer kept in the Temple cell], which
is as large as an Italian dupondium or as large as a Neronian sela.”11
Collecting Coins Today
It is not as easy to collect coins today as it has been over the past 200 years.
But, one can still acquire genuine ancient coins at reasonable prices.
Our best advice for both museums and collectors is to buy coins from
dealers with known reputations for reliability and to use proper documen-
tation procedures. There are many good dealers in Europe and the United
States, and they will vouch for the authenticity and known provenance of
the coins they sell.
In recent years some individuals have spoken out in the belief that
collecting ancient coins—by individuals or institutions—is not a proper
endeavor because it may trample aspects of cultural heritage. My view is
that the very existence of coins negates those arguments. Quite simply,
coins were invented to allow commerce within and between societies and
nations. One can certainly make the cultural heritage argument with re-
gard to certain pieces of art or architecture. Temples, statues, and mosaics
were built to stay. But in ancient times, like today, coins were manufac-
tured with the intention of wide circulation, and in very large numbers, in
the millions. Not a single country in the world today considers its current
coinage to be objects of cultural heritage. Large numbers of Western fami-
lies originated in Europe, Africa, Asia, or the Middle East. Therefore, the
cultural heritage of these numerous, deliberately circulated objects should
be something to be shared and enjoyed.
I believe every source country should have its own laws regarding the
excavation and removal of ancient objects. Each nation should enforce its
own regulations appropriately. On the other hand, no nation should be
1.4. Neronian sela (tetradrachm of Nero) minted at Antioch in 63/64 ce. This type
circulated widely in the ancient Holy Land and was used in the Talmud to describe
the size of a light-hole.
able to claim the ownership rights to coins or objects that circulated away
or were manufactured elsewhere. For example, ancient Roman coins were
manufactured and circulated throughout Europe and the ancient world
as part of the Roman Empire. Except in its location, ancient Rome has
no relationship with the nation Italy of today, which may have no right to
claim coins at all, but certainly not to claim coins that have never been in
Italy. One country in the world, England, has developed a sophisticated
Treasure Trove law that accommodates collectors, museums, and archae-
ologists. Indeed, the British law has resulted in the employment of a sig-
nificant number of professional archaeologists in districts throughout the
country and the accumulation of a considerable amount of knowledge.
As for buying coins in the Middle East, each country has its own rules.
In Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt it is not legal to purchase coins and
export them.
In Israel, the antiquities trade is a controversial issue. However, Israel
is the only country in the Middle East at this writing that licenses dealers
for ancient coins and artifacts and allows them to sell coins for export. This
situation is based on Israel’s 1978 Antiquity Law. Here is advice for collec-
tors or dealers who wish to purchase ancient coins in Israel. “We welcome
collectors or dealers who visit Israel and wish to buy ancient coins. We ask
you to obey the rules,” says archaeologist Amir Ganor, director of the Israel
Antiquity Authority’s (IAA) Robbery Prevention Unit.
It is legal to purchase ancient coins and objects only from dealers with
current IAA licenses.
Once a buyer purchases an item and receives a receipt (which must
include the dealer’s specific inventory number), the object and receipt must
be presented to the IAA for export approval. This is a completely comput-
erized process and is performed online by the dealer.
It is highly recommended by the IAA that the dealer should ship the
object to the buyer after the export license is approved. All licensed dealers
maintain a numbered photographic database of their inventories.
Purchasers who wish to carry their objects out of Israel must make an
appointment with the IAA numismatic department, which will view the
coins and then forward the request for export to the Robbery Prevention
Unit for final approval. This process can often take several weeks, as well as
a time-consuming appointment for the initial examination. For this rea-
son, shipping by the dealer is recommended.
The folks who work at the IAA are reasonable people, and their job
is to enforce the existing laws. Keep in mind that the IAA does not guar-
antee authenticity when licensing exports, although they may refuse to
approve coins that are not authentic. Furthermore, prices can vary greatly
from dealer to dealer. If you are not an expert, you should be extremely
cautious when buying coins from a dealer with whom you do not have an
ongoing relationship.
Whether you visit Israel or order by phone or internet, the rules are
the same. All coins exported must have an official license from the IAA.
Just in case you are one of the lucky ones who finds a coin at a beach
or a site, the law now specifically states that you must report it to the IAA
within 14 days. If you are lucky, “there have been cases in which we let the
finders be keepers,” according to an IAA official.
For up-to-date information as well as an English version of the full
Israel Antiquities Law, check the IAA website at antiquities.org.il.
Ghosts of Old Jerusalem

I admit to being in love with Jerusalem’s Old City. I feel at home when
I step inside its walls, most recently rebuilt by Suleiman the Magnificent
some 500 years ago. The smells, sights, sounds, and happenings of the place
just suit me.
Traditionally, the markets there have been a good place to hunt for
ancient coins. It was better when I first visited in 1967. Now, most of the
Old City’s active dealers of coins and antiquities are gone. Their shops are
closed. I miss those many good friends: G. Momjian (known as Abu Sala);
Abu Ali al Tawil, one of the men who found the Dead Sea Scrolls; Khalil
Iskander Kando (called Abu Anton), the one-time shoemaker from Beth-
lehem who sold the Dead Sea Scrolls; Nasralluh Sahuri of Bethlehem;
Meyer Rosenberger, a tailor who became a leading expert on city coinage
of ancient Syria-Palestina; Kar’ein, whose shop always had smokey smell,
more pungent than tobacco; M. Baidun, once Prof. Reifenberg’s gardener,
who kept finding coins around the shrubs and eventually became a leading
dealer of ancient coins and antiquities, and Haj Omar Hroob, an always
fascinating gentleman.
Today I count several Jerusalem families as friends over multiple gen-
erations—Abu Eid, Barakat, Kando, Momjian, Hroob, Baidun—even
though the market is no longer very active.
I could dine out for weeks on the stories I have heard. An Arab dealer
once bought a handful of small Jewish bronzes from a peasant for a few
dollars. In the group, he was lucky to find one of the extremely rare me-
norah coins of Mattathias Antigonus, at the time worth some $10,000.
(Today worth several times more.) He sold the coin and used the money
to buy himself a wife. A couple of years later he had enough of the wife, so
he went to the person to whom he had sold the coin and asked if he would
be willing to accept an exchange—the wife for the coin.
Once I looked at several coins in a small Old City shop, whose pro-
prietor I did not know. He singled out one overpriced coin and told me:
“David Hendin offered $600 for this one.” I nodded and said, “I think you
should sell it to him,” and left. I have never returned to that particular shop,
so he still has not yet had the pleasure of formally meeting David Hendin.
Dead Sea Legends

A couple of my Jerusalem friends, both mentioned above, died in the mid-
1990s. They played key roles in the Dead Sea Scrolls drama.
Ironically, their deaths went largely unnoticed by the public, though
publicity surrounding the scrolls—with best-selling books, museum exhib-
its, lawsuits between scholars—reached a high level.
These two old friends helped bring the scrolls to light.
In 1946, a 13-year-old boy of the Ta’amira Bedouin tribe was hik-
ing with friends in the cliffs on the western shore of the Dead Sea. Some
say they were shepherds minding goats. Others observe that the Ta’amira
Bedouins have dealt in antiquities for 150 or more years, and they simply
may have been combing those historically rich hills for artifacts to sell.
While throwing stones into a cave, the boys heard pottery break. They
investigated and found several tall pottery jars containing leather and
parchment scrolls. They took the scroll pieces to Jerusalem antiquities deal-
ers, who chased the boys out of their shops. One exclaimed, “Those are old
pieces of leather, not antiques. Sell them to a shoemaker.”
The boys took his advice. A shoemaker in Bethlehem named Kando
also sold antiquities in his shop. He recognized potential in the scroll frag-
ments and bought them, although at that time the oldest-known written
manuscripts dated back only a few hundred years.
Eventually, Kando (Fig. 1.5) sold some of the scrolls to Samuel, the
Syrian Metropolitan at the Monastery of St. Mark in Old Jerusalem. Sam-
uel later advertised his scrolls in the Wall Street Journal. Kando sold other
scrolls to Professor E. L. Sukenik, chief archaeologist of Hebrew Univer-
sity. (Sukenik’s son, Yigael Yadin, later also acquired scrolls for the State
of Israel.)
When the 13-year old Bedouin boy who found the Dead Sea Scrolls
grew up, he adopted a new name, in the Arab custom, after his first son was
1.5. Abu Anton (Kando) in his East Jerusalem shop, 1970s. (Rose Kando)
1.6. Abu Ali al-Tawil with the author in Jerusalem’s Old City around 1980.
born. Abu Ali al-Tawil (father of Ali, the tall one—to differentiate him
from a shorter Abu Ali with similar business interests) was well known by
Israeli antiquities enthusiasts. Moshe Dayan wrote that he often bought
antiquities from Abu Ali (Fig. 1.6), who also once saved the famous gen-
eral’s life:
“I do not think anyone has ever succeeded in duping Abu Ali by try-
ing to sell him a fake antique or a counterfeit coin. Whenever I bought
anything from him, I could always be sure that it was authentic.
“One day I received a message from him telling me that he had a beau-
tiful earthenware censer that he was sure would interest me. We arranged
to meet in Jerusalem and there I saw it.... I bought it and asked where it
had been discovered. Abu Ali said it was found in a cave south of Bethle-
hem. I asked him to take me there. I wished to see what kind of cave it was,
whether a burial cave, a dwelling, or one used for pagan rites.
“He promised to do so and we fixed a date. But shortly before we were
due to meet, he informed me that he was very busy and asked for a post-
ponement. He postponed the next meeting too on some pretext or other. I
refrained from interrogating too closely one so much smarter than I, and I
just went on waiting. The hoped-for day finally arrived and we set out for
the cave.
“We passed Bethlehem, and about half way along the road to Hebron
we turned off westward along a dirt track in the direction of the foothills....
[I saw what] had once been a burial cave. The remains of skeletons were
still there. But in the course of time it had been used as a sheepfold and as
shelter for shepherds in heavy rains....
“Now that my curiosity about the cave had been satisfied, I asked Abu
Ali why he had kept postponing our visit. ‘Oh, Wazir,’ he replied, ‘this cave
was being used at the time by a band of PLO saboteurs. It was they who
began digging in their spare time and they who unearthed the ancient ves-
sels and put them on the market. How, then, could I bring you here, you
who are Minister of Defense? I had to wait until they moved elsewhere.
Imagine what would have happened if I had brought you while they were
still here. Either they would have opened fire on you, in which case your sol-
diers would have shot me; or you would have shot them, in which case their
comrades would have suspected me of betraying them and delivering them
into your hands, and then they would have murdered me and my children.’”12
Abu Ali died in 1993, in Bethlehem, at age 60. He had been ill with
cancer for some time. I had often met with Abu Ali over the previous
20 years. For a while, he owned a little nut and sweet shop near Manger
Square in Bethlehem. Over six feet tall, with a strong, handsome face al-
ways framed by a white kafeyah, the traditional Bedouin headdress, Abu
Ali cut a colorful figure. When I visited Abu Ali, he sometimes showed me
coins or antiquities. Over the years, via friends as interpreters, he told me
many stories, including the one of how he found and sold the Dead Sea
Scrolls to Kando.13
Only about three weeks before Abu Ali died, Khalil Iskander Kando,
age 83, also of Bethlehem, died. Unlike Abu Ali, Kando had been an official-
ly licensed antiquities dealer for decades. Kando operated a small shop in a
room above his gift shop, adjoining the St. George Hotel in East Jerusalem.
Kando, called Abu Anton, wore a burgundy fez and traditional white
robes each time I saw him. A tall man with larger-than-life features, he
took delight in showing me coins and artifacts. Kando never wanted to talk
about the scrolls. Yet, in a nook off the stairway to his tiny, second-floor
antiquity shop stood one of the very jars in which they were found. No
matter how often I asked, he would never pose next to it for a photograph.
Once in the 1970s, I sat across from Abu Anton and looked at ancient
coins. He was cleaning one in a jar of dilute sulfuric acid he kept on his
desk for that purpose. As we talked, he took a dental bridge out of his
mouth and dipped it into the acid. Next, he brushed it with the toothbrush
he had been using to clean coins. Kando shook off the dental work and
returned it to his mouth, resumed talking and never even puckered.
Abu Ali, a finder of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Abu Anton, their first
buyer, were both publicity shy. Reputations were tarnished during the
1950s when, reportedly, some scrolls were deliberately cut up and sold in
pieces to extract higher prices from the market.
Yet the two men had honorable reputations. Ya’akov Meshorer, chief
curator of archaeology at The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, told me “from
1967, when we had dealings with him, Kando was always generous with
the Museum.”
When I telephoned my friend Samir Kando in Bethlehem to express
condolences on his father’s death, he said, “Aye, David, we are only guests
in this life. But what we touch may live forever.”
Surcharge of the Money Changers

Around the time of Jesus, during the days of the Second Temple,
…there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation
under heaven (Acts 2:5).
Jews from all over the ancient world traveled to the Holy Land to
pray at the Jerusalem Temple. In addition to traditions and languages, they
brought their own property—including money of their native lands, coins
picked up along the way, or local bronze coins.
Throughout the ancient Near East, scores of kinds of money, weight
standards, and currency systems came together. A network of independent
moneychangers evolved to deal with this. They provided a critical service,
especially in Jerusalem, where visiting Jews needed to change their local
money into silver coins from Tyre to pay their statutory annual half-sheqel
dues to the Temple. (See p. 438 for further discussion.)
At one time, the moneychangers were so ubiquitous and rowdy in con-
ducting their business, that they brought unwanted attention onto them-
selves:
And Jesus entered the Temple and cast out all those who were buy-
ing and selling in the Temple, and overturned the tables of the money
changers… (Matthew 21:12).
The Hebrew word for moneychanger, or exchange banker, is shulhani

(shulhan = table in Hebrew). They converted foreign money into sheqels and
half-sheqels of Tyre for use in the Temple. Since travelers carried money in
the largest denominations possible for convenience, the moneychangers
also broke these down into smaller denominations needed for everyday
buying and selling.
Moneychanging in the ancient world was a business, just as it is today in
cities worldwide where one can often see the signs: EXCHANGE—CAM-
BIO. Today we pay to exchange currency, and it was similar 2,000 years ago.
This fee is called agio in Greek and kolbon in the Rabbinic literature.
The New Testament uses three different terms for moneychangers.
Kolbon relates here to the usage in Matthew 21:12, where the word is kol-
lybistes from the Greek root kollybos (κόλλυβος, a small coin) referring to
the function of changing foreign currency.
In John 2:14 (“And he found in the Temple those who were selling
oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated.”), the word is
kermatistes (κερματιστής) from the Greek word kerma (κερμα) meaning
“small bits” or literally, small change. (This term also sheds light on the use
in ancient Judea of coins that were literally hacked in half or quarters and
used as small change; see discussion of hacksilber on p. 44.)
In Matthew 25:27 (“Then you ought to have put my money in the bank,
and on my arrival, I would have received my money back with interest.”),
trapezites (τραπεζίτης) from the word trapeza (τράπεζα) or table is used.14
This word refers to the moneychanger as a banker who would receive money
on deposit for investment or safekeeping, and pay interest at a fixed rate.
Although this was specifically forbidden by Jewish law (Deuteronomy
23:20–21), there were various interpretations, and, as Sperber notes “The
activity of the Jewish banker, shulhani, was of a closely defined nature, as his
transactions had to be in accordance with the biblical prohibition against
taking interest. The Talmud records much information relating to these ac-
tivities. An additional and interesting feature of this business was the pay-
ment on request of sums deposited with him for that purpose.”15
Syon explains that the moneychangers “dealt chiefly in breaking up sil-
ver into smaller change and back again into silver, but they apparently also
converted ‘international’ currency. An interesting reference is found in Tos.
Sheqalim 2.13, where a merchant from far away who supplied the Temple
in Jerusalem with wine, oil, or cereals, asked to be paid in the currency of his
own country but was paid instead by the Temple authorities in whatever cur-
rency happened to be handy. It was noted that if he wished, he could then go
to a moneychanger and convert his money into his own currency.”16
Thus, there were three major functions of the moneychangers in the
ancient Holy Land: foreign exchange, breaking large denominations into
smaller ones and vice versa, and banking.
Fees charged to change money into Tyrian sheqels and half-sheqels used
for payment of dues to the Jerusalem Temple are of special interest.
The Talmud interprets these transactions in specific ways. We dis-
cussed this topic with Rabbi Benjamin Yablok, a numismatist and Tal-
mudic scholar. He observes that the Talmud specifies that if a man went
to the Temple and wanted to pay his half-sheqel, but only had a full sheqel
and needed change, it created a special situation. The man had to give to
the Temple not only the silver Tyre sheqel, but also a fee of “two kolbonot”
(the plural of kolbon). He received credit for full payment and would re-
ceive a half-sheqel as his change. In a footnote to his translation of the
Mishnah, Herbert Danby explains that the surcharge was “compensation
to the Temple’s sheqel-collectors to reimburse them for any loss incurred
in changing the sheqels or half-sheqels into or out of other money.” (This
statement refers to their subsequent transactions with moneychangers).17
A person should not be able to save by skipping the moneychanger, and
instead any benefit should go to the Temple. This belief reflects the early
1.7. Sheqel plus surcharge: If a Jew in the early first century paid his annual Temple
dues with a Tyre sheqel, he actually paid one sheqel plus a surcharge of two kolbonot,
equaling 11 prutot. His change would be a half-sheqel. Shown here is one sheqel of Tyre
plus 11 prutot of the Roman procurators of ancient Judea.
rabbinic principal of Yafeh Koach Hekdesh, which means that the Temple
must be the greatest beneficiary of any transaction
The moneychanger’s fee to make change for one sheqel was one kolbon.
The Temple’s financial experts looked at the transaction described above as
a double one, hence requiring two kolbonot as a fee (Fig. 1.7). The Talmud
goes a step further. If two men went to the Temple together and wanted
to pay their half-sheqels together with a single sheqel coin, they still had to
pay the two kolbonot fee. If they each paid with correct change, a half-sheqel
coin, there was no fee.
The Talmud mentions a unit called a ma‘ah, equal to one twenty-
fourth selah (the Aramaic equivalent to sheqel). In the Israelite period (Iron
Age), the Judahite sheqel was broken into 24 (or 20) gerot. The ma‘ah or
gerah equaled about 4.2% of a sheqel. The precise amount of the kolbon fee
is subject to dispute. Some Rabbis said the fee equaled one-half ma‘ah, but
Rabbi Meir posited that it equaled a full ma‘ah.
The kolbon may have equaled either about 4.2% of a sheqel or 2.1% of
a sheqel. Thus, the kolbon for this transaction was equal to either 11 or 5.5
prutot, based on the exchange standard during the late Second Temple pe-
riod (c. 6–70 ce), when the sheqel was worth 256 prutot, and the half-sheqel,
128 prutot. (Different sources calculate the number of prutot to the sheqel
differently; the Talmudic reference to 768 prutot per sheqel may refer to
Hasmonean and Herodian coins, which were lighter than those from the
Roman period in Second Temple period Jerusalem.)
Rabbi Isadore Goldstein explains that Rashi (the famous medieval com-
mentator on the Talmud) believed that the kolbon was paid as an expense
the Temple treasurers incurred when re-converting the half-sheqels. Rashi
writes that the half-sheqel was a small and inconvenient coin, apt to get lost,
and that it would be changed into larger coins. Thus, the Temple could not
keep the full amount of a half-sheqel if they had to pay a fee for conversion,
because this fee was the kolbon, paid by the donor (BT Beitzah 39b).
The Talmud’s Rabbi Meir stated his opinion in this way: even if a man
went to the Temple with a silver half-sheqel of Tyre in his hand, because the
half-sheqel was made by humans, therefore less than perfect, the person still
had to pay a bonus of one kolbon in order for the Temple to get full value
(M Shekalim 1:6).
There are several subtleties involved in this issue. Rabbi Goldstein
explains that the Talmudic commentaries say that silver coins cannot be
made without a slight mixture of foreign material (i.e., alloys) and the
weight of a half-sheqel had to be pure silver. Therefore, the kolbon was add-
ed so the Temple received a full half-sheqel.
Related archaeological evidence comes from the 1964 excavation at
the ancient settlement of Ein-Gedi on the shore of the Dead Sea from a
first-century ce house. In a plaster wall, archaeologists discovered a Hero-
dian-style oil lamp containing 139 prutot, from Agrippa I and the Ro-
man procurators who governed Judea after him until the beginning of the
Jewish War (Fig. 1.1). They concluded that 139 small bronze coins could
not constitute a hoard in the usual sense, because their value was so small.
While showing me this oil lamp and group of coins at The Israel Museum,
Ya’akov Meshorer reconstructed the story as follows: “A Jew in the year
60 ce built his house, and, while finishing it, before its last plaster stage,
decided to hide a sacred amount of money in the wall to protect against
the evil eye.”
The most sacred sum of money to the Jews at this time was the half-
sheqel, the amount each man paid annually to the Temple. Our first-cen-
tury Jew did not want simply to put a single, silver half-sheqel into his wall
for luck since “the large number of coins would make a better impression.”
The man also decided to put the money into a lamp, “a symbol of eternity,”
according to Meshorer.
However, if a half-sheqel of the time was equal to only 128 prutot, why
did the archaeologists find 139?
An exchange fee of two kolbonot on a half-sheqel equals about 11. Adding
128 plus 11—is 139 prutot. The owner of the house wanted to make sure that
when it came to his good luck, he took every precaution to ensure accuracy!
Prices and Values

Among the most frequent questions asked about ancient money are about
the purchasing power of coins. Daniel Sperber has consolidated a series
of price lists in Judea during the first and second centuries ce. They come
from the rabbinical sources as well as the New Testament. A few interest-
ing examples follow. (The equivalents between biblical or Talmudic de-
nominations and comparable Roman denominations [in parentheses be-
low] are those offered by Sperber; they may differ slightly from some other
views [see Jacobson’s equivalents below]; we offer Sperber’s equivalents for
consistency in his price list. Note also that the monetary units vary accord-
ing to the various Talmudic, New Testament, or other sources.)18
Wages. In the early first century, Rabbi Hillel’s daily wages were one
tarapik (or one-half denarius); the doorkeeper of the academy received one-
half tarapik (one-quarter denarius) as an entrance fee. A vineyard worker’s
daily wages were one denarius, but the expenses for looking after a sick
man were at least two denarii. The wages paid to a person for weaving a
tallit ( Jewish ritual shawl) were two sela’im or eight denarii.
A good scribe earned 12 denarii per week, or 2 denarii per day. He ate
and drank for 4 denarii per week and paid for his clothing with 4 denarii.
Scribes received a few prutot per document.
Clothing. In the early first century, the cost of the outfits of high
priests was between 10,000 and 20,000 denarii in Jerusalem. However,
clothing made of sacking that could last four or five years was only 4 dena-
rii. The cost of a tallit, mentioned above, was in the range of 12–20 denarii.
Bread. In the first to second centuries, one loaf of bread cost 1 pundion
(1/12 denarius), while a small loaf cost only 1 issar (1/24 denarius).
Wine. At the end of the third century, 100 ordinary containers of wine
cost 10 aurei, while 100 large containers of wine cost 20 aurei.
Olive oil. Josephus reported that one amphora of olive oil from the
Galilee cost 1 Tyrian drachm, the equivalent of 1 denarius.
Fruit. In the first to second centuries, a pomegranate cost between 1
and 8 prutot. A cluster of grapes or 10 figs cost 1 issar (8 prutot), and a cu-
cumber (which must have been very desirable) cost a full denarius.
Livestock. In the first to second centuries, an ox cost 100 denarii, but
a calf cost only 20 denarii. A newborn donkey foal cost 2–4 denarii. A ram
cost 8 denarii while a lamb cost only 4 denarii. In Jerusalem, two pigeons
cost 1 aureus, later reduced to 1 denarius. Two sparrows cost 1 as (1/16 de-
narius), and 5 sparrows cost 2 asses (1/8 denarius).
Assorted foods. The cheapest meal for a bridegroom cost 1 denarius. A
modest meal consisting of a small roll, a plate of lentils, two pieces of meat,
and two glasses of wine cost 2 issars.
Miscellanea. Several lamps and wicks cost 1 prutah. It cost up to 400
aurei to lease a ship. Rabbi Judah ben Ezekiel tells of Artabin, an examiner
of Mezuzot ( Jewish ritual amulets) in the upper market of Sepphoris, and
the quaestor, who once took 1,000 denarii from him as a tax. In another
anecdote, Rabbi Judah bar Nahman and Rabbi Levi appear as the equiva-
lent of today’s political advance men. Each of them used to receive 8 dena-
rii for convening the public to attend Rabbi Johanan’s lectures.
Jacobson cites this approach to the Greek and Roman relationships
between smaller denominations:19
1 drachm = 6 obols
1 obol = 8 chalkoi
i.e., 48 chalkoi = 1 drachm = 1 denarius
1 denarius = 16 asses = 256 prutot
2 semisses = 1 as
i.e., 32 semisses = 1 denarius = 1 drachm
How Coins Are Dated

The system we use to date coins today is relatively modern. The first coins
using the current dating system were struck in 1234 ce at the Roskilde mint,
now in Denmark. By that time, coins had been minted for more than 1800
years. Many of those earlier coins had dates, but they were not written as we
know them. Ancient coins were dated according to the regnal year of the
ruler or by a local era. This approach would be the equivalent of dating 2021
coins of the United States “year 1” corresponding to the first year of the rule
of Joseph Biden. Or perhaps those 2021 coins could be dated “245,” corre-
sponding to the 245th year of the republic of the United States.
The first dated Jewish coins were struck under Alexander Jannaeus
(104–76 bce). Not all of his coins had dates. This small bronze coin carries
on its reverse an upside-down anchor within a circle surrounded by the
Greek legend “of King Alexander.” The obverse shows a star of eight rays
surrounded by dots and a crude Aramaic inscription, which translates to
“King Alexander Year 25” (no. 6191).
Many specimens of this type have several dots at the points of the an-
chor. These spell the letters L KE in a style almost identical to the lettering
on Seleucid coins of around the same period. The letters signify the date,
year 25, referring to the 25th year of the reign of Jannaeus—78 bce.
The coins of the Jewish War are dated from “year one” to “year five,”
which correspond to the five years the war spanned, 66–70 ce, before Je-
rusalem was destroyed.
During the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 ce) the coins were dated
“year one” and “year two.” A large number of the Bar Kokhba coins are not
dated, but evidence from the study of die combinations, breaks, and wear
shows that the undated coins were issued during the third and final year of
the war, 134–135 ce.
Ancient Judean Coin Manufacture

Methods of striking coins changed remarkably little over thousands of
years, except for improvements in metallurgy and technology.
The blanks, or flans, for the Judean bronze coins were made by cast-
ing metal in two-piece soft, chalkstone molds consisting of shallow, drilled
round sockets connected by channels (Fig. 1.8). Two molds were bound to-
gether, and molten metal was poured into the edges and filled the openings.
When the molds were opened, the hot strips of planchets were exposed.
Metallographic evidence suggests that the hot flan strips were struck
shortly after casting, in strips (Figs. 1.9, 1.10), which were later chopped
apart.20 This evidence soundly refutes earlier ideas that the coins were
struck after being chopped apart, or that the flan strips were cast, stored,
and reheated for striking. Our studies show only a rather small percent-
age of coins were re-heated before striking, which we believe is a result of
cast flan strips made at the end of a day, held overnight, and reheated for
striking the next day. This suggests that the modern concept of factory-like
mints with specialization of workers was not the norm in ancient Judea.
Instead, the mints may have been small workshops employing temporary
workers who may have produced coins during short periods and after
completing the job returned to their regular business.
The process of pulling flan strips along and striking each coin in the
strip along the way moved quickly and resulted in mostly poorly struck
1.8. Set of chalkstone molds discovered at Khirbet Rafi‛, in the area of Lachish.
(Photo: Y. Meshorer/Israel Antiquities Authority.)
1.9. Drawings of (to row from left) side view of Judaean single-thick cast flan, top
view with narrow cut, top view with wide cut; below is flan strip. (Drawings Y. Me-
shorer 1982.)
1.10. Reconstruction of struck flan strip of Agrippa I coins (No. 1244) notice chop
marks where initial attempt failed to cut the strip. (Photo: David Sundman.)
1.11. Unstruck single flans and flan strips from Israel, first century bce to first cen-
tury ce. (Maxim Schick Collection.)
and off-center coins. Sometimes the worker who chopped the coins apart
did not do a good job, resulting in coins with flat projections from one or
both sides, such as the coin of the Jewish War shown as no. 6392a. Many
of the other coins shown in the plates have obvious flat edges where they
were chopped away from the strip. Figure 1.11 shows single, unstruck
coins and several on a still-connected strip.
Occasionally the flan strip broke and one coin got stuck in the lower
die (or vice versa) after striking. When the next blank was inserted, it re-
ceived the full strike from the top die, but instead of receiving the im-
pression from the bottom die, it was struck by the face of a coin that had
already been struck by the top die. This error caused the design of the top
die to be impressed in incuse on the reverse of the coin. The coin of Herod
Archelaus (no. 6227b) resulted from such an error. Its obverse shows the
usual helmet, but the reverse shows the exact design struck in incuse, like
a negative. This is called a brockage. Double striking, or striking a coin
twice, is yet another minting error common in ancient times (no. 6371e).
Sometimes the dies used for striking coins cracked or broke and one or
more coins were struck with the damaged die before it was discovered and
replaced, or repaired.
Minting errors are interesting because of what they can reveal about
methods of making coins. They are often encountered among ancient Jew-
ish bronze coins, most of which were manufactured without much quality
control, and the collector with a sharp eye can find them.
Dies to strike coins today are mass-produced. Machines copy the first
hand-engraved die, and it is rare to find significant die varieties in current
coins. Ancient coins were manufactured with completely hand-engraved
dies made of iron or other harder metal alloys, and there are easily noted
differences from one die variety to the next.
For this reason, a new coin type is not simply a variation in the cut-
ting of a die, but is a completely new design, new inscription, or different
denomination (size or metal). Die varieties and combinations of dies are
often helpful in establishing the chronology of a series of coins. Unpub-
lished and “new” coin types are more common in certain extensive series,
such as the Roman provincial coinage. References have never been able to
list every single type and certainly not every die variety. This situation is
now changing, since excellent online references and supplements are be-
coming available, such as RPC Online (rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk). Mildenberg
documented most of the Bar Kokhba dies in his pioneering book.21 The
Menorah Coin Project, managed by the Israel Numismatic Society, has
begun to systematically identify and illustrate die varieties of many of the
Judean coin types (menorahcoinproject.com).
The mints in Judea and the surrounding areas were quite small, and
there were probably several die engravers (classically referred to as cela-
tors) working on the same coin type. From analysis of the coins it seems
probable that there were one or several master engravers—that is, experts
who engraved the earliest dies for each coin type.22 Later, other engravers,
working at different levels of expertise, created coin dies and this accounts
for the many die varieties in the ancient Judean coins (as well as other
ancient coin series).
A modern mint is a large production operation located within a single
building or structure. Ancient mints may have been like that, but char-
acteristics and style of production in smaller mints such as Judea suggest
a different concept, especially for the Judean bronze coins. In the case of
the Jewish War and the Bar Kokhba Revolt, there were almost certainly
secondary mints, one possibly moving with troops, or operated by those
hiding in the Judean Hills. A particularly irregular issue of the famous
silver sheqel of the Jewish War was struck in bronze at Gamla (no. 6401).
Die studies by Mildenberg, and later analysis by Barag,23 clearly prove that
irregular Bar Kokhba coins were struck at a different mint or mints than
the standard issues.
The reality is that Judean mints were small and overworked when they
operated. Also, the method of minting small-denomination coins resulted
in a huge percentage of coins that were poorly produced, off center, weakly
struck, struck from cracked or broken dies, or struck on small, broken, or
cracked flans. Lorber has noted that those in charge of these coins “should
have been ashamed of some of the truly rotten stuff produced.”24
This poor production quality is why it has taken numismatists so long
to identify and begin to understand a slightly different group of coins, the
irregular coins of Judea.
Irregular Coins of Judea

Irregular, crudely made coins were produced at several times and places in
the ancient world.25 Early writers on Judean coins, such as Madden (1864),
Rogers (1914), Hill (1914), and Reifenberg (1947), did not mention the
crude irregular issues, although Hill cataloged some Judean coins with ret-
rograde legends.26
The irregular coins were produced in significantly lower numbers than
the standard issues. Unfortunately, only a few excavation reports make dis-
tinctions between standard and irregular Jewish bronze coins.27 Thus, to
date, there has been only a vague picture of these irregular issues.
Why were these crude copies of government-minted coins made? We
know of nefarious forgeries of gold and silver coins, for example silver-
plated fourrée issues. No gold coins were struck in ancient Judea, and silver
coin production under Jewish rulers was limited to two brief periods total-
ing only about seven years. In ancient times, contemporary bronze coins
were widely accepted in trade; the best-known examples are the Celtic
copies of Macedonian and Roman coins. These coins are often referred to
a “barbaric” or “barbarous” because tribes considered by the principal rulers
of the day to be “barbarians” 28 manufactured them.
We prefer to follow Kadman29 and Mildenberg30 and classify these
crude Judean coins as “irregular,” because use of “barbaric” is anachronistic,
causing unnecessary confusion with the coins of the European barbarian
tribes unrelated to the history of ancient Israel.
Dr. Nathan Bower, professor of chemistry at Colorado College, and I
published a study of the irregular coins of Judea during the first century
bce to the first century ce. We analyzed paired groups of regular and ir-
regular coins and compared stylistic, physical, and chemical aspects using
X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and other physical analyses. We gathered con-
siderable data to help bring the picture into focus, but the entire phenom-
enon is not yet fully understood.31
We estimate 2–7% of prutot as “irregular” based on style. A review of
several hundred of the identifiable Jewish prutot from excavations at Hor-
bat Burnat yielded approximately 3% irregulars.32 Kindler published a
hoard of prutot of the Jewish War from Khirbet Zeita, and of 671 Year 2
coins, 14 (2%) were irregular.33 Among the coins of Masada, Meshorer34
listed 915 Year 2 Jewish War bronze coins of which 71 (7%) were irregular.35
This evidence shows that standard and irregular coins circulated side
by side (Fig. 1.12). If these irregular coins were nefarious forgeries, they
would not have entered wide circulation.
Irregular and poorly struck coins were overlooked as simply ugly ex-
amples not worth much attention. Kadman36 reported that Kindler paid
special attention to the “imitated” coins at the Museum Ha’aretz in Tel
Aviv,37 where he was curator.38 Alas, Kindler’s bibliography is mostly silent
on the subject. Meshorer’s first work39 also cataloged a few crude coins
1.12. Pairs of normal and irregular Judean bronze coins. Approximately 2–7% of
Judean bronze coins are irregular. (Author’s photo.)
but did not discuss them further. Later he cataloged more of these coins,
referring to them as either “crude” or “barbaric.”40 Meshorer focused on
the crude Bar Kokhba issues, but his principal discussion was to refute
Kindler’s published theories that some of the crude procurator coins
should be assigned to previously unknown dates.41 More recently, Fonta-
nille42 provided composite images of several irregular types and claimed
that they were the products of military or moving mints, contemporary
“copies,” the work of apprentices, or outright forgeries, mostly conclusions

our scientific data does not support.
Earlier editions of this book have reviewed irregular coins. Mildenberg
treated the irregular coins of Bar Kokhba in some detail,43 and in 2001
Meshorer suggested, “In almost every large series of bronze coins we find
a certain percentage of crude ones....”44
There is scant literary evidence regarding the Judean bronze coins ( Jo-
sephus does not mention them at all), and some monetary issues and con-
cerns are raised in the Talmud, which principally deals with which coins
are valid for various ritual purposes. The Talmud specifically notes that
“uncoined metal which bear[s] no imprint” is not the same as a legitimate
coin (BT Baba Metzia 46a ). The unstruck coins could be valid currency,
the Talmud concludes, but they were strictly defined as “goods” and not
as “money.” However, there is no mention in the Talmud of illegitimate
struck bronze coins, and this silence may be taken to show that the irregu-
lar bronze coins did not present a problem.
Regarding a similar phenomenon in Roman coins of the British Isles,
Robinson notes that the quantity of imitative coins “appears to be too nu-
merous for the work of fraudulent criminal forgers.”45 He also pointed out
that some of the crude imitations “found on Roman sites in association
with genuine coins would not deceive anyone as fraudulent forgeries.”46
He suggests that such coins were created locally “as soon as the supply of
coin minted in the imperial mints failed for any reason, when the chest
was low or exhausted.”47 Similarly, in the ancient Greek world, van Al-
fen notes, “Although the supply [of regular coins] faltered the demand
remained constant and so prototype mints produced imitations to keep
up local supplies.”48 Therefore, it seems unlikely that counterfeiters were at
work in ancient Judea creating illicit bronze prutot to put into circulation
for their own financial gain.
Further, similarities and manufacturing methods suggest that the irreg-
ular coins were struck consistently, over a long period of time, at one or more
mints that operated in a parallel, but less regulated, fashion to the central
mint(s). The longevity and consistency tend to rule out traveling military
mints as well as counterfeiters as primary explanations for their existence.
During the Jewish War, a mint at Gamla created crude bronze coins
roughly patterned on the silver shekels minted in Jerusalem, as previously
mentioned.49 During the Bar Kokhba Revolt, secondary mint(s) created many
irregular issues that supplemented the standard coins in wide circulation.50
Kadman suggests, “It seems much more likely that the ‘imitated’ coins
were struck by Jewish detachments outside Jerusalem. We know, for in-
stance, from Josephus, that during the second year and half of the third
year of the war, Simon bar Giora succeeded in gathering considerable
forces and that he occupied or reconquered important parts of southern
Judea and of Idumea.”51
While many irregulars of Year 2 prutot of the Jewish War exist, they are
rare among the year three prutot, the year four larger bronzes, and among
the Jewish War sheqels.52 Many irregulars were produced under Hasmo-
neans, Herodians, and the Roman procurators after Ambibulus as well as
during the Jewish War and the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Deutsch’s results,53 to-
gether with Mildenberg’s die studies54 and Barag’s analysis,55 provide proof
that both Jewish War and Bar Kokhba irregular coins were produced at a
non-standard secondary mint (or mints).
Our elemental analysis using XRF shows that the Judean irregular
coins had relatively low levels of arsenic in their composition compared to
the standard issues. Trace elements were usually not controlled by ancient
coin minters, as they generally do not affect the metallurgical properties
of a coin. But they can be of use because their profile often reflects the
source of the ores used for the major component metals. Arsenic is one of
these trace metals that Hauptman56 and Epstein et al.57 found in different
amounts in the two major sources of copper in the Eastern Mediterranean
region: Cyprus and the various mines along the Dead Sea Rift, such as
those at Feynan near Petra, Jordan. Our study indicates there are generally
lower levels of arsenic (As) in the standard-issue coins. These levels drift
down over time as the Bronze Age Feynan mines were reactivated during
the Roman era using a new smelting technology. Arsenic levels suggest
that many, if not most, of the irregular coins were either produced at more
southerly mints or used metal obtained from this new source of copper.
Furthermore, the striking axes differ significantly and suggest that the
irregular issues are more than twice as likely to follow a 6 o’clock axis as
a 12 o’clock axis. This difference is another hint that irregular coins were
struck at secondary mints and not by apprentices at the primary mints,
where coins were struck according to more specific technical standards.
This scenario is similar to the so-called “hard times tokens” of the nine-
teenth century58 or “territorial” and “colonial” coins.59 The latter were unof-
ficially made by private mints in various countries when the government
was unable or unwilling to meet the public need.
We conclude that the majority of the “irregular” coins of ancient Judea
were neither “barbaric” nor “barbarous.” They were not forgeries and not
created by apprentice die makers or in military mints. They were rather
coins with equal fiduciary value struck by various “semi-official” local Ju-
dean minters, working outside the controls found in the standard mint-
ing centers that operated when the principal supply faltered. Their style is
defining and consistently crude; often the inscriptions and motifs on the
coins are blundered, retrograde, or mere imitations of the standard issues.
The metallurgy and most other aspects of their production are generally
irregular when compared to the populations of similar standard issues.
Names of the Small Bronze Coins

We do not absolutely know the names of the ancient Judean bronze coin de-
nominations. For some 75 years it has been standard practice to refer to the
most common denomination with the Hebrew word prutah, but we know
this word only from later rabbinic literature.60 As discussed, Josephus does
not mention bronze coins or any terminology associated with them. How-
ever, since the Mishnah was codified early in the third century ce and was
based upon discussions among the rabbinical sages during the mid-first and
second centuries ce, we assume that the word prutah was current when the
small Jewish bronze coins were in circulation, c. 134 bce–70 ce. From the
information given in the Talmud, it appears that the Rabbis associated the
name prutah, which may have been much the same as the Greek term lepton
(pl. lepta), with the very smallest bronze coins that were in circulation in
Judea. These coins could have been the reduced prutot of Jannaeus and his
successors or the actual half-prutot denominations, scarce among the Has-
moneans but more common under Herod I and his son Archelaus.61 There-
fore, according to some assessments, what is commonly called a prutah today
may have been a double prutah in the eyes of the Rabbis.
After studying all of the options, we are not able to focus finely enough
on the past to understand exactly how many prutot were in the sheqel at any
specific point in the Second Temple Period. We can say that the prutah
was a very small, but significant, denomination. Back in the 1950s, some
remember the penny (in England) or the cent (in the USA). There were a
whole lot of them in every pound (240) or dollar (100), but each penny/cent
coin had real purchasing power. (One penny/cent, for example, would buy
an individually wrapped hunk of bubble gum, and in the USA, “two cents
plain” was the name [and cost] for a glass of seltzer water. In 2021, the
penny/cent coins have no meaningful value, and many governments around
the world have stopped minting these coins in favor of coins that contain
5 or 10 small units each.
The first prutot and half-prutot were the Jerusalem bronze lily/anchor
coins and helmet/aphlaston coins issued under Antiochus VII, which were
equivalent to a Seleucid chalkous,62 and which aligned with the weight
standard introduced by Alexander Balas (150–145 bce).63 During the first
century, a prutah was the price of one pomegranate.64
Also, the Greek word lepton is used in the New Testament to describe
the smallest bronze coin in circulation during the time the gospels were
composed (c. first century ce), which equaled half a Roman quadrans.65
Kindler suggests that during the Hasmonean period, Jewish bronze coin-
age consisted mainly of “the dilepton…commonly named Perutah (sic.).”66
Hence, a lepton was equal to a half-prutah, and the prutah equaled 2 lepta,
as mentioned in Mark 12:42.
The late Ya’akov Meshorer told me that Israeli numismatists used the
word perutah (by Israelis who emigrated from Europe) or prutah (by native
Israelis) since at least the late 1950s. Klimowsky explained the usage in a
short essay in 1963.67 Also, the smallest denomination of modern Israeli
coinage was officially named the prutah from 1952–1960, and even today
small change is often referred to as prutot much as United States one-cent
coins are referred to as pennies, even though the USA has never issued a
coin called a penny!
For our purposes, the terms prutah and lepton are used for the sake of
consistency and comparison. As will be shown, however, neither the prutah
nor the lepton nor the half-prutah were absolute denominations vis-à-vis
their weights, which varied greatly in individual issues and over time.
General Observations on Judean Coins

In 2009, I completed a metrological study of 10,312 Jewish bronze coins
of 27 general types and various denominations.68 The coins range in date
from those of John Hyrcanus I (134–104 bce) to those struck during the
Jewish War.
The data from the study show that Judean bronze coins were manu-
factured based on the average weights of large groups of coins (al marco)
and not the weight of single coins (al pezzo). As Meshorer observed, “Al-
though it is likely that the mint masters knew the amount of coins to be
produced from a specific amount of bronze, the exact quantity of the metal
included in each coin would have been exceptionally difficult to control.
It would not have been expedient to remove bronze from coins that were
too heavy or to add bronze to the lighter issues.” He added that the range
of weights of the Jewish bronzes was so great that “[i]t is difficult to as-
sume that these light coins were given the same value in the market as the
heavier prutot.”69
Results of this study, however, suggest that in Judea, when coins were
struck in the same metal, with the same or very similar designs, lacking
indications on the coins to the contrary, they were intended to represent
coins of the same denomination. Even with small bronzes, differences of
1, 2, or even 3 g would not have been of great concern among coins that
shared types, since the relative weight of the coins had little consequence
in circulation. For example, Figure 1.13 shows three coins of the same
type dated to the year five of Nero, weighing (from left) 1.49, 2.43, and
3.67 g—the lightest of which weighs only 40% of the heaviest. It is al-
most impossible for a human using quick hand weighing to distinguish
between these three coins. This group is one of many examples of similar
and even more drastic weight ranges within a single type. Despite the great
variance in weight, these coins were undoubtedly the same denomination
since type, not weight, was the determinant.70 Similar extreme variances in
weight were noted in every group of similar types we studied, wherein the
heaviest coins weigh from two to four times the weight of the lightest coin.
1.13. Three prutot dated to the Year 5 of Nero, weighing (from left) 1.49, 2.43, and
3.7 g. (Author’s photo.)
The diameter of a particular coin is not necessarily a reflection of its

weight, which is most affected by the thickness, not the diameter. Coin
thickness was determined by the crudely made molds in which the flans
were cast.71
While the data indicate that even though the weight of any coin type
could vary dramatically, nevertheless the statistical analysis of the weights
show trends in both denomination and standards among coins issued un-
der specific political authorities.72
From the first Hasmonean bronze, struck under Hyrcanus I (no. 6165),
weighing an average 2.47 g, the weight of the prutah under Jannaeus falls
to a low of 1.20 g for the coins of Jannaeus dated year 25 in both Greek
and Aramaic (no. 6191).
The succeeding series (no. 6195) are those referred to by Hill73 as
“wretched” imitations of the Jannaeus coins. Some of these coins were ap-
parently struck under Jannaeus, but due to the massive volume produced,
as well as metallurgic data from our research,74 more may also have been
struck through the reigns of his successors.75
The weight of these wretched anchor/star coins averages 0.81 g but
fluctuates dramatically from coins as light as 0.20 g to coins as heavy as
1.70 g (× 8.5). These coins are likely degraded small-prutot and not half-
prutot coins. Hyrcanus I (nos. 6170, 6173) and Jannaeus (no. 6183) issued
coins with different designs or inscriptions that were clearly intended to
be smaller denominations.
The Talmud recognizes some coins, possibly the “wretched” imitations,
as devalued prutot since it assigns the prutah a very small value indeed. At
one point, the Talmud indicates that early in the first century ce there were
768 prutot to the silver sheqel.76 The Talmud reflects discussions of Jewish life
around the first and second centuries ce, yet the devalued prutot were issued
between around 76 bce and 40 bce. Bijovsky shows, however, that these
poor, small coins were actually used in the area for hundreds of years.77
Fiduciary Coinage of Judea

During the Hellenistic and early Roman periods, Judea was not a stranger
to the use of small pieces of metal in trade (Chapter 2).
The earliest Greek coins of the seventh century bce were struck from
a man-made alloy of gold and silver called electrum and then from gold
and silver. These coins only had specific value within their issuing state. For
transactions outside of this area, the metal needed to stand up to the test
of purity and weighing by balance scales. Eventually, however, the routine
trading of metals ceased to be a commodity transaction and became a pur-
chase. It was also around this time that people began to count coins instead
of weighing chunks of metal, and the concept of fiduciary coinage began.78
The evolution from exchanging pieces of metal to coinage as we know
it was not strictly economic. As van Alfen notes, once coins are struck
objects rather than chopped fragments, “the monetary instrument could
now advance upon levels of political symbolism that were unattainable
with anonymous bits.”79 This concept is even more applicable to the Judean
coinage, since there were political and religious issues that needed to be
considered in the creation of a Judean royal coinage.80
While all manufactured coins were fiduciary, the bronze coinage “dif-
fered from that of coinages in the noble metals by the fact that the profit
to the issuing authority was much greater, the bronze being used as a token
coinage of very little intrinsic value,”81 according to Mørkholm and Grier-
son. The profit motive for striking coins thus joins both market and politi-
cal issues in driving the desire for local rulers to obtain the right to strike
coins.82 During the Hellenistic period in Judea, it was a royal prerogative
to issue coins, a grant made to the Jews by Antiochus VII, although they
did not start to issue coins immediately.83
Thus, the ability to manufacture coins enriched the treasuries and un-
derlined the political independence of the Hasmonean and Herodian rul-
ers of ancient Judea, even though they only issued bronze coins. Silver
coins were struck by Jewish rulers of ancient Judea only during the two
revolts against Rome, 66–70 ce and 132–135 ce. Based on finds of coins
in Judea and the surrounding region, it is clear that the bronze coins were
widely used in daily transactions; silver coins were far less common, and
gold coins were reserved for very large transactions.
Dramatic weight variations among Judean small bronze coins can be
explained by their low value. When the Talmud states that something is
worth less than a prutah it means that it has no commercial value at all.84 In
a Jewish wedding, the ring must have an actual value of more than a single
prutah. Since the prutah was the smallest denomination in ancient times,
this ensures that there are no financial barriers to marriage.
The bronze coins were only legal tender within the territory controlled
by the issuing authority. Outside that territory,85 their value was probably
open to marketplace negotiation.
The matter of fiduciary coinage, even for small bronze denominations,

was significant enough to have been discussed in the Talmud, which asks
whether copper coins are to be considered money or merchandise when
traded against silver coins. The authors of the Talmud weighed both sides
of the argument: pro-money, because in areas where the copper coins were
the common form of currency, they were more readily accepted and ex-
changed than silver coins; pro-merchandise, because “copper coins are
different, for where they circulate, they have greater currency (BT Baba
Metzia 44b).”
More significantly, as noted above, the Talmud refers to a specific
small piece of bronze, coin-like, but not a coin. These are called protetot,
and the Talmud says that they are “uncoined metal which bear[s] no im-
print (BT Baba Metzia 46a).”86 As discussed above, this seems to be a
clear reference to unstruck coin flans, often found in Israel (Fig. 1.14). The
Talmud discusses whether these should be exchanged as barter transac-
tions or as money transactions. The conclusion was that while unstruck
coins could be valid, they were to be strictly defined as “goods” and not as
“money.” Thus there were two values to a small piece of bronze—the barter
value or, if it was struck as a coin, the fiduciary value.
Since neither the Hasmoneans nor Herodians issued silver or gold
coins, there was no built-in rate of exchange. It is possible that exchange
rates for imported silver coins were established by decree, similar to an
earlier decree in Olbia.87 The same authority in Judea issued bronze and
silver coins only during the Jewish War and the later Bar Kokhba Revolt.
In Egypt, most surviving financial documents show that separate accounts
were kept for amounts in silver and amounts in bronze. The same was
true in third-century bce Egypt, when the bronze drachm was the official
equivalent of the silver drachm, yet an exchange fee had to be paid if bronze
was substituted for silver.88 Along the same lines as discussed above, a sys-
tem of moneychangers was required to exchange silver for bronze coins
or vice versa.89 In the Greek world, Seaford notes, “even bronze coinage,
which was probably sensed as having some intrinsic value, had a conven-
tional value higher than this very low intrinsic value.”90
Judean coinage was not an invention but a local innovation. It fol-
lowed Hellenistic coins that were already a few hundred years removed
from the original Archaic or Classical Greek coins of electrum, gold, silver,
or bronze, all of which circulated in ancient Judea. While the creation of
Judean bronze coinage certainly had economic elements, the need for Jews
to establish and maintain an independent Jewish state at the time suggests
this coinage had a political significance as great as or greater than its eco-
nomic significance.
Although average weights calculated for the various issues fluctuates,
they show little variation when they are contrasted to the range of weights
for each particular coin type. These overlapping weight ranges essentially
1.14. Unstruck coin flans from Judaea of various sizes. These are referred to in the
Talmud as “uncoined metal which bears no imprint” and underline the fiduciary
nature of bronze coinage in ancient Judea. (Author’s photo.)
prove that the concept of fiduciary coinage applied in ancient Judea as it

did in the rest of the world at the time.
Conservation, Smoothing, Tooling

What are the differences between “tooling” and “smoothing”? What is the
difference between proper cleaning and restoration of ancient coins and
the type of cleaning that undermines a coin’s integrity?
Begin with the premise that more than 99% of all ancient coins of-
fered on the market—including the “uncleaned” coins—have been cleaned
in one way or another. Why? Few would want to collect most coins as
they are found. After a couple thousand years in the earth, only gold coins
generally emerge unscathed except for a layer of earth and occasional mi-
nor encrustation. Silver and bronze are both more interactive with the
elements, and the patina or “crust” that encompasses a coin depends on
factors such as the type of metal, acidity of the soil, moisture, minerals,
electrical current, and the proximity to other materials. Most ancient coins
are barely recognizable when they come from the earth. Some coins are
conserved correctly while others are nearly ruined.
“Smoothing” is a technique that is often used to eliminate unsightly
encrustations or defects on a coin. This is achieved mechanically, under a
microscope, usually with a needle-sized tool or a tiny polishing drill, that
can be used to scrape away the blemish, usually an adhering piece of cor-
rosion or mineralization of the surface. A properly smoothed coin is not
offensive, but improperly treated coins look as if someone took a chisel to
them. A coin is tooled, not smoothed, if the fields are leveled by moving or
removing metal. The coin is smoothed if no metal is moved, but products
of corrosion are removed.
“Tooling” is done either by hand or using power tools, in which the coin’s
metal is recut or moved in order to change its identity or to make it appear
to be in better condition. Sometimes a coin is improperly cleaned and gives
the appearance of being tooled, but in fact it is only the encrustation that
has been affected, and this can be often be resolved by an expert conservator.
Figure 1.15 shows how someone tooled a coin of Herod I. The fully
tooled coin was spotted and tracked down to an earlier internet offering,
thus we can provide illustrations of a tooled coin before and after the de-
ception took place. On the reverse of the coin, immediately to the right of
the tripod, very little was done to be offensive. However, parts of the tripod
itself and the entire inscription beneath and to the left side were com-
pletely recut into the metal or the patina of the coin. Compare this coin
to known photos of this die to see that the left portion of the inscription
is quite different from the way it should appear.The obverse of the coin
depicts a helmet surmounted by a star. Here, the person who altered the
coin created more of a windmill. The palm branches and other portions of
the helmet also have been heavily recut.
There is a major difference between scraping away encrustation and
tooling. Coins with a hard-packed earthen encrustation can often be suc-
cessfully cleaned under a microscope with a sharpened needle or piece of
wood as a tool. This process can be a part of proper cleaning and restora-
tion, especially of bronze coins, as long as the metal is not scratched or cut.
Ancient silver coins are almost always cleaned either chemically or
electrochemically. Bronze coins can also be cleaned in this way, but ex-
treme care must be taken to use only chemical processes that work slowly
and remove surface encrustation and mineralization and do not damage
the coin. Sometimes chemicals are used to soften encrustations which can
then be more easily removed mechanically.
1.15. Heavily tooled coin of Herod I (no. 1169) on top, compared with full compos-
ite image of coin struck from the same die set. Notice how details of both letters and
designs have been changed by this illicit work. (Graphic: Fontanille.)
Figure 1.16 shows two Judean coins before and after professional con-
servation. Sometimes uncleaned coins can bring a premium. Expert restor-
ers understand which encrustations can be removed and which ones are
probably hiding pitted or otherwise damaged surfaces.
I once received a call from a collector who had attended a coin show
and bought a “beautiful” bronze coin of Caligula with “great” surfaces and
a “nice green patina.” He paid a premium for the coin because it looked so
nice. He drove home and left the coin in an envelope behind the back seat
of his car, and forgot about it. It was summer, and the car became quite hot.
In a few days he remembered the coin, and retrieved it. When he looked at
the coin he was shocked to find a rather ugly bronze with a blob of green-
brown stuff on both sides.
He explained this to me, and I said that there was no way that the
heat inside his car could damage any genuine coin or patina, even one with
proper conservation. He sent the coin and I saw it had been poorly cleaned
and tooled. To hide that work, the coin was painted with a green-brown
glossy paint, varnish, or epoxy that imitated an apple-green patina well
enough to fool the collector. The heat in the car melted the coating and it
shrank into globs.
I soaked the coin in solvent to remove the coating. I was able to elim-
inate much of the scratching, because instead of tooling the metal, the
“cleaner” had scraped into a thick patina. Some of this cleaning was done
chemically, without detriment. Once I had neutralized any remaining
chemicals, I returned the coin to its owner. It was now an “okay” coin in-
stead of a “great” coin. It was not a total loss, but the buyer learned a lesson.
1.16. Year 5 sheqel of the Jewish War (left) and large bronze of year 1 of the Bar
Kokhba Revolt before and after conservation by author. (Author’s photos.)
There are not many expert conservators of ancient coins. It is difficult

and tedious work and may require the use of dangerous chemicals.
Cleaning Ancient Coins

Amateurs can play with coins and try to learn to clean them with varying
degrees of success, mostly poor. There are many websites and a few books.
Of course, they are filled with both good and terrible information, and even
the good information is worthless without experience. In previous editions
I have given some guidance in this field; however, I am uncomfortable rec-
ommending the use of anything beyond standard household chemicals for
cleaning coins unless one has the proper ventilation and safety equipment
(gloves, goggles, protective clothing).
More than one person has landed in the hospital due to trying to clean
coins using dangerous substances.
There is no simple method to clean coins beyond soaking in distilled
water and brushing with a soft brush. Many recommend soaking in olive
oil, which is slightly acidic. However, the olive oil must be completely re-
moved from the coin with proper solvents, because the acidic oil continues
to seep into the crevices of the coin and causes it to deteriorate from the
inside out. I do not recommend this.
WARNING: Even brushing a coin with distilled water can signifi-
cantly change its the way it looks, making it difficult to restore the origi-
nal appearance.
Coin Plague
This is a powdery form of oxidized copper chlorides that naturally occur in
some ancient coins, especially those exposed to chlorides when they were
buried. This is not the same as hard green encrustation, which is usually
stable. The powdery “plague” can spread on a single coin. It is not caused by
bacteria and is only contagious if other coins have similar problems with
copper chlorides.
To prevent coin plague, avoid the use of any solution that contains
chlorine (including tap water) to clean coins, and make sure that your coins
are kept in a clean, dry place. Some years ago, the numismatic department
of the Israel Antiquities Authority installed a powerful dehumidifier in the
room where the country’s national treasure coin collection is kept, and it
successfully minimized the problem.
Fakes and Forgeries

In medical terms, “differential diagnosis” is a systematic method of iden-
tifying a disorder (e.g., headache) that lacks unique symptoms or signs. A
physician will examine the patient and then, based on findings, will make
a likely diagnosis.
Being a numismatist is not the same as being a physician. But when
a collector asks: “How do you know?” if a coin is not genuine, my answer
is: “the same way your doctor knows how to diagnose an illness.” In other
words: experience and study. In Malcolm Gladwell’s book The Outliers, he
discusses the 10,000-hour rule. It states that great mastery of complicated
topics requires at least that much study and practice (and even doctors
make mistakes!).
Over the past 50 years, I have developed a system of “differential diag-
nosis” when examining ancient coins. It is not brain surgery, but here it is:
1. Study the general appearance with the naked eye and with a 3×–7×
magnifier. Do you have a question about any aspect of the coin? (If you
know what you are looking for, higher magnification using a binocular
microscope is invaluable.)
2. Weigh the coin. The weight of gold and silver coins is significant;
compare the weight ranges with published weights in standard reference
works. Note, however, that the weight of genuine ancient silver coins can
sometimes vary greatly, especially if the coins were found in the sea. In
such instances, much of the alloy can leach out of the coins, leaving them
50% (or more) lighter than expected. The weight of bronze coins varies
considerably, and, in this case, weight is not as critical but can sometimes
be significant. Unfortunately, many modern forgers are not so stupid that
they get the weights wrong for the fakes they produce, though sometimes
they make amazing mistakes.
3. Study the edge. Is there a seam around the edge? Has the edge been
filed or hammered to hide the traces of casting? Keep in mind, however,
that specific hammer marks are expected on the silver coins of the Jewish
War, and that the silver coins of the Bar Kokhba Revolt were prepared for
restriking by hammering them in pans that caused the edge to become flat
or slightly concave. Furthermore, all Bar Kokhba bronze and silver coins
were overstruck upon coins that were already in circulation, and there are
often file marks on the surfaces of the bronze coins, where the portraits
and designs were filed down before restriking. This filing, however, occurs
on the surfaces and not usually the edges of the coins. If there are flan
cracks, they should go completely through the coin and have ragged edges
and not smooth edges. (Flan cracks certainly occur on some forgeries, es-
pecially when they are struck or pressed over genuine ancient bronze coins.
However, flan cracks themselves are not absolute indicators of false coins.)
4. Examine the surfaces. The surfaces should be free of pits and pock
marks unless the coin is clearly corroded and pitted from time, wear, or
cleaning. Look for tiny holes resulting from casting air bubbles. Carefully
look for places on the surface and edge of the coin where a monogram,
initials, or even the word “copy” might have been obliterated. Genuine
crystallization of silver coins is a good sign, but one must learn to distin-
guish this from artificial corrosion made by acids, which are used to mimic
natural aging. Flow lines (radial lines reflecting the flow of the coin’s metal
during the striking process), which are often apparent on struck gold and
silver coins, are a good sign; but remember that any struck coin will have
flow lines. Machine-made dies will create coins that have extremely flat
and even fields. Some forgers have been successful pressing coins on an-
cient flans, in which case genuine crystallization or patination may remain.
5. Examine the legend and the devices. Do letters rise sharply as with a
struck coin, or does the coin have an overall fuzzy appearance (Fig. 1.17)?
If it’s fuzzy, this is a warning sign (although the lack of fuzziness is no
guarantee of authenticity, and some fuzziness may appear on heavily worn
or lightly struck genuine coins).
6. Does the patina or oxidation appear to be genuine? An affirmative
answer can be a valuable indicator, but remember that many ancient coins
have been cleaned and darkened. This is true, even (or especially) for coins
in old collections. Some collectors say that they refuse to buy coins that
have been cleaned and re-toned. However, if you take this position, you
will not acquire many coins. There is a legend that forgers can create artifi-
cial patinas by feeding coins to goats, chickens, pigs, or cows and recover-
ing them at the other end of the process! This is a technique used to “age”
fake Egyptian scarabs. People heard about this approach and assumed it
could be done to coins—but it cannot! On the other hand, coins can be
buried in chemically treated dumps for years or decades and later dug out
with convincing patinas.
1.17. The left sides of the coins shown above are from a genuine sheqel of the Jewish
War, the right side is a cast forgery. Note the lack of sharp details and lack of flow
lines on right. (Author’s photo.)
7. Do the dies match known specimens? Many groups of the Biblical/

Judean series of ancient coins have been documented. If you can find a coin
struck from the same dies as yours (note: struck and not cast!) it is a sig-
nificant indication of authenticity. If, for example, you have a Bar Kokhba
coin and the dies do not match those published in Mildenberg’s book (or
its addenda) on the subject, there is a chance it may be fake. Along these
lines, however, one must also be aware of forgeries that are struck with dies
created by using original coins, in which case the dies will match, although
other metalurgic aspects will not be correct. Note, too, that in some other
groups of ancient coins, such as the Roman Provincial series, unique die
varieties are relatively common. Figure 1.18 shows a selection of current
forgeries of Judean coins.
8. Two or more completely identical examples of an ancient coin are
proof of forgery.
9. Is the style accurate? This question is a matter of how the coin is
designed and created, including the portrait, the legend, and the motifs.
Sometimes a forger will misinterpret a detail and present it in a different
way. How can one learn to judge style? See Gladwell’s rule above.
10. Die axis. Compare the die axis of your coin to those of other known
coins of the same type. Sometimes this comparison is not relevant because
the axis varies greatly, but it can also be a critical diagnostic tool. (The axis
of a coin is the relative position of the obverse as compared to the reverse
caused by the alignment of the dies when the coin is struck.)
11. Your reference library (and your use of it) is a helpful defense
against allowing fakes into your collection. If you are buying “numbers” to
fill holes in a collection, you are not likely to have much knowledge about
the coins you are buying. Read books, refer to photographs, and study coins
at museums, club meetings, or coin fairs. This approach will begin to give
you the experience you need to be a successful collector.
12. A reliable dealer will not only sell genuine coins, but he or she will
also usually consult with you on other coins you own to help you determine
their authenticity. Be reasonable in your requests, however. A professional
numismatist cannot spend unlimited time offering free advice on coins
that a collector bought from someone’s junk-box. One reason junk box
coins are so cheap is that most dealers do not want to spend time or effort
to attribute them.
Reputable dealers spend considerable time and energy to ensure that
the coins they sell are genuine and as described.
One of the many enjoyable aspects of collecting coins is that the col-
lector may have the opportunity to find a coin that he or she believes to be
more valuable than does the person who owns it. Good fortune, however,
is usually the result of lots of work and study. Film producer Samuel Gold-
wyn reportedly said, “The harder I work, the luckier I get.” Here’s another
one: If a deal looks too good to be true, it probably is.
1.18. Selection of a few of the forgeries in the market since 2000. Some are ridiculous,
others more convincing, with all kinds of artificial patinas. Photos are not exact sizes.
(Author’s photo.)
CHAPTER 2
Scale Weights to Coinage
A braham lived during a time of transition from nomadic life to

settlement. In those days, pastureland, cattle, and sheep were
among the basic means of measuring and exchanging wealth.
Languages reflect this: the Latin word pecunia (money, coins) derives from
pecus, the word for cattle, especially sheep; rupee is the name of money of
India and originates with the Sanskrit rupa, for pastures; the English fee
shares its root with the German Bieh, which also refers to pastures. Count-
ing head of cattle1 (capita) evolved to the word capital, meaning wealth.
This commodity is mentioned when Abraham asks Abimelech to witness
his digging of a well at Beersheba:
And Abraham set seven ewe-lambs of the flock by themselves

(Genesis 21:28).
Barter also played a critical role when Joseph acquired all of the land
of Egypt from the people on behalf of Pharaoh during the years of famine:
Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be bondmen
unto Pharaoh (Genesis 47:19).
Elsewhere in Genesis, Abraham is described as having been very rich

in cattle, in silver, and in gold (Genesis 13:2).
The time when man began to count remains a mystery. “Counting”

time with marked bones and antlers could have taken place as early as
15,000 years ago.2 Whenever this momentous event took place, counting
was probably the first of four basic human inventions that changed society;
measuring, weighing, and writing are the other three. Qedar points out,
“It is generally assumed that the last three skills appeared in chronological
proximity to one another; in other words, measuring and weighing were
invented at the same time as writing and in the same region.”3
39
Ancient systems of weights and measures in Mesopotamia and Egypt

date as early as 3500–3000 bce, around the time of the Urban Revolution.
Highly developed systems of weights and measures existed in Syria (e.g.,
at Ebla and Ugarit) beginning in the later part of the Early Bronze Age
(3100–2000 bce), during the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 bce) at Alal-
akh, around the same time as the Hittites in Anatolia, and in the ancient
Holy Land. Archaeological evidence for various systems of weights and
measures is found in excavations throughout the Near East.
The world’s economic system did not grow either simply or universally.
According to Powell, “The ancients themselves encountered great obstacles
when they tried to define units of measure in the absence of standardized
systems and the difficulty was especially great when diachronic or cross-
cultural definitions were involved, making most ancient ‘equivalences’ only
rough approximations.”4
An early Near Eastern weight unit, the talent, probably reflected the
average “load” a man could carry (Figs. 2.1 and 2.2). This is illustrated by
ancient words with the same translation such as biltu in Akkadian, gun
in Sumerian, and kikar (round thing) in Hebrew. The word talent comes
from the Latin derivation of the Greek word talanton, “a weighing balance,
something weighed,” which may have been derived from biltu.5 By the
Late Bronze Age, the talent had become a basic trade weight, illustrated by
a number of early copper ingots ranging in weight from about 28–30 kg.6
A number of systems used the talent; there is an Ashdodite talent
(weighing 22–22.5 kg) and an Ugaritic talent (weighing 28–29.5 kg), as
well as talents in other systems that could weigh either 34 or 38.5–39 kg.7
These large pieces of metal were “not closely controlled equivalents of the
2.1. Three bronze talent or “load” ingots

discovered in a shipwreck at Cape Geli-
donia off the coast of southern Turkey.
(Photo: Institute Nautical Archaeology.)
Scale Weights to Coinage 41
talent mass but rather reflect some attempt to approximate the talent to
facilitate reckoning.”8
“The precise size of the load was bound to vary somewhat from locality
to locality and when the transition from crude estimates of weight to genu-
ine weighing with balances began, local tradition must have exerted a signifi-
cant influence on the determination of the precise mass of the local mina.”9
The Old Testament precisely defines a talent:
And the silver of them that were numbered of the congregation was a
hundred talents, and a thousand seven hundred and three score and
fifteen [1,775] sheqels, after the sheqel of the sanctuary: a beqa a head,
that is half a sheqel, after the sheqel of the sanctuary, for every one that
passed over to them that are numbered, from twenty years old and up-
ward, for six hundred thousand three thousand and five hundred and
fifty [603,550] men (Exodus 38:25–26).
In other words, 603,550 men each gave a half-sheqel to the congrega-

tion—301,775 sheqels in all. These 301,775 sheqels were equal to 100 tal-
ents plus 1,775 sheqels. Thus, 100 talents of silver equaled 300,000 sheqels,
and one talent of silver was equal to 3,000 sheqels. Another unit of weight
2.2. Detail from a tomb at Thebes shows man carrying a “load” ingot. (After Davies
in Metropolitan Museum of Art) (Bass 1967:63).
mentioned in the Bible is the mina, which equaled either 50 or 60 sheqels.

The Akkadian mina contained 60 sheqels, but the Canaanite–Israelite mina
probably equaled 50 sheqels because in the Old Testament, sums of 50
sheqels and more are usually divisible by 50, but not by 60.10
The large “load” or talent ingots were just the right weight to be carried
by a man, as shown in some Egyptian reliefs and paintings. Thus, for daily
convenience, smaller bronze ingots were required. One small type of ingot
is a wedge or tongue-shaped ingot. A hoard of these dating to the end of
the third millennium bce was found at the excavation at Har-Yeroham in
the Negev.11
Other bronze ingots in the shape of rings or bracelets are illustrated
in some Egyptian wall paintings. Similar pieces were found at a number
of sites, including in an eighth-century bce burial cave at Tel Halif in
southern Israel.12
The relatively simple process of cutting and smithing could make
bronze or copper ingots into a variety of tools and weapons such as plows,
spears, arrowheads, and knives. As commerce evolved, copper was replaced
by the more precious silver and gold, of which smaller quantities provided
equal value.
These economic transitions evolved toward a common basis for mea-
suring quantity and quality. “Normative trading required the fixing of a
standard that could be measured and that would have a recognized val-
ue. The standard would need to be a material that existed only in limited
quantities and that could stand the test of time. Two precious metals, gold
and silver, fulfilled these criteria because of their special qualities. Other
metals, such as copper and lead, were also suitable because of the great ef-
fort required to produce them.”13
The mina apparently went in and out of use. The typical mina “is at-
tested at Ebla in the third millennium, but during the subsequent mil-
lennium it seems to mostly disappear as a unit west of the Euphrates.”14
The mina later reappears and we see mina and fractional weights from the
Hellenistic period and onward.
Thus, the Old Testament treats the sheqel as a virtually exclusive pri-
mary weight, and this unit is so well understood in context that sometimes
the word “sheqels” is omitted altogether (e.g., Genesis 20:16). Further, texts
from both Alalakh and Ugarit contain sums of hundreds or thousands of
sheqels but there are no references to the mina.15
For thousands of years, the sheqel was the unit of weight throughout
the ancient Near East in nearly every country except for Egypt, which used
the qedet since the New Kingdom.
Early scale weights were made of stones. A round stone of a certain
weight was weighed against a known example of a particular weight. The
stone was rubbed against an abrasive surface until sufficient material was
scraped away to make the weight true. Not incidentally, this process also
gave weights a flat side, which prevented them from rolling around in the
scale pan. Later, round or elliptical stones were worn away until the correct
weight was achieved, and occasionally, if they were too light, they were
drilled and filled with a dollop of lead.
The Hebrew word for “weight” used in the Old Testament is even,
which means stone (Leviticus 19:36, Deuteronomy 25:13, 15; Prov-
erbs 11:1; 20:10). In Akkadian, the scale weights are called abnu, the same
word. Such references reflect traditional use that goes back to the Early
Bronze Age. The early talent denominations were large slabs of bronze,
but silver and gold were much more portable, owing to the high density
of these metals, their unmistakable lustrous appearance, and being easy to
carry as jewelry.
And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took
a golden earring of half a sheqel weight, and two bracelets for her hands
of ten sheqels weight of gold... (Genesis 24:22).
Thus, gold bracelets, nose rings, earrings, and other jewelry became
storehouses of wealth, worn by men and women alike. It was normal for
this wealth to be drawn upon when it was needed for commercial transac-
tions or even for early fundraising, as when Aaron asked the Israelites to
donate funds to make the golden calf.
Break off the golden rings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your
sons, and of your daughters, and bring them onto me (Exodus 32:2).
Jewelry was also made of silver, which was commonly stored and ex-
changed in fragments or small ingots. Meshorer notes that the biblical
Hebrew text in Judges 5:19, betsa kesef, which is usually translated as “they
took no gain of money,” is more accurately translated as “they took no
piece of silver.”16 Even many hundreds of years after the invention of coins
they were often still referred to as “pieces of silver.” Early Middle Eastern
coin hoards from the fifth to fourth centuries bce also contained cut coins,
suggesting that their value was still based upon weight. Eventually people
developed more confidence in stamped coins, and they no longer were
weighed for every transaction.17
“Economically inexact weighing instituted the use of silver as a me-
dium of exchange for small commodities, and the facts themselves suggest
that this barrier to commerce was not overcome until the minting of cheap
coins became common.”18
The first mention of payment in the Old Testament occurs during the
story of the covenant between God and Abraham:
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy silver, must
needs be circumcised... (Genesis 17:13).
The Hebrew word for money used here is kesef, which means silver,
almost certainly referring to small ingots of silver similar to those found
at Eshtemo‘a, south of Hebron in the Judean Hills. Archaeologists dis-
covered a hoard of five jugs from the tenth century bce filled with mostly
chopped pieces of silver jewelry. Three of those jugs were inscribed “five,”
and this may have signified the measurement of five Mesopotamian minas
in each jug.19
In a cooking pot discovered at Ein Gedi, hidden in a building that was
destroyed early in the sixth century bce, archaeologists discovered another
type of ingot, made from silver that had been melted and poured into a
shallow depression in the earth or sand. After cooling, the resultant mass
was etched with lines in order to break or chop away some pieces, much
like a modern chocolate bar.20
It was common practice throughout the ancient Near East to weigh
these small silver ingots on balances against “stones” of known weight.
And Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in

the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred sheqels of silver, current
money with the merchant (Genesis 23:16).
These silver fragments, today called hacksilber (Fig. 2.3), were the im-
mediate precursors of coinage. Hacksilber hoards are documented from the
ancient land of Israel as early as around the twelfth century bce, which of
course suggests that there was also a system of weights available to use this
silver in transactions.21
Early in his career, Israeli numismatic scholar Ya’akov Meshorer made
a random surface find in Jerusalem of an Archaic Attic stater.22 Along with
other late sixth- and fifth-century bce silver coins of Athens, Acanthus, Ae-
gina, Cannus, Chios, Corinth, Cyprus, Cyzicus, Kindya, Kos, Lampsacus,
2.3. Hacksilber pieces of 7.4–21.3 g, accompanied by fragments of a pottery jug c. 6th

century bce, purchased in Jericho, c. 1980.(Author’s photo.)
Lycia, Miletos, Paphos, Phocaea, Samos, Sinope, Stagira, and Thasos, these
are the earliest coins found in Israel. From the fifth century bce onward,
coins became more common in the Holy Land, but even during the period
of Persian rule, it is not clear whether coins were in wide circulation or were
limited to certain small groups such as merchants and officials. A clue lies in
a fifth-century bce papyrus found at Wadi Daliyeh, which reports the sale of
a slave named Nehemiah to a Samaritan named Yehonur for thirty “pieces”
of silver. Silver by weight is also mentioned in one of the Arad Ostraca (No.
41). Thus, we learn that even after coins were available, payments were some-
times made by units of weight instead of coins.23
“The same situation emerges even more clearly from a comparison
with the Elephantine documents. As in Palestine, in Egypt too, Greek
coins were in use and were apparently very common as early as the end of
the sixth century bce. Nevertheless, a study of the papyri from Elephantine,
which deal with commerce, reveals that throughout the fifth century bce
mercantile transactions in this city were carried out by weighed quantities
of silver. The earliest document that mentions coins as a means of payment
dates to around 400 bce. However, this document still employs the for-
mula according to which coins are equated with the old weights, thus “the
sum of 2 sheqels, that is, the sum of 1 stater.” In another document from the
year 402 bce the stater is explicitly described as “money of Greece.” These
two statements (and they are by no means unique) thus confirm the fact
that metal ingots were still being traded by weight as currency in business
transactions in the fifth and fourth centuries, though coins were already in
everyday use. It should also be noted that a number of coin hoards dating
from this period that have been uncovered at various sites in the Near East
contained both coins and metal ingots.”24
Thus, the use of weighed metal currency continued well into the time
after coinage was invented. Even in much later periods, scale and balance
weights were refined and used to weigh coins. These scales were also used
to weigh other precious commodities such as gemstones, various herbs,
spices, and medicinal items.
Dust on the Scales

“Dust on the scales” is a phrase derived from some translations of Isaiah
(40:15) that refers to the inherent inaccuracies of the process of weigh-
ing with balance scales (Fig. 2.4). Even today, religious leaders may ask if
congregants complain about the “dust on the scales” when the local grocer
weighs out five pounds of potatoes. Likewise, the Old Testament tells us
that the weight of nations is equally small.
See, the nations are a drop in the pan [of the scales], like clouds on the
scale are they reckoned. See, the coastlands lift it [the pan] like dust
(Isaiah 40:5–16).25
2.4. Using a balance scale with bull-shaped weights and round ingots from a tomb
in Thebes c. 1400 bce.
Early scales were crudely built and not always accurate. Depending
on the scale, there was a certain amount that was too small to be weighed.
References from Mari in ancient Babylonia have given this error quantity a
name, shiqu(m), and the Hebrew version of this word appears in Isaiah 40:15
as shahak.26 This unweighable amount is known as the “dust on the scales.”
In general, ancient precision weights tolerated inaccuracies between
about 3% and 5%. Dayton experimented with a simple scale used to weigh
airmail letters to half-ounce (14.15 g). He found that 30 grains (1.94 g)
were needed to get the balance moving properly. From this experiment, it
follows that in the ancient world there must have been a similar quantity
that was simply not measurable.27
To evaluate ancient weight systems, we must make educated guesses
about the evolution of standards. Today we recognize weight standards,
the pound or the kilogram, which refer to original units of a measurable and
reproducible weight or mass. For example, one gram was originally defined
as the mass of one cubic centimeter of water at 4° C but now is taken as
the one-thousandth part of the standard kilogram, as defined by an inter-
national agreement based on abstract natural constants. We do not know
if such standards existed in the ancient world. There are Old Testament
references to what may be official standards, such as “current money with
the merchant” (Genesis 23:16), “sheqel of the sanctuary” (Exodus 30:13),

and “the king’s weight” (2 Samuel 14: 26). Perhaps in some instances there
were “master” units maintained in a Temple or other locale.
And Abraham weighed to Ephron…four hundred sheqels of silver cur-

rent money with the merchant (Genesis 23:16).
This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are num-
bered, half a sheqel after the sheqel of the sanctuary (Exodus 30: 13).
He weighed the hair of his head at two hundred sheqels, after the king’s
weight (II Samuel 14:26).
Similarly, in the Elephantine papyri, a “royal weight” is mentioned, and

there are other variations recorded in Akkadian and Sumerian texts that
translate to “in the merchant’s mina,” “weight of the country,” “weight of the
city,” “weight of the harbor,” “true mina,” “our weights,” and “my weights.”28
Today, when we discuss ancient weight standards, we cannot be very
specific. In many cases, even inscribed weights from the same period vary
in mass from one example to the next. For some early examples, Day-
ton lists a group of known inscribed ancient Sumerian and Neo-Assyrian
weights and their sheqel derivatives, which vary from 7.95–8.41 g.29
Another source of variation in ancient weights was because each weight
was largely handmade and not molded from a “master.” Instead, they were
copies of copies, often several generations removed from the original.
In addition, “a certain standard unit of mass may have regional and/or
geographic variations that completely supplant its original value, or it may
become reserved for specialized applications such as taxation, tribute, or
transactions involving specific commodities....”30
Thus, when we refer to the mass of ancient weights, we are referring
to numeric averages that can only be calculated from existing weights or
historic sources. Although some sophisticated statistical techniques have
been developed to provide a more quantitative approach, these techniques
are likely less accurate than one would hope. This situation is due to the use
of many standards in many areas at different times, a general lack of accu-
racy in ancient scale weights, as well as changes caused by encrustation or
corrosion, wear, breaks, or damages, unknown standards, and ancient fraud.
Fraud with Weights and Scales

Proof that fraud existed is demonstrated by the many ancient prohibitions
against the use of false weights or scales.
“A balance could be falsified in the interest of the merchant by making
the receiving arm shorter—even a minute degree shorter—than the pay-
ing out arm, but to judge from the Code of Hammurabi (1792–1750 bce),
which makes no mention of false balances but specifically legislates against

the use of false weights, the latter crime was of far greater concern.”31
The Code of Hammurabi (Section 94) refers specifically to weighing
transactions by merchants (called tamkaru [tamkarum, singular] in Akka-
dian): “If the tamkarum tries to practice fraud with weights, he loses every-
thing he has lent.”32
There were plenty of scoundrels, and thus we are warned in the Old
Testament:
Thou shalt not have in thy bag diverse weights, a great and a small.
Thou shalt not have in thine house diverse measures, a great and a
small. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight; a perfect and just
measure shalt thou have. . . (Deuteronomy 25:13–15).
Just balances, just weights, a just ephah [measure of about 1.1 bush-
els], and a just hin [a measure of about 1.5 gallons] shall ye have
(Leviticus 19:36).
The Prophets had a dim view of the weighing associated with buying
and selling. Amos condemns the people who cannot wait for the Sabbath
to end so they can get back to making profits and who:
Make the ephah small, and the sheqel great, and falsifying the balances
of deceit (Amos 8:5).
Primary victims of such frauds were probably consumers. Pulak be-

lieves “that ancient weight sets were highly personalized and valued tools
that merchants were intimately familiar with. They would use these per-
sonal weights exclusively when weighing a certain quantity of merchandise
for trade and weigh again, with their own sets, the amount of merchandise
received in return. Similarly, the merchant with whom the trade took place
would do the same with his own set of weights. Consequently, during such
transactions involving two merchants, each equipped with their respective
weight sets, whether conforming to the same standard or not, the deliber-
ate use of fraudulent weights would not have been an issue. Merchandise
or produce sold to consumers who could not check the quantity received,
on the other hand, may have been another story.”33
Use of balance scales (Fig. 2.5) as a symbol of justice originated in
ancient Egypt or earlier, and is reflected in a biblical reference:
Let me be weighed in a just balance, that God may know mine integ-
rity ( Job 31:6).
From Mesopotamia through the Levant, some local temples and their
officials may have been involved in the regulation of weight systems and
trade. We do not yet have absolute archaeological evidence of this behavior,
2.5. A bronze balance-beam scale with pans of early style, probably Persian or Hel-
lenistic times. Original chains replaced with strings. Purchased in Israel. (Author’s
photo.)
but “the temple and its agents frequently dealt in trade, lease, and purchase
of land, loans of silver, and many other economically motivated activities.
Bronze Age temple archives including those of Nippur are often filled with
documents and letters that clearly testify to the Temple’s economic prow-
ess.”34 Beginning in the Classical period, there existed a group of public
officials known in Greek as agoranomoi (agoranomos, singular) who super-
vised the commercial aspects of the market (agora), including the assurance
of the true nature of balance weights. Some weights from the Hellenistic
to Roman periods specifically name some of these officials.
The Weight System of Judah

No coins were struck or used in the ancient land of Judah during the First
Temple Period (1006–586 bce), when a standard of specifically Judahite
weight evolved. As might be expected for a later, derivative weight system,
developed at a crossroads of civilization, the Judahite system appears to
contain elements that link it to several other systems. The weights of Judah
are also of special interest because the sheqels and some of its fractions are
mentioned by name in the Bible:
This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are num-
bered, half a sheqel after the sheqel of the sanctuary—the sheqel is twen-
ty gerahs—half a sheqel for an offering to the Lord (Exodus 30:13).
The weights of ancient Judah were used from the end of the eighth
century up to 586 bce, when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem. Al-
most all of these weights are polished, symmetric limestone domes with
flat bases and often have engraved inscriptions referring to denomination.
These weights measured the mass of precious items.
Until 1998, only 211 of the inscribed Judahite weights were found
in archaeological excavations; more than half came from Jerusalem and
its surroundings (76), Lachish (25), and Arad (15).35 Many non-inscribed
weights have also been discovered, and some of these weights exhibit
markings in ink or paint. Thus, it is possible that most of the uninscribed
Judahite limestone weights were once labeled by this method, both less
expensive and less permanent than engraving upon the stone.
By any account, Judahite weights are rare. It was possible for a small
village to do nicely with only one or two sets of weights that might have
been set up at “stations” in the markets, although active merchants must
have maintained their own sets of weights. When a commodity needed to
be weighed, it was brought to the weight station where the transaction was
completed, a small fee was charged and, perhaps, taxes may even have been
assessed. Personal weights could also be standardized at such locations.
The fractions of the Judahite sheqel in the Old Testament are:
The pym or two-thirds of a sheqel, known to be the amount that was

paid by the Judahites to Philistine metal smiths for sharpening their tools
and weapons:
And the price of the filing was a pym (I Samuel 13:21).
The beqa, or half-sheqel, became famous as the annual tribute to the

Jerusalem Temple:
A beqa a head, that is, half a sheqel, after the sheqel of the sanctuary
(Exodus 38:26).
The third-sheqel, which is not known to have survived as an actual

weight denomination, could either be a reference to the practice of an
earlier or later time than the half-sheqel, to a weight other than Judahite, or
possibly even an editing error. Nehemiah was written later than the other
texts referenced here:
Also we made ordinances for us, to charge ourselves yearly with

the third part of a sheqel for the service of the house of our God
(Nehemiah 10:33).
One quarter sheqel, or rebah, was suggested as a gift from Saul to Sam-
uel the prophet:
And the servant answered Saul again, and said: “Behold I have in my
hand the fourth part of a sheqel of silver, that I will give to the man of
God to tell us our way” (I Samuel 9:8).
The smallest fraction of a sheqel mentioned in the Bible is the gerah,

which is also the Akkadian word for a carob seed. The Bible tells us that
the Judahite gerah was one-twentieth of a sheqel:
...the sheqel is twenty gerahs... (Exodus 30:13).
However, the number of gerah in a sheqel continues to be discussed.

Kletter believes that there are 24 gerahs (Hebrew plural gerot) to a sheqel of
Judah. He argues that the Bible’s authors “who used the term ‘holy sheqel’
wanted to distinguish it from another sheqel, which we shall call … ‘or-
dinary sheqel.’ For that reason, they stressed time and again that the holy
sheqel was made of 20 gerahs. We can assume, therefore, that an ‘ordinary
sheqel’ had a different number of gerahs (since, otherwise, why would the 20
gerahs in the holy sheqel be mentioned time and again?)”36
Kletter suggests that the weights marked  are of five gerahs and the
weights marked τ are 10 gerahs, while their bigger brothers, marked with
the  and τ, are equal respectively to four and eight sheqels (and five and
ten qedet, Egyptian weight units).
He further argues that the beqa is the actual half-sheqel and the usually
slightly lighter 10 gerah is worth 10/24 sheqel. In addition, the flexible 24
is divisible by 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12, while 20 is divisible by the less helpful 2,
5, and 10.
In opposition to this argument, some scholars believe that the authors
and editors of the Bible meant what was written: there are 20 gerahs to the
sheqel, and the very fact that no other number is ever used confirms this.
This issue may never be resolved, although Kletter’s proposal of 24 gerahs
seems more likely. It is also possible that both circumstances existed, and
at one point, the number of gerahs per sheqel may have changed from 20 to
24 during a re-valuation.
The various denominations—nezef, pym, beqa, and gerah—that make
up the Judahite weight system were previously thought to be parts of a
number of different weight systems (Fig. 2.6). Meshorer, however, identi-
fied them as part of a single system of Judahite weights,37 and this concept
has since become generally accepted.38
The inscribed weights carry a series of symbols or Hebrew words. The
symbols, once thought to have been specific royal Judahite symbols, are
now known to be Egyptian hieratic signs. The , once explained as a ver-
sion of the winged sun disk found on the Judahite royal jar handles, or the
zror (a sack in which currency was carried), was explained by Kletter as “a
sort of Hieratic shortening for the word sheqel.”39 More recently Vainstub
suggested that it was a symbol based on early Canaanite letters.40
Sheqel weights ascend in multiples of eight—4, 8, 16, 24, and 40—and
provide a convincing connection to the importance of international trade,
especially with Egypt during the Iron Age II period. The system used in
Judaea is linked directly to the Egyptian qedet system.41 Four Judahite
sheqels equal five Egyptian qedet (half a deben), and eight Judahite sheqels
equal ten Egyptian qedet (one deben). Thus, it is not surprising to learn: a)
these sizes of Judahite weights are the most common that have been dis-
covered and, b) that the symbols known to represent four and eight sheqels
of Judah actually carry the hieratic numbers for five and ten. The nezef
(5/6 sheqel), far from being the basis of its own weight metrology system as
Sir Flinders Petrie and others previously suggested, is in fact the Judahite
equivalent of one Egyptian qedet.42
Other fractions of the sheqel correspond to other ancient weight
systems (e.g., the pym of around 7.6 g is related to the similar Late
Bronze Age Ugaritic or Phoenician sheqel), but during this time there was
no link so close as between the systems of Judah and Egypt. Kletter even
remarks how surprising it is that there is such a “lack of direct correlation
between the [limestone weights of Judah] and the Mesopotamian weight
system [of roughly 8.4 g]” (Tables 2.1 and 2.2).43
After the four- and eight-sheqel weights, the two-sheqel, pym, and nezef
are the most common. The one-sheqel weight and its fractions are rarer
than the aforementioned weights. This scarcity is probably because the
single sheqel and its fractions (other than the nezef and pym) were used
mainly for local trade.
2.6. Limestone sheqel weights

of (top row from l.): 8 sheqels, 1
sheqel (bottom row from l.): nezef,
pym, beqa. (Author’s photo.)
2.7. Bronze beqa weight of 5.87 g,

depicting the winged solar disk, which
also appears on royal Judahite seals of
the 8th–7th centuries bce. (Photo by
Zev Radovan, courtesy Shraga Qedar.)
What then can we make of the various biblical references to the “cur-
rent money with the merchant” (Genesis 23:16), the “sheqel of the sanctu-
ary” (Exodus 30:13), and sheqels of “the king’s weight” (II Samuel 14:26)?
These are possibly simply references used in this way to illustrate a number
of differing weight standards simultaneously used in ancient Israel during
the biblical period.
Judahite weights are found “in ‘secular’ contexts, public or private. Fur-
thermore, I doubt if the holy sheqel ever existed in Iron Age Judah. It prob-
ably reflects a utopian plan which did not exist (even during the times of
the Priestly Code and Ezekiel),”44 according to Kletter.
The vast majority of the known weights of Judah during the Iron Age
II period were limestone dome weights. Bronze weights of other shapes
with similar Hebrew or Phoenician inscriptions are probably contempo-
rary with the Judahite weights but may have been made and used outside
of Judah or for trading purposes with outsiders from Judah (Fig. 2.7).
(This chapter is adapted from my book Ancient Scale Weights and Pre-
Coinage Currency).45
Table 2.1. Judaean Weight Table
Denomination Weight Per Talent Per Mina Per Sheqel

Talent 34.2 kg 1
Mina 570.00 kg 60 1.00
Sheqel 11.40 g 3,000 50.00 1
Nezef 9.12 g 3,750 62.50 5/6
Pym 7.60 g 4,500 75.00 2/3
Beqa 5.70 g 6,000 100.00 2
Gerah (20) 0.57 g 60,000 1,000.00 20
Gerah (24) 0.48 g 71,250 1,187.50 24
Table 2.2. Ancient Weight Systems Compared
Weight Judean Egyptian-Ugaritic Phoenicia-Ashdod-Mesopot.

91.20 g 8 sheqels 1 deben (10 qedet) 12 sheqels
45.60 g 4 sheqels 1/2 deben 6 sheqels
11.4 g 1 sheqel * *
9.12 g nezef qedet/sheqel *
7.60 g pym * 1 sheqel
*No known correlation

CHAPTER 3
Persian Period:
Philistia
I
n 1914, George Francis Hill devoted a number of pages to coins he
referred to as “Philisto-Arabian” and “Egypto-Arabian” in the Brit-
ish Museum Catalogue on the Greek Coins of Palestine. Even then, Hill
observed that these headings were “not very satisfactory”1 for the earliest
known coins struck in the ancient land of Israel. These coins have more
accurately been referred to as “Philistian” by Haim Gitler, chief curator of
archaeology at the Israel Museum, and Oren Tal, professor of archaeology
at Tel Aviv University. Philistia, they note, “is a geographical rather than
an ethnic term. The fact that Gaza was the southernmost mint in Philis-
tia, bordering Arabian domination rather than being under Arabian rule,
lends support to our understanding of these coins as Philistian.”2 Judea is
also a geographic term used in this book synonymously with the ancient
Holy Land, or southern Levant. Geographically, the boundaries of the re-
gion under discussion are the Mediterranean Sea to the west, the Syrian
Desert to the east, the mountains of south Lebanon and south Syria to the
north, and the Sinai Desert and the Arabian Desert to the south. In the
Roman period these areas belonged to the provinces of Judea (later Syria-
Palaestina), Phoenecia, Arabia, and Syria, with periodic boundary changes
over years.3 Later, in the wake of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 ce),
“The name of the Roman province was changed from Provincia Judea to
Provincia Syria Palaestina, in a blatant effort to annul the tie between the
Jewish people and the name of their country, and to erase the land’s Jewish
past,” note Eshel and Zissu.4
Philistia is the portion of the southwestern Levant that the Philis-
tines occupied in the Old Testament period. The Philistine confederacy of
five city-states included Ascalon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gat (Gath), and Ekron.
Phoenicia and Egypt as well as some of the other Mediterranean me-
tropolises influenced this area. Leo Mildenberg observed that at that time,
“Sidon and [Tyre] had developed their main coinages, the heavy denomi-
nations. Gaza is their counterpart, being the best of ports in the South.
Her importance as the destination of the desert routes and major junction
55
of the coastal roads can hardly be overestimated.”5 Indeed Gaza was the
central Philistian mint location.
The ancient Near East is possibly the specific location “where metal
economy was first initiated, which only later was modified into a proper
monetary economy in Lydia and Greece.”6
Before we discuss the coinage of the Persian Period, it is important to
recall the portion of the ancient economy in which early coins were inter-
mingled with small pieces of metal. In Chapter 2, I discussed the weighing
of metal in the form of small silver ingots, hacked from larger dumped
castings, called hacksilber, documented in the area of ancient Judea as early
as the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550 bce). Some of the hacksilber hoards
also included bits of silver jewelry and chopped pieces of foreign silver
coins. Use of hacksilber “as a unified form of payment” was prominent in
the Iron Age II Period (1000–586 bce) in the southern Levant. This use of
metal may point to a “pre-coinage stage, an ‘underground economy’ in Iron
Age Palestine, in which cut units of controlled standard weights constitute
a metal economy which existed in the region prior to the traditional date
of the ‘invention’ of coinage in the Greco-Lydian milieu of Western Asia
Minor between 630 and 600 bce,”7 according to Gitler and Tal.
From multiple excavations in modern Israel and the West Bank we
have learned that hoards of hacksilber were often wrapped in cloth bags and
sealed with one or more clay bullae that indicated who had guaranteed the
purity and weight of the silver. These small bags are possibly the biblical
zror kesef referred to in Genesis 42:35:
… as they emptied their sacks, that, behold, every man’s bundle of mon-
ey was in his sack; and when they and their father saw their bundles of
money, they were afraid.
The earliest coins were simply small ingots of precious metals, closely
controlled, where a stamp impression was similar to today’s hallmark as a
guarantee of metal quality and weight. Quite a few Archaic Greek silver
coins of city-states from the sixth and early fifth centuries bce have been
found in and near Israel. These were the first coins to circulate in the area.
Many of those early coins were deliberately cut into rough halves,
thirds, quarters, or even smaller fractions. “We assume that they circulated
as bullion. In some cases, this widespread, intentional cutting may have
accorded to a set of standards. This is also evident from their appearance in
coin hoards together with jewelry dated mainly to the late sixth and fifth
centuries bce,”8 write Gitler and Tal.
Although Archaic Greek coins made their appearance in areas of the
Near East as early as the end of the sixth century bce throughout the fifth
century bce, I have already noted that most or all commercial transactions
continued to use weighed pieces of silver.
Persian Period: Philistia 57
The transition from weighing silver to trading in struck coins was

lengthy, and even the first coins were seen mainly as a source of bullion
of a certain quality and weight. A next step would have been use of the
coins themselves as more convenient than the little sacks filled with bits
of hacksilber. This acceptance in turn led to the need for a local production
of coins in the economic trading centers in and near Philistia. The local
monetary systems of ancient Philistia, Samaria, and Judea have quite small
denominations as their most prevalent feature. These small silver coins may
have reminded the people of small pieces of hacksilber that continued to
circulate alongside coinage for many years.
The first issues of Philistian coins were struck just after 450 bce. These
coins tend to be patterned after their Athenian predecessors but expanded
into a number of fascinating oriental motifs such as the sphinx, local cult
figures, flora, and fauna. The Philistian coins are among the most creatively
conceived and executed of the ancient world.
A number of the Philistian coins contain so-called “elusive motifs.”
These images are optical illusions that provide more than one way to look
at a coin. Such designs are also known from a few coins of Lesbos and Sa-
maria, but they are more prevalent in the Philistian coinage. For example,
one tiny silver coin depicts a male head wearing a cap; closer inspection
reveals that the cap is really a dog’s head facing in the opposite direction
(no. 6023). Another pair of silver coins depicts what appears to be a hel-
meted, bearded oriental male bust to right. However, rotation of the coins
by 90° clockwise shows that the they also depict a standing lion with his
head turned back (nos. 6020, 6021).
During the Persian Period in the ancient Holy Land, there were sev-
eral coin “series” in simultaneous circulation. Philistia, Judea, Samaria, and
possibly Edom each issued coinage that was mostly limited to use within
specific and rather small regions (Fig. 3.1). Alternatively, Phoenician cit-
ies such as Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, and Arados issued a regional currency that
circulated much more widely. It is no coincidence that this group of cities
along the Mediterranean coast, where the earliest coins of the Levant were
minted, lie along the ancient trade route known as the “Via Maris” or “Way
of the Sea” (Isaiah 8:23). In Israel today, this route is the Coastal Highway.
Philistian silver coins were probably autonomous local issues. Milden-
berg notes, “The north of the satrapy was, obviously, a territory for the
plentiful, long lasting coinage of the great cities at the sea: Arados, Byblos,
Sidon, Tyros. The central area remained a large empty spot on the numis-
matic map until the finds of the thirties and early seventies appeared and
suddenly unveiled an abundant provincial coinage of small silver struck
by the Persian governors of Samaria and Judea. Not only do the names
of these two provinces appear on these tiny coins, but also the names of
governors, one with this title.”9
Names of three Philistian cities appear on the coins—Gaza, Ascalon,
and Ashdod. Several Philistian coins also mention either the name Yehud
3.1. Mints of the ancient Holy Land.

or its first letter, yod (nos. 6048, 6049). In general, the coins of Philistia are
of similar fabric and design. “This kind of money could only come into
being in that distant Southern area of transit under the astonishing rule
of the late Persian Great Kings who had delegated power and guaranteed
ethnic and religious freedom and local autonomy to their citizens,” accord-
ing to Mildenberg.10
Denominations in the Persian Period

Studies by Oren Tal have expanded our discussion of denominations of the
coins of the Persian Period. The silver coins of Philistia, Samaria, Edom (?),
and Yehud were cataloged for years as tetradrachms, drachms, and obols or
simple fractions of these denominations. Based on earlier studies by Yigal
Ronen, Tal concludes that all of the silver coins struck in these biblical
lands were based upon sheqel standards, although the weight of the sheqel
probably varied from place to place.11
As epigraphic evidence regarding Philistian coins, Tal points to a
series of bronze weights in the shape of animals or truncated pyramids
found in excavations at Ascalon. “Some of these weights carry Phoenician
letters, which can be attributed to the Persian Period, although it is not
certain whether these letters refer to the denominations of the weights or
the specific standard, or perhaps other initials.”12 Based on the numismatic
evidence, Tal suggests possible sheqel standards as shown in Table 3.1.13
Today it seems strange for different monetary weight standards to ex-
ist in areas so near to each other, yet history supports this. We know, for
example, that Sidon and Tyre each had their own weight standards in an-
cient times. Even in modern times, there are different monetary systems in
neighboring lands. In Europe, for example, Great Britain and Switzerland
use their own financial systems while their neighbors have converted to
the system of Euros. The United States currency differs from the currency
of Canada and Mexico. In the early twentieth century, the weight systems
in Ottoman and British Palestine had different standards in the north,
the south, and in Hebron, which had its own special standard. Y. Nevo
observes that at that time “it was possible to weigh goods in Jaffa, for
example, where the southern unit was customary, by means of northern
weight units, provided that the nature of the units was clear to the parties
involved in the transaction.”14
Unfortunately, scant written evidence relates the sheqel to the Greek
stater, but one reference in the Elephantine papyri (fifth century bce) sug-
gests there are two sheqels in one stater. This relationship must not refer to
any of the sheqel standards discussed above, since the Attic stater weighed
around 17.2 g. However, there were numerous Babylonian and related
sheqel weight standards from around 7.6–8.6 g, and the reference may eas-
ily have been to these.
Ephraim Stern concludes that “with a large measure of certainty

that in the Persian Period, alongside the Babylonian-Persian system of
weights…a local system existed in Palestine which preserved the ancient
Hebrew names though it was based on a different standard....”15
The Samarian and Philistian weight standards are extremely close to
each other. Consistency is relevant because it is known that the smallest
denominations of silver coins have the greatest range of weight in any par-
ticular series. The reason is that it was more difficult to regulate production
of such tiny coins.
Discussion of these standards and denominations also relates closely
to the annual tribute tax for the Jewish Temple. André Lemaire suggests
that the annual Jewish Temple tax was one-third of a sheqel during the
days of Nehemiah (10:33) and was later raised to a half sheqel, as refer-
enced in the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 38:25–26) and the New Testament
(Matthew 17:24). Tal points out that the heavier Edomite “quarter” was
about equal to a “third” of a sheqel of Judea, and suggests that it would not
be far-fetched to suggest a Jewish religious duty by some Edomites, which
accounts for this weight equivalent.16
Tal also suggests that some of the variations in silver standards during
this early period had to do with the purity of the silver, with the coins of
Judea having the highest silver content of 97%, since this level of purity
was required for the Temple.
Table 3.1. Weight Standard and Content Differences11

Average AR
Average Weight Amount of Silver
Content
Edomite Sheqel 15.96 g 96.4% 15.38 g
Judaean Sheqel 11.33 g 97.0% 10.99 g
Samarian Sheqel 14.52 g 91.8% 13.32 g
Philistian Sheqel 14.32 g 94.3% 13.50 g
Overall, there is a great deal to consider here and good reason to watch
future excavation reports and translations of documents for further clues.
In the meantime, I agree with Tal’s conclusion that “the identification of a
Greek (Attic) denominational system and weight standard in Palestinian
coinages of the fourth century bce is not likely. A local denominational
system and weight standards based on the sheqel and its fractions should
be preferred.”17
Gaza
And the border of the Canaanite was from Sidon...unto Gaza
(Genesis 10:19).
Gaza was the southernmost and largest of the Philistine city-states

that issued coinage with its own name during the Persian Period. Ashdod
and Ascalon were the other two. Currency for trade was vital for coastal
trading cities. Yehud and Samaria were also inland, but because they were
both major religious centers, they had specific financial needs.
Gaza today is the largest city in the highly politicized Gaza Strip, with
a population of about 600,000. When I lived in Israel during 1967–68,
Gaza was only a short bus ride from my home in Ascalon. My many walks
through the Gaza markets revealed an abundance of local weights and
coins for sale in the numerous colorful shops and stalls.
Although the city is certainly older, the first written mention of Gaza
was during the fifteenth century bce by Pharaoh Thutmose III (Eigh-
teenth Dynasty). It also shows up later in the famous Amarna letters as
correspondence between the administration of Egypt and its representa-
tives in Canaan.
During the Persian Period, Gaza was an important stop on various
trade routes, as well as the largest port in the area. Thus, the people needed
currency for local and international trade. Uriel Rappaport notes, “The
commercially dominant position of Gaza in Palestine is well attested by
the numismatic data of the Persian Period. The coins of Gaza played a
remarkable role in the currency of Palestine in that period. Many coins of
Gaza, and many others attributed to its mint, are still extant. The impor-
tance of this coinage and its relation to international trade is evident from
its resemblance to Athenian coins, which were then the regular interna-
tional currency.”18
Among the early coins of Gaza are silver sheqels (tetradrachms) and tiny
silver 1/24 sheqels or ma‘in (ma‘ah-obols) resembling those of Athens, but
carrying on their reverse the Phoenician letter ( (mem), abbreviating the
name of Marnas, chief god of Gaza, along with an owl and the AΘE ethnic
of Athens. Other early coins of Gaza imitating Athenian types carry the
Phoenician letters C (‘ayin) and ì (zayin) for ‘Az, abbreviating ‘Aza, the
Hebrew (and Philistian/Phoenican) name for Gaza. Some coins carry only
the ‘ayin.
The Persian satrap Mazaeus (Mazday on coins, c. 361–334 bce) was
the governor of Cilicia as well as the land of Abar Nahara (= “beyond the
river” from the Persian viewpoint, i.e., west of the Euphrates) for some
period. Mazaeus issued coins with the inscription “Mazday, who is over
Abar Nahara and Cilicia.” Mazaeus also had his name or initials placed on
coins struck in Sidon and Samaria. The letter mem on the early Gaza coins
possibly refers to Mazaeus. However, since the mem mintmark was used
on coins and weights of Gaza continually from as early as the late fifth
century bce through the third century ce, an attribution to the local god
Marnas rather than Mazaeus seems likely.
Ashdod
Modern Ashdod is the sixth-largest city and largest port in Israel, with
more than 200,000 inhabitants. It is on the Mediterranean coast not far
from the archaeological ruins. Ancient Ashdod appears in the Bible several
times, notably as one of the five city-states of the Philistines:
And these are the golden emerods which the Philistines returned for
a guilt offering unto the LORD: for Ashdod one, for Gaza one, for
Askelon one, for Gath one, for Ekron one (I Samuel 6:17).
Ashdod’s history goes back to around the seventeenth century bce,

and people of Ashdod with northwest Semitic names appear in Ugaritic
texts dating to the fourteenth to thirteenth centuries bce. Some of its citi-
zens were merchants of garments and purple wool.
During the Persian Period, in 605 bce, Nebuchadnezzar conquered
Ashdod; in 539 bce, it was rebuilt by the Persians and later conquered by
Alexander the Great. Ashdod was a prosperous trading center. Nehemiah
reported that he saw:
…the Jews that had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of

Moab; and their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could
not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each
people (Nehemiah 13:23–34).
This means that the Ashdodites probably spoke a Philistine dialect

of Aramaic and, in addition to their language, many customs and social
relationships were probably intertwined.
Ascalon (Ashqelon)
Thy beauty, O Israel, upon thy high places is slain! How are the mighty
fallen. Tell it not in Gath, Publish it not in Ascalon; Lest the daughters
of the Philistines rejoice, Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised tri-
umph (II Samuel 1: 19–20).
Ascalon is a coastal city just north of Gaza and around 36 miles

south of Tel Aviv. It was another of the five Philistine cities listed in the
book of Samuel.
Ascalon is also the place where Samson slayed 30 Philistines for
their garments ( Judges 14–16). Modern Ascalon, just north of Tel As-
calon, is a city of fewer than 150,000. During much of 1968, I lived and
worked at Kfar Silver, an agricultural high school on the outskirts of
Ascalon. On my off days, I drove my Vespa to Ascalon’s beautiful beach,
where remnants of Roman ruins jutted out from hillsides overlooking

the Mediterranean (Fig. 3.2). Pottery fragments and coins were easy to
find scattered on the sand.
Ascalon is one of the oldest cities in recorded history; it was first set-
tled toward the end of the third millennium bce. It is mentioned in some
of the Amarna letters19 of the fourteenth century bce and was conquered
by the Philistines in the second half of the twelfth century bce.
Excavations at Ascalon have revealed a great deal of accumulated rub-
ble from Canaanite, Philistine, Phoenician, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzan-
tine, and Crusader occupation.
According to these excavations, the Persian occupation of Ascalon ex-
tended from the sixth to the fourth centuries bce, and the city’s population
was primarily Phoenician.
A mysterious burial ground from the Persian Period contained the
remains of hundreds of dogs. Zooarchaeologists identified all the dogs as
greyhounds; each occupied in its own grave with its tail wrapped around
the back of the body, tail pointing downward. At the time of the discovery,
excavation director Lawrence Stager said, “You run across buried animals
all over the Middle East. In Egypt, there are several pet cemeteries, where
cats and other animals were mummified and buried. However, this is not
a pet cemetery. It’s just for dogs, all the same breed, and a huge concentra-
tion of them. Nothing like it has ever been found before.”20
Phoenicians, at this time, revered dogs as sacred animals; they relat-
ed to the cult of Ashtoret (Astarte) or possibly with a local version of
Asklepios. Similar but much smaller dog burials are found in excavations
from this period at other locations including Ashdod and even the City of
David ( Jerusalem).21
Judea
...I will give all Judea into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall
carry them captive to Babylon... ( Jeremiah 20:4).
The name Yehud (Persian for Judea) was struck on at least two Philis-
tian quarter-sheqels (nos. 6046, 6047) and the initial yod, its first letter, was
struck on both quarter-sheqels and ma‘ah-obols (nos. 6048, 6049). These
coins were manufactured according to the Philistian weight standards, and
in design and fabric resemble the Philistian coins and not the Yehud is-
sues struck later and used in and around the Jerusalem area. One coin,
no. 6049, possibly a quarter-sheqel, is of special interest because it relates to
the Judaean weight standard, and it carries the name yhwd in four letters
along with the C (‘ayin), one of the traditional mintmarks of Gaza. This
clue suggests that the earliest series of Yehud coins, all of which are either
unique or extremely rare, may have been struck at Gaza for use in Judea,
and later a mint was established in the Jerusalem area. Gitler and Tal have
noted that both generic “Philistian” and specific coins of Gaza were minted
at the same mint.22 Gitler also confirms that there is now additional evi-
dence for the increased probability of an initial central mint in Philistia.23
Edom (Idumaea)
And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother unto the land
of Seir, the field of Edom (Genesis 32:4).
The Edomites were a Semitic-speaking tribe that lived in the area of the
Negev Desert and the Aravah Valley near the south of the Dead Sea and
into the area of southern Jordan. Some believe the word Edom was derived
from the area’s extensive red sandstone features; adom is the Hebrew word
for red.
Previously, Edomite coins were not known, but Tal, Gitler, and Van
Alfen noted the first possible Edomite coins. They discuss a previously un-
recognized group of “peculiar Athenian-styled Palestinian coins” that were
struck from dies that had very worn obverses that were recut, re-polished,
and reused to strike coins. The results depict an obverse that is not more
than dome-shaped, with no traces of Athena’s head visible. “The coins’ dis-
tribution suggests that they circulated in the boundaries of what we define
as Edom in the later part of the Persian Period and might well have been
the silver money mentioned in several of the Edomite ostraca.”24
It is also quite possible that these are coins of Gaza struck from worn
dies, since the minting of coins without an “ethnic” or local name seems
unlikely at this period.25
Ostraca are pottery fragments used for some written documents in an-
cient times. They contain various communications or records. Some, writ-
ten in Aramaic, were discovered at Tel Arad, and they discuss monetary
units of ksp or kesef in Hebrew or Aramaic, which refer both to silver and to
money. The units of kesef in the Tel Arad ostraca are “s” (for sheqel), “r” (for
rebah) or quarter, and “m” (for either ma‘ah or maneh), probably a smaller
denomination that seems to be parallel to the gerah (1/24 of a Judaean
sheqel). Tal also points to a late fourth-century bce papyrus discovered near
Jericho and additional Aramaic ostraca discovered at Tel Be’er Sheva. All
of the references to sheqel, quarter, and ma‘ah suggest “a vivid monetary
economy in fourth-century bce Edom in which the sheqel contained four
quarters and each quarter contained six ma‘ahs” (ma‘in is the Hebrew plu-
ral).
“This denomination system is in fact similar to that of the Attic weight
standard, even though the weights of the sheqel and Attic tetradrachm dif-
fer. In the Attic system it was the tetradrachm which formed the basic
unit of weight, equal to four drachms, with the drachm corresponding to six
obols.”26 The average weight of the possible Edomite coins suggests a sheqel
standard of around 15.96 g.
The local coinage of Philistia, Samaria, and Yehud is referred to by

names that might have been used at the time they circulated. Hence, the
silver coins are referred to as sheqels, quarter-sheqels, and ma‘ah-obols, while
the tiny Persian Period coins of Yehud will be referred to as gerahs and the
Macedonian- and Ptolemaic-period Yehud coins are called ma‘ah-obols.
Test Cuts
Philistian quarter-sheqels (drachms) frequently carry test cuts, which are
less common on sheqels and smaller denominations. Test cuts were also
widely applied to Athenian tetradrachms. Conventional wisdom has been
that moneyers or individuals applied a test cut to ensure that a coin was
pure silver. This behavior was necessary because often base metal coins
were silver plated, or even circulated as base metal cores, usually attributed
to forgers. 27
Not so simple, report Gitler and Tal, who have discovered die links be-
tween regular issues and silver-plated Philistian, Samarian,28 and Edomite (?)
coins. They suggest that test cuts “were generally not random events. Rather,
the care in placing the cuts in a certain place on the coin suggests that, more
often than not, the test cuts were part of a regular procedure, probably carried
out in the mint, by mint representatives in charge of regulating the minting
process. The uniformity of the location of the test cuts argues against their
having been applied by money changers or concerned citizens.”29
In Philistia, the earliest coins were issued over some 110 years. Their
“minting was carried out intermittently according to the needs of the lo-
cal market in authorized metal workshops by metal smiths. It is therefore
reasonable to assume that during this period there was no justification for
the existence of a formal urban mint constantly engaged in the minting of
royal or autonomous coins. Accordingly, after the coins were produced, the
officials in charge would have sampled a certain number of pieces in order
to test the purity of the metal.”30
Gitler and Tal conclude that “the principal function of test cuts was
to validate the tested coins as silver ‘issues of confidence or trust’....These
coins, when put into circulation, were immediately detected as bona fide
issues of trusted quality as one could see the inner silver surface of the core
of the coin through the indentation made by the cut.”31
Ashdod 5th–4th centuries bce

See photo plates for correct sizes for all coins
Struck from loose (unhinged) dies
Philistian sheqel standard 14.32 g
Average quarter-sheqel 3.58 g
Average ma‘ah-obol 0.65 g
6001 6002
6001. AR quarter-sheqel, one published 3.67 g.

Obv: Hybrid head, male surmounted by forepart of a lion on the forehead
(as headdress) facing l. and grotesque figure r., all within a twisted-
rope circle.
Rev: eefl’ (’Ashdod) above double-protome bull bending forelegs, sur-
rounded by twisted-rope (guilloche) border set in incuse square.
One known

Obv: Head r. wearing oriental headdress, hair arranged as a ponytail and
knotted at bottom, ornamented ear with earring resembling ankh,
within dotted border.
Rev: {{fl’ (’Ashdod) above ibex standing r., head turned back, lily (?)
bent to right behind, surrounded by cable border in incuse square.
One known
6003 6004
6003. AR ma‘ah-obol.
Obv: Satyr head r. with oriental hairstyle.
Rev: fl’ (‘Ash[dod]) above bull walking r., owl concealed in bull’s body.
RR
Ascalon (Ashqelon, Ashkelon) 5th–4th centuries bce
6004. AR sheqel, two published 16.86 g, 17.10 g.

Obv: Helmeted head of Athena r., helmet adorned with one erect olive-
leaf and two udjat eyes between olive leaf and palmette.
Rev: –a (’A[sql]n) in upper r. field, owl faces front, wings spread, upper l.
field olive spray, within incuse square.
RRR
a. Drachm.
6005. AR quarter-sheqel.
Obv: Helmeted head of Athena r.
Rev: AΘE downward on r., ua (’A[sql]n) between owl and Greek, owl r.,
head facing, olive spray and crescent upper l., within incuse square.
RR

Obv: Janiform bearded male r. and female l., oriental hairstyle.
Rev: – retrograde in upper r. field, a retrograde in lower r. field (’A[sql]n),
owl r. head facing, two vertical recumbent lions, within incuse
square.
RRR
Obv: Archaic oriental-style female head r. within dotted border.
Rev: –a (’A[sql]n) lower r., owl r., head facing, olive sprigs upper l.
RR
Gaza 5th–4th centuries bce
6008
6008. AR sheqel, three published 17.16 g, 17.36 g, 17.56 g.

Rev: C in lower r. field, ì in lower l. field (‘Az[a]), owl facing front, wings
closed, in upper r. and l. fields olive sprays, within incuse square.
RRR
Obv: Janiform bearded male head, oriental hairstyle.
Rev: ìC (‘Az) in upper field, antithetic griffon-styled animals with
elongated necks, stylized as a wing with bovine’s head, between the
heads, female head with Hathor hairstyle faces front, in a guilloche-
pattern border within incuse square.
RRR
6009 6011
Obv: Head of Athena r. in crested helmet, ( on cheek.
Rev: AΘE downward on r., owl within incuse square.
RR
Obv: Bearded male head r., oriental headdress and hair bunched in
back.
Rev: Cì (r. to l., ‘Az) above forepart of horse r., within incuse square.
RR
Obv: Janiform head, bearded male head l., female head r. Eyes are full,
frontal, and hair is represented by granulated parallel lines.
Rev: Cì (r. to l., ‘Az) above forepart of horse r., within incuse square.
RR
Rev: AΘE downward on r. ( , to its left, owl r., head facing, olive spray and
crescent upper l., within incuse square.
RR
Rev: AΘE downward on r., owl r., head facing, olive spray upper l. and
below it C (‘A[z]), within incuse square.
RR
Philistia (Mint of Gaza) 5th–4th centuries bce

Struck from loose (unhinged) dies
Philistian sheqel standard 14.32 g
Average quarter-sheqel 3.58 g
Average ma‘ah-obol 0.65 g
6015
6015. AR sheqel, two published 17.05 g and 14.85 g.

Obv: Helmeted head of Athena r., the helmet adorned with three olive
leaves and a palmette.
Rev: Triple-turreted city wall upon rampart, two palm trees between
towers, a crouching lion to the fore, within incuse square.
RRR
a. AR quarter-sheqel, six published.
b. AR ma’ah-obol, one published.
6016 6017
Obv: Male head facing with female head with headdress r. A more care-
ful look will show that the headdress is a fierce, recumbent lion with
head turned back, and between the two heads, facing r., an ad-
ditional nose and mouth form a third additional profile to r.
Rev: Helmeted head of Athena r., with linear devices or monograms
possibly appearing in some or all corners, within incuse square.
RR
Obv: Bearded male head l., with bunched hair represented by parallel
granulations.
Rev: Y above r., Ó above l., c below l., and u below r., paradise flower or
Phoenician palmette within incuse square.
RR
This coin was previously described (GBC 4:435) as a Yehud coin, based upon the dis-
covery of a specimen that seemed to show clear letters ¿HY (Yhd). Upon examination
of better-preserved specimens, Gitler and Tal show this type to clearly belong to the Phi-
listian series.

Obv: Janiform bearded male r. and male l., oriental hairstyle.
Rev: Bes stands facing, raised hands hold knife (?) in r. hand, fights
prancing lion in r. field, below and between the two figures helmet
or shield (?), within cable border and incuse square.
RRR
6019
Obv: Antithetic standing horses frame two facing Bes heads, in upper
field I , pearled guilloche border all in incuse square.
Rev: Hybrid of male head to r. and bearded male facing, oriental hair-
style, pearled guilloche border within incuse square.
RRR
6021, two reverse orientations

6020, two reverse orientations
Obv: Male head r., oriental hairstyle, guilloche border.
Rev: Lion protome r. and hind part l., together creating the illusion of a
full lion with head turned back. When rotated 90 degrees counter-
clockwise, the type appears to be a bearded and helmeted male head
r., dotted border within incuse square.
RRR
6021. AR ma’ah-obol
Obv: Male head r., oriental hairstyle, guilloche border.
Rev: Lion stands to l., head turned back. When rotated 90 degrees coun-
ter-clockwise, the main motif appears to be a bearded helmeted
male r. with a helmet formed by the lion’s body, within dotted bor-
der and incuse square.
RRR
6022 6023
Obv: Helmeted head of Athena r., helmet adorned with three leaves and
palmette.
Rev: Owl r. head facing, olive spray and crescent upper l., AΘE down-
ward on r., lily or possibly lotus between the Greek legend and the
owl, within incuse square.
RR
Some suggest this type and similar larger and smaller denominations are products of the
Jerusalem mint. Gitler and Tal’s identification of the flower as a lotus bud rather than
the lily, closely associated with Jerusalem, coincides with the Egyptian theme in many of
the coins of Philistia.32
Obv: Head of bearded male r., his cap is a canine head l., probably show-
ing open jaws, but can also be seen as closed jaws.
Rev: Owl r., head facing, olive spray and crescent upper l., AΘE down-
ward on r., lily or possibly lotus between the Greek legend and the
owl, within incuse square.
RR
Edom 5th–4th centuries bce

Edomite sheqel standard 15.96 g
Average quarter sheqel 3.99 g
Average ma’ah-obol 0.74 g
Struck from worn, recut, and repolished dies
6024
Obv: Prominent dome shape rising sharply from coin’s lowest flat plain.
Rev: Owl r., head facing, olive spray and crescent upper l., AΘE down-
ward on r., within incuse square.
R
a. AR ma’ah–obol.
3.2. Publish it not in Ascalon.... Ruins at the Ascalon State Park. (Wikimedia photo).
CHAPTER FOUR
Persian Period:
Samaria and Judea
T
he coins of Samaria and Judea primarily circulated in their own
territories, and their history has many connections that overlap the
theme of this book.
Both Judea (Yehud) and Samaria (Shomron) were provinces of the Fifth
Satrapy of Persia, ruled from Tarsus in Cilicia. As mentioned, these regions
were part of the vast territory known as Eber Nahar (in Hebrew) or Abar
Nahara (in Aramaic), “the land beyond the [Euphrates] river,” today also
referred to as Trans-Euphrates. A local governor or high priest ruled each
province, whose capital city shared its name. With regard to Shomron,
“The distinction between the city and the province...appears in one of the
Wadi Daliyeh papyri from the time of Darius III, which mentions the
place where it was signed: Smryn the capital city which is in Smryn the
province [or country],”1 according to Meshorer and Qedar. Both places
today are referred to as Samaria, although the city itself has been known
as Sebaste since Roman times. Yehud was the Aramaic name for the Per-
sian satrapy of Judea. The name Yehud/YHD was used as a local stamp, in
paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic script, on pottery jar handles until the second
century bce (Fig. 4.1) when it was replaced by a paleo-Hebrew stamp
naming Jerusalem.
While there were distinct religious and political similarities between
Judea and Samaria during the Persian Period, there were also long-stand-
ing differences that began around 930 bce when the United Kingdom of
Israel was divided by conflicts after the death of King Solomon. Israel’s
twelve tribes split. Solomon’s son Rehoboam led the tribes of Judah and
Benjamin to the south, and this territory became the Southern Kingdom
of Judea. The other ten tribes, led by Jeroboam, one of Solomon’s military
advisors, settled in the Northern Kingdom called Israel, which was about
the approximate territory today known as the Galilee and Samaria.
Samaria in Hebrew is Shomron, based on a root meaning “guard” or
“watch.” As capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, Samaria was liter-
ally a lookout point in the midst of the mountains along the west bank of
the Jordan River and north of the Jerusalem hills. The ruins of the ancient
73
4.1. Jar handle stamps, c. 5th–3rd centuries bce, with the inscription Yehud in Paleo-
Hebrew (ÎäUY). (Israel Museum).
city of Sebaste sit atop a rocky hill, with the modern village spread out on
its slopes.
The Old Testament tells a different story of how Samaria was named
in the thirty-first year of Asa, king of Judea, when King Omri reigned over
Israel for twelve years. For the first six years of his reign, his capital was
Tirzah. Then:
He bought the hill of Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver; and
he built on the hill and called the name of the city which he built, after
the name of Shemer, the owner of the hill, Samaria (I Kings 16: 24).
The hilly area around the city was known as the region of Samaria,
which, in ancient times, stretched from the Jordan Valley to the Mediter-
ranean Sea and included the Sharon plains. Before Omri founded it as his
capital, around 879 bce, Samaria was an agricultural center for producing
wine and olive oil. Omri put it on the map, as witnessed by later Assyrian
texts in which it is referred to as “Beth-khumri” or the “house of Omri.”
Under Ahab and his queen, Jezebel, Samaria was built into a well-
fortified, wealthy capital. Jezebel was a Phoenician princess who spurned
the Israelite god and turned her husband away from Judahite worship and
toward worship of the Phoenician Ba’al. Their full stories are told in I and
II Kings.
In 722 bce, the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom, and end-
ed the Kingdom of Israel. In II Kings 17:24, we learn that after this time
the Assyrians from remote places such as Babylonia, Syria, and Cuthah
Persian Period: Samaria & Judea 75
resettled most of Samaria’s inhabitants there. Contrary to this, however,

some scholars believe that many of the inhabitants of Samaria after 722
bce were Israelites. Meshorer and Qedar suggest, “There is some truth in
both theories and it seems that due to the high percentage of Israelites
in the area, the conglomerate of people who lived there had accepted the
Hebrew Law.”2
Assyrian ruins have been found in the excavations at Samaria, and one
relief at Sargon’s Palace at Khorsabad in Northern Iraq (Room 5) seems to
depict the defeated Samarians.3 The Assyrian rule ended in 612 bce, and
briefly Judea and Egypt competed for hegemony over Samaria.
Samaria’s governing family had a long and tense relationship with Jeru-
salem, which is reported in Ezra 4:10 and Nehemiah 2:1–8. After Alexander
III defeated Darius III at the Battle of Issos in 333 bce, Samaria became
a Hellenistic town. By permission of Alexander the Great and the Persian
governor Sanballat II, the Samarians built a temple on Mt. Gerizim dedi-
cated to Yahweh. It competed directly with the Jerusalem Temple. This ri-
valry led to a final split between the Samaritan and Jewish religions. The Sa-
maritan religion accepts the Torah (Five Books of Moses) and the Book of
Joshua as its holy books, but disregards later Jewish theology. The Samaritans
believe that Mt. Gerizim was the original Holy Place of the people of Israel.
According to the Old Testament, this tradition goes back to the time when
Moses ordered Joshua to take the Twelve Tribes of Israel to the mountains
of Shechem and put half of the tribes on top of Mt. Gerizim—“the Mount
of Blessing”—and the other half on top of Mt. Ebal—“the Mount of the
Curse.” These historic mountains were used to symbolize good and bad with
regard to those who followed the commandments.4
The numismatic history of Samaria and Judea begins toward the end
of the Persian Period. Samarian coins were minted consistently between
around 375 to 333 bce while the Yehud coins were minted less frequently,
between around 400 to 242 bce.5 Other than the coins, several references
in Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, and a few manuscripts and ostraca, history
knows little of these years. It is generally believed that around 400 bce,
“the Samaritans were still considered Jewish, and as such were approached
by the Jews of Elephantine [or Yeb, a small island in the Nile with an active
Jewish population at this time]. The Samaritan high priests and governors
in the fifth and fourth centuries bear Jewish names as recorded in the El-
ephantine documents and the Wadi Daliyeh papyri.”6
The final separation between the Samaritans and the Jews probably
evolved in the last years before Alexander the Great conquered the area.
According to Josephus, Manasseh, a member of the high priest’s family in
Jerusalem, left for Samaria and married Nikaso, the daughter of Sanballat,
governor of Samaria, and became the high priest of the newly built temple
on Mt. Gerizim. Hyrcanus I destroyed this temple late in the second cen-
tury bce, and the territory was later annexed by his son Alexander Jan-
naeus into lands ruled by the Hasmoneans under Greek hegemony.7
Modern scientific methods add credibility to the written records re-

garding Samaria’s occupants. Shedong Shen of Stanford University con-
ducted a 2004 study of the genetic material of Samaritan families. The
study concludes that Samaritan “lineages present a subgroup of the origi-
nal Jewish Cohanim priesthood that did not go into exile when the As-
syrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 723 bce but married
Assyrian and female exiles relocated from other conquered lands, which
was a typical Assyrian policy to obliterate national identities. This is in line
with biblical texts that emphasize a common heritage of Jews and Samari-
tans, but also records the negative attitude of Jews towards the Samaritans
because of their association with people that were not Jewish.”8
Diaspora and Return

There was no lack of political intrigue and religious contention between the
people of Samaria and those of Judea. Earlier, in the sixth century bce, Ne-
buchadnezzar (also known as Nebuchadrezzar II) moved to increase Baby-
lonian influence in the provinces of Syria and Judea, which led to several
rebellions. He captured Jerusalem under King Zedekiah and in 586 bce
destroyed the city and its Temple (the First Temple). He also deported
many Jews to lands in the east, including Babylon, which Cyrus the Great,
king of Persia, conquered in 539 bce.
Cyrus’s historic declaration (c. 538 bce) allowed the people he con-
quered, including (but not limited to) the Jews, to return to their home-
lands, rebuild, and worship in their own temples. Cyrus’s words appear in
cuneiform text on the Cyrus-cylinder discovered in 1879 in the ruins of
the palace of Babylon. It is now in the British Museum:
I am Cyrus, the king of the world…. Marduk, the great god, rejoices at
my pious acts…. I gathered all their people and led them back to their
abodes…and the gods…at the order of Marduk, the great lord; I had
them installed in joy in their sanctuaries…. May all the gods whom I
have led back to their cities [pray daily] for the length of my days.9
Cecil Roth cites Ezra (2:64) where the number of returning Jews are
said to have been 42,360, and those Jews who remained in Mesopotamia
made financial contributions: “As the caravans successively entered the
country, one may imagine that they dispersed, each family going to re-
assert its claim on the plot of land which it previously owned. That autumn,
however, they came together in Jerusalem in order to reinstitute Divine
worship at the Temple. On the solemnity at the beginning of the seventh
month (subsequently known as the New Year), the debris was cleared away
from the middle of the ruined courts, and a rough altar set up. From that
date, for a period of three and a half centuries, the regular sequence of wor-
ship, morning and evening, was uninterrupted.”10
Thus, Jews returned to the province called Yehud, and not surprisingly,
they had developed differences to their brethren, one of which was lan-
guage. While the Jews who had remained in Judea continued using written
and spoken Hebrew, the returning exiles now spoke Aramaic, which soon
became the dominant language not only in Judea but also throughout most
of the ancient Levant. Hebrew and Aramaic were now used mainly on the
coins of Yehud, as well as on some official seals and documents. This use of
language was a graphic show of nationalistic pride and religious tradition.
(The Samarians by contrast, reflecting their own citizenry, used Aramaic
inscriptions, with occasional Greek, on their coins.)
Written history of the Persian Period (c. 538–334 bce) begins with the
Old Testament books about the return and rebuilding of Jerusalem and its
Temple by Ezra and Nehemiah and ends at around the time the land was
conquered by Alexander the Great in 334 bce. As previously discussed,
this land included the southern part of the huge Fifth Satrapy (province)
of Persia called the “land beyond the river.” Abar Nahara included Syria,
Phoenicia, greater Judea, and Cyprus. Economic changes were significant
in the life of this region, whose basic financial system evolved from the
exclusive use of weighed metal, to the use of foreign coins or fragments of
them, and eventually to a local coinage.
Conflicts between the Jews and Samaritans are illustrated in Ezra,
which specifically notes, for example, that the Jews rebuffed offers of help
to rebuild the Jewish Temple and this resulted in open animosity:
…the people of the land [Samaritans] undermined the resolve of the

people of Judah and made them afraid to build. They bribed ministers
in order to thwart their plans all the years of King Cyrus of Persia and
until the reign of King Darius of Persia (Ezra 4:4–5).
The contemporary biblical books contain stories of bitter relations be-

tween the Jews and the Samaritans. In this context Dan Barag describes a
conflict led by Tennes, king of Sidon, in which “the last six decades preced-
ing the conquest of the East by Alexander the Great were marked by consid-
erable unrest in the southwestern parts of the Persian Empire….and Phoe-
nicia and Palestine had not recovered by the time of Alexander’s invasion.”11
We read about a current coin denomination:
…and they gave for the service of the house of God of gold five thousand
talents and ten thousand darics, and of silver ten thousand talents, and
of brass eighteen thousand talents, and of iron a hundred thousand tal-
ents (I Chronicles 29:7).
There are other references to the daric (Fig. 4.2) in both Ezra 2:69;
8:27, and Nehemiah 7:70–72. Since these gold coins circulated during the
fifth century bce throughout the Persian Empire, one would think that the
returning Jews, with whom they must have been current, carried a good
4.2. Gold daric, c. fourth century bce of the Great Kings of Persia, mentioned in
Ezra and Nehemiah but almost never found in excavations in Israel.
number of these darics back to Judea. However, until today only two gold
double darics and one daric were found in controlled archaeological excava-
tions in Judea, Philistia, Samaria, and Galilee.12 No silver sigloi (singular
siglos) have been found in archaeological excavations in the area, and these
common coins never appeared for sale in the markets of Israel until the
1990s, when they started being imported from abroad for sale to tourists.
Since many Jews returned from Babylon, one might expect that more of
these coins would have survived in the biblical lands. It therefore appears
that while the post-captivity references in Ezra and Nehemiah might be
to actual coins in circulation at the time, the archaeological evidence so far
suggests that even these references may be anachronistic, at least for the
land of Judea.
Coins of Samaria
Coins of Samaria were not known prior to the 1970s. They were first pub-
lished in the early 1980s, when Meshorer wrote a few paragraphs about
them and identified four coins in Ancient Jewish Coinage I.13 By 1991 Me-
shorer and Shraga Qedar published The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth
Century bce. A second book, Samarian Coinage, appeared in 1999 and
identified 224 coin types or subtypes. More types and varieties of Samar-
ian coins are being discovered.14 Considering the large quantity of coins, it
is astonishing that they were virtually unknown as late as the mid-1970s.
The earliest substantial discovery of Samarian coins came from two hoards,
the “Nablus Hoard”15 of around 1,000 coins, of which several hundred
were Samaritan, and the “Samaria Hoard,” which was found near Samaria
(Sebaste) in the 1980s. Of 334 coins, 182 were Samarian, 43 from Sidon,
32 from Tyre, 11 from Arados, 66 Athenian prototypes, plus a number of
pieces of jewelry including earrings, beads, and miscellaneous objects.16
Single coins and small hoards continue to be found in many locations
north of Ramallah, in the ancient land of Samaria. (By contrast, the Yehud
coins of Judea are found in many locations, but only south of Ramallah.)
Samaria issued silver coins to maintain parallel prestige with cities
such as in Phoenicia and Philistia. The Samarian coins circulated locally,
although they have been found in both Judea and further south. Like other
Persian-Period fractions, Samaria’s small-denomination silver coins filled
the need for small payments in religious, military, and commercial transac-
tions, alongside the continued use of small pieces of jewelry and cut silver.
Since Samarian coins were apparently struck during the 45 years prior
to Alexander’s conquest in 330 bce, these coins should be considered Jew-
ish issues, according to Meshorer and Qedar.17 A second parallel is that the
coins of Gaza and Judea imitate mainly Athenian and Hellenistic Egyp-
tian prototypes while the Samaritan coins resemble the coins of places to
which Samaria was commercially connected such as Sidon, Tyre, and Cili-
cia. Samaria’s geographic location—well to the north of Jerusalem—makes
such commercial links logical. “Though only a few Cilician coins have been
found in the Samaria area, the Cilician prototypes are dominant and at
least fifteen different coins have Cilician prototypes.”18 Much more will be
learned in future studies of both the Samarian and Cilician coins.
Coins of both Samaria and Judea carry personal names or their ab-
breviations, apparently the names of governors of the respective regions.
Most of the names are Jewish. Some of those named on Samarian coins
are Jeroboam, Hiyam, Hananyah, Sanballat, and Delayah. Some coins also
refer to the Persian satrap Mazaeus.
Meshorer and Qedar engage in thought-provoking speculation about
some of the coins. One type, for example, a ma‘ah-obol (no. 6041), has
an obverse showing a bearded male figure seated on a throne, playing a
five-stringed harp. The reverse design depicts a male figure on the right,
stabbing a horse on the left with a spear. They observe that this type is not
derivative but original to Samarian coinage. Meshorer and Qedar specu-
late on the identity of the seated male figure, whose head is bare and thus
represents neither king nor satrap. “One could suggest a possibility that
this figure may represent some aspect of Samaritan religious practice. We
know that in the fourth century bce the Samaritans intended to build their
own temple on Mt. Gerizim, a temple to rival the Temple in Jerusalem.
The idea of building such a temple on Mt. Gerizim...meant that the Sa-
maritans considered the Jerusalem Temple as a model. Moreover, Sanbal-
lat, the governor of Samaria, brought Manasseh, the brother of the high
priest, from Jerusalem to Samaria, gave him his daughter in marriage and
appointed him to serve as high priest in the new Temple. The ceremonies
in the Jerusalem Temple included music in praise of the Lord, performed
by the Levites who were musicians and played harps and lyres. Can we
perhaps associate the unusual figure on [this coin] with the sacred music
of the Samaritan Yahvistic cult?”19
Many of the motifs of the Samarian coins are remarkably complicated,
especially considering that they have diameters of 10 mm or less. One of
the tiny ma‘ah-obols (no. 6042), for example, depicts “two figures walking
to the left, shouldering a bar from which an animal is suspended by its legs.
Between them, another animal walks to the left with its head turned back.”
“This motif,” Meshorer and Qedar say, “seems to be a reminiscence of

an ancient Syrian-Palestinian scene representing the offering of an animal
killed in a hunt, either to the god or to the king. In a splendid early Syr-
ian cylinder seal, there is a similar scene. Our coin shows that such scenes
still existed in the fourth century bce, though their meaning must have
changed.”20 It is also possible that such scenes represent the slaughtered
Paschal lamb, critical to the Samaritan religion.
The scenes on many Samarian coins are syncretistic—representing a
synthesis between elements of different cultures. A superb example of this
appears on the coin (no. 6034) that depicts a standing frontal figure of
the Egyptian god Bes. Images and figurines of Bes appear not only in
Egyptian art but also throughout the ancient Near East from the second
millennium bce to the Roman period. Bes was sort of a household protec-
tor god, who represented good and opposed evil. With such a mandate, it
is no wonder that this Egyptian deity was widely adopted in nearby Syria,
Phoenicia, and ancient Israel. Depictions of Bes had many variations, and
there is evidence that in early times the attributes of Bes, among other
non-Judeo-Samaritan deities, were associated with local gods. In the case
of this coin, it seems possible that the physical attributes of Bes merged
with the iconography of one of the Samaritan gods.21
Like the Philistian coins, a small percentage of Samarian coins are
fourrée (silver-plated). It is not certain what role these coins played, yet
since some were struck from the same dies as regular silver coins they must
be mint products and not contemporary forgeries as once suspected.
In their study of the Nablus Hoard, Gitler and Tal presented a fresh
typology for the Samarian issues:22
1. Epigraphic types with the full name Shomron

(nos. 6026–6030).
2. Epigraphic coin types with the abbreviated name of
Shomron (no. 6025).
3. Epigraphic coin types with the abbreviated names of
both Shomron and Mazdai (nos. 6031, 6032).
4. Epigraphic coin types with private names (nos. 6033–
6040).
5. Anepigraphic Samarian coin types with Achaemenid
influence (nos. 6041–6044).
6. Athenian-styled coin types tentatively attributed to
Samaria, which mostly appear in die-linked groups
(no. 6045).
We describe here a relatively small group of Samaritan types. Consult

specialty references for more complete information.
Samarian coins c. late 4th century bce

See photos for correct size of all coins.
Die axis varies, from loose dies to ↑↓.
Samarian sheqel standard 14.52 g.
Average quarter-sheqel 3.63 g.
Average ma‘ah-obol 0.61 g.
Coins with name or abbreviation of “Shomron”
As discussed above, it is not known whether Shomron (Samaria) represents the name of
the city or the name of the province when used on these coins.
6025 6026
Rev: ufl (sn—Shomron) flank owl stands front, wings spread.
R
This interesting little coin imitates the famous Athenian decadrachm.
a. Half denomination.
Rev: ÈuŸfl (shmrn—Shomron) to r. of owl stands r., head facing.
RR
6027 6028
Obv: Helmeted head of Athena l.
Rev: uye¤fl (shmryn—Shomron) above lion attacks stag r.
RR
Obv: Facing female head, possibly Arethusa.
Rev: uye¤fl (shmryn—Shomron, partly retrograde) l. of bearded male

head in crested Athenian helmet l.
R
6029 6030
Obv: Forepart of crouching lion r., head facing.
Rev: iuye¤fl (shmryn—Shomron) behind Herakles head l., lightly bearded.
R
Obv: Bearded male head with Persian tiara r.
Rev: uye¤fl (shmryn—Shomron), forepart of horse r.
R
Coins with the name or abbreviation of “Shomron” with “Mz”
6031 6032
Obv: ifl (sn—Shomron) behind Persian king with jagged crown seated on
throne r., long folded garment, holds knotted scepter in l. hand and
smells flower held in r. hand.
Rev: Z¤ (mz—Mazday?) behind crowned and bearded four-winged
deity (Ahura Mazda) with bird’s tail, r., holds flower in r. hand and
uncertain object in l.
RR
Obv: È»–¤fl (smryn—Shomron) above galley l. with oars, rudder, row of
shields, small figurehead, curved ornament over stern supporting
standard, double line of waves below.
Rev: Z¤ (mz—Mazday?) between Persian king on l. stands r. wearing
kidaris and kandys, fights lion standing on hind legs, l. hand on
lion’s head, r. holds dagger.
R
Coins with private names
6033 6034
Obv: Persian king on throne r. smells a flower in r. hand and holds scepter
in l.
Rev: lb"»eb (bdyhbl) to l. of bearded male stands r., wears kidaris, sniffs
flower and holds another flower in l. hand.
RR
The name Bdyehibel appears on several coins but is not yet fully understood or related to
a person.23
Obv: lb"»eb (bdyhbl) to l. of bearded and partly nude figure of Bes-like
deity faces front, crouches slightly, hands rest on thighs, wears lion
skin cape, tail and paw appear between legs.
Rev: Persian king walks r., wears jagged crown and kandys, holds bow in
l. hand and arrows in r., three more arrows visible over king’s shoulder.
RR
6035
Obv: e (d) above horse walking l., all in a dotted square border.
Rev: e, (d) above winged sphinx with head of Persian king l., all in dotted
square border.
RR
The letter D could abbreviate the name Delayah, used in the Bible in the sixth to fifth
centuries bce. It is also the name of one of Sanballat’s sons mentioned in the Elephantine
letters. He may have succeeded his father as governor early in the fourth century bce. The
meaning of the name is “healed by the Lord” as used in Psalms 30:2.24
6036
Obv: Crude helmeted head of Athena r.
Rev: AΘE on r., "##û (hnny—Hannanyah, retrograde) below it, owl
stands r. head facing.
RR
Hannanyah appears as a governor of Samaria in Wadi Daliyeh papyri, (nos. 7 and 9).
The Samaritan Chronicles also mention a high priest named Hannanyah during the
time of Queen Esther.25
6037 6038
Obv: Head of Athena r., wearing crested helmet.
Rev: AΘE, the Θ has been moved outward to allow space for an Aramaic
legend in the space between the A and the E, c¯®Ó (ydw‘) to r. of
owl stands to r., head facing, to r. between the owl and the inscrip-
tion is an ear of barley, all within an incuse square.
RR
Published by Spaer as a Yehud type, Meshorer and Qedar reclassified it as a coin of

Samaria.26 The name Yadua was used by the high priestly family in Jerusalem, but Me-
shorer and Qedar also suggest the possibility the name is a Samaritan governor.27
Obv: ‘cbeUú (yhrb‘m—Jeroboam) to l. of bearded male head l.
Rev: Male figure rides bull, holds spear in upraised l. hand.
RR
There is no certain information on the name Jeroboam on the fragmentary list of gover-
nors of Samaria in the fourth century bce.
Obv: Crowned, bearded male head r.
Rev: b&, (sn—Sanballat) above lion seated l., all within square dotted
border.
RR
Perhaps this person is the Sanballat II referred to by Josephus as the one who “had been
sent to Samaria as satrap by Darius the last king.”28
6039 6040
Obv: lfl (s[h]l[emiyah]?) above winged griffin with long curved horn r.,
letters on both sides of wing, another design, incense flower (?) in l.
field, all in square border.
Rev: lfl (sl) above l. of stag crouching r., head turned back, facing-head of
Bes between horns, in l. field, all in square border.
RR
Shlemiyah appears in one of the Elephantine letters from 408 bce as a son of Sanbal-
lat, who may have struck these coins some 30 years later. Shlemiyah was also a popular
Hebrew name.29
Anepigraphic coins, Achaemenid influence
6041 6042
Obv: Male figure (king?) sits r. on throne and plays harp, six pseudo-
cuneiform signs of unknown significance above, below, and to r.
Rev: Male figure on r. stabs horse on l. with spear in his r. hand and dag-
ger in his l.
RR
Obv: Persian king bearded and wears jagged crown and kandys, stands l.,
holds two lions by their hind legs.
Rev: Two males walk l., carry pole over shoulders, animal hangs from it
by its feet, another animal stands between men to l., head turned
back.
RR
6043 6044
Obv: Triple-faced bearded head wears cone-shaped crown, the eyes of
the facing head also serve as eyes of the profile heads.
Rev: Five Athenian-style coins showing owl motif.
RR
This tiny coin is remarkable since it is engraved in such amazing detail that one can
identify the five Athenian-style coins it depicts.
6044. AR half-ma‘ah-obol.
Obv: Head of horned mythological animal to r.
Rev: Forepart of bull r., traces of inscription on r.(?).
RR
Athenian-styled coins tentatively attributed to Samaria
6045
Obv: Crude helmeted head of Athena r.
Rev: Crude owl stands to r., head facing, olive spray behind, sometimes
part of AΘE visible.
RR
There are many variations of this type, which Gitler and Tal tentatively attribute to
Samaria since these coins appear in groups that are mostly die-linked, “hence the pos-
sibility of their circulation beyond their place of production in groups (especially against
their low denomination) is remote.”30
Coins of Yehud (Judea)

The unique Yehud quarter-sheqel in the British Museum (no. 6046) was
first described in the early 1800s. The further types, chronologies, and stan-
dards of the Yehud coins have been under discussion since Sukenik’s paper
in 1934.31 By 1966, Meshorer’s Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period
listed only four different types of Yehud coins. After more discoveries in
the 1960s and 1970s, Mildenberg described 28 Yehud types in 1979.32 In
their forthcoming book, Gitler, Tal, and Fontanille list 44 types.
Mildenberg, in his comprehensive study, assigned the Yehud coins to
three basic periods: under Persian rule, during Macedonian occupation,
and during the Ptolemaic kingdom.33
Meshorer mainly agreed with Mildenberg’s classifications.34 The boom
in discoveries of Yehud coins began after 1967 when good quality metal
detectors became available in Israel and the West Bank. At the time, Me-
shorer observed, “Most specimens were discovered within the borders of
the ancient kingdom of Judea by peasants anxious to meet the increasing
demands of the market for ancient coins.”35 Arnold Spaer, a noted Jerusa-
lem attorney and authority on ancient Jewish coins, wrote that almost all
of the tiny Yehud coins “seem to have come from the area south of Jerusa-
lem, and more particularly from the Bethlehem district, both east and west
of the main road from Jerusalem to Hebron.”36
However, those are descriptions of the early days. More recently, the
small silver Yehud coins have been found at many sites throughout the area
of Persian and Hellenistic Judea. Some Yehud coins were also found to the
south of this territory, but Yehud coins are not found north of Ramallah,
indicating their specific area of circulation. The discovery of more speci-
mens of Yehud coins has supported new studies that continue to suggest
increasingly specific chronologies.
Yehud Coins
As discussed in Chapter 3, it seems likely that the earliest Yehud coins
such as the rare quarter-sheqels of Philistian style (nos. 6046–6048) were
struck at a Philistian mint, likely Gaza.37 A mint was later established in
Judea to produce the small silver denominations.
The first coin struck on the sheqel-gerah standard could have been the
unusual quarter-sheqel (three examples known) that carry both the ‘ayin of
Gaza and the name yhwd (no. 6049). This coin may also have been the final
Yehud type struck at the mint of Gaza. It may have been followed by the
small silver coins that imitate Athenian tetradrachms, but with the Yehud
(‫ )יהד‬inscription instead of AΘE (no. 6050). These coins were followed by
the coins that depict the portrait of a Persian king on one side (no. 6057)
and share a reverse type copying the Athenian owl. The obverse of coin no.
6057 has long been misunderstood. Meshorer believed that its obverse was
simply a deteriorated die variety of a portrait of Athena.38 Interestingly, he

was closer to the current view in his 1967 book Jewish Coins of the Second
Temple Period, in which he described this obverse as “Male head, oriental
style, r.”39 While Meshorer came to believe that the three triangles atop
the head were deteriorated leaves from Athena’s helmet, the examination
of more specimens allows us to see that this is actually the jagged crown
that Mildenberg describes as a defining characteristic of the Persian king.40
The overall confusion about this obverse motif was also partly due to the
circular area under the head on many specimens, and this topic is discussed
below (Fig. 4.7).
The next coins struck were likely the coins featuring a falcon with Yhd.
The coins in this group are linked by their motifs to Judaism of the period,
followed by similar coins but portraying the bust of the Persian king wear-
ing the jagged crown.
The lily (no. 6059) was widely seen as a symbol of Jerusalem and first
appears as such on a Yehud coin when it replaces the olive sprig behind
the owl on the earlier types. Lilies decorated Solomon’s Temple as well as
architectural elements in excavations at Jerusalem, Samaria, Megiddo, and
Hazor.41 We will also see that a similar lily appears on several Yehud coins
of the Macedonian period as well as coins minted in Jerusalem in the name
of Antiochus VII and on a coin of Jannaeus (nos. 6165, 6183).
Perhaps the most intriguing coins in this series carry the image of
a human ear (no. 6060) and the shofar, or ram’s horn (no. 6061). Both
motifs seem to relate to the concept of speaking to God and God hearing
and understanding: in other words, graphic expressions of Jewish prayers.
Meshorer identifies this relationship: “Can the ear and the shofar be
regarded as the early manifestations of Jewish art and symbolism (together
with the lily on the other Yehud coins), or are they a singular attempt at
graphic expression of Jewish ritual? It is possible that the depictions of
rituals and gods on the coins of other nations led the minters in Jerusalem
to give the coins a Jewish expression differing from that of the pagans, one
that would be understood by the Jewish inhabitants of Judea.”42
…for ye have wept in the ears of the Lord (Numbers 11:18).
Incline Thine ear, O Lord, and answer me (Psalms 86:1).
Persian Period Weight Standards

During the Persian Period, the standard of Greek coins commonly struck in
the coastal cities, especially Gaza, was based upon the Athenian tetradrachm,
which had an average weight of around 17.2 g. There are 24 obols in a tet-
radrachm, and thus Greek obols of this period weigh around 0.72 g. In Chap-
ter 3, I discussed standards for Philistian, Edomite, and Samaritan coins.
Yehud coins are based on a different weight standard, as shown by

Yigal Ronen, a professor of nuclear science at Ben Gurion University in
Be’er Sheva, who has made a precise metrological study of these coins. He
points out that “we can find coins minted with the same die which are dif-
ferent by a factor of two in their weight. With Persian Period techniques,
it was difficult to produce coins with the same weight. In particular, it
was difficult to control the production process of the small silver coins in
which the flans were hand-made. The weight of very small coins varies
more greatly, by percentage, than the weight of larger coins. However, from
a given amount of silver; mints were required to produce a given number of
coins. Thus, the average weight of a large number of coins of the same type
is a valid and correct measure for the weight of that type of coin.”43
Ronen analyzed 64 “owl” coins and 82 “falcon” coins— “quantities suf-
ficient for reliable statistics.” He learned that the average weight of the owl
coins is 0.48 g and the average weight of the falcon coins is 0.26 g.44
He concludes that Persian-Period Yehud coins were not based upon the
same standard as any other small silver coin of the period. There is simply
too great a difference between average weights of 0.48 and 0.72 g or even
the Philistian weight of 0.65 g. Ronen suggests a specific local standard in
use during the Persian Period in Judea. Indeed, during the earlier Israelite
Period (also known as the Iron Age, 1200–586 bce), there was a unique
weight system in Judea. Based upon scale weights from that period, we
know that the sheqel at the end of the First Temple period weighed about
11.4 g (see Chapter 2). (A later Persian coin, the siglos, weighs around 5.5 g,
quite close to a half-sheqel.)
It is a generally accepted concept that weight standards evolved slowly
over time, so it is logical to assume that this Judean sheqel standard would
have had at least a transitional impact on the subsequent periods in those
lands where it was used.
Observes Ronen: “The sheqel was divided into 24 smaller denomina-
tions or gerah…. thus, the weight of the gerah was 0.475 g., which is nearly
equal to the average weight (0.48 g) of the ‘Owl’ coins. It is our sugges-
tion, therefore, that the yhd coins, during the late Persian rule, were the
denomination of a gerah (‘Owl’ coins) and half-gerah (‘Persian king’ coins).
Taxpayers used these coins to pay the half-sheqel (12 gerahs) to the Temple
in Jerusalem.”45
In fact, the Bible states that there are 20 gerahs to the sheqel (Exodus
30:13). However, scholars of ancient weights of this period, including the
leading expert Raz Kletter, formerly of the Israel Antiquities Authority,
have concluded that there were more likely 24 gerahs to the standard sheqel.
Kletter suggests that the figure of 20 gerahs may have been a scribe’s error
or perhaps a different, or perhaps later, sheqel standard, since several are
mentioned in the Old Testament. One also may suggest anachronistic ref-
erences such as those that exist elsewhere in various translations.46
Virtually all of the Yehud coins have been found within ancient Judea,
but coins from the same period struck in Tyre, Sidon, and Arados have
been found throughout the Middle East. Ronen suggests that “this situ-
ation might indicate that the Yehud coins were not used for international
trade, as were the Phoenician coins. If the Yehud coins were only used lo-
cally, the use of a non-conventional weight system becomes more readily
explicable,” and indeed this is the case.
Ronen’s final proof to his theory that these coins were the earliest lo-
cal coins used as Temple payments is the fact that all of the Yehud coins
discovered to date are composed of true silver.47
Fourée or “silver-plated” (in ancient times these were made by carefully
wrapping silver foil around base metal cores) coins with a base metal
interior are particularly common among the coins of the late Persian
Period. Anyone who has handled even relatively small groups of coins
from Gaza, Samaria, Sidon, Byblos, and Arados will notice that there are
an unusually large number of fourrée coins. Once it was thought that the
fourrée coins were simply ancient forgeries. However, this belief seems not
to have been the case, as shown by Oliver Hoover: “Although plated coins
are frequently described as ‘ancient forgeries,’ it is difficult to be certain that
criminal enterprise was responsible for all of the known plated specimens.
Some series that are of especially high quality may possibly be official.
Two examples in [Hoover’s] catalog actually die link to apparently regular
(un-plated) issues.”48 As already mentioned, similar die links occur in the
Samaritan series between fourrée and silver coins.
Whatever the reason, why should the Yehud coinage be the only small
silver coinage of the ancient Near East where there were no fourrée coins
minted? Ronen suggests that the reason for this is that the Yehud coins
were used for, among other things, payment of tribute to the Jerusalem
Temple. “If the Yehud coins were indeed used for the biblical half-sheqel
tribute to the Temple (Mishnah Shekalim 2:4), the sheqel weight sys-
tem is the appropriate standard. Moreover, pure silver was required for the
Temple tribute, which explains the absence of silver-plated Yehud coins.”49
No Jewish officials or even mint workers would have participated in a
scheme that might perpetrate a fraud on the Jerusalem Temple.
Therefore, what we have in these early Yehud coins are gerah and half-
gerah denomination coins used to make up the annual silver half-sheqel to
the Jerusalem Temple as well as other local commerce.
Macedonian and Ptolemaic Standards

Unlike their Persian-Period predecessors, the Yehud coins of the Mace-
donian and Ptolemaic periods are based on the Athenian Greek standard.
Ronen studied 72 coins of the Ptolemaic Period and discovered that the
average weight of the Ptolemy and eagle coins (no. 6081) is 0.18 g. Gitler
and Lorber weighed an additional 236 Ptolemaic Period coins and reached
4.3. Two hemiobols of Ptolemy II;

bronze hemiobol from Tyre, left, and
silver Yehud hemiobol. Actual size.
an identical average.50 “This weight of the Ptolemaic coins clearly deviates

from the Persian Period’s weight of the 0.48 or 0.26 g of the gerah and
half-gerah, respectively. However, the 0.18 g is suitable to the obol system
of weight. This coin clearly represents a quarter of an obol of 0.72 g. The
shift from the gerah standard during the Persian Period to the obol standard
during the Ptolemaic Period is unmistakable,”51 Ronen explains (Fig. 4.3).
This situation does not mean, however, that there is any reason to
believe that the shift in standards precluded the continuous use of the
earlier coinage. In fact, there are documented hoards found in Israel
that include coins of both the Persic and Attic weight standards.52 This
combination of standards suggests that coins from both standards circulated
simultaneously. It is not known whether these tiny fractions were accepted
equally or had different values.
Since the Macedonian- and Ptolemaic-Period weight standard chang-
es from the Judean standard to the Greek-Attic standard, we follow Tal’s
suggestion and use a local weight terminology.53 Hence, for the Yehuds
of the Macedonian and Ptolemaic periods, struck according to the Attic
standard, I will use the denominational term ma‘ah, already introduced for
obol-parallels of silver coins from Philistia, Edom, and Samaria.
The transition from the standards of the Persian Period to the Hel-
lenistic Period seems to have begun with a late Persian issue (no. 6063)
that depicts on its obverse the head of a lynx and on its reverse the head
of a Persian king upon a winged lynx, with the inscription “Hezekiah” and
struck prior to 332 bce.54 The related issues with bare male head follow
this type to right or left and winged lynx with animal head facing left (nos.
6064, 6065).
The first coin struck according to the Macedonian standard may have
been the coin with a facing head and forepart of a horned and winged lynx
to right (no. 6068). Fourteen examples of this coin are registered, with an
average weight of 0.19 g, extremely close to the average weight of a quar-
ter-obol, as shown by Ronen. The facing-head obverse also makes a com-
fortable transition to the next probable group depicting the facing head
and owl with the legend Yehiziqiyah ha-pehah (no. 6069). Similar coins
carry inscriptions of Yohanan ha-kohen (no. 6071) and Yehud Yehudah (no.
6072); another type shares the facing head and owl types but is inscribed
with crude Greek letters instead of paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic (no. 6070).55
During the Macedonian period, the designs of the Yehud coins continue
to focus around fantastic animal motifs, such as the winged lynx. The last coin
in this series with the roaring lion or chimera head and duck (no. 6075) is
4.4. No. 6075, similarities to a duck and to ancient duck-shaped weights. (Graphic:
Fontanille.)
worthy of discussion. Meshorer originally described the obverse as a horse’s

head. However, the prickly mane, pointed nose, and the horn curving up from
the head suggests a chimera and may be parallel to the mythological creature
on the obverse and reverse of coin no. 6063.
Gitler and Lorber suggest that this creature is a lion and observe that
the die engraver attempted an optical illusion on this coin. Such illusions
are common in the small silver coins of Philistia, but this is the only exam-
ple in a Yehud type. With the illusion, the lower jaw of the creature could
also be a neck; hence, the horse-head view (similar to a chess knight facing
right).56 Since this design could be viewed as either a horse or a feline, it
may be a chimera, a creature made of parts of several animals.
The reverse was described as a dove, an eagle, or simply a bird with its
head turned back. Some years ago, Fontanille suggested that the bird on
this coin could be a duck. However, few coins of this type were known, and
we did not have any examples struck well enough to make a firm observa-
tion. Eventually, I obtained a specimen with a sharp depiction with the

bird’s beak particularly clear. I showed some photos to bird experts.
Kevin McGowan, a behavioral ecologist who studies birds at the
Cornell Ornithology Laboratory, told me “it is certainly not an eagle…
identification of stylized bird images is problematic…artistic interpre-
tation can be baffling,” and suggested a duck was possible, but also a
goose, or even a crane. John Faaborg, professor of biology and bird ecolo-
gist at the University of Missouri - Columbia, and the president of the
American Ornithologists’ Union, said: “it sure looks like a duck to me.”
Halbert Carmichael, emeritus professor of chemistry at North Carolina
State University, has been an amateur ornithologist and specialist in bird
coins for more than 40 years. “There is no question that the bird is a duck.
The bill is rendered beautifully and is distinctive. Beyond being a duck, I
can’t be much more specific except to say that it is of the family Anatidae
which includes the common puddle ducks such as the mallard, widgeon,
and teal,” he said. The field guide Birds of the Middle East57 lists several
small-billed ducks native to the area of ancient Israel, including various
types of teal and geese (Fig. 4.4).
Why a duck on an early Jewish coin? Neither ducks nor geese are
mentioned in the Old or New Testaments. However, stone or metal fig-
ures of ducks, geese, or swans, with head turned back, were commonly
used as scale weights in the ancient Near East. As I point out in An-
cient Scale Weights, duck-shaped weights occur in Mesopotamia as well as
Egypt and greater Syria. Dates for the duck-shaped weights range from
around the Middle Bronze Age (ending around 1550 bce) to the Late
Iron Age (mid-sixth century bce) and may have extended into the Per-
sian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods.58 Thus, early coins from the Near
East could carry an image similar to the form of some local, Babylonian,
and Egyptian scale weights.
Gitler and Lorber have also clarified the chronology of Ptolemaic
coins. They studied more than 200 Yehud coins of the Ptolemaic period—
types, legends, and die axes—to determine a chronology. Noteworthy is
their comment that “the early Hellenistic period was a time when many
mints adopted hinged or adjusted dies, resulting in a regular die position
for their coinage, usually 12:00. In the overwhelming majority of cases,
this was a permanent change in the mint’s production practices.”59 Thus,
they suggest the chronology for these coins was strongly related to the coin
type’s tendency to maintain a vertical die axis. Their analysis is sound, and
this catalog follows their method.
The Ptolemaic Yehud coins carry the general motifs of other Ptolema-
ic coins of the period, namely portraits of Ptolemy I and II and Berenike II
and Arsinöe II. The young male heads on the earliest coins are not identi-
fied, although it is possible that these portraits could represent an idealized
young head of Alexander III or Ptolemy I. While the series of Ptolemaic
Yehud coins was short-lived, it was nevertheless a most unusual issue. Dan
Barag explains that Judea “was the only area in which such a currency was
issued under the Ptolemies (after 301 bce) but for how long? Coin issues
of that kind were contrary to the highly centralized monetary system of
the Ptolemaic kingdom. Furthermore, the prolific issue of bronze coins by
the state mints, some of which were quite heavy and of greater commercial
value than the minute silver coins, as well as more practical for daily circu-
lation in the marketplace, made Judea’s silver coinage redundant (the small
silver coins were prone to break and were easily lost).”60
It is unusual that among all of the possessions of the early Ptolemaic
empire, only the mint of Judea was allowed to issue coins with its own
local paleo-Hebrew script and the name Yehud instead of the name of
the current Ptolemaic king. Barag suggests that this situation could reveal
a “political status beyond restricted local autonomy,” although the coins
themselves “certainly display direct control from the center of govern-
ment.”61 The rare examples of Aramaic script on the Yehud coins are not
yet adequately explained since all of the other Yehud coins are inscribed in
paleo-Hebrew script.
Expressions on the Coins

Steve Gerson, a scholar of Persian-Period coins and a Harvard psychia-
trist, analyzed the coins of Yehud and Samaria and concludes that they
can indeed “project information about the characteristics of peoples that
produced them, as well as the particular spirit” of an epoch. Although the
territories of Samaria and Judea had many parallels with each other, the
coins themselves are quite different. There are approximately ten times
more types of Samarian coins than Yehud coins.
“Focused analysis of the coins indicates a reality of many profound
economic, cultural, and religious differences between these important
provinces,”62 Gerson says. Regarding the Persian Period Yehud coins, he
observes, “Symbols can be the personification of important conscious (or
unconscious) forces, spiritual beliefs, or values. They may represent, in a
condensed form, very deep and complicated underpinnings. Thus, the
choice of motif is probably not random. Given that coins are usually au-
thorized by a source of administrative power or government authority, we
generally assume that their images reflect important values of that specific
leader, government, or populace.”
In summary, Gerson suggests, “the sensibility and vision of Judea was
more ‘inward,’ interior, and conservative while that of Samaria was to look
‘outward’ during this period. I am not attaching a value judgment to these
differences, but am trying to characterize simply ‘what was.’ For example,
the Judean weight system, iconography, language, and circulation patterns
can be described as idiosyncratic and inward, as compared to those of the
Samarians. The Samarian weight system was more compatible with ex-
ternal trading partners as far away as Greece and as nearby as Phoenicia.
The language on Samarian coins was more congruent with the language
of larger foreign entities that surround them.” With regard to the Yehud
coins, however, he also points to “relatively greater prominence of sacred
‘Jewish’ iconography…. (the ear and the lily) suggest that the Judean valu-
ation of a more intense connection between the religious and the political;
perhaps, too, the priests had more political power in Yehud.”63
A great amount remains unknown about the ancient land of Israel
during the Persian Period. Some scholars, for example, contend that the
Persian provincial authorities issued the Yehud coins. But Barag argues
that this explanation is not sufficient. After all, he observes, “The Persian
governors of Judea were, in most cases, if not always, Jewish: Sheshbazzar
(Ezra 1:8) and Zerubbabal (Haggai 1:1,14) in the late sixth century bce,
Nehemiah (Nehemiah 5:14; 12:26) in the second half of the fifth century.
Epigraphic discoveries added names of Elnathan in the late sixth cen-
tury bce, Yeho‘ezer and Ahzai in the fifth century bce, and Yehiziqiyah
in the third quarter of the fourth century bce. Whether Bagohi (Bagoas)
known from the Elephantine papyri was Jewish is uncertain, but as all
other known governors were Jewish, he may also be Jewish.”64
Barag also discusses why these early Jewish rulers would have violated
the commandment against placing graven images on coins. “The liberal at-
titudes of the Achaemenid dynasty in religious matters and their favorable
policy towards the cult of the God of Heaven are well known. It is thus
inconceivable that Jewish governors in Judea, or the Persian authorities,
could have been insensitive to such matters. What is the likelihood that
they would have issued currency, that the majority of the population would
have rejected as offensive? The coin of Yohanan [no. 6071] suggests that
even the high priests saw fit to issue coins with images. The norm in the
fourth century bce was thus entirely different from that of the Hasmoneans,
King Herod, Herod Antipas, the mint of Agrippa I in Jerusalem, the Roman
procurators of Judea, and the Jewish authorities during the Jewish War and
the Bar Kokhba War. The explanation may be in a different attitude toward
representations on coins than was later introduced by the Hasmoneans in
their religious reforms. For Jews in the fourth century bce, the two-dimen-
sional representations on coins even if their subject matter was pagan did not
constitute an offense against the command: ‘Thou shalt not make thee any
graven image...’ (Deuteronomy 5:8; cf. Exodus 20:23; Leviticus 26:1,
Deuteronomy 27:15). In the early Hellenistic period, culminating in the
Maccabean Wars, attitudes in such matters changed drastically.”
The matter of iconography, specifically on Hasmonean coins, is dis-
cussed on pp. 141–43, but in general, it seems that when the Jewish popu-
lation is secure, the use of graven images on everyday objects such as coins
(as opposed to cult objects of worship) was not strongly resisted.
4.5. Reconstruction of set of Yehud coin dies for no. 6056; notice large flat areas on
obverse die. (Graphic: Fontanille.)
Production of the Yehud Coins

Because the Yehud coins, as well as the coins of Gaza and Samaria, are so
tiny, they are often struck so none or only part of the design or inscrip-
tion are visible. Very few are centered on both sides. Many of the Yehud
coins discovered in the 1960s and 1970s were originally described as uni-
face, with blank obverses. In spite of their miniscule size, they were struck
with dies and anvils just like other coins (Fig. 4.5). During production, the
hand-held top die (reverse) often was not aligned with the anvil-held bot-
tom die (obverse). Uniface coins often resulted.
This lack of image occurred because the obverse dies were significant-
ly larger than the flans being used. In some Yehud coins, Fontanille has
shown that the obverse die can be 50–150% larger than the reverse die,
quite an odd situation that strangely is repeated for some coins during
both the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. Is it possible that these dies
were originally made for larger denomination coins that were never made?
Or was this possibly a matter of ease in production of the die itself, since
an any die as tiny as a Yehud coin would be difficult to engrave and use?
Fontanille has also observed that several of the Yehud obverse dies
were used until they deteriorated beyond recognition (Fig. 4.6), while the
4.6. After continuous use, the obverse dies for the tiny silver coins deteriorate be-
yond recognition. (Graphic: Fontanille.)
hand-held reverse dies suffered smaller cracks and breaks.65 One may as-
sume that this was a result of poor manufacturing complicated by a lack
of quality control at this earliest-known Judean mint, probably in the Je-
rusalem area. The Yehud dies were particularly prone to this deterioration
because they were so small, and the majority of the dies had quite shallow
relief work. The obverses did not break because they were set firmly into an
anvil. But during the striking process, small grains of silver and other waste
fell into the dies and was pounded and hammered so hard and so often
that it mutilated the dies. This source of damage is a graphic explanation
since the effect on the obverse die was less in the way of actual breakage or
chips, but more pounding and filling. The shallowest areas of the die filled
quickly, while the deep areas ended up turning into the odd trapezoid and
finally an egg-shaped object. It also explains how these strange designs
could still be surrounded by a rather flat field (nos. 6075b, c).
A related discovery solves a mystery regarding the early type with the
large head of the Persian king with his chin resting over an enigmatic
square structure and a circle within, and a reverse owl, head facing, with
the Hebrew YHD (no. 6056). Originally believed to have been part of an
unexplained motif, this image actually resulted from a clashed-die error.
The square structure was the “incuse” design on the punch and the “circle”
within it is the result of the reversed design of the owl. This flaw occurred
when, early in their life cycle, the obverse and reverse dies were “clashed”
together without a flan between them. In this case, it resulted in perma-
nent damage to this obverse die. Another clashed-die error occurs in at
least one other Yehud coin and in other related series.66 The obverse die
of this coin was significantly larger than any of the flans, while the reverse
punch dies seem to be about the correct size.
4.7. Illustration of the creation of a clashed die error for type 6056. (Graphic:
Fontanille.)
Photographs and composite illustrations show that the obverse of this

coin was re-engraved, struck from this same obverse die (Fig. 4.7). In the
first instance, the Persian king’s head appears plain. In the second instance,
the Persian king’s head appears with the addition of (a) what appears to
be a jewel or an amulet of some sort draped from his forehead, and (b) the
top portion of the reversed owl outline appears as an upside-down half
crescent under the bust. Thus, when this die was re-engraved, at least the
jewel (which certainly appears to be deliberate, but theoretically could also
be a die crack) was added. Perhaps a mint official noticed that there was
some clashing damage apparent in the die and ordered one of the celators
to fix it. The owl’s face, therefore, was smoothed to minimize its visibility
on subsequent coins.
Yehud Coins, Persian Rule

See photos for correct size of all coins.
Struck from loose dies.
Persian Period sheqel standard 11.4 g.
Theoretical quarter-sheqel 2.85 g.
Average gerah 0.48 g.
Average half-gerah 0.26 g.
c. early 4th century bce67 Mint of Gaza
6046
6046. AR quarter-sheqel, 3.29 g.
Obv: Bearded oriental head (Bagoas?) r. wearing Corinthian helmet,
guilloche border.
Rev: eHY (yhd) above bearded deity seated r. on winged wheel (chari-
ot?), holds falcon in l. hand and r. hand rests on knee, small bearded
mask below r., within guilloche border and incuse square.
One known
This coin was described by Hill and others as the first Jewish coin, with a reverse depic-
tion of the Jewish deity on a winged chariot (Ezekiel 10:16).
Barag identifies the obverse portrait as “Bagoas, a general of Artaxerxes III who
was strategos and commander-in-chief of the Persian army invading Egypt in 343
bce68.... In choosing this representation with a helmet...he continued the precedent set
during the preparations for the second war against Egypt in 378–374 bce, namely that
a Persian strategos may be represented wearing a Greek helmet.” Barag also sees a paral-
lel between the reverse of this coin “and the coins struck by Pharnabazos in 378–374 bce
showing the enthroned Ba’al Tarz (Ba’al of Tarsus) …. One may thus conclude that the
deity on the British Museum drachm is the God of Yehud, i.e. the God of Israel.” 69
Gitler and Tal suggest that the coin was a product of the Philistian mint. They read
the legend as YHW or YHR instead of YHD and believe that the production of this coin
could have been carried out under Edomite Jews who disregarded the second command-
ment, or alternatively under gentiles who considered YHWH as just another deity of
their “cultic pantheon.”70 It seems possible that this coin was among the earliest coins of
the Yehud series, and without a local mint at this time, some coins were manufactured
in Gaza, and only later in Judea. The two quarter-sheqels described below may also be
members of this family. No. 6049 carries a clear legend of YHWD along with a symbol
that appears to be the C mintmark of Gaza.
6047
6047. AR quarter-sheqel, one published, 3.54 g.

Obv: Gorgoneion facing, curls in shape of snakes.
Rev: eHY (yhd) above lion facing l., on top of recumbent bovine, head
turned, within guilloche border and incuse square.
One known
The lapidary Aramaic legend clearly reading ‫ יהד‬suggests that this drachm is a new coin
type of the Yehud series. The fact that there are only three other recorded drachms with
the full Yehud legend (no. 6049) and that those coins are much lighter with an Athenian
style points to the importance of this new find.
Since the iconography of this type is different from that of the known late Persian-
Period coins of Judea and the reverse exhibits a clear Philistian iconographical influ-
ence (see Gitler and Tal 2006: XIX. Oriental Head/Feline. 10D, XIX. Oriental Head/
Feline. 11D and XXVIII. Animals. 6D) suggests that this coin is probably the earliest
known coin of Judea. A similar scene appears on a Samarian coin that depicts a lion
holding a dagger in his right paw and standing above another animal (Meshorer and
Qedar 1999: No. 204).
This issue dates to the fourth century bce based on the lapidary Aramaic legend and
the late-style of the facing Gorgoneion. (Note courtesy Haim Gitler, Israel Mu-
seum, Jerusalem.)
c. 390–380 bce Mint in or near Jerusalem
6048
Obv: Athena head r. wearing crested helmet decorated with 3 olive leaves.
Rev: AΘ[E] and retrograde Y (y) to r. of owl standing r., head facing, with
olive leaves behind.
RRR
a. AR ma‘ah-obol of similar types.
6049. AR quarter-sheqel, 2.7–3.86 g.

Obv: Athena head r. wears helmet decorated with olive wreath.
Rev: ÎäUY (yhwd) on r., owl stands to r., head facing, in l. field olive
spray, two C flank the owl.
RRR
a. Similar with retrograde inscription and without C.
b. C to right of owl before inscription.
c. 350–330 bce
6050. AR 4 gerah, three published, 2.70, 2.51, 2.66 g.

Rev: ¿UY (yhd, retrograde) to r. of owl standing to r., head facing, small
lily above l.
RRR
6051 6052
6051. AR gerah.
Rev: ¿UY (yhd) to r. of owl standing to r., head facing, small lily above l.
R
Several varieties of this coin exist; some versions carry legends that are crude or retrograde.
6052. AR gerah.
Rev: ¿UY (yhd, retrograde) to l. of owl standing to l., head facing, in r.
field olive spray.
RR
a. AR half-gerah (?), 0.26 g.
b. Athena crude head l., 0.36 g.
These smaller versions are from different die sets. It is not clear that these are half-gerah
coins. Since the weight of these small coins varies dramatically, it is difficult to consider
it a smaller denomination.
6053. AR gerah.
Obv: Athena crude head r.
Rev: Y on l. of U¿ (yhd) on r. of owl standing to r., head facing.
RR
a. ¿äUY (yhwd, retrograde) around owl standing to r. head facing.
b. ¿UY (yhd) crude and written horizontally to r. of owl standing to
r. head facing.
6054. AR gerah.
Obv: Athena helmeted head r., decorated with olive wreath.
Rev: eƒ™ (yhd, retrograde Aramaic) to r. of owl standing to r., head facing.
RR
6055. AR gerah.
Obv: Bare male head r.
Rev: ¿äU™ (yhwd) to r. of owl standing to r. head facing, in l. field olive
spray.
RRR
6058
6056
6056. AR gerah.
Obv: Persian king head wears jagged crown to r. On most examples, under
the head, a circular motif due to a clashed-die error.
Rev: ¿UY (yhd) to r. of owl standing to r., head facing, in upper l. field lily
flower.
RR
a. Same but prior to clashing of the dies.
6057. AR gerah.
Obv: Persian king head wears jagged crown facing r.
Rev: ¿UY (yhd) to r. of fat owl standing to r., head facing, in upper l.
field lily flower.
RR

6058. AR half-gerah.
Obv: Persian king head wears jagged crown facing r.
Rev: ¿UY (yhd) to r. of falcon with wings spread, head r.
R
a. ¿UY (yhd) retrograde on r., falcon, wings spread, head r.

b. ¿fUY (yhwd) retrograde on r., falcon, wings spread, head r.
c. ¿UY (yhd) on l., falcon, wings spread, head l.
d. ¿UY (yhd) retrograde on l., falcon, wings spread, head l.
e. Persian king’s head r., falcon head l.
f. Persian king’s head l., falcon head r.
6059a 6060
6059. AR half-gerah.
Obv: Lily.
Rev: ¿UY (yhd) above r. wing of falcon with wings spread, head r.
RR
a. Falcon with longer wings, legend on r.
6060. AR gerah.
Obv: Large ear, possibly representing the “ear of God.”
Rev: ¿UY (yhd) retrograde on r. of falcon with wings spread, head r.
RR
Gerson suggests that “the ear has to do with the Shema prayer, bedrock of Jewish liturgy
and ethical monotheism: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is one.’” This, then,
is the “Shema coin.”71
When one side of the coin is shown significantly larger than the other side in a
composite image, this situation means that one die was notably larger than the other die.
6061 6062
6061. AR gerah.
Obv: Shofar (animal horn prepared as a musical instrument).
Rev: ¿UY (yhd) to r. of crude falcon, wings spread, head r.
RRR
6062. AR gerah.
Obv: Incense bowl (?) with flames and smoke.
Rev: ¿UY (yhd) to r. of falcon with wings spread, head r.
RR
Ronen suggests that the obverse description as a helmet is not consistent with the Jewish
symbols in this sub-series.72 This set of nos. 6059, 6060, 6061, and 6062 depicts four
parts of early Israelite rituals—the Temple (represented by the lily motif, used on Temple
decorations), the Lord listens (ear), we speak to the Lord (shofar), and we sacrifice to the
Lord (altar).
Shortly before 333/332 bce
6063 6064
Obv: Lynx head with horns to l.
Rev: Uúkõxú (yhzqyh—Hezekiah) beneath forepart of winged ani-
mal with head of Persian king to l.
RRR
Macedonian Period, c. 333 bce–302 bce

Mint in or near Jerusalem
Struck from loose dies.
Greek Attic sheqel (tetradrachm) standard 17.28 g.
Theoretical ma‘ah-obol 0.72 g.
Average half-ma‘ah-obol 0.36 g.
Average quarter-ma‘ah-obol 0.18 g.
c. shortly after 333/332 bce
Obv: Young male head l.
Rev: Uúkõxú (yhzqyh—Hezekiah) beneath forepart of winged,
horned lynx l.
RR
a. Brockage of reverse inscription on obverse to left of face.
This name may be the same Hezekiah mentioned by Josephus who, quoting Hecateus,
tells us that “after the battle of Gaza, Ptolemy became master of Syria, and that many
of the inhabitants, hearing of his kindliness and humanity, desired to accompany him to
Egypt and to associate themselves with his realm, ‘Among these (he says) was Ezechias
[Hezekiah], a chief priest of the Jews, a man of about 66 years of age, highly esteemed by
his countrymen....’”73
6065 6066
Obv: Young male head r.
Rev: Uúkõxú (yhzqyh—Hezekiah) beneath forepart of winged,
horned lynx l.
RR
c. 330–306 bce
6066. AR quarter-ma‘ah-obol, one published, 0.11 g.

Obv: Blank.
Rev: Winged and horned bull to r., no visible legend.
RRR
a. Winged and horned bull to l.
6067 6069

Obv: Blank.
Rev: Winged and horned horse to l., no visible legend.
RRR
6068. AR half- ma‘ah-obol.

Obv: Small head faces front.
Rev: Forepart of winged lynx as on no. 6066, but turned to r.
RRR
No inscription visible on known specimens.
Obv: Facing head in a circle of connected dots.
Rev: ÕxJÕ (hapecha—the governor) to l., Õúkõxú (yhzqyh—Hezekiah)
to r. of owl standing r., head facing, the feathers of the head form a
beaded circle.
RR
a. Inscription is retrograde.
b. Crude style and inscription.
6070 6071
Obv: Crude facing head.
Rev: Owl standing l., head facing, the feathers of the head form a beaded
circle, on l. and r. pseudo-Greek inscriptions, not readily legible.
RR

Rev: eexëú (ywhnn—Yohanan) upward on l., to r., eUèäU (hakohen
—the priest) downward to r. of owl standing r., head facing,
the feathers of the head form a beaded circle.
RRR
6072 6073
6072. AR quarter-ma‘ah-obol.
Rev: ¿Uú (yhd-retrograde) to l., U¿äUú (yhwdh-retrograde) to r. of
crude owl standing r., head facing.
RRR
c. 306–305 bce
Obv: Lily.
Rev: Owl stands to r. head facing, possible remnants of paleo-Hebrew
on r.
RRR
Obv: Crude lily.
Rev: Duck stands to r., head turned back surrounded by U¿|Uú�
(Yhwdh).
RRR
6075 6075b
Obv: Chimera head r.
Rev: U¿|Uú (Yhwdh) around duck standing to r., head turned back.
RR
a. Obv: Degraded Chimera head r.
b. Obv: Unusual trapezoidal shape.
c. Obv: Egg or pellet shape.
Ptolemaic Period, c. 302 bce–260 bce

Mint in or near Jerusalem
Greek Attic sheqel (tetradrachm) standard 17.28 g.
Unknown denomination (1/10 tetradrachm?) around 1.7 g (nos. 6086, 6087).
Theoretical ma‘ah-obol 0.72 g.
Theoretical half-ma‘ah-obol 0.36 g.
Average quarter-ma‘ah-obol 0.18 g.
Under Ptolemy I
c. 302 bce
Loose dies.
6076 6077
Obv: Stylized head facing forward.
Rev: ¿Uú (yhd) to l. of eagle with wings spread standing l.
RRR
302/1–294 bce
Obv: Young male head r.
RRR
a. Young male head l. on obverse.
6078 6079
Obv: Young male head l.
RR
a. Crude, narrow head l. on obverse.
294 bce
Tendency to vertical die axis.
Obv: Ptolemy I diademed head r., fine style.
Rev: ¿|Uú (yhwd) to r. of eagle, wings closed, stands l.
RRR
Obv: Ptolemy I diademed head l.
Rev: ¿Uú (yhd) to l. of eagle, wings spread, half-turned l. and standing
upon thunderbolt.
RRR
Under Ptolemy II
294–c. 282 bce (some issues after 272 bce)
6081
Obv: Ptolemy I diademed head r.
Rev: U¿Uú (yhdh) to l. of eagle, wings spread, half-turned l. and stand-
ing upon thunderbolt.
R
a. Legend is ¿|Uú (yhyd).
b. More finely detailed portrait style.
c. Double struck.
6082 6083
Rev: Eagle as above, but inscription is crude, square letters, possibly
Aramaic.
RRR
a. Similar but the crude square letters appear to be retrograde.
c. 282–272 bce
Rev: ¿Uú (yhd) downward to r. of head Berenike I r.
RR
Rev: ¿Uú (yhd) to l. of head Berenike I l.
RR
272 bce
6085
6085. AR hemi-ma‘ah-obol.
Obv: Ptolemy I and Berenike I jugate heads r.
Rev: ¿Uú (yhd) to r. of jugate heads of Ptolemy II and Arsinöe II r.
RRR
261/260–242/241 bce
Tendency to vertical die axis
6086
6086. AR hemidrachm, one published, 1.71 g.
Rev: U¿Uú (yhdh) to l. of eagle, wings spread, half-turned l., standing
on thunderbolt, BA between inscription and eagle.
RRR
6087
6087. AR hemidrachm, one published, 1.66 g.

Rev: U¿Uú (yhdh) to l. of eagle, wings spread, half-turned l. and stand-
ing upon thunderbolt.
RRR
a. Similar, more refined style.
6088. AR quarter-drachm, one published, 0.76 g.

Obv: Ptolemy I diademed head to r.
Rev: U¿Uú (yhdh) to l. of eagle, wings spread, stands l. on thunder-
bolt.
RRR
CHAPTER FIVE
Ptolemaic and Seleucid Coins
A
s if to underline the local importance of coins in Philistia, Sa-
maria, and Judea, the Macedonians, as well as the Seleucids and
Ptolemies, established branch mints in several cities of ancient
Israel. These mints struck coins of standard types, in varying denomina-
tions, that circulated throughout their empires. I included Macedonian
and Ptolemaic coins struck in the “Yehud” series in the previous chapter
as a matter of typology.
Macedonian influence on the lands under Greek rule began with
Philip II, King of Macedon, who was such an able statesman and skillful
general that his son Alexander III (the Great) is said to have complained,
“My father will get ahead of me in everything and will leave nothing great
for me to do.” In 338 bce, Philip II brought all of Greece under his control
and planned his next step toward world conquest: the overthrow of the
Persian Empire. This effort was interrupted by his assassination in 336 bce,
but Alexander (336–323 bce) eventually completed the task.
Alexander Conquers the World

Alexander was brought up in his father’s court and tutored by no less than
Aristotle. In his final decade, even though he lived only thirty-three years,
Alexander’s Macedonian army swept over every nation that lay before it.
He crossed the Hellespont into Asia Minor in 333 bce and defeated the
Persians at Issos, effectively ending Persia’s rule over ancient Israel. His
army then cut south along the coastline of the Levant, besieged Tyre, cap-
tured Gaza, and occupied Egypt. In Egypt, he founded the city of Al-
exandria, which became one of the ancient world’s greatest cultural and
commercial centers. Alexander’s army then reversed, heading to Mesopo-
tamia, where he again crushed King Darius’s army, this time in 331 bce
at Gaugamela, destroying the Persian Empire. Alexander marched across
Babylon, Susa, and Persepolis, across Afghanistan, and on into India.
111
The Jews fared well under Alexander. He was tolerant of those who
submitted to his rule. Good relations between Alexander and the Jews are
reflected in a legend preserved in Josephus, who reports that when Alex-
ander was besieging Tyre, Sanballat, the governor of Samaria, came to him
with an army of 8,000 men.1
Alexander received him and granted his request to build a temple on
Mount Gerizim, where Sanballat’s son-in-law Manasseh would serve as
high priest.
Josephus says Alexander demanded that the Jewish high priest Jaddua
surrender Jerusalem and the Jewish people. Jaddua refused, and Alexander
and his army marched on Jerusalem to punish them. Jaddua was able to
keep the Jews calm by revealing his dream that no harm would befall the
city or the Temple.2
The next day at Zofim, north of Jerusalem, Jaddua met Alexander with
a procession of priests dressed in white, purple, scarlet, and gold. Alexander
bowed down to them. His own generals thought he was insane for doing
so, but Alexander appeased them by saying that he had seen Jaddua in a
dream and he had foretold that Alexander would defeat the Persian king.
Alexander then went to the Jerusalem Temple and offered a sacrifice to the
Jewish God, granting special privileges to the Jews while he was there.3
The Talmud tells a similar story, albeit with different names for the
high priest and the meeting place. It is clear that the Jewish people enjoyed
good fortune under Alexander the Great.4
Many of Alexander’s coins were struck upon the metal obtained from
the melting of the stores of gold and silver in the Persian treasury.
Macedonian Coins In Ancient Israel

The gold and silver coins of Alexander the Great attributed to Akko by
Price and predecessors have been convincingly re-attributed to the mint of
Tyre. The Phoenician letters eC previously believed to stand for “Ake” more
likely represent the first and last letters of the name of the King ‘Ozmilk
and were probably struck in Tyre. 5
Rule of the Ptolemies

Upon Alexander’s death in 323 bce, the empire was divided by civil war
between his generals and successors, called the diadochi. Ancient Israel
became a flashpoint because of its strategic location. This small strip of
coastland was a crossroads to the entire Levant. It lay between Syria in the
north, controlled by the Seleucids, and Egypt in the south, controlled by
the Ptolemies. From 320–301 bce, this land changed rulers five times, each
accompanied by the trauma and destruction of war. In 301 bce, southern
Ptolemaic and Seleucid Coins 113
Syria, including the land of Israel, came under Ptolemaic rule, where it
remained for a hundred years. The Seleucids continued to control northern
Syria and its vital access to the Mediterranean.
Josephus reports how Ptolemy I Soter (323–283 bce) captured Jeru-
salem on a Sabbath when the Jews refused to fight in their own defense.
Ptolemy entered the city on the pretense of making a sacrifice.
Under Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283–245 bce) relations flourished
between his capital at Alexandria and the center of the Jewish community
at Jerusalem. Philadelphus freed many of the Jewish slaves who had been
captured during his father’s military campaigns.
But the best-remembered achievement of Ptolemy II was a literary
one that made the Jewish Bible accessible to the entire Greek world. Ptol-
emy II had a large and splendid library, of which he was especially proud.
One day, according to legend, the royal librarian told Ptolemy that he had
gathered 995 books of the best literature that all the nations of the world
had to offer. However, the librarian added, the greatest books of all, the five
books of Moses (Pentateuch), were not included.
Ptolemy II sent envoys bearing gifts to the high priest in Jerusalem.
The envoys were to ask not only for copies of the five books of Moses but
also for a group of scholars to translate them into Greek.
The high priest met the request and sent 72 scholars to Alexandria. It
is said that each of the scholars worked alone to complete the difficult and
unprecedented task. When they were finished and the translations were
compared, each of the 72 is said to have been identical. Thus, this Greek
translation of the Bible was called the Septuagint or “the seventy.” Now,
the wisdom of the Jewish nation was available for the first time to others,
including those Jews who had been born and raised outside their home-
land, as in Alexandria, and had lost fluency in the Hebrew language.6
Ptolemy II revitalized the major port city that had been called Akko
since the earliest times and renamed it Ptolemais. He established a mint
there, as well as in Gaza, Ascalon, and Jaffa. Additional coins were pro-
duced in nearby Egypt and Phoenicia, thus many Ptolemaic issues circu-
lated in the ancient Levant. It is worth noting once again that Ptolemy I
and II allowed Judea to issue Ptolemaic coins with the Yehud inscription
upon them.7 (See Chapter 4.)
Josephus writes that after Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–221 bce) de-
feated the Seleucids in the third Syrian war (246–241 bce), he offered a
sacrifice of incense at the Jerusalem Temple.8
His son Ptolemy IV Philopator (221–203 bce) was victorious over the
Seleucid king Antiochus III in 217 bce at Raphia. Josephus describes the
Jews of this time as “in no way different from a storm-tossed ship which
is beset on either side by heavy seas, finding themselves crushed between
the successes of Antiochus and the adverse turn of his fortunes.” Josephus
writes that Philopator also visited Jerusalem with the idea of entering the
Temple. However, the Jewish God stepped in and threw him to his knees.
The Egyptian king was not pleased, and when he returned to Alexandria
he ordered local Jews into the arena where they would be trampled by a
herd of elephants. Instead, legend says, the elephants turned upon their
keepers. This tale illustrates how the Jews of the time felt about Ptolemy
IV.9
In 205 bce, Ptolemy IV died and was followed on the throne by his
five-year-old son, Ptolemy V. This change in rule created a situation favor-
able to Ptolemy’s enemies, and in 201 Antiochus III again invaded the area
of Judea, this time conquering all of the country except Gaza.
Ptolemaic Royal Coins in Ancient Israel

AU octadrachm c. 27.7 g.
AR tetradrachms c. 14 g.
Axis mostly ↑, some variations.
Mint of Akko-Ptolemais
6089. Ptolemy II (285–246 bce). AU octadrachm (mnaieion or one mina).

Obv: Arsinöe II diademed and veiled head r. with ram’s horn, lotus-
tipped scepter over shoulder.
Rev: APΣINOHΣ ΦIΛAΔEΛΦOY (of Arsinöe, brother-loving). Two
cornucopias to r. bound with diadem, pomegranates, fruits, ΛΓ
(33 = 253/2 bce) in lower l. field,  above Θ in lower r.
RRR
Recorded also for ΛE (35 = 251/0 bce)
6090. Ptolemy II. AR tetradrachm.

Obv: Ptolemy I diademed head r. wearing aegis.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY ΣΩTHPOΣ (of Ptolemy, savior), eagle stands l. on
thunderbolt,  and control mark in l. field, ΛA (255/54 bce) and Θ
on r.
S
Recorded with dates KE (25) = 261/60 bce, KH (28) = 258/7 bce, KΘ (29)
= 257/6 bce, Λ (30) = 256/5 bce, ΛA (31) = 255/4 bce, ΛB (32) = 254/3 bce,
ΛΓ (33) = 253/2 bce, ΛΔ (34) = 252/1 bce, ΛE (35) = 251/0 bce, Λς (36) =
250/49 bce, ΛZ (37) = 249/8 bce, ΛH (38) = 248/7 bce, ΛΘ (39) = 247/6 bce.
6091
6091. Ptolemy II. AE drachm (c. 42 mm).

Obv: Zeus Ammon diademed head r.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ (of King Ptolemy), two eagles stand
l., two cornucopias with diadem over second eagle’s shoulder, on
thunderbolt,  in circle in l. field. Similar with one eagle.
R
a. AE tetrobol (c. 37 mm), same types.
b. AE diobol (c. 31 mm), same types.
c. AE obol (c. 25 mm), same types.
6092. Ptolemy III (246–221 bce). AU octadrachm (mnaieion or one mina).

Rev: APΣINOHΣ ΦIΛAΔEΛΦOY, two cornucopias to r. bound with
diadem, to l. ς (year 6 = 242/1 bce) below  and Θ.
RRR
Recorded with dates B (2) = 246/5 bce, E (5) = 243/2 bce, and ς (6) = 242/1 bce.
6093. Ptolemy III. AR tetradrachm.

Obv: Ptolemy I diademed head r., aegis tied around neck.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY ΣΩTHPOΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, 
above in l. field, B above A in r. field.
R
Recorded with dates A (1) = 246 bce, B (2) = 246/5 bce, Γ (3) 245/4 bce, Δ (4) =
244/3 bce, E (5) = 243/2 bce, ς (6) = 242/1 bce.
6094. Ptolemy IV (221–204 bce). AU octadrachm (mnaieion or one mina).

Obv: Ptolemy IV diademed bust.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY ΘIΛOΠATOPOΣ, eagle stands r., ΣΩ above ΠT in
r. field.
RRR
6095. Ptolemy IV. AR tetradrachm.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY ΣΩTHPOΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, in l.
field  in l. field, various control marks.
R
6096. Ptolemy VI (180–164 bce). AR tetradrachm.

Obv: Ptolemy VI diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΠTOΛEMAIOY ΘEOY ΦIΛOMHTOPOΣ, eagle
stands l. on thunderbolt, large grain ear over shoulder,  in r. field,
letters between legs and under tail.
RRR
Mint of Ascalon
6097. Ptolemy IV (221–204 bce). AR tetradrachm.

Obv: Sarapis and Isis jugate busts r.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, looks
back, cornucopia with diadem over shoulder, AΣ in l. field, LΓ in r.
field.
RRR
Recorded with dates Γ (3) = 220/19 bce, Δ (4) = 219/8 bce, and E (5) 218/7 bce.
Mint of Dora
6098
6098. Ptolemy V (204–181 bce). AR tetradrachm.
Obv: Ptolemy V diademed bust r.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, ΔΩ
in l. field.
RR
Mint of Gaza

Rev: APΣINOHΣ ΦIΛAΔEΛΦOY, two splayed cornucopias bound with
diadem, pomegranates and fruits,  in lower left field, KΘ (29 =
257/6 bce). field, dotted border.
RRR
Also recorded with date ΛΓ (33) = 253/2 bce.


Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY ΣΩTHPOΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt,  in
l. field, KΓ (year 23) above control mark in r. field.
S
Recorded with dates KE (25) = 261/0 bce, KH (28) = 258/7 bce, KΘ (29) = 257/6
bce, Λ (30) = 256/5 bce, ΛA (31) = 255/4 bce, ΛB (32) = 254/3 bce, ΛΓ (33) =
253/2 bce, Λς (36) = 250/49 bce, ΛZ (37) = 249/8 bce, ΛH (38) = 248/7 bce.
6101. Ptolemy III (246–221 bce). AR tetradrachm.

Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY ΣΩTHPOΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt,  in l.
field, in l. field, B (year 2) in r. field, control marks.
RR
Recorded with dates B (2) = 246/5 bce and ς (6) 242/1 bce.
Mint of Joppa
6102

diadem, pomegranates and fruits,  in lower r.
RRR
Recorded with date ΛΓ (33) = 253/2 bce and  flank cornucopias.

6103

Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY ΣΩTHPOΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, 
in l. field, and Θ in r. field.
S
Recorded with dates KE (25) = 261/0 bce, KZ (27) = 259/8 bce, KΘ (29)
= 257/6 bce, Λ (30) = 256/5 bce, ΛA (31) = 255/4 bce, ΛB (32) = 254/3 bce,
ΛΓ (33) = 253/2 bce, ΛΔ (34) = 252/1 bce, ΛE (35) = 251/0 bce, Λς (36) =
250/49 bce, ΛZ (37) = 249/8 bce, ΛH (38) = 248/7 bce, ΛΘ (39) = 247/6 bce.
6104. Ptolemy III (246–221 bce). AU octadrachm (mnaieion or one mina).

Obv: Arsinöe II diademed and veiled head r., lotus-tipped scepter over
shoulder.
diadem, Γ (year 3 = 245/4 bce) and  flank cornucopias.
RRR
Recorded with dates A (1) = 247/6 bce, B (2) = 246/5 bce, Γ (3) = 245/4 bce, Δ (4) =
244/3 bce, E (5) = 243/2 bce, and ς (6) 242/1 bce.
6105. Ptolemy III. AR tetradrachm.

Obv: Ptolemy I diademed head r., aegis tied around neck.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY ΣΩTHPOΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, 
above control mark in l. field, Γ above over Θ.
R
Occur with dates A (1) = 247/6 bce, B (2) = 246/5 bce, Γ (3) = 245/4 bce, Δ (4) =
244/3 bce, E (5) = 243/2 bce, and ς (6) 242/1 bce.
6106. Ptolemy III. AE obol (c. 23 mm).

Obv: Zeus Ammon bearded head r.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, harp
in l. field.
R
a. AE hemiobol (c. 20 mm).

b. AE dichalkon (c. 16 mm).
c. AE chalcous (c. 13 mm).
6107. Ptolemy IV (221–204 bce). AR tetradrachm.

Obv: Ptolemy I diademed head of r. wearing aegis.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY ΣΩTHPOΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt,  in
l. field, various control marks.
R

Obv: Ptolemy V diademed bust r.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt,  in
l. field, LE (year 5 = 201/0 bce) in r. field.
RR
Possibly Akko-Ptolemais mint. Occur with dates E (5) = 201/0 bce, ς (6) = 200/199
bce, Z (7) 199/8 bce.
Mint of Strato’s Tower (Early Caesarea Maritima)

Obv: Diademed, draped bust r.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, 
in l. field, NI between legs.
RRR
Seleucids and the God Made Manifest

By the time Antiochus III defeated the boy king Ptolemy V, the Jews were
thoroughly fed up with the Ptolemies. They welcomed Antiochus III to
Jerusalem and he rewarded the Jews by rescinding taxes on Jerusalemites
for three years, making large contributions to the Temple, and rebuilding
portions of the city that were destroyed. The Jews were left alone and, ac-
cording to Josephus, Antiochus III went so far as to pass a law forbidding
anyone even to bring non-kosher animals to Jerusalem. He also granted
Jews the right to live according to “their native laws.”10 While he enjoyed
early success, the later years of Antiochus III were disastrous. He took on
the Romans in battle in 190/189 bce near Magnesia ad Sipylum and lost,
resulting in a huge war indemnity, which also weighed on his successors.
Antiochus III died while raiding a temple treasury at Eymais in Persia.
It was a dramatic turn of events when Antiochus III’s son, Antiochus
IV (175–164 bce), succeeded his older brother, Seleucus IV after his assas-
sination by his chief minister, Heliodorus. Seleucis IV had previously sent

Heliodorus to raid the temple in Jerusalem but, according to tradition, was
repulsed by divine intervention.
Antiochus IV pressed Greek culture and religion upon the Jews with
such forcefulness that it represents a major turning point in Jewish history.11
He invaded Egypt and fought both Ptolemy VI and VII but was forced
to return to Syria in the fall of 169 bce. This first Egyptian campaign left
the Seleucid coffers in an even poorer state, especially after he had been
obliged by Rome to continue to pay off his father’s war indemnity early in
his reign.
This financial pressure caused Antiochus IV to raid and pillage Je-
rusalem on his way back to Antioch from each of his two unsuccessful
Egyptian campaigns.12 In this theft and destruction, he had the coop-
eration of Menelaus and his pro-Seleucid party, then dominant among
Jerusalem’s Jews.
With the backing of Menelaus and his Hellenizers, Antiochus IV
forced Greek culture and religion upon the Jews. He prohibited the wor-
ship of the Jewish God, burned the Torah, and defiled the Temple by sac-
rificing a sow upon the altar. Antiochus focused on Jerusalem as a key
financial resource for his kingdom. Not only did he loot and pillage but he
auctioned the high priesthood to the highest bidder. Thus, the Hellenized
Jason, who promised to immediately pay 360 silver talents and another 80
talents from future income, replaced his brother Onias III as high priest.
The Second Book of the Maccabees reports that “he undertook to pay
another hundred and fifty talents for the authority to institute a sports-
stadium, to arrange for the education of young men there, and to enroll in
Jerusalem a group to be known as the ‘Antiochenes.’ The king agreed and as
soon as he had seized the high-priesthood, Jason made the Jews conform
to the Greek way of life.”13
Soon Greek culture was flourishing among many of Jerusalem’s citi-
zens, and even the priests “placed no value on their hereditary dignities, but
cared above everything for Hellenic honors.”14 Jason had built a Greek-
style athletic stadium in Jerusalem. There was no law against Jewish youths
participating in the games. However, all athletes participated in the games
naked. This practice was abhorrent to the religious Jews.15
Within a few years, even the corrupt were outdone. Menelaus, not
of priestly birth but loyal to the Seleucids, became the new high priest
by outbidding Jason by 300 talents of silver. Jason fled across the Jordan.
Menelaus was “a wicked and impious man, who in order to have sole au-
thority for himself had compelled his nation to violate their own laws.”16
Antiochus continued to try to consolidate his rule, and in 168 bce de-
parted for his second expedition to Egypt. During this time, Jason returned
to Jerusalem from Transjordan and unsuccessfully tried to re-establish his
position as high priest. Many Jews were killed and Jason retreated again.
At about the same time as this civil turmoil, Antiochus returned in a fierce
temper because of his humiliation by Gaius Popillius Laenas, an envoy of

the Roman Republic, outside Alexandria.17 Antiochus was convinced that
the fighting in Jerusalem represented a rebellion against him, and it may
have been true.
He stormed the city, looted the Temple, killed thousands of Jews, and
sold thousands more into slavery. He erected a citadel called the Akra in
Jerusalem, and in every way transformed the city into a Greek city-state.
“They shed the blood of the innocent round the temple; they defiled the
holy place. The citizens of Jerusalem fled for fear of them; she became the
abode of aliens, and alien herself to her offspring: her children deserted
her. Her temple lay desolate as a wilderness; her feasts were turned to
mourning, her Sabbaths to a reproach, her honor to contempt. The shame
of her fall matched the greatness of her renown, and her pride was bowed
low in grief.”18
By the year 167 bce, Antiochus had sent “an elderly Athenian to
force the Jews to abandon their ancestral customs and no longer regulate
their lives according to the laws of God. He was also commissioned to
pollute the temple at Jerusalem and dedicate it to Olympian Zeus [who
was the patron deity of Antiochus IV ],19 and to dedicate the sanctuary
on Mount Gerizim to Zeus, God of Hospitality, following the practice
of the local inhabitants.”16
Antiochus IV proclaims himself “Theos Epiphanes” or “God Made
Manifest” on his coins, but contemporaries mocked him as Antiochus
Epimanes, “the mad.”
The Seleucid kings minted coins in Akko, Ascalon, Demetrias by the
Sea, Gaza, and Samaria. Two coins bearing the name “King Antiochus”
were minted in Jerusalem under Hyrcanus I.20 Thus the Seleucid coins
foreshadow the coming of the Hasmoneans and, the first independent Ju-
dean coinage.
Seleucid Coins of Ancient Israel

AU octadrachm c. 27.7 g.
AR tetradrachms, Attic standard c. 17.28 g.
AR tetradrachms, Phoenician standard c. 14 g.
Axis mostly ↑, some variations.
Mint of Akko-Ptolemais
6110. Antiochus III (223–187 bce). AE 12–14 mm.

Obv: Laureate head of Apollo r.
Rev: Apollo stands l., testing arrow and resting hand on bow, blundered
legend.
S
6111. Seleucis IV (187–175 bce). AR tetradrachm. Attic standard.

Obv: Seleucis IV diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΣEΛEYKOY (of King Seleucis) on r. and l., Apollo sits
l. on omphalos, testing arrow and resting bow on ground, palm
branch and #on l.
S
6112. Seleucis IV. AE 14–16 mm, serrated.

Obv: Laodice IV veiled, diademed head r., #behind head.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΣEΛEYKOY above and below elephant head l., prow
below ear, dotted border.
S
6113. Antiochus IV (175–164 bce). AR tetradrachm. Attic standard.

Obv: Antiochus IV diademed head r., symbol on l. palm branch, # inner
left.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY (of King Antiochus), Apollo sits l. on om-
phalos, tests arrow and rests bow on ground.
RR
6114. Antiochus IV. AR tetradrachm. Attic standard.

Obv: Antiochus IV diademed head r., fillet border,  behind head.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY ΘEOY EΠIΦANOYΣ NIKHΦOPOY
(of King Antiochus, god made manifest, bringer of victory), Zeus sits l.
on throne, holds Nike and scepter, palm branch to far left, various
control marks in exergue or on l.
S
6115. Antiochus IV. AE 15–21 mm, serrated.

Obv: Laodice IV veiled, diademed head r.,  behind head.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY, elephant head l., prow lower r.
R

Obv: Apollo laureate head r.,  behind head.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY, Apollo, nude, seated l. on omphalos,
holds bow and arrow, aphlaston to far l., various control marks in
exergue.
RR

Obv: Antiochus IV diademed, radiate head r.,  behind head.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY (often blundered or abbreviated), veiled
and draped goddess faces front, holds long scepter.
C
6118. Antiochus IV. AE 19–20 mm.

Obv: Antiochus IV radiate diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY, Nike in biga gallops l., 7 on l.
S
6119
6119. Antiochus V (164–162 bce). AR tetradrachm. Attic standard.

Obv: Antiochus V diademed head r.,  to left, fillet border.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY, Apollo nude, sits l. on omphalos, holds
arrow in r. hand and rests l. on bow, control marks in fields.
RR
6120. Antiochus V. AR tetradrachm. Attic standard.

Obv: Antiochus V young diademed head r. to l., fillet border.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY ΘEOY EYΠATOPOΣ (of King Antio-
chus, god, of a good father), Zeus sits l. on throne, holds Nike and
scepter, palm branch to far l.,  to l.
RR
6121. Antiochus V. AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.

Obv: Antiochus V diademed head r.,  to l., fillet border.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, palm
branch in l. field, control mark between legs.
RR
6122. Demetrius I (162–150 bce). AR tetradrachm. Attic standard.

Obv: Demetrius I diademed head r., palm branch and  to l., laurel
wreath border.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΔHMHTPIOY (of King Demetrius), Tyche, nude to
hips, sits l. on throne with winged triton support, holds scepter and
cornucopia, control marks.
RR
6123. Demetrius I. AE 13–16 mm, serrated.

Obv: Demetrius I diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΔHMHTPIOY, goddess, veiled and draped faces front,
holds long scepter.
S
6124. Alexander I Balas (152–145 bce) and Cleopatra Thea. AU stater.

Obv: Cleopatra Thea veiled and diademed bust r, wears stephane.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣΣH KΛEOΠATPA (of Queen Cleopatra), filleted cornu-
copia l.
RRR
6125. Alexander I Balas and Cleopatra Thea. AR tetradrachm. Attic standard.

Obv: Jugate busts of Cleopatra Thea and Alexander I, diademed,  be-
hind heads, fillet border.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ALEXANΔPOY ΘEOΠATOPOΣ EYEPΓETOY (of
King Alexander, divinely fathered benefactor.) Zeus sits l. on throne,
holds scepter and Nike facing him with diagonal thunderbolt across
body.
RR
6126. Alexander I Balas. AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.

Obv: Alexander I diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ALEXANΔPOY, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, bar-
ley stalk under far wing, date in l. field, various control marks in
field or between legs, ΠTO or  in r. field.
RR
Recorded with dates SE 162 (BΞP = 151/0 bce), 163 (ΓΞP = 150/49 bce), 166 (ςΞP
= 147/6 bce).
6127. Antiochus VI (144–c. 142 bce). AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.

Obv: Antiochus VI diademed and draped.
Rev: ANTIOXOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, barley
stalk under far wing, date in l. field,  to r.
RR
Recorded with dates SE 169 (ΘEP = 144/3 bce) 170 (LOP = 143/2 bce), and 171
(AOP =142/1 bce).
6128. Antiochus VI. AE 15 mm, serrated.

Obv: Antiochus VI radiate and diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOY EΠIΦANOYΣ ΔIONVΣOY (of King
Antiochos, the Dionysos Manifest), horse stands left, foreleg raised,
 behind.
RR
6129
6129. Tryphon (142–138 bce). AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.

Obv: Tryphon diademed and draped bust r., fillet border.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ TPYΦΩNOΣ AYTOKPATOPOΣ, (of King Tryphon,
the self-empowered) eagle, wings closed, stands l. on thunderbolt,
barley stalk under far wing,  in l. field, control marks between
legs, date in r. field.
RR
Recorded with dates from regnal years 1 (LA = 142/1 bce), 3 (LΓ = 140/39 bce),
and 4 (LΔ = 139/8 bce).
6130. Antiochus VII (138–129 bce). AR tetradrachm. Attic standard.

Obv: Antiochus VII diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY EVEPΓETOY (of King Antiochus,
benefactor), Athena stands l., l. hand on shield, r. hand supports
Nike extending wreath, to l., laurel wreath border.
RRR
6131. Antiochus VII. AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.

Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY, eagle, wings closed, stands l. on thunder-
bolt, ZOP in r. field (SE 177 = 136/5 bce)  to l.
RRR
a. AR didrachm.
6132. Demetrius II, second reign (129–125 bce). AR tetradrachm. Attic standard.
Obv: Demetrius II bearded, diademed head, horn at temple to r., fillet
border.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΔHMHTPIOY ΘEOY NIKATOPOΣ, (of King Deme-
trius, god, the father-loving victor), Zeus sits l. on throne, holds Nike,
facing l., wreath in outstretched r. hand and scepter in l., date EΠP
(SE 185 = 128/7 bce) on l,  and control mark under throne.
RR
6133. Demetrius II, second reign. AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.

Obv: Demetrius II bearded, diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΔHMHTPIOY, eagle, wings closed, stands l. on thun-
derbolt, date in r. field, control mark in l. field below and dot be-
tween eagle’s legs.
RRR
Recorded with dates SE 184 (ΔΠP = 129/8 bce), 185 (EΠP = 128/7 bce), and 186
(ςΠP = 127/6 bce).
a. AR didrachm dates SE 185 (EΠP = 128/7 bce) and 186 (ςΠP =

127/6 bce).
6134. Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII (125–121 bce). AU octadrachm

(mnaieion or one mina).
Obv: Jugate busts of Cleopatra, diademed, with stephane and veil, and
Antiochus VIII diademed r., fillet border.
Rev: BAΣIΛIΣΣHΣ KΛEOΠATPAΣ BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY (of
Queen Cleopatra [and] King Antiochus), two filleted cornucopias to r.

RRR
6135
6135. Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII. AR tetradrachm. Attic standard.

Antiochus VIII diademed, r., fillet border.
Rev: BAΣIΛIΣΣHΣ KΛEOΠATPAΣ ΘEAΣ KAI BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY

(of Queen Cleopatra, the goddess, and King Antiochus), Zeus sits l. on throne,
holds Nike in outstretched r. hand and scepter in l., control mark in l.
field.
S
Recorded with dates SE 189 (ΘΠP = 124/3 bce) and 191 (APP = 122/1 bce).
6136. Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII. AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.

Antiochus VIII diademed r.
Rev: BAΣIΛIΣΣHΣ KΛEOΠATPAΣ BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY eagle,
wings closed, stands l. on thunderbolt, date in r. field,  mintmark
l. control marks in l. field.
RR
Recorded with dates SE 187 (ZΠP = 126/5 bce), 188 (HΠP = 125/4 bce) and 192
(BPP = 121/0 bce).
6137. Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII. AE 16–21, beveled edge.

Obv: Antiochus VIII radiate diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛIΣΣHΣ KΛEOΠATPAΣ BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY on r.
and l. Isis headdress on inverted crescent, date in exergue.
R
Recorded with dates SE 187 (ZΠP = 126/5 bce), 188 (HΠP = 125/4 bce) and 189
(ΘΠP = 124/3 bce).
6138
6138. Antiochus VIII (121–96 bce). AR tetradrachm. Attic standard.

Obv: Antiochus VIII diademed head r., fillet border.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY EΠIΦANOYΣ (of King Antiochus, the il-
lustrious), Zeus Uranius stands l., crescent above head, holding star
and scepter, control mark in l. field, laurel wreath border.
RR
6139. Antiochus VIII. AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.

Obv: Antiochus VIII diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY, eagle, wings closed, stands l. on thun-
derbolt, date in r. field, control mark in l. field.
R
Recorded with dates SE 192 (BPP = 121/0 bce), 193 (ΓPP = 120/19 bce), 195 (EPP
= 118/7 bce), 196 (ςPP = 117/6 bce), 197 (ZPP = 116/5 bce), 198 (HPP= 115/4
bce), and 199 (ΘPP = 114/3 bce).
a. Didrachm dates 196 (ςPP = 117/6 bce), 197 (ZPP = 116/5 bce),
and 199 (ΘPP = 114/3 bce).
6140. Antiochus IX (113–95 bce). AR tetradrachm. Attic standard.

Obv: Antiochus IX bearded, diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ (of King Antiochus, the
father-loving), Athena stands l., holds Nike in r. hand and spear in
l. arm resting l. hand on shield, control mark in l. field, laurel wreath
border.
R
6141. Antiochus IX. AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.

Obv: Antiochus IX long sideburns, diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY, eagle, wings closed, stands l. on thun-
derbolt, date in r. field, control mark in l. field.
RR
Recorded with dates SE 201 (LAΣ = 112/11 bce), 202 (LBΣ = 111/10 bce), 204
(LΔΣ = 109/8 bce), and 206 (LςΣ = 107/6 bce).
Mint of Ascalon (Ashqelon, Ashkelon)
6142. Antiochus IV (175–164 bce). AE 13–15 mm.

Obv: Antiochus IV diademed, radiate head r.
Rev: BA above dove to l., monogram below.
RR
6143. Antiochus IV. AE 12 mm.

Obv: Antiochus IV diademed, radiate head r.
Rev: B A bunch of grapes, monogram to r.
RRR
6144. Alexander I Balas (152–145 bce). AE 20 mm.

Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ALEΞAN, Zeus, draped from waist, stands facing,
head l., extends r. hand with wreath, on l., downward ςΞP (SE 166
= 147/6 bce), AΣK.
RRR
6145. Alexander I Balas. AE 14–15 mm.

Rev: BA above, dove stands l.
RR

Rev: BAΣIΛ ALEΞ, aphlaston, on l. upward date and ACK.
RR
Recorded with dates SE 164 (ΔΞP = 149/8 bce), 165 (EΞP = 148/7 bce), and 166
(ςΞP = 147/6 bce)
6147. Antiochus VI (144–142 bce). AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.

Obv: Antiochus IV diademed bust r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, AΣ be-
low dove on l., date LAOP (SE 171 = 142/1 bce).
RRR
6148. Tryphon (142–138 bce). AR didrachm, Phoenician standard.

Obv: Tryphon diademed and draped bust r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ TPYΦΩNOΣ AYTOKPATOPOΣ (of King Tryphon,
the self-empowered) eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, date LΓ (140/
39 bce) above mintmark AΣ in r. field, control marks below l.
RRR
6149. Tryphon. AE 19–22 mm.

Obv: Tryphon diademed bust r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ TPYΦΩNOΣ AYTOKPATOPOΣ, Zeus stands front,
head l., holds wreath in raised hand, date and AΣKA in outer l.
field.
RR
Recorded with dates regnal years 1 (LA = 142/1 bce), 3 (LΓ = 140/39 bce), and 4 (LΔ
= 139/8 bce).
6150. Antiochus VII (138–129 bce). AR drachm, Phoenician standard.

Obv: Antiochus VII diademed and draped.
Rev: ANTIOXOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, date ΓΠP
(SE 183 = 130/29 bce) in r. field, mintmark AΣ above dove in l.
field, control mark between legs.
RRR
6151. Alexander II Zabinas (128–122 bce) AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.

Obv: Alexander II diademed and draped bust r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ALEXANΔPOY, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, palm
branch under far wing, date in r. field, mintmark AΣ above dove in
l. field, control mark between legs.
RRR
Recorded with dates SE 187 (ZΠP = 126/5 bce) and 189 (ΘΠP = 124/3 bce).
a. Didrachm dates SE 187 (ZΠP = 126/5 bce).

b. Drachm dates SE 187 (ZΠP = 126/5 bce), 188 (HΠP = 125/4 bce),
and 189 (ΘΠP = 124/3 bce).
6152
6152. Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII (125–121 bce). AR tetradrachm.

Phoenician standard.
Antiochus VIII diademed r.
Rev: BAΣIΛIΣΣHΣ KΛEOΠATPAΣ BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY (of
queen Cleopatra [and] King Antiochus), eagle stands l. on thunder-
bolt, palm branch under far wing, AΣ above dove in l. field, control
mark between legs, and date APP (SE 191 = 122/1 bce) to r.
RR
6153. Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII. AR didrachm, Phoenician standard.

Antiochus VIII diademed, r.
Rev: BAΣIΛIΣΣHΣ KΛEOΠATPAΣ BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY, eagle,
wings closed, stands l. on thunderbolt, palm branch under far wing,
date in r. field, AΣ mintmark over dove on l. control marks between
legs.
RR
Dated SE 191 (APP = 122/1 bce) and 192 (BPP = 121/0 bce).
6154
6154. Antiochus VIII (121–96 bce). AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.

Obv: Antiochus VIII diademed bust r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY, eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, palm
branch behind r. shoulder, AΣ above dove to l., date to r., controls in
fields or between legs.
RR
Recorded with dates SE 193 (ΓPP = 120/19 bce), 194 (ΔPP = 119/8 bce), 195 (EPP
= 118/7 bce), 196 (ςPP = 117/6 bce), 197 (ZPP = 116/5 bce), 198 (HPP = 115/4
bce), 199 (ΘPP = 114/3 bce), 200 (Σ = 113/2 bce), 201 (LAΣ = 112/1 bce), 203 (ΓΣ
= 110/9 bce), 204 (LΔΣ = 109/8 bce), 205 (LEΣ = 108/7 bce), 206 (LςΣ = 107/6
bce), 207 (LIΣ = 106/5 bce), 208 (LHΣ = 105/4 bce), and 209 (ΘΣ = 104/3 bce).
a. Didrachm dates SE 202 (LBΣ = 109/8 bce) and 204 (LΔΣ = 107/6 bce).

6155. Antiochus IX (113–95 bce). AR tetradrachm. Phoenician standard.
Obv: Antiochus IX diademed and draped bust r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ (of King Antiochus, the
father-loving), eagle stands l. on thunderbolt, palm branch behind r.
shoulder, to l. AΣ above control mark beneath dove, date to r.
RR
Recorded with dates SE 199, (ΘPP = 114/13 bce) and 200 (Σ = 113/12 bce).
a. Didrachm dates SE 200 (Σ = 113/12 bce).
Mint of Demetrias by the Sea
6156. Demetrius II, first reign (145–140/39 bce). AR drachm. Attic standard.
Obv: Demetrius II diademed head of r.
Rev: Cornucopia to r. flanked by BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΔHMHTPIOY on r.,
ΦIΛAΔEΛΦOY NIKATOPOΣ (of King Demetrius, the father-loving
victor) on l., ΔΗ monogram in inner r. field and ΔOP (SE 174 =
139/8 bce).
RR
This mint was apparently a predecessor to Caesarea Maritima, also related to Strato’s
Tower, which also issued a series of autonomous bronze coins during the 2nd century bce
as well as dated coins between 63/62 and 42/41 bce.21
Mint of Gaza

Obv: Alexander I diademed head to r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY (or abbreviation), Apollo, nude,
stands l. holds arrow in r. hand with l. hand on small bow at side, in
outer l. field ΓAZ, dotted border.
RR

Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY (or abbreviation), bearded male,
draped below waist, stands facing, head l, extends hand, downward
on l. ΓAZHC or ΓAZ dotted border.
RR
6159. Demetrius II, first reign (144–140 bce). AE 15–18 mm.

Obv: Demetrius II diademed bust to r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΔHMHTPIOY, tripod, ΓA and (in fields sideways and
AOP (year 171 = 142/1 bce), dotted border.
RR
Mint of Marisa
6160. Alexander I Balas (150–145 bce). AE 15–17 mm.

Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY (or abbreviation), bearded male,
draped below waist, stands facing, head l., extends hand, HΔ LM to l.
RR
Obv: Artemis (?) draped bust.
Rev: BAΣIΛE AΛEΞA, Artemis (?) wears chiton stands facing, l. hand
at side, r. hand raised, ΔH to l.
RR
6162. Antiochus VI (145–142 bce). AE 14–17 mm.

Obv: Apollo laureate head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY, draped Tyche stands r., holds object in r.
hand and cornucopia over shoulder with l., HΔ LM to l.
RR
6163. Antiochus VII (138–129 bce). AE 18–21 mm, beveled edge.

Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY (or abbreviation), two cornucopias
to l.
S
Mint of Samaria (?)
6164. Antiochus IX (113–95 bce). AR obol.

Obv: Antiochus IX curly beard, diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣI downward on r., AN ΦI upward on l., Athena stands l., holds
Nike and rests hand on shield, spear behind.
R
Mint of Jerusalem
See coins 6165 and 6166.
Comparative Timeline
CHAPTER SIX
Hasmonean Dynasty
Revolt of the Maccabees
The quick version is that Antiochus IV and his troops persecuted the Jews
and captured and defiled the Jerusalem Temple. The Jews, led by Judah the
Maccabee and his brothers, took back the Temple and re-purified it, cul-
minating with the miracle of one day’s supply of purified oil burning for a
full eight days—the miracle of Chanukah.
The story, however, is not so simple. The Seleucids initially aspired to
total domination, both political and religious, over Judea. The Maccabee
victory gave the people of Judea the religious freedom that they sought,
and the Seleucids decided to live with it. Realistically, however, Seleucid
political domination over the Maccabees in Judea continued well into the
reign of the Hasmonean rulers (Fig. 6.1). Over time, significant parts of
Hellenistic culture, lifestyles, and symbolism entered Jewish life.1
Many of Jerusalem’s citizens, and even some priests “placed no value
on their hereditary dignities, but cared above everything for Hellenic hon-
ors” (II Maccabees 4:15–16). The high priest Jason built a Greek-style
athletic stadium (gymnasium) near the Temple. Jewish youths competed
in the games, but since athletes participated naked, it was abhorrent to
the religious Jews. It was made worse when some of the Jewish athletes
had surgery that “made themselves uncircumcised” (I Maccabees 1:15) to
avoid embarrassment.2
Yet the nation as a whole would not betray itself and revolution fo-
mented. Many Jews “died for their beliefs” (I Maccabees 1:63). Others
refused to live with the profanities of the Seleucids. The leader of those
keepers of the faith was an elder, Mattityah [Mattathias] the Hasmonean,3
from the village of Modiin, around 19 miles west of Jerusalem. When
Mattityah and his five sons saw the desecration in the land, they “tore their
garments, put on sackcloth, and mourned bitterly” (I Maccabees 2:14).
When the soldiers of Antiochus came to Modiin to force the local
Jews to sacrifice to heathen gods and forsake their laws, Mattityah and his
sons refused to obey. Others were not as strong.
135
Figure 6.1. Key: ( ) = Hebrew name. m. = married.

Hasmonean Dynasty 137
Thus, the Hasmonean Revolt began. Mattityah, his sons, and their
men waged guerilla war against the oppressive Seleucids. When Mattityah
died, he directed his son Judah (called the Maccabee) to become the mili-
tary leader and his son Simon to become the political leader. The name
Maccabee, according to legend, is an acronym for the initial Hebrew let-
ters of each word (‫ )מכבי‬in a verse from Exodus (15:11) that was Judah’s
battle cry: “Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the mighty?” (?‫באלם ײ‬
‫)מי כמכה‬. Another legend suggests the name Maccabee derives from the
Aramaic maqqaba, “the hammer,” reflecting Judah’s hit-and-run warfare
tactics.
At this time, the traditional title of the principal leader of the Jews was
high priest. The priests presided over the Jerusalem Temple. They were also
the supreme political authorities. Although Mattityah of Modiin was from
a priestly family, the Hasmoneans do not seem to have been related to any
previous high priests. Thus, they established their own dynasty.4
During these perilous times, the Jews shunned idolatry or even the
appearance of idolatry. The folk tale of Hannah and her seven sons5 is
a good example. At the time of Mattityah, Hannah and her seven sons
were brought before the Syrian king. Each son, beginning with the eldest,
was commanded to bow before an idol. Each of the older six refused and
was executed. When the king came to the seventh son, he made the same
demand and the boy refused. Even the brutal king felt pity for the mother
and said to the boy, “Look, your brothers are all slain. I shall throw my
signet ring in front of the idol. All you need to do is bend down and pick
it up. People will then say that you finally submitted to the authority of the
king.” The boy replied, “Alas for you, O king, if you are so zealous for your
honor, how much more so ought we be for God’s honor.” He refused even
the appearance of bowing and was killed. His mother, Hannah, went to the
roof and jumped to her death.
This story is meant to illustrate how Mattityah and his followers ag-
gressively rejected all forms of Hellenism. Realistically, as discussed above,
elements of the Greek culture had already entered the local culture, where
they remained.
Early in the struggle, Judah defeated a small Seleucid force and killed
its commander, Apollonius, whose sword Judah took and used for the rest
of his life as a symbol of vengeance. After successfully capturing settle-
ments such as Beit Horon, Emmaus, and Beit Zur, Judah and his men
liberated Jerusalem in 164 bce. They re-entered the Temple, cleaned, and
re-purified it.
The Jews proclaimed a festival beginning on the 25th day of Kislev of
the year 148 of the Seleucid Era (se), or 164 bce. This event is the origin
of the holiday Chanukah, which has been celebrated by Jews worldwide
for eight days every year since.
Judah Maccabee’s victory ended the Seleucid persecution of Jewish
religious practice but not their rule over Judea and Samaria. Possibly Ju-
dah initiated a treaty with the Romans in 161 bce to warn the Seleucids
against further incursions. The Romans were quite happy to find another
avenue to weaken the power of the Seleucid Empire.
In 162 bce, Demetrius I took the throne. He installed Eliakim (Alci-
mus) as the new high priest in Jerusalem. Eliakim was from a priestly line,
so many of the Hasidim recognized him. In effect, this constituted a de
facto decision that religious freedom was sufficient for the Jews and that
they did not need political liberty from the Seleucids. Now, the Hellenizers
again wielded power in Jerusalem, and the Seleucid king kept armed forces
near the Temple Mount.
Judah was killed in battle. His brother Jonathan succeeded him and
continued to gather support from his outpost in the hills north of Jerusa-
lem. In 153 bce, Alexander Balas, a young man of undistinguished birth,
passed himself off as a son of Antiochus IV. To further confuse the Seleu-
cids, the Roman Senate—which may have known the truth about him—
acknowledged Balas’s supposed royal origin.
Jonathan and his brother Simon allied themselves with Tryphon, who
was regent for the young Antiochus VI, a son of Balas. Jonathan and Si-
mon captured Ashkelon, Gaza, and other areas in the king’s name. As
Jonathan’s power increased, Tryphon became frightened of him, especially
since Jonathan had remained loyal to Antiochus VI.
Tryphon wanted to do away with Simon but planned to get rid of
Jonathan first. Toward that end, Tryphon marched to Beit Shean at the
head of a large army. However, Jonathan’s force of 40,000 men was strong.
Fearing defeat, Tryphon resorted to trickery. He received Jonathan cer-
emoniously and told him he had not come to fight, but to honor him.
Jonathan fell for the ploy and sent most of his men home. With a force
of only 1,000, he accompanied Tryphon and his army to Akko, where they
turned on the Jews and killed all except Jonathan, who was imprisoned.
Tryphon moved toward Judea, hoping to defeat the leaderless Jews. Hear-
ing of his brother’s capture, Simon had already rushed to Jerusalem where
he was accepted “in place of Judah and your brother Jonathan” (I Mac-
cabees 13:8).
Simon swiftly began a campaign to Judaize other cities, beginning
with Gezer and the port of Jaffa, his base for establishing trade with for-
eign lands. Simon’s success infuriated Tryphon so he had Jonathan and two
of his sons killed. This action gave Simon more reason to hate Tryphon,
so Simon set about making a deal with Demetrius II, a son of Demetrius
I, who by this time was hard up for funds. In exchange for gold to pay his
mercenaries, Demetrius gave Simon the complete independence of Judea
in writing and even dismissed Jews from paying annual tribute:
In the year 170 [142 bce] Israel was released from the gentile yoke.
The people began to write on their contracts and agreements, ‘In the
first year of Simon, the great high priest, general and leader of the Jews’
(I Maccabees 13:41–2).
Simon was the first Hasmonean unencumbered by oppressive military

obligations, and the Jews flourished during his dominion.
Old men sat in the streets, talking together of their blessings; and the
young men dressed themselves in splendid military style.... He restored
peace to the land, and there were great rejoicings throughout Israel.
Each man sat under his own vine and fig tree, and they had no one to
fear. Those were days when every enemy vanished from the land and
every hostile king was crushed (I Maccabees 14:9–13).
Simon appointed his son, Yehohanan, head of the Jewish army. He

took the regnal name Hyrcanus, according to the tradition of his Seleucid
suzerains. Hyrcanus I’s army rebuffed continued attempts by Tryphon to
invade their land. Antiochus VII Sidetes (138–129 bce) continued to fight
the war his brother Demetrius II had waged against Tryphon. It was criti-
cal for Antiochus to keep Simon and the Jews on his side in the battle for
the Syrian throne, so he granted them additional privileges in 139 bce.
These privileges included permission to “mint your own coinage as cur-
rency for your country. Jerusalem and the Temple shall be free…” (I Mac-
cabees 15:6).
However, Simon did not issue any coins before Antiochus VII reneged
on his promise during his siege of Tryphon’s stronghold at Dora. Antio-
chus hoped to finally defeat Tryphon and destroy him. Simon sent along a
tribute payment of 2,000 men, gold, silver, and armor, but Antiochus, now
feeling infallible, “repudiated all his previous agreements with Simon and
broke off relations” (I Maccabees 15:27).
Oddly, Simon’s end did not come from a foreign enemy, but by the
hand of his son-in-law Ptolemy (son of Abubus), who wanted to take his
place. Simon and his sons Judah and Mattityah were killed in 134 bce.
Ptolemy also sent his killers after Hyrcanus I, who escaped to Jerusalem
where the people welcomed him as the legitimate heir to Simon. Thus,
John Hyrcanus I assumed the position of high priest.
First Hasmonean Coins

Hyrcanus I reigned from 135–105/4 bce. The earliest coins struck during his
reign were issued in the name of Antiochus VII. One coin depicted on the
obverse the lily of Jerusalem that “usurped the traditional place of the Seleu-
cid king on the coinage.” On the reverse, “the presence of the Seleucid an-
chor and the inscription naming Antiochus seemed to respectfully acknowl-
edge the source of the privilege” of minting independent coinage, Hoover
explains.6 These anchor/lily coins (nos. 6165, 6166) are dated to the years se
181 and 182 respectively (132/1 and 131/0 bce). The last issue was struck
less than a year before Antiochus VII died in battle against the Parthians.7
Another Seleucid coin appeared with neither human nor animal images, a
small, undated bronze depicting a war helmet and an aphlaston (no. 6166).
Previously the coin was attributed to Ascalon,8 but recently Donald Ariel
showed it was more likely struck in Jerusalem as part of a denominational
series commemorating victories of Antiochus VII.9 These coins established
the Hasmonean fractional currency system that was fully aligned with that
of the Seleucids. It endured through the Hasmonean and Herodian periods
and coins of the prefects and procurators.10
The lily of Jerusalem appears on other Judean coins (nos. 6059, 6073,
6183), and continues as a symbol of Jerusalem for some time. The anchor
makes its debut here as a Jewish image. “The anchor symbolism continued
to be present in Judea after the fall of the Hasmoneans, reappearing on
several series of bronze coins struck at Jerusalem under Herod the Great.
Even after Herod’s death in 4 bce, the anchor emblem lived on, apparently
now as a Herodian symbol…the purpose seems to have been to express
continuity and legitimacy.”11 The anchor and lily symbols are discussed
further below.
The debate over who issued the first Hasmonean coins with paleo-
Hebrew legends has been long. Early scholars believed that Simon the
Maccabee (142–135 bce), also called Simon Thassis, Judah’s brother and
the first Maccabee to actually achieve the high priest title, struck the first
Jewish coins in the mid-130s bce.12 However, in light of evidence estab-
lished by archaeological excavations at Beit Zur and elsewhere, all coins
once attributed to Simon were re-attributed to the Jewish War (66–70 ce).13
Reifenberg suggested John Hyrcanus I issued the first Jewish coins.14 Nearly
20 years later, Sperber (in 1965)15 and Meshorer (in 1967) suggested that
it was Hyrcanus I’s son, Alexander Jannaeus, who struck the first Jewish
coins,16 and the coins with the name Yehohanan all belonged to Hyrcanus
II. This theory was widely debated for years.
It has now been firmly established that John Hyrcanus I, Yehohanan
(135–104 bce), struck the first Hasmonean coins.17 Dan Barag of the He-
brew University Institute of Archaeology in Jerusalem told me how he
resolved the mystery:
“In January of 1988, an Arab antiquities dealer in Jerusalem showed
me a hoard of coins covered with the same type of earth. It was evident
that it was a part of a hoard. No doubt, it was the most important Hasmo-
nean hoard ever discovered. The coins were so encrusted that I could not
read their legends. Thus, there could not have been a previous classification
or sorting of the group.
“On cleaning and sorting through the first group of about 180 coins, it
became evident that it contained all types of coins referring to ‘Yehohanan
the high priest’ along with Seleucid issues of the second century bce and a
very early issue Nabataean coin.
“Within a few weeks after seeing the first group, I was able to trace
almost 700 pieces from the same find. There was not a single coin of Al-
exander Jannaeus, but the hoard contained all types of coins with the He-
brew name Yehohanan. This, then, confirmed what I and others claimed
on stylistic and circumstantial evidence before, that is, all of the coins of
Yehohanan belong to the same ruler. It also proved, in the absence of the
later coins of Jannaeus, that this ruler must be Hyrcanus I. It also raised the
question of whether the name of Hyrcanus II was actually Yehohanan, as
some theorized,”18 Barag reported.
In 2019, I visited Hebrew University’s Institute of Archaeology to ex-
amine this hoard.19 I examined 1,021 coins and eight small objects that
Barag had acquired for the university in 1988.
More than 900 of the coins are covered with a uniform reddish, com-
pacted fine earth, which Barag manually removed to reveal inscriptions.
(Manual cleaning is clearly visible on a large number of the coins.) This
encrustation underlines and confirms his initial critical observation that
until he cleaned the coins, he had no idea what inscriptions they carried.
After examining the hoard in 1988–89, Barag, Qedar, and Meshorer each
independently told me that they concluded that Hyrcanus I was the first
Hasmonean to issue coins with Hebrew inscriptions, and that none of
the Hasmonean types carried inscriptions pertaining to Hyrcanus II or
Aristobulus II. Not incidentally, we note that in 63 bce, Pompey captured
Jerusalem, and the sons of Jannaeus were in a markedly weaker position
politically than under the earlier Hasmonean descendants of Hyrcanus I.
My recent examination of the coins thus confirmed Barag’s conclusions.
Paleo-Hebrew on the Hasmonean Coins

A lot of misunderstanding exists about the epigraphy on the Hasmonean
coins. The paleo–Hebrew legends are remarkable not only for their content
but for their form. The use of ancient Hebrew mainly ceased several hun-
dred years earlier and “saw only very limited use in the Maccabean age.”20
During this period, Aramaic was the principal language and script of the
people of Judea and Samaria. According to Naveh, “Texts written in the
Hebrew script in the Second Temple period are rare.… These texts are offi-
cial in nature and seem to indicate that the use of the Hebrew script in this
period had nationalistic connotations.”21 The texts are seals, scrolls, and
coins. The use of the original Hebrew script “represented the former glory
of the Davidic kingdom which the Hasmonean rulers attempted to regain
and restore.”22 Most Hasmonean coins use this paleo-Hebrew script as
part of an effort to make a statement about themselves and their kingdom.
During the first century bce, Aramaic script was used for writing both
Hebrew and Aramaic, and the early paleo-Hebrew script saw limited use.
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the only paleo-Hebrew manuscripts,
except for Job, are from the Pentateuch.23 In some other scrolls written
in Aramaic (or “square”) script, only the Tetragrammaton, or name of the
Lord, is written in paleo-Hebrew, “thus indicating that the scribes who
preserved this script knew that it was the original Hebrew one and its ar-
chaic flavor made it suitable for writing the name of the Lord.”24
One of the earliest known inscriptions using paleo-Hebrew was the
Gezer Calendar, which is dated to the late tenth century bce. The inscrip-
tion is closely related to Phoenician inscriptions from the same period. The
paleo-Hebrew script was used on jar handles dating from the late eighth
century bce and to stone scale weights of Judea dating to eighth to sixth
centuries bce, as well as hundreds of bronze, stone, and bone seals dating
from the eighth to sixth centuries bce. The earliest-known fragments of a
biblical text are written in paleo-Hebrew script and make up the Priestly
Benediction in Numbers 6:24–26: “The Lord bless you and protect you.
The Lord makes his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. The
Lord lift up his countenance to you and give you peace.” This prayer is in-
scribed on a small silver scroll found in a burial cave at Ketef Hinnom and
dated to the late seventh century bce.25
After the Babylonian capture of Judea and the exile of many Jews,
including most of the nobles, in 586 bce, those who remained behind con-
tinued to use the paleo-Hebrew script. Two generations later, when many
Jews returned, their language had become Aramaic. Soon both the Ara-
maic language and the “square” Aramaic letters became the official form of
communication in ancient Judea. It is, therefore, impossible to undertake a
meaningful epigraphic study of the paleo-Hebrew script used on the coins
of the Maccabees, the Jewish War, or the Bar Kokhba Revolt, because it
was an alphabet hundreds of years past any common use.
Rather than evolving as a living alphabet, variations in Hasmonean
script forms resulted from the way individual master engravers and their
assistants or apprentices cut into the coin dies. Further complicating this
process are many “irregular” issues of the Hasmonean coins.26 Since paleo-
Hebrew was no longer used, and it is not likely that artisans such as en-
gravers or die cutters were literate, one may assume that each workshop
was supplied with a written version of the coin legends. Further script
variations could have been introduced when the legend was copied for
various die cutters.27
Thus, each die cutter transferred his version of each legend to a die
for striking coins—the more skilled and artistic the engraver, the better
the style. Hasmonean script styles are also related to the celator’s tool
kit. Some inscriptions were cut using engraving chisels that were mostly
straight (e.g., nos. 6168, 6174) and others who had tools that created vari-
ous curved or angular shapes (e.g., nos. 6171, 6172), often smaller than
an eyelash. Hence, we clearly see several script styles on the Hasmonean
coins. Also, the tiny letters had to be engraved in confusing mirror writing
to appear corrrectly on the coins.
The very crude inscriptions, or those with many errors or omissions,
are likely irregular issues (nos. 6175–6177. These irregular coins are dis-
cussed on p. 22).
Late in Jannaeus’s reign, he implemented the use of Aramaic (square

Hebrew) script on coins while simultaneously eliminating use of his high
priestly title (no. 6191).
This change may have resulted from conflicts between the Pharisees
and the Sadducees. Meshorer notes, “Broad public circles, and certainly the
Pharisees, undoubtedly had disapproved of his adoption of the title ‘king’
in addition to that of high priest,”28 as were used on some of his early coins.
The Babylonian Talmud reflected this: “Said he [ Judah son of Ge-
didiah] to King Yannai: ‘O King Yannai! Let the royal crown suffice thee,
and leave the priestly crown to the seed of Aaron.’”29
The Aramaic-legend small prutot (no. 6191) are dated to the year 25
of Jannaeus (80/79 bce) and were struck near the end of his reign. There is
no suggestion that Jannaeus gave up his title of high priest, but he simply
stopped flaunting it, not only by eliminating the reference on his coins but
by changing from paleo-Hebrew to Aramaic, the current lingua franca, to
tout his royal title. Jannaeus also struck lead tokens or coins with the Ara-
maic royal legend (no. 6192).
Jannaeus was succeeded by his wife, Queen Salome Alexandra, who,
according to Josephus, “permitted the Pharisees to do as they liked in all
matters, and also commanded the people to obey them; and whatever reg-
ulations, introduced by the Pharisees in accordance with the tradition of
their fathers, had been abolished by her father-in-law Hyrcanus, these she
again restored.…”30
Neither the queen nor her sons Hyrcanus II or Aristobulus II, who
ruled between 76 bce and 40 bce, struck coins with their own names.
However, it is possible that many of the crude, small prutot, often called
“mites,” and perhaps some irregular issues, were struck by these successors
to Jannaeus (see p. 183).
Only in 40 bce when Herod I, already named King of the Jews by the
Romans, did the last Hasmonean ruler, Mattityah Antigonus, reclaim both
titles of king and high priest, as reflected on his coins.
Pentateuchal Code and Graven Images

From the third to the first centuries bce, coins were struck in the Greek
world by the authority of the great kings who succeeded Alexander III (the
Great) of Macedon, as well as minor dynasts and potentates of out-of-the-
way cultures. This gold, silver, and bronze coinage was used to aggrandize
the rulers in whose names the coins were struck, by, among other things,
displaying their faces to the masses. Thus, today we can see the faces of
the dynastic kings of Macedon, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt, as
well as the rulers of Bithynia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Armenia, Bactria, India,
Parthia, Commagene, Nabataea, and even Numidia and Mauretania.31
Yet we cannot see the faces of the rulers of the Jewish nation, since
following their revolt against Antiochus IV, the Jews never stamped their
portraits on coins. The Jewish rulers were no less vain and no less in need
of consolidating power, but they deliberately refrained from copying the
rest of the Hellenistic world. Even though many of these Jewish rulers
and their aristocratic friends adopted some of the ways of their Hellenis-
tic suzerains, including Greek names and titles, they would not cross this
line. The Jews might have organized their army in the Greek style, raised
Greek mercenaries, dressed like Greeks, and participated naked in athletic
events in local gymnasia, but there must be no misunderstanding about
one crucial point: the Jews worshipped one God. This religious belief was
recognized by Antiochus VII and was a clear aspect of his understanding
with the Jews.
What was the motivation for the Jewish decision not to use human
portraits, especially as they relate to the political and religious environment
under the Hasmoneans?
Writers including Madden, Reifenberg, Romanoff, Kindler, Kanael,
Barag, Qedar, and Meshorer made major contributions to the discussion
of the iconography of these coins.32 Their works show an understanding of
the absence of graven images on early Jewish coin designs, but only a brief
discussion of the reasons.
Kindler, for example, states only “strict adherence to the Second Com-
mandment precluded the use of a ruler’s portrait on Hasmonean coins.”33
Meshorer notes, “Because of religious injunctions, Jewish kings could not,
at the time of Jannaeus, depict their own portraits on coinage.”34 Romanoff
writes, “No human portraits nor animal sacrifices nor pouring of blood
upon the altar are to be found among the emblems”35 on the coins of the
Hasmoneans. In his seminal article, Kanael mentions that the Hasmonean
coins “have a rather dull appearance.”36
While these numismatists were preoccupied with the critical matter of
the chronology of the Hasmonean coins by ruler, the paucity of discussion
of the biblical ban on “graven images” seems to be an oversight. The matter
of the Second Commandment is not completely clear in either ancient or
modern Judaism. If it were, we might more easily explain why at certain
times in their history Jews and Samaritans abided by this ban, and at other
times, they did not. For example, the Yehud and Samarian coins, struck in
the fourth century bce by local authorities in ancient Judea and Samaria,
virtually all portray graven images.37
What were the conditions during the Hasmonean period that com-
pelled the Jews to follow this ban, and what iconographic conventions did
they devise to obviate the need for the use of graven images?
Between the second century bce and the first century ce, the Jews in
their land, with few known exceptions, strictly obeyed the biblical admoni-
tion against graven images:
Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of
likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth (Exodus 20:4).
Pentateuchal code sternly prohibits making any graven image of man

or beast, and is repeated (Deuteronomy 5:8) and expanded upon:
…lest ye deal corruptly, and make you a graven image, even the form of
any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that
is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the heaven,
the likeness of anything that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any
fish that is in the water under the earth (Deuteronomy 4:16–18).
This prohibition directly targets the manufacture of such images for

the purpose of worship. While that reservation is hinted at (see Deuter-
onomy 4:19 and Exodus 20:19–21), it is not spelled out in the biblical
text. This ambiguity allowed Jewish culture to run the gamut from out-
right prohibition of figurative art of any kind to complete disregard of
the prohibitions.
In biblical Judaism, the cherubim in the Tabernacle and in Solomon’s
Temple were certainly graven images. It is ironic that the text of Exo-
dus 25:18–22 calls for “graven images” of cherubs to appear on the very
Ark of the Covenant that contained the commandment against making
graven images. As discussed in Chapter 4, the Yehud and Samarian coins
of the fourth century bce from ancient Israel consistently depict a variety
of graven images. Rabbi Gamaliel in the second century ce had a human
head engraved on his personal seal. People as well as animals adorn later
mosaics at the ancient synagogues at Chorazin, Beit Alfa, Sepphoris, and
Huqoq, among others, not to mention the fabulous paintings of Old Tes-
tament vignettes in the synagogue at Dura Europos.
Expanding on this thesis, Roth refers to the period under examina-
tion: “The meticulous obedience or relative neglect of the apparent biblical
prohibition of representational art seems in fact to have been conditioned
by external circumstances, and in two directions—revulsion or attraction.
In the later biblical period and throughout classical antiquity, in an envi-
ronment in which the worship of images by their neighbors played a great
part, the Jews reacted strongly against this practice and up to a point repre-
sentational art was sternly suppressed.…On the other hand, when the Jews
were to some extent culturally assimilated, they began to share in the ar-
tistic outlook of their neighbors and the prejudice against representational
art dwindled, and in the end almost disappeared. To this generalization,
however, other factors must be added. Sometimes the religious reaction
of the Jews was influenced by political consideration. The almost frenzied
Jewish opposition to images of any sort toward the close of the Second
Temple period seems to have been prompted by the extreme nationalist
elements, happy to find a point in which their political opposition could
be based on a clear-cut religious issue.”38
Thus, with respect to the use of graven images, the evolution of the
first Jewish royal coinage closely reflects the evolution of Jewish indepen-
dence, interdependence, and assimilation with the Greeks and Romans.

There is little doubt that the Jews of the Hasmonean dynasty were ex-
tremely nationalistic and that the question of graven images moved to the
fore. The other coins in circulation in ancient Israel primarily consisted of
Tyrian, Seleucid, and Ptolemaic silver coins. Other bronze and silver coin-
age also showed up in the area by way of travelers or trade. Virtually all of
these coins carried graven images of kings or gods.39
Hyrcanus I’s challenge was to issue coinage that not only would im-
prove his nation’s economy,40 but also make a bold statement regarding
its sovereignty while maintaining the current understanding of Jewish re-
ligious law. As a result, Hyrcanus’s small bronze coins were unlike other
coins in use at the time. They had sufficient impact to become the proto-
type for the principal coin motif for all four successive Hasmonean rulers
who struck coins.
The Hasmoneans had prevailed in their grave confrontation with Hel-
lenism, only to later give way to Rome. At least part of the Hasmonean
legacy to Herod I, who also claimed the title “King of the Jews,” was a
numismatic one. Throughout his 33-year reign, Herod never once put a
human graven image on his coins. Herod`s successors, however, are a more
complicated matter to be discussed later.
Denominations
The most common denomination of Hasmonean coins was the bronze coin
generally referred to as prutah (prutot, see p. 26), which Ariel suggests was
equal to a Greek dichalkon,thus the half-prutah (or lepton) would equal a chalk-
ous. The largest and rarest Hasmonean coin was likely the helmet/parallel-
cornucopias type and is approximately 50–70% heavier than the stan-
dard prutah of the time.41 Ariel thus concludes that the helmet coin is
either equivalent to a dichalkon ( Jacobson) or a one-and-a-half prutah—a
non-Seleucid denomination (trilepton) akin to a one-and-a-half chalkous
(Kindler); and the three-coin denominational series (nos. 6167–6170) had
a relationship of either 3:2:1 (Kindler) or 2:1:1/2 ( Jacobson).”42 (See p. 26
for a further discussion of Judean coin metrology.43)
Absence of Silver Coins

Why didn’t any of the independent Hasmonean (or Herodian) kings strike
silver coins? Among Seleucid concessions to the Hasmoneans was permis-
sion to “mint your own coinage as currency for your country” (I Macca-
bees 15:6). No metal is mentioned, and one might assume that the Jews
could have minted whatever currency they wanted. Alternatively, even in
their independence, the Judeans were semi-autonomous to either Greek or
Roman patronage (except during the two Jewish Wars), and it is possible
that it did not need to be stated that the only coins allowed to be struck
were bronze. It is also possible that the Judeans had sufficient acceptable,
circulating silver coins and that issuing bronze coins satisfactorily fulfilled
their nationalistic, economic, and communications needs.
On the other hand, as soon as the people of Judea were in revolt against
Rome, both in 66 ce and in 132 ce, among the first things the rebels did
was strike silver as well as bronze coins. This mintage suggests that during
Hasmonean and Herodian times, the Jews may have been forbidden from
striking silver coins and when they did so, it emphasized rebellion.
None of the tetrarchs of Chalcis in Ituraea struck silver coins. Ituraea
had been annexed by Alexander Jannaeus, but by 63 bce had reverted to
Roman territory. In 64 bce, Ptolemy, the local tetrarch, bribed Pompey not
to annex the area and return to Ptolemy the lands lost to Jannaeus when
he ended the Judean state in 63 bce.
The nearby Nabataean Kings struck silver as well as bronze coins from
around 60 bce to 106 ce, and possibly much earlier.44 One could argue that
because the Nabataeans plied lengthy trade routes, they needed to main-
tain maximum flexibility in their own coinage to flourish. Judean needs for
silver coins, however, would have been primarily to pay dues to the Temple
and to provide funds for troops. It was well established that the Temple
functioned with the silver coinage of Tyre (see p. 438), and since many of
the Hasmonean troops were mercenaries, it is possible that, at any rate,
they preferred payment in Hellenistic silver, which was plentiful.
The bronze coins circulated in the shops and markets of Judea day
in and day out. Instead of being handled by the few who managed large
transactions, the messages of the bronze coins circulated widely among
the masses.
Symbols on the Coins

While the symbols struck on the Hasmonean coins carefully abide by the
prohibition of graven images, they also seem to have been carefully chosen
to convey clear messages—especially the concepts of military might,45 vic-
tory,46 and royalty47 by the Hasmonean rulers. Jacobson notes that “mili-
tary achievement was one of the defining characteristics” of the dynasty.48
However, there is no reason to believe that any symbol used on coins had
a unique meaning, rather the language of symbols (semiotics) is often con-
veniently ambivalent and encompasses multiple aspects.
All of the symbols used on the Hasmonean coins are derived from
previous use on Seleucid coins and other earlier coins. In this context, Noy
notes, “Employing earlier iconography…made it easier for the user (e.g.,
consumer) to understand coin types’ symbolism, and possibly the coins’
denominations.”49
Helmet
The helmet is the most overtly military symbol on these coins, and it ap-
pears on the first coin bearing the name of Hyrcanus I. The crested Boetian
helmet (no. 6167) is nearly identical to the helmet shown on the half-prutah
coin struck under Hyrcanus I with the name of Antiochus VII (no. 6166).
Thus, a familiar symbol, not a graven image was selected. Military and
bold, the helmet was clearly a symbol of victory. Some have suggested that
the helmet was selected to refer to a specific military event, but it is also
possible that Hyrcanus I was celebrating his victory of independence with
the first Hasmonean coin carrying the name and title of the high priest of
the Jews written in paleo-Hebrew. Helmets also appear later, on the two
largest denominations of Herod I’s dated coin series.
Wreath
While avoiding the use of graven images, Judeans needed a format to re-
place the likeness of a dynast or a god. They chose a wreath (likely olive
or laurel) encompassing a paleo-Hebrew inscription naming the issuing
authority. This choice was an authoritative substitution for a portrait. The
wreath itself had long been associated with victory and royalty in Greco-
Hellenistic coins going back to the fifth century bce. Victory wreaths ap-
peared on Seleucid coins between around 162 bce and the time of Hyr-
canus I’s independent rule (after 129 bce).50 Noy adds that “The mention
of wreaths in Hellenistic Jewish literature reflected and reinforced its ac-
ceptance…. that wreaths were depicted on official objects such as coins…
suggests its significance was greater than mere adornment.”51
Meshorer also observes that the wreath was a popular metaphor in
rabbinic sources, and that in the Jerusalem Temple, wreaths adorned the
altar, the Holy Ark, and the showbread table.52
Noy concludes that the Hasmonean wreath “signified either the gen-
eral victory of the Hasmoneans, or possibly Hyrcanus’ conquests after the
death of Antiochus VII [in 129 bce].”53 He further suggests that at this
time, “a Jewish symbol of victory may not have existed. Thus, when [Hyr-
canus] sought a symbol of victory for his coins, he naturally chose from
the various symbols in use by his neighbors…and the wreath apparently
contravened no prohibitions. It was subsumed into acceptable Jewish ico-
nography and subsequently became common on Jewish coins as well as
other media (architecture decoration, funerary objects, oil lamps, etc.).”54
Cornucopia
The cornucopia,55 a hollow animal horn, was used as a container for many
purposes (Fig. 6.2). As the overflowing “horn of plenty,” the cornucopia
contained agricultural fertility symbols such as ears of grain, bunches of
6.2. Bronze ring inlay with cornucopia

and branches, c. first century ce. (Hendin
collection at the Israel Museum).
grapes, poppies, and pomegranates. On Hellenistic coins, the cornucopia is

often associated with Tyche, the city goddess, or Demeter, goddess of the
earth. According to Barag and Qedar, the cornucopia was also “re-inter-
preted and given some Jewish meaning, perhaps connected with the fertil-
ity of the Land of Israel.”56 Romanoff writes, “The cornucopias appearing
alone, without the goddesses...were abstract symbols. In this respect the
horns of plenty were akin to the Jewish symbols.”57
Meshorer adds, “It is logical to assume that the symbol filtered into
Judaism as an object related to fertility, and then acquired additional Jew-
ish connotations.... In Jewish life animal horns were used for a number of
purposes, including as an oil container, an object to anoint kings, or as ‘sho-
fars’—musical instruments of the Temple service.”58 The use of the animal
horn as a holder for oil is referred to during the coronation of King David:
Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his
brethren (I Samuel 16: 13).
Possibly, the cornucopia became a symbol for the ancient Jews because
of the legendary richness of the ancient Holy Land—the land of milk and
honey. We know, for example, that the Jews in Judea used cornucopias in
the first few centuries bce/ce not only on coins, but on other small objects
such as seals, rings, amulets, and also in larger architectural contexts. A
stone table fragment depicting splayed cornucopias with a round object
between was found in the excavations of the Jewish Quarter of the Old
City of Jerusalem and is on display at the Israel Museum (Fig. 6.3).59 This
fragment dates from the first century bce to the first century ce. Motifs
of splayed, paired, and single cornucopias are prolific throughout the Hel-
lenistic and Roman world on coins (Fig. 6.4) and mosaics. The use of these
motifs on Hasmonean coins is certainly derivative.
The Hasmonean cornucopia design was formed with two symmetri-
cally splayed horns of plenty joined at their narrow bottoms between two
leaves.60 On the best-style coins, a ribbon with a bow (fillet) is seen tied
around each cornucopia; each horn contains an ear of grain and a bunch
of grapes. Between the cornucopias is a poppy seedpod or a pomegranate
on a long, thin stalk.
Since the splayed cornucopias with pomegranate/poppy appeared on
the opposite side of the wreath/paleo-Hebrew coins of Hyrcanus I, Noy
suggests that they “symbolized the fruits of victory (literally and figura-
tively): abundance and fertility.”61
6.3. Herodian period stone table fragment found in excavations of Jerusalem’s Old
City Jewish Quarter depicting splayed cornucopias with a round object between.
(Israel Museum)
6.4. Bronze coins of Alexander Zebina, 128–122 bce, with filleted cornucopias in
same direction, and splayed with intertwined ends (enlarged).
Mattityah Antigonus, the last Hasmonean king (40–37 bce), struck a

few coins similar to the earlier Hasmoneans, but also struck larger-denom-
ination coins with splayed cornucopias with no design element between
and coins with a single cornucopia. A variation of this design that appears
on many small objects, but not on coins, shows a lily between the cornuco-
pias. This combination seems to appear only in Jewish art (Figs. 6.8, 6.9).
The cornucopia was used in a different fashion by Herod the Great and
his son Herod Archelaus, who replaced the pomegranate/poppy and ears
of barley “by a caduceus, a clearly pagan symbol,”62 according to Meshorer.
Herod seems to have taken great care that the symbols on his coins
would not appear either too Jewish or too pagan, reflecting his attempts to
bridge the two cultures with his own reign. Herod, after all, was a client of
Rome and took over the popular Hasmonean dynasty by force.
After Herod I and his son Archelaus, cornucopias show up a few times
as symbols clearly intended to acknowledge the local Jewish population.
Two issues of the prefects and procurators of Judea, a Roman administra-
tion coin from the pre-royal period of Agrippa II struck at Sepphoris with
Vespasian’s name (no. 6273), and coins of Agrippa I and II (nos. 6308,
6.6. Cluster of ears of grain and poppy-

heads, detail from the Tellus Relief of
6.5. Gold pomegranate decoration the Ara Pacis Augustae, Rome (conse-
from Judea c. 8th–6th century bce. crated 9 bce).
6321, 6327, 6349, 6355) depict cornucopias as significant reverse motifs,

as do city coins of Tiberias and Neapolis.
Poppy vs. Pomegranate

The fruit or seedpod symbol between the cornucopias is not exactly clear—
in either appearance or meaning (Figs. 6.5 and 6.6). The object appears on
the coins of all of the Hasmonean rulers. A poppy seedpod likely appears
on a coin of Herod I (no. 6026). Pomegranates are a major feature on the
silver sheqels and half-sheqels of the Jewish War.
The poppy and pomegranate are from unrelated plants, but if one ig-
nores scale, there is a visual similarity.
The first scholar to publish his opinion on the object between the
cornucopias was Jean-Jacques Barthélemy in 1749, who called it a poppy
flower.63 In 1794, Eckhel64 followed and, in 1850,65 Cavedoni called it a
poppy-head, as did Madden in 1864. None of these scholars further ex-
plained their identification, although Madden noted that the poppy-head
“fits so well into the cornucopia.”66
These scholars understood that there was a close connection between
the cornucopia and poppy, since both are attributes of Demeter/Ceres
(Fig. 6.7).
Meshorer also noted this but suggested that pomegranates were also
attributes of Demeter.67 Meshorer did not cite his source and was incorrect
to include the pomegranate with the pair of cornucopias. In this context,
the pomegranate is not an attribute of Demeter but rather of her daughter,
Persephone. Meshorer was convinced that the object between the cornu-
6.7. Vespasian denarius show-

ing Demeter seated, holding
poppy head in r. hand and cor-
nucopia in l. Ephesus mint.
copias was a pomegranate, following Romanoff68 and de Saulcy, who was

the first to do so but also offered no justification.69
More recent scholars may have identified the object as a pomegran-
ate because it has a special place in Jewish religious tradition. However,
it is clear that Jewish themes only appear on ancient Judean coins during
times of great stress—Mattathias Antigonus’s battle with Herod’s Roman-
supported takeover, the Jewish War, and the Bar Kokhba Revolt.
During the holiday of Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles), pomegran-
ates are among the chief decorations hung in the sukkah (the hut covered
by branches). Many Jewish families also use the pomegranate as part of
the celebration of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. This ruby-red
fruit also represented some aspects of fertility from very early times. The
pomegranate, for example, was among the fruits given to humankind by
the goddess Hathor. In ancient Greece, the pomegranate was often worn
as a fertility amulet.
The pomegranate was one of the symbolic plants used to decorate
the Jerusalem Temple.70 Josephus reports that pomegranates adorned
the golden menorah in the Temple, accompanied by lilies and bowls. The
robes of the high priest were also decorated with pomegranates (Exodus:
25–26). A famous ivory pomegranate from a priestly scepter, dating to the
Israelite Period (Iron Age II), was on prominent display in the Israel Mu-
seum. This object, with a paleo-Hebrew inscription referring to the priests
of the Temple, was believed to be among the few remaining artifacts from
King Solomon’s Temple.71 However, many experts now consider the ivory
pomegranate may be a genuine antiquity from the Bronze Age (i.e., pre-
First Temple period) but the inscription is a modern addition and so this
item was removed from display at the Israel Museum. We have no other
proof that any sort of pomegranate-tipped scepter was linked to the Jeru-
salem Temple.
A close study of the object on the coins, however, shows that it is
uncertain—it could have been intended as either a pomegranate or a
poppy head.
It is possible that the designer or first celator to cut a die for the coins
of Hyrcanus I fully intended the object to be either a poppy or pomegran-
ate. Either object was difficult to depict in such a small space. Thus, with-
out clear guidance, as the designs moved down the Hasmonean dynasty
from Hyrcanus I to Mattityah Antigonus, it is possible that each celator
worked on his own interpretation. The motif of the splayed cornucopias is
consistent, but it becomes more schematic over time. The highest quality
engraving appears on the coin with an “A” above the Hebrew (no. 6171).
On many examples, the object appears to be a pomegranate. On the
other hand, other coins look much more similar to a poppy pod (no. 6176),
while other coins of Jannaeus are so schematic that the object appears al-
most as a flower rather than a fruit or seedpod.
Both the poppy seedpod and the pomegranate symbolize agricultural
riches, like the cornucopia and ear of grain. Agricultural richness is one of
the themes publicized on Hasmonean coins.
However, the exact identity of the motif, while on one hand carefully
thought out and executed to fill the face of a small coin without any graven
images, was on the other hand not fully understood even by the engravers
who made the coins.72
“It seems likely,” Klimowsky wrote, “that those emblems were being
given a transcendental meaning whose exact contents, however, we can but
guess....”73
Filleted Palm Branch

Meshorer suggests the palm branch used on the Hasmonean coins was
part of a lulav, a multi-branched symbol of Sukkot (Tabernacles). He also
notes that it “is tied with a ribbon at its upper end.”74 Jacobson points out
that this kind of ribbon or band of cloth, called a fillet, on a palm branch
“is a well-attested Greek victory symbol, often borne by the goddess Athe-
na....”75 Jacobson adds this fillet was “indicative of a royal diadem.”76 He
explains that a passage in I Maccabees 13:51 reports, “the waving of palm
branches in the ceremonial procession of Simon and his entourage, cel-
ebrating their conquest of the Akra fortress overlooking the Temple and
the capitulation of its Seleucid garrison in 141 bce…. It is quite likely that,
on this occasion, in celebrating an important Hasmonean victory, the palm
branches were festooned with ribbons…. Simon Thassis decreed that the
day of his triumphal entry with his enthusiastic followers into the Akra
was to be observed as an annual festival….”77
Lily or Rose?
The lily, or shoshanah in Hebrew, was considered a standout among flowers.
Its fragile beauty, combined with the fact that it bloomed rapidly—thus
linking it to fertility—enhanced its position.78
There are three forms of flowers on the Hasmonean coins (Fig.
6.8). First is the flower on the earliest prutah struck with the name of
Antiochus VII (no. 6165). A second form appears on the half-prutot
6.8. Lillies (top row) and roses on Hasmonean period coins. (Graphic: Fontanille.)
6.9. Bronze pilgrim’s rings with lily and

double cornucopia designs c. 2nd–1st
century bce from Jerusalem. (Hendin
Collection at the Israel Museum).
of Hyrcanus I (nos. 6170 and 6173) and a prutah of Jannaeus (no. 6184).
Finally, on a prutah of Jannaeus, a lily appears in similar form to the lily on
a Yehud coin (no. 6060).
The earliest lily appears on Yehud coins, followed by the coins of An-
tiochus VII struck at the Jerusalem mint during the reign of Hyrcanus I.
This coin was a transitional issue from Seleucid domination to Hasmo-
nean control. The selection of the lily seems to be based on its ornamental
use in the Jerusalem Temple. Lilies, along with 200 pomegranates, graced
the capitals of the two pillars, Yachin and Boaz, at the entrance. Lilies
also appeared on other ornamental and ritual objects, and many tools
of everyday life (Fig. 6.9). The lily was a symbol of Jerusalem itself and,
as previously noted, Hoover suggests it replaces the obverse portrait of
Antiochus VII’s Jerusalem issue in order to satisfy Jewish needs to avoid
the use of graven images.79
Observing the lily on the half-prutot of Hyrcanus I and the prutah of
Jannaeus, Romanoff notes, “Strange as it may seem, the lily on the Jewish
coins resembles the Rhodos flower—the rose. This seeming inaccuracy is
explained by the generic term shoshan which might have included such
flowers as the lotus and even the rose.”80 Rabbinic sources refer to a “lily-
rose,” which is a symbol of Israel, as well as a “soft lily” and the “lily of the
valley.”
6.10. Rose of Rhodes on handle from wine amphora imported from Rhodes, Hel-
lenistic period c. 125 bce. Found at Sepphoris. (Author photo.)
This was likely not an innacuracy at all. It’s not a surprise to find the
rose of Rhodes, a symbol of Hellenistic authority, on Hasmonean coins.
Ariel has published many amphora handles with Rhodian flower stamps,
dated from around 260 to 140 bce, that have been excavated in Jerusalem
(Fig. 6.10).81 They are widely found in excavations around Israel. Jacob-
son concludes, “Viewed from Jerusalem, Rhodes, not Rome was seen as
the major economic power in the region, and it is this perspective that is
so vividly reflected in the coinage of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jan-
naeus… [It] may be seen as a haunting emblem or ‘logo’ and an instance of
branding in antiquity that was so successful that it displaced for a time the
lily as the floral symbol of Judea.”82
On the half-prutah coin of Hyrcanus I, the rose-like flower appears
between two ears of grain (nos. 6170, 6173), which provide additional
symbolism relating to agriculture and fertility.
Are all of the flower forms on Hasmonean coins meant to be inter-
preted as lilies, or were they intended as different flower species? We may
never know, but we will refer to those that appear to be lilies as such, and
those that are nearly identical to the Rhodian symbol will be called “rose.”
Anchor, Aphlaston, and Star

The anchor and star were both Hellenistic symbols of authority; the in-
verted anchor appeared on Seleucid coins and the star had been a Macedo-
nian royal emblem.83 While the lily had been used as a Jewish symbol for
hundreds of years, the anchor was a Seleucid symbol officially introduced
in Judea on the early coins of Antiochus VII/Hyrcanus I. The anchor, first
appearing on an early coin of Antiochus VII/Hyrcanus I, is said to have
appeared on the ring of Seleucus I and may have initially referred to naval
strength. The image frequently appears as both a symbol and countermark
in the Seleucid series. The anchor is apparently depicted upside down on

both the early Seleucid and Hasmonean issues, as determined by the cor-
rect placement of the coins relative to their inscriptions. This was a puzzle
to me until a seafaring friend observed that anchors are invariably stored
upside down, in ready position to be pushed overboard as needed.
Jannaeus’s first use of the anchor was on his own rose/anchor issue (no.
6184). Jannaeus later used the anchor on his dated series of light prutot (no.
6191), as well as the related undated issues (no. 6195), likely also issued
by his successors, and on lead tokens (no. 6193). This use of the anchor
on Jannaeus’s largest single coin series, struck late in his reign, may have
been related to his conquest of a number of the coastal cities, which greatly
strengthened his empire. Jannaeus also operated a boat dock at Khirbet
Mazin on the Dead Sea.84 Jacobson suggests that the Hasmonean anchor
announces to the population equality with the Seleucid kings.85
Since Herod I was paranoid about his heritage, and sought every
opportunity to underline his role as successor to the Hasmonean kings,
he probably used the anchor as a matter of familiarity. Its use, along
with the splayed cornucopias, also common on Hasmonean coins, un-
derlined ties with the Hasmoneans that Herod gained by his marriage
to Mariamne (whom he later murdered). His son Herod Archelaus also
frequently used an anchor on coins. Herod’s special interest in the coastal
cities, specifically Caesarea Maritima, must also be mentioned as a pos-
sible factor in this symbolism.
The aphlaston, also previously used on Seleucid coins, appears on the
reverse of the Antiochus VII helmet coin struck in Jerusalem. Jacobson
points out that the Hasmonean mausoleum, erected by Simon Thassis,
which has not survived, consisted of seven pyramids in memory of his par-
ents and brothers,86 fully decorated with “trophies of armor for a perpetual
memorial, and between the trophies carved ships, plainly visible to all at
sea…” (I Maccabees 13:28–30).
“It is evident,” Jacobson adds, “that the decoration was deliberately
chosen to celebrate the military achievements of the Maccabees and there-
fore the funerary monument was also a tropaeum or victory memorial.” In
this context, we can clearly place the aphlaston as a military symbol. It
later appears on a coin of Herod I, where it is again linked to a tradition
of naval victory.87
The star in various forms was a common element in ancient coins long
before its first use by Jannaeus. Because of its link to the heavens, the star
was used as a symbol in virtually every ancient civilization. It may seem
like a pagan image, but the Jews adopted it, along with other astrological
signs and symbols. Meshorer cites a Talmudic quotation, “Stars and plan-
ets pray for me,” to underline this connection. He further notes, “Despite
the biblical injunction against astrology (Deuteronomy 4:19), the stars
were inevitably used by the Jews to calculate weeks, months, festivals, and
other important dates. Such astronomical observations also included some

emphasis on astrological concerns.”88
Diadem
On the prutah coins of Jannaeus, the star is surrounded by a diadem (no. 6189),
which has also been incorrectly described as a circle or a wheel. The er-
ror occurs because the majority of the Jannaeus star and diadem types
are not fully centered, so the diadem’s knot is clear only on relatively few
specimens. This combination of the star and the diadem originated under
Jannaeus, and his name and title “King Alexander” are incorporated into
the motif. According to Kanael, the diadem was the Hellenistic symbol
of royalty and the star was the Jewish symbol for monarchy, derived from
the phrase in Numbers 24:17, “There shall come a star out of Jacob and a
scepter shall rise out of Israel.”
John Hyrcanus I (Yehohanan)

135–104 bce
John Hyrcanus I ruled from 135 bce until his death in 104 bce. He was
the son of Simon Thassi and nephew of the folk hero Judah the Maccabee.
The young Jewish kingdom lost a great deal of prestige when he died after
a 30-year reign.89
“The reign of Hyrcanus is at once the pinnacle and the turning-point
of this period. He not only carried on his father’s work, but completed it.
Under his predecessors, Judea was confined to a narrow space, and even
within these bounds, there were territories in the possession of foreign
foes. Hyrcanus enlarged the boundaries to the north and to the south, and
thus released the State from the external pressure that had been restrict-
ing its growth. His genius for war was aided by fortunate circumstances in
bringing about these happy results,”90 according to Graetz.
Hyrcanus’s Hebrew name, Yehohanan, appears on all of his coins.
Some believe that the governing council, referred to on coins as Hever ha-
Yehudim, became known as the Sanhedrin during his reign or shortly after
it. Apparently satisfied with the title high priest for all of his life, he never
assumed the title of king; although on his earliest coins he styled himself
“head” (head = ‫ )ראש‬of the Hever ha-Yehudim (nos. 6167–6170).
While his reign was successful by all accounts, it began and ended dur-
ing difficult times. When he ascended, he was unable to avenge his father.
Simon was murdered by Ptolemy (Hyrcanus’s brother-in-law), and Hyrca-
nus confined Ptolemy in the fort of Dagon. But every time Hyrcanus at-
tempted an attack, Ptolemy subjected Hyrcanus’s mother to cruel tortures on
the walls of the fort. Although his mother was said to have borne the torture
heroically, and to encourage her son to punish the murderer, Hyrcanus nev-
ertheless was forced to lift his siege after several months. Ptolemy killed his
mother-in-law anyway, together with another of Hyrcanus’s brothers, and
fled to Rabbath Ammon in 135 bce.91
Not long after Hyrcanus’s reign began, Antiochus VII Sidetes and a
large army marched on Jerusalem and besieged the city. The Jews suffered
from a lack of provisions, but the Syrians were short of water. After a
full summer, facing the dangerous Parthians to his east, Antiochus entered
into peace negotiations with Hyrcanus, who had bolstered his army with
mercenaries, mainly Pisidians and Cilicians. (Hyrcanus was the first Has-
monean ruler to imitate the Syrians by hiring mercenaries to supplement
the Jewish army.)
Antiochus first agreed to a seven-day armistice during Sukkot (Taber-
nacles). He even sent bulls with gilded horns for sacrifice and spices for the
Temple incense. In the ensuing treaty, Hyrcanus gave up weapons and paid
tribute for a number of towns that were formerly Syrian. Antiochus in turn
agreed not to suppress the Jewish religion and not to occupy Jerusalem.
Hyrcanus also gave Antiochus hostages—including his own brother—and
paid Antiochus 500 talents of silver. Josephus reports that Hyrcanus took
the initial portion of the payment, 300 talents, from the treasure in King
David’s sepulcher.
Now a vassal to the Syrian king, Hyrcanus marched on his behalf
against the Parthians in 130 bce. Antiochus Sidetes died in this battle,
and his brother Demetrius II ascended to the Syrian throne for the second
time, although he retained power for only a short period.
Hyrcanus exploited this weakness to expand his territories and to send
an emissary to Rome. He captured Medaba in Transjordan. He also con-
quered the Samarians who lived in Shechem and destroyed their temple
on Mt. Gerizim.
Before finishing off the Samarians, Hyrcanus marched against Idu-
mea, conquering the cities of Adora (near Hebron) and Marissa (near Beit
Guvrin). He gave the Idumeans (also called the Edomites, see p. 64) the
choice of leaving the land or converting to Judaism. Most of them chose
the latter.
This episode is said to have been the first example of forced conversion
in Jewish history. Ironically, it later led to the downfall of the Hasmonean
dynasty. The Herodian family was among the Idumeans forcibly converted
to Judaism, and their descendant Herod I (the Great) took the throne from
Hyrcanus’s descendant Mattityah Antigonus in 37 bce.
The Samarians still held their fortified town of Samaria, and they re-
mained hostile to the Jews. Hyrcanus once again turned his army against
the Samarians, sending his sons Antigonus and Aristobulus to attack and
besiege them. The Samarians got some help from Antiochus IX, but Hyr-
canus’s eldest son, Aristobulus, routed the Syrians and chased them to Beit
Shean (Nysa-Scythopolis). Next, Ptolemy Lathyrus, the governor of Cy-
prus, was called to assist the Samarians. In spite of the Syrian reinforce-
ments, the two sons of Hyrcanus successfully conquered Samaria and all of
the Jezreel plain, as well as the town of Beit Shean.
Meanwhile, Hyrcanus remained in Jerusalem, refortifying the walls
and attempting to raise his kingdom to a higher status in the eyes of Rome.
His embassy to Rome requested the Senate to “send envoys to bring about
the restitution of the places taken from the Jews by Antiochus and to esti-
mate the value of the territory ruined during the war.” The Senate granted
this request and issued a decree that “the alliance of friendship be renewed
with the worthy men who have been sent by a worthy and friendly people.”
The Jews received “money from the public treasury and a decree of the
Senate to those who were to conduct them on their way and furnish them
a safe return home.”92
During Hyrcanus’s reign, the sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and
Essenes became well established. Hyrcanus was a faithful student of the
Pharisees, but broke with them late in his life and enacted the Sadducee
beliefs as the basis of law.
Hyrcanus died at age 60 after governing his land for 31 years. Josephus
wrote, “He was the only man to unite in his person three of the highest
privileges: the supreme command of his nation, the high priesthood, and
the gift of prophecy. For so closely was he in touch with the Deity that he
was never ignorant of the future; thus he foresaw and predicted that his
two elder sons would not remain at the head of affairs….”93
“Rosh” and the Chronology

Hyrcanus I’s coins carried two paleo-Hebrew inscriptions:94
Yehohanan the High Priest and the head of the Council of the Jews
Yehohanan the High Priest and the Council of the Jews
Many scholars previously believed that the Hebrew word rosh (head)
was inserted late in Hyrcanus I’s reign. Rappaport, however, argued that
the “rosh” series were the first coins struck under Hyrcanus I.95 Ariel agrees,
“Cogent reasons for arguing that Hyrcanus’ first coins bore the legend
[with rosh] are not difficult to find. From the time of his father Simon
Thassi’s death Hyrcanus was made high priest and became de facto politi-
cal head of the ethnos. Consequently, there is every reason to believe that
Hyrcanus headed up a ‘council of the Jews.’”96
The actual meaning of the Hebrew word hever, translated here as
“council,” has been broadly discussed.97 Perhaps the word referred to the
“community,” to the “council,” and perhaps even the Great Assembly or
Sanhedrin itself. 98 But as Ariel points out, “whatever the Council of the
Jews was, Hyrcanus was head of it.”99
It seems likely that the denominational series of three rosh coins
(nos. 6167–6170) was struck sometime after that, we suggest, perhaps ear-
ly in the reign of Alexander Zabinas. All three of the types of rosh coins
are quite rare, the most common is the splayed-cornucopias type. The rar-
ity suggests they were struck only for a brief period of time and perhaps
the word rosh was removed in an accommodation by Hyrcanus I with the
Seleucid king over political governance versus religious governance of the
semi-autonomous Jewish state. Josephus’s reports that Hyrcanus I “flour-
ished greatly during the reign of Alexander Zabinas” and was a friend of
the king.100
Hyrcanus I’s next coin series was the type with the large Greek-style
 above the paleo-Hebrew inscription. This large, decorative letter in a
dominant position suggests that Hyrcanus “made this type a sign of his
alliance with Zabinas….”101 Barag and Qedar102 and Hoover103 agree, al-
though some extend their explanations to the other smaller, cruder mono-
grams that sometimes appear on the reverse (see below). Meshorer has
pointed out that the Hyrcanus type with the  above Hebrew is a nicely
centered, well-struck coin far more frequent than the other types of usually
poorly made wreath/cornucopia coins.104 It is possible that if the coin was
indeed struck as part of a tribute and concession to the Seleucid king, then
many examples were deliberately struck as a kind of “commemorative” to
be widely distributed to Seleucid officials. Overall, this explanation seems
superior to earlier ideas such as Stein’s 1943 theory, suggesting that the 
monogram on the obverse refers to Hyrcanus I’s son and successor, Aris-
tobulus I. Kindler, among others, suggested that the obverse  monogram
referred to Hyrcanus II’s mother, Queen Salome Alexandra.
Hyrcanus I’s principal coin inscription, which became formulaic for
his descendants, was, “Yehohanan the high priest and the Council of the
Jews” inside a wreath. This clearly stated that it was not the high priest
alone who ruled the Jews, but that he shared governance with his council.
“Judea was not a monarchy but a diarchy,” Kanael explains.105
Monograms
Besides the aforementioned large  monogram, a significant number of
Hyrcanus I’s coins carry other small Greek letters or monograms (Fig. 6.11).
One previous explanation suggests a continuing relationship with Seleucid
rulers. Meshorer’s early idea was based on the now disproven theory that
Hyrcanus II minted the Yehohanan coins. In that case he posited that the
monograms referred to Antipater, who was Herod I’s father and the power
behind the Hyrcanus II.106
Current knowledge suggests Hyrcanus I’s coins were patterned after
Seleucid bronze coins. It is likely that these various monograms were sim-
ply the same sort of control marks that appear on most Seleucid bronze
and silver coins. The exact purpose remains unknown, but they may have
referred to magistrates or the location of mints. It is rather less likely that
the engravers of these poor coins bothered to sign them.107
6.11. Letters and monograms noted and drawn by Meshorer that occur on nos.
6167–6174.
Reverse letters or monograms do not appear on all Hyrcanus I’s coins.

They never appear on the types with crude, incomplete inscriptions and
are clearly absent on a number of standard issues. No reverse letters or
monograms appear on any coins of Aristobulus, Jannaeus, or Mattityah
Antigonus. It seems likely, therefore, that these marks were originally used
in imitation of similar Seleucid types, but were dropped part way into the
reign of Hyrcanus I.
Antiochus VII
Mint of Jerusalem
Average weight prutah 2.47 g
6166
6165
6165. AE 14–15mm. Antiochus VII (Sidetes).
Obv: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ (of King Antiochus, bene-
factor), inverted anchor, below anchor AΠΡ (se 182 = 132/1 bce).
Rev: Lily. Struck 132/1 bce.
C
a. AΠΡ along left side of anchor.

b. BΠΡ (Year 181 se), struck 131/0 bce.
c. BΠΡ along left side of anchor.
6166. AE 12–14 mm. Antiochus VII.

Obv: Crested Boeotian helmet with cheek guards.
Rev: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ, aphlaston.
C
This coin was formerly assigned to Ascalon.108
John Hyrcanus I (Yehohanan)

Mint of Jerusalem (unless noted)
Average weight prutah 1.92 g
Mostly vertical axis. Dotted borders both sides.
There are many varieties of Hasmonean prutot with paleo-Hebrew inscriptions that
vary in the number of lines, arrangements of letters, and misspellings or abbreviations.
We list general types.
6167
6167. AE 2 prutot.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in classic style ‫הכהן הגדל ראש חבר היהודים‬
‫( יהוחנן‬Yehohanan the High Priest [and] head of [the] Council of the
Jews), two cornucopias, horns to r., adorned with ribbons.
Rev: Helmet with decorative crest facing r., monogram A below l.
RR
This rare coin is the only Hasmonean type that was not struck with beveled edges, and
for this reason it is suggested that the coin was not struck at the Jerusalem mint. Samaria
is often mentioned as a possibility.
‫יהו‬
‫חנן הכהן‬
‫הגדל רא‬
6168
‫ש חבר ה‬
‫יהדם‬
6168. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in wedge style (Yehohanan the High Priest and
head of the Council of the Jews), within wreath.
Rev: Two cornucopias splayed outward, adorned with ribbons, pome-
granate/poppy between, monogram below r., or as noted below.
S
a. Monogram (see Figs. 6.11 and 6.12 for monograms and locations).
b. Reverse is obverse brockage.
6.12. Observed monogram locations for nos. 6170, 6172, 6174, 6177.
6169. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in classic style (Yehohanan the High Priest and head of
the Council of the Jews) within wreath.
granate/poppy between, monogram below r., or as noted in
Figs. 6.11 and 6.12.
RR
6170. AE half-prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in classic style (Yehohanan the High Priest and head of
the Council of the Jews) in two lines above and below palm branch.
Rev: Rose between two ears of grain, monogram A below l.
RR
‫יהוחנן‬
‫הכהן הגד‬
6171
‫ל וחבר הי‬
‫הודים‬
6171. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in classic style ‫יהוחנן הכהן הגדל וחבר היהודים‬
(Yehohanan the High Priest and [the] Council of the Jews) within
wreath,  above inscription.
granate/poppy between.
C
‫יהוחנן‬
‫הכהן הג‬
6172 ‫דל וחבר‬
‫היהד‬
‫ם‬
6172. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in classic style (Yehohanan the High Priest and the
Council of the Jews) within wreath.
granate/poppy between, no monogram.
CC
a. Monogram AΠ below r.
b. Monogram AΠ below l.
c. Monogram A above l.
d. Monogram A below l.
e. Reverse brockage with monogram A below r.
A number of interesting monogram varieties appear on these coins.

See Figs. 6.11 and 6.12.
‫יהוחנןה‬
‫כהן הגדל‬
6173
‫וחבר הי‬
‫הדים‬
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in classic style (Yehohanan the High Priest and the
Council of the Jews) in two lines above and below palm branch.
Rev: Rose between two ears of grain, monogram A below l.
S
a. Similar without monogram.
‫יהו‬
‫חנן הכהן‬
6174 ‫הגדול‬
‫וחבר ה‬
‫יד‬
6174. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in wedge style (Yehohanan the High Priest and the
granate/poppy between, monogram as noted in Fig. 6.11.
CC
6175. AE prutah, irregular issue.

Obv: Paleo-Hebrew irregular square style (Yehohanan the High Priest...)
within wreath.

CC
a. Script variety.
b. Script variety.
c. Script variety.
d. Script of “wild” style, retrograde.
This group consists of coins with unusual epigraphy, crude, incomplete, and sometimes
illegible monograms do not appear.
‫יהו‬
‫חנן כ‬
6176
‫ה דל ו‬
‫חי‬
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew irregular square style (Yehohanan the High Priest…)
within wreath.
CC
a. Script variety.
b. Script variety.
Crude, angular letters, many errors, the letter ‫ ה‬appears as H or h, the letter ‫ נ‬appears
as e, monograms do not appear.
‫יהוח‬
‫נן הכהן ו‬
6177
‫גל וחבר‬
‫י‬
6177. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew irregular square style (Yehohanan the High Priest…)
within wreath.
CC
Crude, angular letters, many errors, the letter ‫ נ‬appears as u, monograms do not appear.
Judah Aristobulus I (Yehudah)

105/104–103 bce
After the death of Hyrcanus, Aristobulus, the eldest of his sons, trans-
formed the government into a monarchy, and was the first to assume
the diadem… ( Josephus, BJ I: 70).
Judah Aristobulus I, oldest son of Hyrcanus I, struck coins with the name
Yehudah. Josephus reports that Aristobulus was the first Hasmonean who
officially adopted the title “king.” It was probably well into his brief reign
(104 bce) because none of his coins carry that title. The coins of Aristobu-
lus are almost identical to those of his father.
Hyrcanus I had proclaimed that upon his death his wife would become
queen and Judah, his oldest son, would become high priest. His Greek
name, Aristobulus, means “best counselor,” and, according to Graetz, that
alone was enough to give “such offense to the people that they were ready
to ascribe to him the authorship of any evil deed that might occur in the
kingdom. Whilst the Greeks called him fair-minded and modest, the Ju-
deans accused him of heartlessness and cruelty.”109
After his father’s death, Judah quickly imprisoned his mother along
with three of his brothers. His favorite brother, Antigonus, not only re-
mained free, but played an important part in his government. His mother
died in prison. Charitable accounts list the cause as old age, while the gos-
sips whispered that she had been starved to death.
Aristobulus battled against both the Samarians and Syrians and ac-
quired new land for his nation. However, a severe illness caused him to
abandon the campaign and return to Jerusalem. Antigonus fought onward
on his brother’s behalf but returned to Jerusalem for the festivals. His op-
ponents used the occasion of his triumphal return to prod the fatally ill
king into a jealous fit.
Josephus completes this gruesome story: “To Antigonus himself he
sent instructions to come unarmed. To meet the occasion the queen [Aris-
tobulus’s wife, Salome Alexandra, or Shlomozion in Hebrew, who later
followed the Jewish custom by marrying her brother-in-law, Alexander
Jannaeus, after her husband’s death] concerted with the conspirators a very
crafty plot. They induced the messengers to keep the king’s orders to them-
selves, and instead to tell Antigonus that his brother had heard that he
had procured for himself some very fine armor and military decorations in
Galilee; that illness prevented him from paying a visit of inspection; ‘but
now that you are on the point of departure, I shall be very glad to see you
in your armor.’
“On hearing this, as there was nothing in his brother’s disposition to
arouse his suspicions, Antigonus went off in his armor as for a parade. On
reaching the dark passage, called Straton’s Tower, he was slain by the body-
guard; affording a sure proof that calumny severs all ties of affection and
of nature and that of our better feelings none is strong enough to hold out
interminably against envy….
“Remorse for his foul deed had the instant effect of aggravating the
malady of Aristobulus. His mind ever distracted with thoughts of the
murder, he fell into a decline; until sheer grief rendering his entrails, he
threw up a quantity of blood. While removing this, one of the pages in
attendance slipped, so divine providence willed, on the very spot where
Antigonus had been assassinated, and spilt on the yet visible stains of the
murder the blood of the murderer. An instantaneous cry broke from the
spectators, believing that the lad had intentionally poured the bloody liba-
tion on that spot.
“The king, hearing the cry, inquired what was its cause, and, when
no one ventured to tell him, became more insistent in his desire to be in-
formed. At length, under pressure of threats, they told him the truth. With
tears filling his eyes and a groan such as his remaining strength permitted,
he said: ‘My lawless deeds, then, were not destined to escape God’s mighty
eye; swift retribution pursues me for my kinsman’s blood. How long, most
shameless body, wilt thou detain the soul that is sentenced to a brother’s
and a mother’s vengeance? How long shall I make them these drop by drop
libations of my blood? Let them take it all at once, and let heaven cease to
mock them with these dribbling offerings from my entrails.’ With these
words on his lips he expired, after a reign of no more than a year.”110
Chronology
Our epigraphic typology supports the dating of all of the coins with the
name of Yehudah to Aristobulus I.
We can understand this by observing the work of die cutters who op-
erated before, during, and after his reign. For example, the rare Yehudah
type (no. 6178), uses wedge-like characters that likely came from the same
die cutter as the Hyrcanus I coins with the same style (nos. 6168, 6174).
However, the more common Aristobulus coins (no. 6179) use a “block-
style” script almost identical in style to a group of coins of his successor,
Alexander Jannaeus (no. 6180), and probably came from the same die cut-
ter or a close associate. These connections between the workshops of Aris-
tobulus’s predecessor and successor allow us to establish a chronology for
his coins.111 (Not incidentally, the style of the cornucopias on the reverse of
these coins are also stylistically related to the die cutters.)
Judah Aristobulus I (Yehudah)

Mint of Jerusalem
‫יהו‬
‫דה הכה‬
6178 ‫ן הגדו‬
‫וחבר ה‬
‫יהד‬
6178. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in wedge style ‫יהודה הכהן הגדל וחבר היהודים‬
(Yehudah the High Priest and [the] Council of the Jews) within wreath.
R
‫יהוד‬
‫הכהןגד‬
6179 ‫ולוחברה‬
‫יהוד‬
‫ים‬
6179. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in block style (Yehudah the High Priest and the Coun-
cil of the Jews) within wreath.
S
a. Same style but the letter ‫ ד‬is on second line.

Alexander Jannaeus (Yehonatan, Yonatan)
104–76 bce
Most coins attributed to Yehonatan (Alexander Jannaeus) are relatively
straightforward because more than one type carry both the names Ye-
honatan in Hebrew and Alexander in Greek. A translation of Dead Sea
Scroll fragment 4Q448 by Eshel, Eshel, and Yardeni offers this translation
of a 4 × 6-inch fragment:
“Holy city, for King Yonatan and all the congregation of your people
Israel who are in the four winds of Heaven.”112
This appears to be the earliest Dead Sea Scrolls reference to a Jewish his-
torical figure. It most likely uses the name Yonatan for Jannaeus, since he was
the only one who had this name and title at about the time this scroll was
written. There was another Yonatan, the brother of Judah Maccabee, one of
the immediate family members who liberated Jerusalem from the Greeks.
However, that Yonatan had ruled Judea from 157–142 bce and held the title
high priest, but never king. (There is no possibility that this Yonatan issued the
coins with that name, since the Jewish rulers did not mint coins until late in
the reign of Antiochus VII, 138–129 bce.) Thus, since scroll fragment 4Q448
refers to Jannaeus with the name Yonatan, it strongly suggests that both the
Yehonatan and the Yonatan coins were struck by Jannaeus.
Yonatan may also have been no more than a space-saving abbreviated
form of Yehonatan, Jannaeus’s Hebrew name.113 There are a few examples
of no. 6189 where the form of the name between the rays of the star is Yo-
natan rather than Yehonatan. There also are two ancient seal impressions,
apparently belonging to the same person, which are engraved “Yonatan the
King” and “Yehonatan the High Priest.”114
And now the king’s wife loosed the king’s brethren, and made Alex-
ander king, who appeared both elder in age, and more moderate in his
temper than the rest ( Josephus, BJ, I, IV:1).
Alexander Jannaeus, grandson of Simon and great-nephew of Judah

Maccabee, became ruler of the Jews in 104 bce upon the death of his
brother, Judah Aristobulus I. He used the titles high priest and king on his
coins, so for the first time the ruler of the Jews proclaimed equal rank with
other rulers of the Hellenistic world.
The young king was an ambitious warrior, hungry for conquest, and his
reign was prosperous, if bloody. Early in his rule he managed to gain con-
trol of the entire coast of ancient Israel, from Mount Carmel in the north
to Egypt in the south, with the exception of Ascalon (Ashqelon), which
escaped his army because of the city’s strong ties with Ptolemaic Egypt.
Jannaeus’s kingdom was roughly the same size as that ruled by King David.
Jannaeus’s second decade was fraught with internal strife in Judea. He
had surrounded himself with opulence and grandeur. His Hellenization
and militarism deeply disturbed many of his compatriots, particularly the
Pharisees, who devoutly believed the laws of the Torah must be carefully
obeyed and thought Jannaeus was neglecting his sacred duties. In short,
they did not want a Hellenized warrior—and one who obviously enjoyed
this role—as high priest.
Once, his enemies embarrassed Jannaeus by pelting him with fruit
while he officiated over the Feast of Tabernacles in the Temple. The king
retaliated by having several hundred of the rebels killed. Civil war raged in
Judea for six years beginning about 95 bce; according to some accounts,
50,000 Jews perished.
The opposition among the king’s followers encouraged his enemies. In

89 bce, Demetrius III of Syria attempted to invade of Judea and defeated
Jannaeus near Shechem (Nablus). This setback, however, reunited the Jews,
and the renewed unity gave them the power to drive Demetrius out of
their lands.
Toward the end of his reign, Josephus reports, Jannaeus became ill
from heavy drinking, which ultimately led to his death. Before the king
died he was probably involved in a partial reconciliation with the Pharisees.
Names and Titles

Jannaeus struck coins with these names and titles:
Paleo-Hebrew
Yehonatan the High Priest and the Council of the Jews
Yonatan the High Priest and the Council of the Jews
Yehonatan the King
Greek
[Of ] King Alexander
Aramaic
King Alexander, Year 25
King Alexander
Jannaeus struck multilingual coins, but not multi-title coins (no. 6190
is an unusual exception of uncertain meaning). Thus, Jannaeus expanded on
the coin types of his father and brother. He initially copied the wreath/cor-
nucopia coins pioneered by his father, replacing his father`s name with his
own Hebrew name, “Yehonatan,” or a shorter version “Yonatan.” But after
these issues, a change occurred. First, a half-prutah with a palm branch on
one side and lily on the other bore a new paleo-Hebrew inscription: “Ye-
honatan the King” (no. 6183). Thus, according to the coins, Jannaeus’s title
was changed from high priest to king, and mention of the Council of the
Jews was discontinued. The significance of this political body appears to
have been reduced dramatically.
Jannaeus’s first innovation may have been the anchor/rose bilingual
coins with a Greek legend stating, “of King Alexander” (BAΣIΛEΩΣ
AΛEΞANΔPOY) and the paleo-Hebrew “Yehonatan the King.” These
coins feature the anchor design, perhaps resurrected from the coins struck
earlier on the Jerusalem coins of Antiochus VII. Jannaeus’s use of this was
likely to copy a Seleucid royal symbol. It may also refer to his conquest of
a number of the Mediterranean coastal cities, greatly strengthening his
kingdom. Jannaeus’s first anchor coins also depict a rose on their other side
(no. 6184).
The other coin in this royal-title series is of more interest because of

its symbolism. At first glance the design appears to be a wheel with eight
spokes. Madden described this design as a “star with eight rays”115 and
Reifenberg as a “sun-wheel.”116 Kanael, however, made the correct identifi-
cation: a star encircled by a diadem, with the inscription in ancient Hebrew
“Yehonatan the King” within the star.117 Diadems adorned the heads of
kings and princes throughout the ancient world.
Civil war raged in Judea for six years beginning about 95 bce. Kanael
suggests that the Pharisee-controlled government struck the large issue of
crude imitations of the anchor/star coins during their uprising against the
Sadducee king118 and continued to strike them after his death through the
reign of his Queen Salome Alexandra and possibly their sons Aristobulus
II and Hyrcanus II (nos. 6191, 6195).
Among the numismatic aftermaths of this civil war may have been the
issue of two Jannaeus coin types with the inscription for the first (and only)
time altered from paleo-Hebrew script to contemporary Aramaic, the lan-
guage of the people. One of these is dated to 80/79 bce and follows the
anchor/star style with an Aramaic inscription, “King Alexander Year 25.”
(This is the only dated Hasmonean coin type.) The second coin, possibly a
token, with an Aramaic inscription is struck from lead instead of bronze.
Exploring the Overstrikes

The overstruck issues (no. 6185) are especially important. When, why, and
by whom they were overstruck has long been a question. Since the second
coin struck on every example carries the name Yonatan, it is significant.
In 2007, while sorting through a group of Hasmonean coins, I found a
remarkable coin which the dating of the overstrikes. The coin (no. 6189f )
is in effect a triple strike—that is, a typical Yonatan coin overstruck upon
the rose/anchor coin (no. 6184), but I noticed that this anchor/diadem
coin (no. 6189) had been overstruck upon the overstrike. This coin is like
a miniature archaeological excavation, since the first strike referred to “Ye-
honatan,” the second strike referred to “Yonatan” and the third and final
strike once again referred to “Yehonatan.” Since both the first and third
coins are clearly assigned to Jannaeus, the coin sandwiched between the
two Jannaeus strikes must by definition have also been struck during the
rule of the same ruler. This discovery meant (eureka!) that the massive over-
strike issue was struck by Jannaeus and not a successor.119
Hence this established for the first time a positive internal chronology
for these coins and proved that the overstrike of the Yehonatan coins by
the Yonatan coins was undertaken by Jannaeus. I published this coin to-
gether with Israeli archaeologist Ilan Shachar, who had previously argued
in favor of this chronology.120
Even with this knowledge, the reason for the massive overstrike is not
known. Shachar and I noted, “Various attempts have been made to explain
why Jannaeus’ mint chose (or was directed) to overstrike Jannaeus’ anchor/
flower type bearing the title ‘king’ with a cornucopias/inscription type
bearing the title ‘high priest.’ According to Josephus, Jannaeus provoked
a civil insurrection in the course of which thousands were killed. At one
point he tried to appease his enemies. One theory is that Jannaeus’ adop-
tion of the royal title was offensive to many, especially the Pharisees, and
a way to appease them might have been to overstrike stocks of his rose/
anchor coin with a new version of his cornucopias/inscription coin, thus
abandoning the Greek inscription and royal title on the rose/anchor coin
and again promoting his status as ‘high priest.’ Attempts at appeasement
did not succeed, and rival forces asked the Seleucid ruler, Demetrius III,
for military assistance. Demetrius ruled from 96–88 bce and died shortly
after his campaign against Jannaeus. If the appeasement theory is correct,
this would give a time frame of the latter part of Demetrius’ reign for
the overstriking phenomenon. Later issues of Jannaeus coins, which once
again give the title ‘king,’ could reflect his improved self-confidence after
military victories abroad and an end to the civil war.”
Barring the discovery of some lost work by a contemporaneous writer,
it is unlikely that we will ever fully understand why the massive overstrik-
ing took place. But, with the discovery of this double overstrike, one por-
tion of the issue is resolved.
Dead Sea Find

During the late 1980s a massive number of the anchor/diadem coins of
Jannaeus (nos. 6189, 6190) appeared in the Jerusalem market. Published
reports suggest that more than 300,000 coins were found underwater on
the shore of the Dead Sea in an area between Ein Feshka and Khirbet
Mazin. The coins entered the Jerusalem market, and eventually I examined
more than 200,000 of them. The coins had a uniform green patina that
allowed almost all of the coins to be clearly identified without cleaning;
the excellent preservation was “apparently due to the lack of oxygen in the
Dead Sea’s highly saline water.”122 Not only were the coins well preserved,
they had virtually no wear, although there were large numbers of coins
that were struck off center, weakly, or with other minting errors. Virtu-
ally all of the coins were of the anchor/diadem type. Subsequently, 1,735
more coins were found and published in one study and 800 in another.123
These latter coins were found at Khirbet Mazin, a short distance from a
previously excavated boat dock of the Hasmonean kings. The coins were
“in a spot that was submerged in the sea. It is therefore probable that they
came from a sunken boat. The fact that all the coins are almost all of one
type might indicate that they were part of some disbursement. Jannaeus’
army, like that of his father, John Hyrcanus I, included mercenaries. While
payments to mercenaries were certainly made in silver, bronze coins would
have been the fractional currency which may also have been needed in such
payments.”124
In the excavated groups there was a single example of the dated coin
of Jannaeus (no. 6191), which dates the assemblage to 80/79 bce or later.
Eshel and Zissu describe this coin deposit as possibly being the result
of the Hasmonean Jews following a religious concept of “nullifying” ob-
jects, including coins, by throwing them into the Dead Sea.125
He who sets aside coin for a sin offering, which were lost, and [who]
offered up a sin offering in their stead, and afterward the coins turned
up—let them go to the Salt Sea. (M. Tem. 4:2)
However, this theory seems an unlikely scenario; if a large number of

people carried coins to the Dead Sea, the assemblage would almost cer-
tainly consist of different types of coins from various rulers, at least some
showing considerable wear. On the other hand, such a massive number of a
single coin type, all virtually uncirculated, with one or two outliers, instead
suggests some kind of official coin shipment.
The Lead Pieces

The lead coins or tokens of Jannaeus were mentioned in 1871 by de Saulcy
in one of the earliest scholarly works on the coins of the Jews.126 In 1967,
Meshorer wrote that he knew of only about 20 examples of the lead is-
sue.127 In 1974, Arie Kindler observed that the Jannaeus lead coins “seem
to have been issued for only a short period during some temporary eco-
nomic crisis.”128 Here are a few points regarding the Jannaeus lead pieces
deduced from more recently acquired knowledge.
1. Although the lead coins remain far scarcer than bronze coins of Jan-
naeus, the lead issues are no longer as rare as once believed. Several small
hoards have been found, and I have examined more than 600 specimens. A
large number of the coins were reportedly found in modern Jordan, which
suggests they may have been minted in that area.
2. It seems clear that none of the lead issues was actually uniface; all
were intended to carry reverse legends in Aramaic, but they are weakly
struck or worn due to the softness of lead.
3. A number of die varieties of the lead pieces exist, which indicates
that this was probably a larger issue than originally believed.
The questions raised are two-fold: When were the lead pieces issued
and why?
Epigraphically, the legends on the lead and dated bronze issues are
similar. Since these are the only two types of Jannaeus coins with Aramaic
legends, one can conclude the coins were struck around the same time.
To find clues to the motivation for these lead pieces, one looks at what
was happening in about 80/79 bce. Not many years before (c. 95 bce), a
bloody civil war raged in Judea. It stemmed from rivalry between the Sad-
ducees, the party supporting the king, and the more traditional Pharisees.
Bad will between the factions did not end with the war, but continued for
several years thereafter.
Jannaeus died in 76 bce, but it is believed that for several years before
his death he adopted a more benevolent policy toward the rival Phari-
sees, encouraged by his wife, Salome Alexandra. One method for a ruler
to ingratiate himself was to offer gifts to be redeemed for food or other
commodities; this largess was called congiarium. The Roman emperors
issued special tokens of bronze or even precious metals, but in the poor
province of Judea where only bronze coins were struck, lead may have
sufficed. Since the language of the masses during Jannaeus’s time was
Aramaic, it is not far-fetched to conclude that the lead issues in question
were tokens issued by the Jewish king to the masses to be redeemed for
gifts. This possibility may also explain the several small hoards made up
exclusively of these lead pieces.129
This lead issue by Jannaeus in about 79/78 bce may represent the first
Jewish tokens. (Other apparently Judean lead pieces—nos. 6193, 6194—
were found at Mt. Gerizim but so far without legends.) They remind us of
a time when the Jewish nation was ruled by royalty, but even to a powerful
monarch, the will of his people was important enough to warrant signifi-
cant consideration.
These lead pieces are often found scattered among other Judean prutah-
size coins of the time in surface or near-surface finds as well as small
hoards. We can thus conclude that once they outlived their usefulness as
tokens, the lead pieces entered circulation at a specified value, possibly a
prutah or a half-prutah.
Another lead object that we tentatively identified as a Jannaeus coin or
token (GBC 5, no. 1156) has been proven by Farhi to be a fragment of the
lead frame of a Roman/Byzantine mirror c. fifth century ce (Fig. 6.13). He
suggests that these objects “were used as currency during the fifth century ce
alongside other small bronze and lead issues.”130
Alexander Jannaeus (Yehonatan)

Mint of Jerusalem
Average weight prutah 2.15 g unless noted.
‫יהונ‬
‫תןהכהן‬
6180 ‫הגדולחב‬
‫רהיהו‬
‫דים‬
6.13. Listed in GBC 5 as a possible Hasmonean lead token (no. 1156), Farhi (2013)
reported on this fragment of a fifth-century Roman/Byzantine lead mirror frame,
excavated at Horbat Sher, which proves the later origin for these objects. (Photo
Yoav Farhi.)
6180. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in block style ‫יהונתן הכהן הגדל וחבר היהודים‬
(Yehonatan the High Priest and the Council of the Jews) within wreath.
Rev: Two cornucopias splayed outward, adorned with ribbons,
pomegranate/poppy between.
CC
‫יהו‬
‫נתן הכ‬
6181 ‫הן הגד‬
‫ל וחבר ה‬
‫יהם‬
6181. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in classic style (Yehonatan the High Priest and the
CC
a. Struck on a square flan.
‫יהונת‬
‫ן הכן גדל‬
6182 ‫וחבר ו‬
‫יהודי‬
‫ם‬
6182. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew inscription in cursive style (Yehonatan the High
Priest and the Council of the Jews) within wreath.
C
‫המלך‬
‫יהונתן‬
6183
Obv: Upright palm branch flanked by paleo-Hebrew in classic style
‫( יהונתן המלך‬Yehonatan the King).
Rev: Lily.
RR
‫המלך‬
6184
‫יהונתן‬
6184. AE prutah, average weight 1.71 g.

Obv: Rose flanked by paleo-Hebrew in classic style (Yehonatan the King).
Rev: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY (of King Alexander), inverted anchor
within circle.
S
a. Paleo-Hebrew is in cursive style.
‫ינתן‬
‫הכהן ה‬
6185 ‫גדל וחבר‬
‫היהד‬
6185. AE prutah, average weight 1.71 g, all are overstruck.

Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in classic style (Yonatan the High Priest and the
C
a. Overstruck on 6184, paleo-Hebrew over anchor, cornucopias over
rose.
b. Overstruck on 6184, paleo-Hebrew over rose, cornucopias over
anchor.
c. Overstruck on 6183.
Since there are so many of these overstrikes and the original lily/anchor type is far more
scarce than the overstrikes, it may be surmised that almost all of these coins were re-
struck before they left the mint rather than upon recall from circulation, which would
have led to a far less consistent output.
‫ינתן‬
‫הכהן ג‬
6186 ‫דל וחב‬
‫ר יהדי‬
‫ם‬
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew highly stylized ‫( ינתן הכהן גדל חבר יהדם‬Yontan the
High Priest and the Council of the Jews), within wreath. Many letters
are illegible.
C
a. More stylized legend.
b. Wildly stylized legend.
c. Overstruck on Jannaeus type 6184.
Could 6186c be a coincidental overstrike on this Jannaeus coin, or does it suggest that this
is a Jannaeus coin that was deliberately overstruck on another Jannaeus coin as 6185?
These inscriptions appear in many varieties. The highly stylized letters are surpris-
ingly readable, but there are often errors. Note the abbreviated spelling of the king’s
name as on the overstruck issue of 6185.

Obv: Crude paleo-Hebrew ‫( חבר יהדם‬Council of the Jews) in crude script,
within crude wreath.
S

Obv: Complete imitation of paleo-Hebrew inscription within highly
stylized wreath. Inscription is illegible.
Rev: Two cornucopias splayed outward, pomegranate/poppy between,
very crude.
S
‫יהונתן‬
6189 ‫המלך‬

Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in classic style (Yehonatan the King) between the
rays of star with eight rays within diadem.
Rev: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY (of King Alexander) around inverted
anchor.
CC
a. Extremely heavy example, 6.33 g.

b. Irregular issue overstruck on an earlier Hasmonean prutah,
see wreath remnant on obverse.
c. No visible Hebrew legend.
d. Obverse brockage.
e. Reverse brockage.
6189f. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew (Yehonatan the King) between rays of star of eight
rays within diadem, several letters visible (yh)wntn. Part of a dotted
border, visible from 1 to 4 o’clock, represents a trace of a previous
striking.
Rev: ΒΑΣΙΛΕ(ΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY), around inverted anchor, the most
prominent trace of a previous striking is a clearly identifiable por-
tion of the inscription from no. 6185 (cornucopias/inscription
overstruck on anchor/flower).
One known
6190. AE prutah, usually less than 1 g.

Obv: Paleo-Hebrew in crude style (Priest the King) between pellet-like
rays of star within diadem, a Π-like monogram or letter is included.
Rev: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY, finely engraved letters around finely
engraved anchor.
C
a. Obverse brockage, unusual since full legend is clear in both
impressions.
At first glance, this difficult to understand coin appears to be a reduced-weight version,

and inscription error of no. 6189. Barag says that it can hardly “be a mistake or initia-
tive of the die engraver. It seems, rather, that at some point the royal mint issued for po-
litical reasons these double-titled coins and after a very short time refrained from further
issues of that kind.” Barag says Josephus and Rabbinic sources “leave no doubt that the
Pharisees demanded that Hyrcanus I should give up the position of high priest and be
content with his secular power. During the reign of Alexander Jannaeus their attitude
reached an extreme point—the Hasmoneans were priests and therefore not from Da-
vid’s line and thus usurpers of the crown.... The coins described above seem to be related
to that division between the Pharisees and Hasmoneans by presenting the legend ‘Priest
the King.’ The impact of this coin issue was, apparently, thought to be ineffective for the
sake of dynastic propaganda and stopped soon after its introduction.”131
6191 6191a

Obv: Aramaic ‫( מלכא אלכסנדרוס שנת כה‬King Alexander, year 25) around
star of eight rays.
Rev: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY around inverted anchor within cir-
cle, L KE (year 25 = 80/79 bce), made of dots often connected by
fine lines.
C
a. No Greek date at points of anchor.
L KE, stylistically similar to Seleucid coins, refers to Year 25 of Jannaeus, corresponding

to 80/79 bce. Increasingly crude and lighter versions of this coin continue to be manu-
factured both late in the life of Jannaeus and after his death. See nos. 6195, 6196.
‫מלכא‬
6192
‫אלכסנ‬
‫דרוס‬
6192. Lead prutah (or token), average weight 4.10 g.

Obv: Aramaic ‫( מלכא אלכסנדרוס‬King Alexander) usually in three lines.
Rev: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY around inverted anchor in circle.
S
a. Similar but with stylized legends and design.
b. Unstruck lead flan.
Unknown mint, possibly in Jordan based on quantity in market there.
Anonymous Hasmonean Issues

Samaria (?)
6193. Lead prutah (or token).

Obv: Two cornucopias splayed outward, upright rod between.
Rev: Stylized palm tree that appears to be set between two blooming
flowers.
RR
6194
6194. Lead prutah (or token).

Obv: Lily between two splayed cornucopias.
Rev: Three ears of grain or stylized flowers.
RR
Bijovsky, who is studying coins from excavations at Mt. Gerizim for publication, at-
tributes these and similar lead coins to the Hasmonean period based on iconography and
in an archaeological context of second to first centuries bce. “Due to their presence at Mt.
Gerizim, they were probably produced in Samaria.”132
Successors to Jannaeus:
Salome Alexandra (76–67 bce), Hyrcanus II
(67 and 63–40 bce), Aristobulus II (67–63 bce)
Alexander bequeathed the kingdom to his wife Alexandra, being con-
vinced that the Jews would bow to her authority as they would to no
other, because by her utter lack of his brutality and by her opposition to his
crimes she had won the affections of the populace ( Josephus BJ I: 107).
Hyrcanus, to whom even in her lifetime his mother had entrusted the
kingdom, was sole heir to the throne, but in capacity and courage, was
surpassed by Aristobulus. A battle for the crown took place near Jeri-
cho… ( Josephus BJ I: 120).
After the death of Alexander Jannaeus, his queen, Salome Alexandra

(Shlomozion), inherited rule of the ancient land of Israel. During her
reign, Hyrcanus II, her oldest son, was appointed high priest and thus was
regarded as heir to the throne.
Hyrcanus, unlike his grandfather and namesake, was weak and not as
politically sophisticated as his younger brother, Aristobulus II. He became
involved in a bitter struggle when his mother died. Aristobulus was just
the opposite of his brother and had inherited his father’s bellicose nature.
During a skirmish between the two near Jericho, most of Hyrcanus’s men
went over to Aristobulus.
With Aristobulus II now king and high priest (from around 67 to
63 bce), Hyrcanus received an honorary title, “the king’s brother,” but no
power, which he dearly wanted. His ambitions were encouraged by his
advisor, Antipater, an Idumean whose family had been converted to Juda-
ism 50 years earlier by Hyrcanus I. Antipater was a rich chieftain with a
good deal of power. However, he wanted more for himself and his sons.
He thought he might get it through the weak Hyrcanus, so he started to
agitate for him to fight his younger brother and again seize the power he
thought was rightfully his.
Hyrcanus, on Antipater’s advice, fled Jerusalem to the Nabataean king
Aretas III. By making territorial concessions to the Nabataean, Hyrcanus
induced him to join forces against Aristobulus II. Their armies besieged
Aristobulus II in Jerusalem in 65 bce.
At about this time, Pompey’s armies, led by general Marcus Scaurus,
marched into the East. Initially, Scaurus favored Aristobulus II (possibly
due to bribes). However, when Pompey arrived in Syria in 63 bce, the
two brothers laid their claims before him. Antipater went along to sup-
port Hyrcanus.
Pompey, feeling that Hyrcanus was the weaker of the brothers and
hence less likely to cause trouble later, ruled that he was the rightful king.
Aristobulus II and his followers fled to Jerusalem where they fortified

themselves. The great Pompey, terror of pirates and kings, followed. Aris-
tobulus II foolishly tricked and teased Pompey, pretending that he was
going to surrender, but fled instead to safety in Jerusalem. When Pompey’s
men burst into the city after a three-month siege, they inflicted heavy ca-
sualties on the Jews. Pompey entered the Temple’s Holy of Holies, the
inner sanctuary, thus defiling it. For all practical purposes, this act ended
the great Hasmonean dynasty. It would never recover even a fraction of its
previous strength.
Aristobulus II was captured and sent with his children to Rome, where
he was ridiculed and paraded through the streets. Later he would escape
and again try, unsuccessfully, to regain control of Judea. (See no. 6470 for a
Roman Republican issue related to the defeat of Aristobulus.)
Hyrcanus II, now virtually a puppet of Rome, was reappointed high
priest. In 47 bce, he was named “ethnarch,” which meant “ruler of the
people,” but his power was clearly diminished.
With the weak Hyrcanus ruling Judea, Pompey easily cut its size by
granting autonomy to several cities, including Gaza, Gadara, and Marisa.
Furthermore, Pompey’s general Gabinius became governor of Syria, of
which Judea was part. He divided the ancient land of Israel into five dis-
tricts, mainly for taxation purposes.
Antipater, closely allied with Rome, received the more important title
of “procurator” and held most of the power through the duration of Hyr-
canus II’s rule. Antipater’s son Herod was soon to oust the Hasmoneans
and become king.
It is nearly certain that neither Shlomozion nor either of her sons ever
issued coins in their own names. It is possible, however, that many of the
massive number of poorly manufactured, light-weight anchor/star coins
often called “mites” or “leptons” were struck between the death of Jannaeus
and the reign of Mattityah Antigonus.
These crude, small prutot coins reflect a deterioration in both weight
standard and style that probably reflected inflation and devaluation during
the late Hasmonean period. Our metallurgical studies also support a date
during this period for the manufacture of these coins.133 Finally, we have
evidence that the production types and style of these coins may have car-
ried over to some of the early coins minted by Herod I (see Fig. 7.4). This
theory suggests that the “mites” could have been issued at a date closer to
the Jerusalem issues of Herod I.
Jannaeus Successors:
Salome Alexandra, John Hyrcanus II,
or Aristobulus II (?)
Mint of Jerusalem and Perhaps Others

Obv: Aramaic inscription, crude and stylized, mostly illegible, around
star within dotted border.
Rev: Incomplete and stylized Greek inscription around inverted anchor
within circle.
C
a. Same but struck in lead. No Aramaic or Greek.
b. Brockage.
c. Brockage.
d.–i. Varieties.
This coin, copying no. 6191, is found in innumerable varieties, some of which seem to
carry crude linear designs instead of stars on the obverse (d–i). Some were clearly struck
during Jannaeus’s lifetime; other coins of this massive issue were apparently struck under
his successors.
6196. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew instead of Aramaic (Yeho....), partial and crude,
around star within dotted border.
Rev: Stylized and incomplete Greek inscription around inverted anchor
within circle.
RR
Mattityah Antigonus, 40–37 bce

Hatred of Herod had led to [Orodes II] taking part in bringing back the
exiled Antigonus, a son of Aristobulus… ( Josephus, BJ: 239).
By 40 bce, Judea was almost completely dominated by Rome. Antipater

the Idumean had been a powerful official under Hyrcanus II for some
time, and his sons Phasael and Herod were made governors of Jerusa-
lem and Galilee, respectively. Herod, meanwhile, was gaining considerable
power through political alliances, especially with Rome.
In the year 40, Mattityah (Mattathias) Antigonus, youngest son of
Aristobulus II and four generations separated from Judah Maccabee,
bribed the Parthians (Rome’s greatest foe in the area) under Orodes II to
invade Jerusalem and help him win the crown and position of high priest,
still held by his uncle, Hyrcanus II. (It is reported by Josephus that the
bribe to Orodes included some 500 Jewish women.)
When the Parthians and Antigonus’s men marched into Jerusalem

and occupied the Temple Mount, Hyrcanus II with Herod and his troops
retreated to the royal palace. Josephus reports that the Parthians “let loose
on the whole country the horrors of implacable war…and, not content
with raising Antigonus to the throne, delivered up to him Phasael and
Hyrcanus, in chains, for torture. Hyrcanus threw himself at the feet of An-
tigonus, who with his own teeth lacerated his suppliant’s ears, in order to
disqualify him forever, under any change of circumstances, from resuming
the high priesthood; since freedom from physical defect is essential to the
holder of that office.”134
Herod’s brother Phasael, hands bound, “courageously forestalled the
king’s malice by dashing his head upon a rock…he died a hero’s death.
According to another account, Phasael recovered from his self-inflicted
blow, and a physician sent by Antigonus, ostensibly to attend him, injected
noxious drugs into the wound and so killed him.... It is said, moreover,
that before he expired, being informed by a woman of Herod’s escape, he
exclaimed, ‘Now I shall depart happy, since I leave one behind me who will
have vengeance on my foes.’”135
Herod escaped Jerusalem and soon made his way to Rome, where he
was officially designated King of Judea in 40 bce.
Antigonus’s effort went for naught. When Herod returned to Judea
to resume hostilities, he fought Antigonus’s army for more than two years,
albeit without substantial support from Ventidius, Mark Antony’s legate
and eventual victor in the Parthian War. In 37 bce, after a siege of several
months, Herod, with the Roman troops of Gaius Sosius, took Jerusalem
and captured Antigonus, who was later executed at Antioch, thus ending
five generations of Hasmonean rule (see no. 6471, G. Sosius).
During his war against Herod, Antigonus used coins as important
propaganda tools. He rushed out an emergency series that was inferior
in both metal content and workmanship. This issue was the first time a
Hasmonean ruler minted large denomination coins—eight and four pru-
tot—along with a one-prutah type. The flans for these coins were created
when molten metal was poured into a double mold. ( Just such a double
mold, with openings the diameter of the second-denomination coin of
Mattityah, was found in excavations near Jerusalem’s Jaffa Gate, suggesting
this place was the location of Antigonus’s mint.)136
Antigonus struck all three denominations of his coins on these double-
thick flans (Fig. 6.14). The reverse of the larger denominations carries a
Greek inscription, “of King Antigonus,” either outside (8 prutot, no. 6204)
or inside a wreath (4 prutot, no. 6205). However, coins bearing his name
were also struck on normal Hasmonean flans—one type was the extremely
rare menorah/showbread table coin and the other, also scarce, was a basic
imitation of the coins of his predecessors—on their obverse splayed cor-
nucopias with the paleo-Hebrew inscription “Mattityah” or “Mattityah the
Priest.” The coins of Mattityah Antigonus are also struck from a less-pure
copper alloy than the earlier Hasmonean coins.137 One can assume that
6.14. Side view of normal flan (left) and double-thick flan struck under Mattityah
Antigonus. (Drawing: Y. Meshorer)
this alloy was due to dire circumstances during the reign of the last Has-
monean king.
Antigonus’s rule overlapped the first three years of the rule of Herod,
who was named King of Judea in 40 bce.
The Menorah Coins

The last coin issued by Mattityah is unique in its obverse and reverse
images—the first purely Jewish coin based on its motifs. It is a clear
propaganda tool and must have been designed out of political despera-
tion. The coin depicts the two most important cult objects of the Jewish
Temple: the showbread table on one side and the menorah on the other.
The inscriptions are in Greek and paleo-Hebrew, but they are not com-
plete on any known examples.138 The objects were critical symbols of the
Jerusalem Temple.
In the view of some of the people, Antigonus may have violated at
least the spirit, if not the letter, of basic Jewish law by depicting these
symbols of Jewish Temple worship on a coin for ordinary circulation. The
Babylonian Talmud forbids making “a table after the design of the table
[in the Temple] or a candelabrum after the design of the candelabrum.”139
It is not clear if the ban covers only actual reproduction of the objects
or also their images.140 It was only around 200 years later that the menorah
became the most important Jewish symbol. It is likely that at the time the
coin was issued, the showbread table was as important as the menorah as
a symbol of Judaism. This equivalence was perhaps underlined, since the
table is depicted on the side of the coin with the paleo-Hebrew legend,
while the menorah is depicted on the side with the Greek legend.
“Thus, the depiction of the image[s] on a coin minted as early as the
reign of Antigonus is a remarkable and daring phenomenon, which must
be seen in the context of the contemporary historical circumstances. Anti-
gonus may have depicted the candelabrum and the table on his coins both
to encourage his supporters and to remind the people of their duty to pre-
serve the sanctity of the Temple (and its high priest) from the ‘foreigners,’”
Meshorer explains.141
Both the menorah and showbread table appear together in first-century
graffiti scratched onto a plaster wall found in excavations of the Old City
of Jerusalem (Fig. 6.15). Graffiti drawings of five seven-branched meno-
rahs also were scratched into a plaster wall in Jason’s Tomb in Jerusalem,
and these images date to no later than 30/31 ce. Crude menorah designs
6.15. Graffiti of seven-branched menorah and showbread table, below r., from Old
City of Jerusalem dating to the first century ce. (Courtesy D. Barag)
are also scratched into a few ossuaries dating from the mid-first century
bce to the mid-first century ce found in the area of ancient Judea. These
illustrations represent the few menorah or showbread table images prior to
Mattityah Antigonus’s coin.
According to Barag, it is important to keep in mind that at this time
these were “not symbols of Judaism but symbols of the Temple. The idea of a
symbol of Judaism is very late, and much later than the cross as a symbol of
Christianity. Sometime after the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed in 70 ce,
the menorah became a symbol of messianic hopes for rebuilding it.”142 A
menorah and table also appear as part of the Temple booty on the Arch
of Titus in Rome, completed in 81 ce. It was only in the third century ce
that the menorah began to appear more commonly as a symbol of Juda-
ism, frequently on oil lamps and rings or amulets (Fig. 6.16). This suggests
that when we look at the menorah on an ancient coin today, we probably
ascribe an anachronistic meaning to it.
There are two varieties of the showbread table on the coins of Anti-
gonus. One of them (no. 6203) is a plain table, while the other variation
(no. 6203b) has two stacks of bread loaves upon it. Bread itself was an early
symbol of prosperity. Some catalogers have suggested that the showbread
table is not venerated in modern Judaism “because of the importance of
6.16. Various objects dating from the 2nd–6th centuries ce, each depicting a meno-
rah. (Hendin Collection at the Israel Museum.)
bread and the Lord’s Table in Christian services.”143 Barag, a leading expert
on the use of these symbols in ancient times, however, suggests that this
connection is unlikely. “I have often been asked this question about the
bread and the Church. The meaning of wine and bread in the Christian
Church is entirely different and has nothing to do with the Temple and the
hopes of salvation and rebuilding the Temple.”144
It is far more likely, he explains, that the menorah continued as a sym-
bol of Judaism because it was more of a useful device; and heavily publi-
cized by the Romans as important booty removed from the Temple. After
the destruction of the Temple, menorahs were built and used functionally
in synagogues or homes, or graphically used to adorn various objects and
architecture.145
The menorah coins of Mattityah Antigonus are among the most
sought-after ancient Judean coins. For this reason, they are often copied,
sometimes with the intent to deceive unwitting collectors (Fig. 6.17). The
famous Islamic “menorah” coin (of either five or, rarely, seven branches)
dates to the Umayyad post-reform period after 696 ce and has a similar
menorah motif. The Islamic coins, several modern forgeries, and an error in
a 125-year-old (but widely used) book on Jewish numismatics have caused
significant confusion, clarified by Barag.146
In 1864, Madden accepted the 1860 view of Count Melchior de
Vogue, who attributed the coins with a seven-branched menorah and “a
row of four parallel trees” to Abd al-Malik, Islamic ruler of the mid-sev-
enth century. It was only in 1871 that de Saulcy showed that this coin was
actually a coin of Mattityah Antigonus. He also realized that the reverse
design was really the showbread table and not a row of trees.147
Madden corrected the error he picked up from Count Melchior in his
1881 edition. But his 1864 book is the one that is most widely reprinted
6.17. Forgeries of showbread table / menorah prutah of Mattityah Antigonus. The

coin on far left is cast, the others are struck upon old bronze coins. (Hendin Collec-
tion at the Israel Museum.)
(probably because of the smaller format), and this book is especially con-
fusing to modern collectors because the coin with a seven-branched me-
norah and showbread table was shown in a line drawing. That line drawing
is strikingly similar to contemporary forgeries of the Antigonus showbread
table/menorah coin.
In 1967, I purchased a bronze cast copy of the menorah coin that was
not made to deceive collectors but as part of a set of museum replicas.
Some months later, a rather shady dealer of antiquities called me into the
far-back room of his shop in Jerusalem’s Old City, opened a huge safe, and
took out a nicely patinated coin of Mattityah Antigonus. He explained
that I could get a “great bargain” on this coin because of the circumstances
under which he had acquired it. I was naïve, but not stupid. When I first
saw the coin, I assumed it was genuine. I also believed this fellow was
my friend and was really trying to give me a good deal—lucky for me
I couldn’t afford it. However, something about the coin rang a bell, and
when I returned home that evening, I looked at my replica set and sure
enough, the menorah coin was exactly the same, only missing the patina. I
never saw that coin again (or bought from that dealer again!), but I assume
that in better light the telltale traces of casting—pinholes and file marks
on the edge—would have been more easily noticed.
The Islamic menorah coins are easy to distinguish from those issued
by Antigonus (Fig. 6.18). First, the style of the menorah is very different.
Most menorahs on these coins have five branches, but there is a rare va-
riety, possibly struck early in the series, with seven branches. Second, the
Islamic coins carry an inscription in Arabic (“Mohammed is Allah’s mes-
senger”) instead of the showbread table.
The Islamic coins are of interest to collectors of biblical coins. Barag
explains, “It is of course undeniable that by choosing the candlestick, and
at first a seven-branched candlestick, the mint authorities adopted the an-
cient Jewish menorah, albeit changing it slightly (e.g., the flat base). There
is no way of determining how this influence was effected and whether Jew-
ish die-makers or mint-masters were involved in the production of these
coins.... Does the preference of a five-branched candlestick demonstrate
6.18. Umayyad Caliphate. Uncertain period (post-reform). AH 77–132 / 697–750 ce.

AE Fals (16 mm, 2.65 g). Five-branched menorah mint of Iliya (Jerusalem). The
legend is the first half of the Shahada: “There is no god except Allah alone.”
more than the mere wish to move away from the Jewish prototype? The
introduction of (a variety with) the two-leaved stem may indicate the ac-
ceptance of Christian traditions concerning the Menorah.”
Barag also suggests the intriguing possibility that “the inception of
this series was connected to a particular event. The construction of the
Dome of the Rock was finished in 691/2 ce, a date too early by far for
the series. The construction of the second Aqsa Mosque around 715/6 ce
could have prompted the striking of such coins, but there is no positive
indication that this was the case.148
“After a while,” Barag notes, “the Muslim authorities of Jerusalem
abandoned this unusual experiment, leaving to posterity a series of coins
which testify in their own modest way of the struggle for Jerusalem.”149
Mattityah Antigonus
Mint of Jerusalem
6197
6197. AE 8 prutot, average weight 14 g.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew ‫( מתתיה הכהן הגדל חבר יד‬Mattityah the High
Priest and Council of the Jews), around and between two cornuco-
pias splayed outward, some specimens have letters between the
cornucopias.
Rev: BACIΛEΩC ANTIΓONOY (of King Antigonus) around ivy wreath
tied with ribbons.
S
a. Irregular issue with retrograde reverse legend.
b. Double struck.
On this coin and the following coin, the paleo-Hebrew inscriptions appear in many ver-
sions struck from many die sets not yet studied.
‫מתתיהו‬
6198 ‫הכ גדל ח‬
6198. AE 4 prutot, average weight 7.19 g.

Obv: Paleo-Hebrew ‫( מתתיה הכהן גדול‬Mattityah the High Priest)
around cornucopia tied with ribbons, decorated with vine leaf and
grapes.
Rev: BACIΛEΩC ANTIΓONOY in 2, 3, or 4 lines, often abbreviated,
within wreath.
S
a. Mule with reverse of 6197.
b. Irregular issue with retrograde reverse legend.
c. Blank flan.
‫מתת‬
6199
‫יה‬

Obv: Paleo-Hebrew, retrograde, ‫( מתתיה‬Mattityah) within wreath.
Rev: Two cornucopias splayed outward, adorned with ribbons, ear of
barley between horns.
C
a. ‫ יה‬form a ligature.
b. Struck upon a single-thickness flan.
6200. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew ‫( מתתיה‬Mattityah) within wreath.
Rev: Two cornucopias splayed outward, adorned with ribbons, ear of bar-
ley between horns.
RR
This coin is often described as a “mule” with the inscription of 6201 and the cornuco-
pias of 6199. This is not correct, since the obverse die was made in the style of 6199.
This type is struck on double-thick flans as is 6199, but 6201, 6202 are struck on flans
of single thickness.
‫מתתי‬ ‫מתתיה‬
‫ההכהן‬ ‫הכהן‬
6201 6201a
6201. AE prutah.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew, ‫( מתתיה הכהן‬Mattityah the Priest) within wreath.
RR
a. Inscription different style, reads “Mattityah the Priest.”
6202
‫מתת‬
‫יה‬
6202. AE prutah.
Similar to 6201 but larger paleo-Hebrew letters and cruder cornucopias.
R
‫מתתיה‬
6203
‫הכהן גדול‬
6203. AE prutah.
Obv: Showbread table, paleo-Hebrew (Mattityah the Priest) outside dot-
ted border.
Rev: BACIΛEΩC ANTIΓONOY, seven-branched menorah. RR
a. Second example.
b. Similar but clearly depicts two stacks of “showbread” on the table.
The inscriptions are never complete because the dies were cut to strike coins on flans larger
than those struck. The obverse die with the showbread table was considerably larger than
the reverse die, as shown in Fig. 6.19.
6.19. Four examples of no. 6203.

CHAPTER SEVEN
Herodian Dynasty
Herod I (the Great), 40–4 bce
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod
the king… (Matthew 2:1. See also Matthew 2:1–13 and 16–18)
Herod’s Early Career
H
erod I was born in 73 bce into an assimilated Jewish Idumean
family. His grandfather, Antipas, and his father, Antipater, were
both important advisors to the Hasmonean rulers. Members of
the dynasty Herod founded became official and unofficial representatives
for the Jewish people in their kingdom and throughout the ancient world.
The influence of Herod and his descendants affected decisions by the im-
perial court in Rome for more than a century.
Herod is often portrayed as a converted or an unwilling Jew. This is
not the case. The Jews under John Hyrcanus I (135–104 bce) conquered
the Idumeans (Edomites), who occupied the south of Judea. Some sources
refer to a forced conversion to Judaism. Strabo notes, however, “The Idu-
means are Nabataeans, but owing to sedition they were banished from
there, joined the Judeans, and shared in the same customs with them.”1
Thus, “The reassessment of Idumean conversion means that Herod’s
attachment to Judaism resulted from his grandfather’s voluntary adherence
and willing ‘full’ conversion to the Temple cult in Jerusalem and not from
a forced submission to a bare bones form of Judaism,”2 Richardson writes.
After Hyrcanus I annexed Idumea, “no Idumean delegation begged
Pompey for separate status and a revival of the Idumean cult.” The Tal-
mud says there were Idumean disciples in the House of Shammai, who
were “learned in Torah and punctilious in their observance.”3 Hyrcanus
II, a Hasmonean, married an Idumean, and Herod, an Idumean, married
a Hasmonean. Most important is that just a short time later, Hyrcanus
I’s son Alexander Jannaeus (104–76 bce) appointed Herod’s grandfather,
Antipas, as the strategos (governor) of Idumea. Richardson notes that this
193
would be, “an unusual degree of trust had Antipas only recently accepted
Judaism unwillingly.”4
In the next generation, Herod’s father, Antipater, married a Nabatae-
an woman, Cypros (Cyprus). Two of their five children received Hebrew
names—Joseph and Salome. Antipater became the closest advisor of Hyr-
canus II (67 and 63–40 bce), inextricably linking him to Rome as Hyrca-
nus II struggled against his brother Aristobulus II for the throne of Judea
and the high priesthood.
Hyrcanus II and Antipater were victorious and their alliance with
Rome had been most helpful. Not too many years later, Mark Antony
visited Syria, and a contingent of some 100 Jewish leaders complained
against Herod to him. Antony listened and then asked Hyrcanus II who
he thought was the fittest to govern. He replied that Herod, his brother,
Phasael, and their friends were the most competent. “Antony was de-
lighted, because he had formerly been their father’s guest and had been
hospitably entertained by Antipater when he accompanied Gabinius on
his Judean campaign. He, accordingly, created the brothers [as] tetrarchs,
entrusting to them the whole of Judea.”5 This promotion for Herod and
Phasael took place in 42 bce.6
Thus, Herod became governor of Galilee and a junior partner to his
elder brother, the governor of Jerusalem and environs. Young Herod did
not rest on his laurels and quickly turned the tables. Josephus recounts how
this “youth of high spirit” found and executed a man named Hezekias,
captain of a robber band who had terrorized the towns and cities of the
north. Now “they sang his praises for this deed throughout their villages
and cities…and through this action he became known to Sextus Caesar…
who was Governor of Syria.”7
Herod, King of the Jews

Herod became king in 40 bce by a declaration of the Roman Senate and
approval of the triumvirate, marshaled by Mark Antony. Augustus, the first
emperor, reaffirmed his power. Herod was initially a king without a kingdom
since Mattityah Antigonus was king of Judea and remained so for more than
two years. The decision of the Senate and the leaders of Rome to elevate
Herod in 40 bce may have been related to the alliance between Antigonus
and the Parthians, archenemies of Rome. There is little doubt that Herod’s
rule was contrary to the desires of the majority of the Jewish people, whose
sympathies lay with Antigonus of the storied Hasmonean family.
In 37 bce with help from the Roman general Gaius Sosius, Herod
besieged Jerusalem and captured the city, along with Antigonus and his
Parthian sponsors. One of Herod’s first official acts as king was to order
death for 45 Sanhedrin members who had supported the Hasmoneans.
This decision effectively reduced the power of the Sanhedrin to little more
than a religious court.
Herodian Dynasty 195
Herod ruled Judea by the grace of Rome and was one of a group of
Oriental client kings subservient to Mark Antony.8 Herod’s administra-
tion was Hellenistic in character, including his harem of wives (ten),9 com-
plete with eunuchs.10 One of Herod’s continuing policy goals seemed to
be to strengthen the foreign element in ancient Israel and to bring the
kingdom completely into line as a strong link in the chain that was the
Roman Empire.
Herod knew that being from a non-priestly family that converted
to Judaism a few generations earlier, meant potential problems with the
Jewish people. To strengthen his ties with the royal Hasmonean family,
he married Mariamne, a granddaughter of Hyrcanus II. By all accounts,
she was the love of Herod’s life, but he was paranoid about threats to his
power and the last remaining Hasmonean princess was a threat, whether
real or imagined.
When Herod took the throne, he ignored the legal heir to the office
of high priest even though he was Aristobulus III, his wife’s brother. In-
stead, he appointed Hananel, whom he brought back to Jerusalem from
the Egyptian diaspora. This act caused Herod’s mother-in-law to com-
plain to Cleopatra VII, Queen of Egypt, whose Roman ties enabled her to
wield power over Herod. Cleopatra compelled Herod to dismiss Hananel
and appoint Aristobulus. But the young Hasmonean’s popularity with the
people grew and Herod decided to have him killed, a fate he also arranged
for the former king Hyrcanus II. These family murders caused severe ten-
sion between Herod and his beloved wife, Mariamne, and in 30/29 bce
Herod also ordered her executed.
Some years later, Herod also sentenced his two sons by Mariamne,
Antipater and Aristobulus (father of the child Agrippa, later to become
Agrippa I), to death. When Augustus heard about those sentences, he
reportedly said, “It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son.”11 These ex-
ecutions eliminated every member of the Hasmonean family who might
threaten Herod’s throne in the immediate future.
To advance his pro-Hellenistic policies, Herod embarked on many
construction and cultural projects. Ehud Netzer,12 the archaeologist-
architect who excavated many Herodian sites and discovered what is
believed to be Herod’s tomb at Herodium, explains, “The scope and vi-
brancy of Herod’s building enterprise in general lead us to the inevitable
conclusion that planning and erecting buildings was an integral part of
his ongoing operations.”13 Netzer further observed that while Herod was
almost certainly not an architect, he was intensively involved in the con-
ception and planning of his various building activities.14
Broshi identifies four of Herod’s building projects as being finest or
largest in the world at the time: largest temenos (structural enlargement of
the Temple Mount; largest palace (Herodium); longest building (the stoa
on the Temple Mount), and best port (Caesarea Maritima).15
Herod could build only one Temple in Judea, but he built many pal-
aces and fortresses. He built the gleaming white city of Sebaste (Greek for
Augustus) on the ruins of ancient Shomron-Samaria. Fully involved in
Roman politics, he also named his new port city Caesarea after Augustus
(Sebastos). Herod sponsored athletic contests and sat in a royal court that
reflected at least a partial cultural alienation from Judaism. On a visit to
Rome in either 18 or 12 bce, Herod was appointed president of the Olym-
pic Games.16 While Herod had been praised for his help to the Jewish
population, Josephus now complains that he was sucking the blood of the
Jewish people to curry favor among the non-Jews.
Herod’s pathological suspicions led him to construct a string of splen-
did mountain fortresses, which doubled as palatial resort homes for him-
self and his entourage. These bastions insured a hasty retreat in case of
insurrection, and included, among others, Herodium in Judea, Masada on
the Dead Sea, and Machaerus in Transjordan facing Nabataea.
Herod was generous to an extreme with building projects inside and
outside his territory. Above Jericho, he built a stronghold and named it
Cypros after his mother. In Jerusalem, he built three towers and named
them after the wife he murdered, Mariamne, his friend Hippicus, and his
brother Phasael. He built and named Herodium after himself. He built
gymnasia for Tripolis, Damascus, and Ptolemais; a wall for Byblos; temples
and marketplaces for Berytus and Tyre; theaters for Sidon and Damascus;
an aqueduct for Laodicea ad Mare; and baths, fountains, and colonnades
for Ascalon. That was only the beginning. He donated to the Olympic
Games and to Lycia, Samos, and every district of Ionia. “And that broad
street in Syrian Antioch, once shunned on account of the mud, was it not
he who paved its twenty furlongs with polished marble, and, as a protec-
tion from the rain, adorned it with a colonnade of equal length?”17 Yep,
built by Herod.
Herod hoped to improve his status with the Jewish people by re-
storing the Temple. He did it magnificently. It took 10,000 common-
ers and 1,000 priests at least nine years to complete the project. They
erected magnificent walls of majestic stones—many of which still exist
in Jerusalem today—doubled the Temple’s size, and encircled the Temple
with beautiful columns, gates, and courtyards. Herod also enlarged and
strengthened the fortress adjoining the Temple Mount and renamed it
Antonia, after Mark Antony.
With these construction expenses and other costs of a lavish court,
gifts and bribes to relatives and Roman allies, and heavy taxes to Rome,
Herod amassed a huge debt. To pay for it, he taxed his people heavily. Jo-
sephus reports that “the numeration of the debts and taxes discharged by
himself would be endless.”18 Stern notes, “Much of the money extorted
from the Jewish peasantry was squandered to enhance Herod’s reputa-
tion in foreign countries.”19
Today we know him as Herod “the Great,” but it seems to be a fairly

recent designation. He is referred to only once this way in Josephus, in a
genealogy where the word “great” was clearly intended to designate him
from his lesser descendants.20 Herod’s coins never refer to him as “the
great,” only as “King Herod,” although his grandson Agrippa I is desig-
nated “the great” on some of his coins (nos. 6275, 6276, 6279, 6280).
Herod was undeniably Jewish, although his outlook suggests that he
only paid lip service to the Jewish religion, and he was less popular with
Jews than with the Romans. Inside his own nation, he was considered
cruel, vengeful, and power hungry, “Among his own people if anyone was
not deferential to him…or was thought to be raising questions about his
rule, Herod was unable to control himself and prosecuted his kin and his
friends alike, and punished them as severely as enemies.”21 However, as
Richardson notes, “He was regarded externally as an important patron, a
man of kindness, generosity, good will, and piety, a friend of Romans and
of the Emperor.”22
Herod’s publicity over the past 2,000 years has not been good, but he
was not completely inane to his subjects. At certain times of crisis, Herod
assisted his people. For example, in 27 bce when his kingdom suffered a
severe drought, he took steps to alleviate not only domestic needs, but in
some neighboring lands as well.23
Herod’s achievements must be viewed alongside his domestic woes.
Stories of his cruelty continued well into the first century and appeared
in the Gospels. In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus was quite negative
about Herod and especially criticized his disregard for Jewish religious
law and customs.
Yet Herod identified himself as a Jew and presented himself as a pro-
tector of Jews in the Diaspora. This attitude was apparent when he inter-
ceded before Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, son-in-law and lieutenant of Au-
gustus, on behalf of the Ionian Jews around 14 bce.24 Herod later bragged
to the people of Jerusalem that thanks to him, the Jews of Asia “would be
unmolested in the future.”25 The fact that Herod did not eat pork was well
known to Augustus, and the Roman poet-satirist Perseus later referred to
the Jewish Sabbath as “Herod’s Day.”26
The great offense of which Herod has been accused through the ages is
the “slaughter of the innocents,” in which he allegedly ordered the killing
of all male babies in the area of Bethlehem because he heard that a future
“king of the Jews” ( Jesus) had been born. However, there is much disagree-
ment about this account. Michael Grant explains, “Matthew’s story of the
Massacre of the Innocents by Herod the Great, because he was afraid of
a child born at Bethlehem ‘to be King of the Jews,’ is a myth allegedly
fulfilling a prophecy by Jeremiah and mirroring history’s judgment of the
great but evil potentate Herod, arising from many savage acts during the
last years before his death in 4 bce.”27 Herod had garnered a reputation for
cruelty to young and old alike, reflected in the contemporaneous Jewish

text, the Assumption of Moses 6:2–5.
Tabor also refutes the story: “It is inconceivable that such a ‘slaughter’
of infants would go unrecorded by the Jewish historian Josephus or other
contemporary Roman historians. Matthew’s account is clearly theological,
written to justify later views of Jesus’ exalted status.”28
Herod did not offend his fellow Jews by bringing statues or other phys-
ical effigies into Jerusalem until late in his reign, when he affixed a golden
eagle to the Temple gate.29 The eagle was a symbol of Imperial Rome and
the principal emblem of its patron deity, Jupiter. As Jacobson notes, “There
was also an eagle on the temple of Baal Shamin (the Semitic equivalent
of Zeus) in Palmyra.”30 The people of Jerusalem, especially the Pharisees,
were agitated by this eagle. In spite of intense opposition, no action could
be taken as long as Herod lived. At around this time, rumors circulated
that the ailing Herod had died at his palace in Jericho. Immediately upon
hearing this news, a group cut down the eagle and hacked it to pieces.
Herod, however, was alive and ordered some 40 of the culprits captured
and brought to him. Herod was carried in on a sickbed and harangued the
group for not honoring him after he built the glorious Temple. He finished
the session by ordering the few who actually cut down the eagle to be
burnt alive. He ordered the rest of the group summarily executed.
This act was only one of many reasons that Herod felt the Jewish
people would not mourn him. Thus, in anticipation of his death, Herod
ordered that upon his demise, a group of “the distinguished men from
every village from one end of Judea to the other” should be rounded up in
the hippodrome of Jericho. He told his sister Salome that “the moment
I expire have them surrounded by the soldiers and massacred; so shall all
Judea and every household weep for me, whether they will or not.”31 The
round up took place, but once Herod died, his heirs released the captives.
Nevertheless, Herod’s intentions for his final act illustrate his relationship
with fellow Jews (Fig. 7.16).
As we learn in Matthew, Jesus was surely born during Herod’s tenure.32
Grant explains that, “About the date of Jesus’ birth there are...perplexing
problems. The belief that he was born in 1 ce only came into existence
in the sixth century ce when a monk from South Russia living in Italy,
Dionysius Exiguus, made a mathematical miscalculation. His birth date
should be reassigned to 6, 5, or 4 bce, though some prefer 11 or 7.”33
Herod’s Coinage
The life and times of Herod I (40–4 bce) have been the focus of a great deal
of interest due not only to his accomplishments but also to his proximity as
King of Judea when Jesus was born. Recent volumes about Herod’s life and
his building projects abound.34 During Herod’s reign, his kingdom was
relatively tranquil. Peaceful times allowed him to develop building projects

as well as foster improvements in agriculture and commerce.35
Even as late as Herod’s time, the economy in Judea was not fully mon-
etized; the barter system remained. Only bronze coins were minted under
Herod, a reflection of his status as a “client king” of Rome, which retained
the right to mint gold and silver coins.
Herod’s coins were issued sporadically and were mostly poorly de-
signed and manufactured. Meshorer theorized that the later Tyre shekels
were minted by Herod, but this has not been accepted by other scholars
(see discussion p. 438). Some believe, however, that Herod may have or-
dered groups of Tyre sheqels struck specifically for purchase and use in his
territories.36 Greek and Roman coinage continued to circulate in Herod’s
lands, as did other bronze coins, including some from his Hasmonean pre-
decessors. Gold and silver, however, were the coins of big cities and big
commerce. The villagers almost exclusively used bronze coins.
Herod issued his own coins to broadcast his power of governance and
to generate a profit, since the coins minted were more valuable than the
metal they contained (see p. 29). Finally, to facilitate payments, his govern-
ment coined money to provide for either military payrolls or civil construc-
tion projects.
“The fact that the smallest Herodian coin, the half-prutah, was just
one-quarter the size of the smallest Roman coin that was in circulation
at the same time, namely the quadrans, can only mean one thing, namely
a much lower standard of living in ancient Judea than in Italy,”37 Jacob-
son suggests.
Herod may have been “Great,” but his “numismatic legacy is disap-
pointing to say the least…. Considering Herod’s larger-than life persona,
most of his coinage is particularly unimpressive,” Ariel and Fontanille
conclude.38
Jacobson adds that ancient Israel may have been the land of “milk and
honey,”39 but “its productivity was tenuous, it was overpopulated in rela-
tion to the available sustenance and there was considerable social unrest.
Most of its population was poor and a large number were destitute, a situ-
ation possibly aggravated by the burden of taxation. This goes at least some
way to explain why the coinage produced locally was limited to low value
bronze denominations, intended mainly for transactions involving the ba-
sic necessities of life.”40
Ariel suggests that Herod minted coins intermittently. This behavior
was true during the reign of the later Herodians and the prefects and proc-
urators of Judea, whose coins each carried dates. The prefect and procura-
tor coins have gaps of 3, 4, 5, 6, and 13 years between issues. Meshorer
points out that if one of the governors had minted a sufficient number of
coins to satisfy the needs of the marketplace, it might supplant the need for
further minting for some time.41
Ariel explores some of the reasons Herod issued coins. Stocking the
marketplace with coins of appropriate size was important, as was the re-
quirement for small change so soldiers, construction workers, or other
employees could be paid in exact amounts, thus not overpaid. “Without
his own mint, when Herod had to purchase something worth less than a
drachm or denar, he would only be able to pay with the available coins in
circulation. This could entail a loss for him,” writes Ariel.42 Harl notes that
paymasters needed to provide some of a soldier’s pay in bronze, since small
denominations were always needed “for dice and drink.”43
At certain times, the Roman emperors issued largess known as a con-
giarium and donativum. Ariel believes that some of Herod’s coins may have
been issued and used as these handouts. Such coins might have celebrated
the entertainment structures and Herod’s founding and hosting of the
quadrennial games in Jerusalem44 and especially in Caesarea,45 where local
games were instituted in 12 bce at Herod’s dedication festival for the city
and its port. “Games were the type of event in which civilian handouts
were common. It would be unreasonable to think Herod initiated all of
those events, and did not include some form of distribution of gifts,” Ariel
writes.46 Herod also proclaimed an annual festival on the day he ascended
as king,47 a logical time to distribute gifts.
Jacobson disagrees since “even Herod’s largest coin was only approxi-
mately 5% of a daily Roman wage. So, one of Herod’s coins (or a moderate
multiple thereof ) was hardly likely to satisfy a donative, which, in Roman
writings are generally paid in generous helpings of silver or gold coin.”48
Ariel also suggests “there is cogency in viewing at least some of his
coins as commemorative issues related to his (building or other) activity.”49
Ariel, assisted by Fontanille’s die studies,50 gathered archaeological,
typological, epigraphic, and other evidence and presented it to shed fresh
light on the internal chronology of the Herodian coins.51
Herod’s coins avoided the use of graven images. This choice catered
to his local population by depicting motifs such as anchors, cornuco-
pias, tripod tables, and various plant species. Some of Herod’s designs
were taken from Roman coins, such as the helmet, shield, aphlaston, and
winged caduceus, but they were probably not fully understood as Roman
symbols by Herod’s subjects and thus did not offend them.52 One of
Herod’s coins depicts an eagle, which was patterned after similar motifs
of circulating Ptolemaic, Seleucid, and Tyrian coinage. Less likely is the
suggestion that it may have represented the eagle Herod ordered placed
over the Temple gate.53
Denominations and Chronology

It is generally believed that the four-denominational dated series of coins
were the first struck during Herod’s rule (nos. 6204–6207). These coins
are dated “year three,” yet their actual date of issue has been a matter of
much discussion. We follow the theory that the coins were struck in 37
bce, which was the “third year” of Herod’s kingship—he was proclaimed
“King of Judea” by a declaration of the Roman Senate and the approval of
Octavian. Another view is that that they were struck in 40 bce, based on
Mark Antony’s appointment of Herod as Tetrarch of Galilee in 42 bce.
A third possibility is that they were struck in 27 bce at the founding of
Sebaste in Samaria, and in honor of Herod’s re-confirmation as king in
30 bce following Octavian’s victory at Actium.54 Other theories have also
been suggested.55
Meshorer believed that the  (TP) ligature on this series has a paral-
lel in some of the Ituraean coins of Chalcis, and that it stands for the title
“tetrarch.” This is why he thought these coins were first struck in 40/39
bce, the third year of Herod’s tetrarchy and possibly issued for several
years. Kanael wrote that the  ligature on Herod’s early coins probably
represents a combination of the Greek letters TP, a contraction for trito, or
“third year.” Kanael says, “It is likely that Herod wanted to accentuate the
fact that 37 bce, which was in fact his first year as king, should be regarded
as his third year, and reckoned from 40 bce when Rome had appointed
him.”56 Krupp and Qedar suggested the ligature was a combination of the
first two letters of Herod’s name HP󠅮ΩΔHC, and is therefore another sym-
bol of his royal authority and a substitute for his portrait.57 Ariel observes
that these ideas are only a few of the nine different theories about the
meaning of the . He believes the ligature is likely the initials of a person
such as a moneyer.58 A similar ligature, which may represent TP, appears
on some varieties of the small anchor coins (no. 6209).
Some denominations of this series appear without date or monogram.
One might suggest that this was an inadvertent omission. However, Font-
anille’s die studies show that none of the dies without dates or monograms
has been re-engraved to add them and at least one die shows evidence that
the date and monogram were obliterated so they would not appear on the
coins.59 These coins were possibly later issues and their notations to the
“third year” were deliberately omitted.
Herod’s dated coins were struck in four denominations, often de-
scribed as 8, 4, 2, and 1 prutot. However, our metrological studies60 in-
dicate that Herod’s dated coins adhered to a different weight standard.
Herod’s largest coin (no. 6204, 6.93 g) is only half the weight of the
Antigonus coin (no. 6197, 14 g) struck at around the same time. Thus,
it is quite possible that the denominations are intended as 4, 3, 2, and 1
prutot.61 This system is also consistent with Herod’s undated coins, which
are, according to weight, 2, 1, and ½ prutot, which combine to establish a
Herodian series of five denominations.
Due to the weight differences as well as find spots between the Anti-
gonus coins and Herod’s dated coins, Meshorer’s suggestion that Herod’s
coins were struck at a mint in Samaria, rather than Jerusalem, seems credible.
Samaria was the capital of Herod’s tetrarchy, “and it was natural for him to
have minted his coins there.”62 Further evidence can be found in the excava-
tions in Jerusalem where hundreds of Herodian coins were found, but only
around 1% were of the dated types. At Masada where 393 Herodian coins
were found, only one of them was a dated coin. Meshorer cites excavations
in Sebaste/Samaria where 20% of the coins of Herod I belong to the dated
group. “From experience we learn that bronze coins become rarer as the dis-
tance between the excavation site and their mint increases. The discovery
of so many dated coins in Samaria is firm evidence that they were minted
there.”63 We also note that large numbers of the dated Herodian coins have
appeared on the markets in Jordan, which may suggest an origin to the north
of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, some scholars suggest a Jerusalem mint for the
dated Herodian coins.64
Most other coins of Herod I were probably struck at or near Jerusalem,
although there is ample evidence during the Hasmonean and Herodian
periods that multiple mints may have operated.65 The coins are cruder in
design, execution, and manufacture than the dated series (Fig. 7.1). An-
other interesting phenomenon that occurs on many of the Herodian coins
is that the obverse dies were cut for coins far larger than the reverse dies
(Figs. 7.2 and 7.3). This issue results in coins that are never fully centered
on one side because the flan is not sufficiently large. The reason for this
anomaly is not known, but it also previously existed in some later Hasmo-
nean coin types (nos. 6191, 6195, 6203) in which both obverse and reverse
dies were much larger than the flans upon which they were struck.
Establishing a chronology for the coins of Herod has been “one of the
most intractable subjects of Jewish Numismatics,” according to M. Avi-
Yonah.66 Ariel has used archaeological, typological, epigraphical, and other
evidence to set forth a relative chronology of the undated coins of Herod.67
He suggests, for example, that the final series of coins struck by Herod
included the common prutot with the anchor/double cornucopia motif.
“As a type, Herod’s coin bearing the anchor on the obverse and double
cornucopia with caduceus in between the horns on the reverse [no. 6219]
is copied exactly by his son Archelaus on his coinage [no. 6223]. In fact, for
the most part, one may differentiate between the poorly preserved of such
coins of Herod and those of his son only from the inscriptions.”68
“On the other hand,” Ariel writes, “the anchor of Herod’s inscription/
anchor type [nos. 6208–6210] which also appears both in the pre-Herod
and post-Herod series should be aligned closer to Jannaeus’ reign. This is
because the depictions of Jannaeus and Herod’s anchors are so similar…
and so dissimilar from the anchor on Archelaus’ coins.”69 It appears as if
the obverse of these coins were copied from the poor, late Hasmonean is-
sues to the extent that the lily-like designs, also described as Y-like, V-like,
or just rays, are intended to copy the crude imitation Greek legends on
some of the Hasmonean issues (Fig. 7.4).
7.1. Illustration of how obverse and reverse dies were often used in different combi-
nations. (Graphic: Fontanille.)
7.2. Composite of complete Herodian obverse die (no. 6215) with eight coins
struck from this die. Note the completely different appearance of the coins.
(Graphic: Fontanille.)
7.3. Recreation of Herodian dies (no. 6215) show disproportionate size difference
between obverse and reverse dies. (Graphic: Fontanille.)
7.4. Similarities between Hasmonean small prutot, above (no. 6195), and Herodian
small prutot, below (nos. 6208–6210). (Author’s collection.)
From the archaeological evidence, Ariel notes the “near absence of the
anchor/double cornucopia type from Area E in the Jewish Quarter, and
over-representation there of the inscription/anchor and single cornucopia/
eagle types.”70
Ariel also links some coins with specific events, such as his suggestion
that Herod’s common anchor/cornucopias prutah (no. 6219) may have
been issued to commemorate the dedication of Caesarea in 12 bce and,
likewise, he links Herod’s anchor/galley coin (no. 6222) to the first use of
Herod’s fleet in 14 bce.71
He adds, “One may create a relative chronology of Herod’s undated
coin types based upon the coin’s typological continuity/discontinuity with
his predecessors and successors at the Jerusalem mint. The validity of such
an approach is supported by the overall impression of continuity in other
features of the Jerusalem mint throughout the first century bce.”72
Ariel also places Herod’s diadem and table coins early in the series.
“The coins bearing the diadem symbol are the closest that Herod’s undated
coins come to being a denominational series. The diadem appears on all
three denominations in Herod’s undated coins and is certainly an impor-
tant symbol in his coins. The diadem was a symbol of kingship or the high
priesthood and... symbolic of Herod’s claim to legitimacy. The series could
have been the first of Herod’s undated coins.”73
In spite of his continuing adverse relationship with his own people,
Herod did not mint coins overtly offensive to the Jews. He used no graven
images except for the late small bronze with the eagle, mentioned earlier.
Herod was the first Jewish ruler to use exclusively Greek inscriptions on
his coins.
Ariel also makes the interesting observation that “After the diadem
‘denominational series’ the Jerusalem mint did not mint in such clearly
arranged denominations until perhaps a century later, during the Jewish
War. This fact also may support the series’ placement at the beginning of
Herod’s undated coins, soon after Antigonus’ denominational series.”74
Ariel’s “conjectural” internal chronology75 of Herod’s undated coins
suggests that the tripod table series (nos. 6211–6218) are earliest (c. 30–20
bce), with the anchor/legend series (nos. 6208–6210) overlapping and
slightly later (25–15 bce), and finally, the double cornucopia/anchor se-
ries (c. 15–5 bce) and other issues that commemorate the dedication of
Caesarea (nos. 6218–6221). It is also possible that Herod’s anchor/legend
series was struck a bit earlier and represented an extension of the late Has-
monean coins of similar appearance (see Fig. 7.4).
Until recently, there have been few chemical analyses performed on
Herod I’s undated coins, although as early as 1927 Reifenberg noted the
analysis of a single coin using older, but quite accurate, methods.76 Our
group analyzed 78 coins, mostly undated coins of Herod I (and also dated
coins bracketing his rule) using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) to determine
major and trace elements, by multi-collector inductively coupled plasma
Table 7.1. Interval plot of percentage of arsenic in Herod I’s coin (Bars = one
standard error from the mean; labels are GBC numbers). (Graph: Nathan Bower).
mass-spectrometry to obtain lead isotope analysis. Our study revealed de-

clining amounts of arsenic in Judean coins during the period 100 bce to
100 ce. We attributed the loss of arsenic over time to two factors: re-
smelting (a possible but not consistent variable) of bronze and to a chang-
ing pattern in local metal supplies, with copper alloys from Dead Sea Rift
mines, where arsenic is mostly absent, replacing those metals extracted
from Cyprus, where arsenic can be measured in most samples (Table 7.1).77
We concluded that “our data not only reinforces [Ariel’s] conjectural
chronology of Herod I’s undated coins, it also provides further evidence
that the Dead Sea Rift mines, such as Timna, and potentially Faynan, were
in use during a period when they were previously thought to have been
largely abandoned, well before the region was annexed by the Romans.”78
The Helmet on Herod’s Large Coins

There have been several theories about the object on the obverse of Herod’s
largest coin (no. 6204). Madden, in 1864, called this item a “vessel.” Later,
Kindler and others refer to it as a thymiaterion, a kind of incense burner.
Meshorer and others referred to it as a helmet. In general, however, these
descriptions have been without conviction. Jacobson suggested it was a
Dioscuri pileus mounted on a couch.79
Around 1990, in Jerusalem, I purchased an example of this large coin
of Herod. After careful cleaning, it turned out to be unusually well pre-
served and, in fact, solved this mystery by revealing a wreath around the
hemispherical portion of the object. The wreath features one large leaf as a
central device. Thus, the object can be identified as a soldier’s helmet, facing
forward with cheekpieces and straps for securing the helmet behind the
head. The star surmounting the helmet parallels similar designs commonly
found on coins depicting the caps of the Dioscuri.80 Ariel and Fontanille
suggest the helmet could represent Herod’s personal armor, thus replacing
his portrait and reflecting victory over his enemies.81
Wreaths were commonly used as design motifs on helmets of this
period. For example, a silver cavalry helmet in the Rheinisches Landes-
museum features a gold wreath terminating in the front center with the
medallion of a human face. Since Herod I did not depict human images
on any of his coins, it was logical to substitute an acceptable decorative
symbol—in this case, a large leaf.
A helmet also appears not only on the second smaller bronze denomi-
nation of Herod I but earlier on a coin of Hyrcanus I (no. 6167) and later
on a coin of Herod’s son,Archelaus (no. 6227). Since the helmet is a mili-
tary device, one assumes that the reference is to the military powers of the
regime. It is possible that not all dies for Herod’s large bronze coins were
actually engraved with the leaf and wreath motif. We have examined sev-
eral hundred specimens and the hemispherical area of the helmet is often
flat, which may or may not be due to wear.
Table, Cross, and Diadem

The undated double-prutah coin of Herod with a three-legged table re-
verse and a diadem with a cross in the center on its obverse is of special
interest (no. 6211). Similar motifs also appear on both prutah and half-
prutah coins in this series. Tables almost identical to these short, wide,
three-legged tables have been found in the excavations of Jerusalem from
the Herodian period.82 (They can be seen at both the Israel Museum and
the Jewish Quarter Archaeological Museum.) Tripod tables were part of
the furniture of the Jerusalem Temple, and smaller versions were popular
in private houses. In the Talmud, it is written, “There were thirteen tables
in the Temple, eight of marble, in the slaughterhouse upon which they
rinsed the innards, and two to the west of the slope, one of marble and the
other of silver, upon the marble one they laid the parts of the offerings, and
upon the silver one the service vessels” (Mishnah Shekalim 15b ).
Meshorer suggests that the table shown on Herod’s coins must have
been quite important, since it was shown on three denominations—the
only device depicted so widely. On the largest denomination, there appears
to be a flat, round vessel upon the table. It might be a basin or similar ob-
ject, and it is possible that this is a depiction of the Temple’s silver table for
“service vessels” (Fig. 7.5). The image may have also represented a tripod
with lebes.83
At this time, it was forbidden to depict Temple implements, includ-
ing the menorah and the sacred tables, outside of the Temple.84 However,
7.5. Stone table, legs reconstructed,

from excavations in Jewish Quarter,
Jerusalem. (Image: Y. Meshorer)
Herod’s predecessor, Mattityah Antigonus, had depicted both the show-

bread table and menorah on a coin issued late in his reign. It seems pos-
sible, then, that at the appropriate time Herod issued this series of coins
with the Temple table to commemorate or call attention to his own major
rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple. Further indication of his intention
is that on the largest coin depicting this table, it is flanked by two palm
branches, which were “used in religious processions, and also symbolized
dignity, royal honor, jubilation, and victory,” according to Romanoff.85
The reverse of this coin is also of interest. Some describe the X inside
the diadem as a cross and relate it to the birth of Jesus. This belief is, of
course, impossible since Jesus was born near the end of Herod’s reign, and
these coins were struck much earlier. Further, the cross as a symbol does
not become associated with Christianity until more than 300 years after
the death of Jesus. We mention this example to highlight some of the bi-
zarre ideas put forth without actual research or basis.
Meshorer points to the Babylonian Talmud, “Our rabbis have taught:
‘In anointing kings one draws the figure of a crown [diadem, or in Hebrew
nezer] and with the priest in the shape of the letter chi, R. Menashiah said:
like a Greek chi” (K’rithoth 5b ). It is remarkable that this sentence from
the Talmud zeros in on both designs depicted on this coin type—the X or
Greek chi and the diadem—the gold band or ribbon worn symbolically by
kings to signify their position.86
However, why would Herod display the symbols of both the king and
the high priest together? Unlike his Hasmonean predecessors, Alexander
Jannaeus and Mattityah Antigonus, who proclaimed themselves both king
and high priest on their coins, Herod only held the title of king, since he
was not from a priestly family. This condition may suggest that Herod
was making a statement that he was the king and that he controlled the
Temple through his appointing the high priest. As previously mentioned,
Herod imported a priest named Hananel from the diaspora. This move was
intended to prevent any Hasmonean descendant or loyalist from claiming
the post.
Hananel was clearly “Herod’s high priest.” Possibly, to reinforce

this duality of kingship and control of the Temple, Herod depicted the
two symbols—the chi within the diadem—on these coins to reinforce
this message.87
COINS OF HEROD I THE GREAT

Mint of Samaria (?), Dated Series, Year 3 = 37 bce
Border of dots both sides unless noted.
Axis is usually vertical.
6204
6204. AE 4 prutot, 6.93 g average. 31 obv. dies, 110 rev. dies.88
Obv: Military helmet, frontal view, wreath featuring acanthus leaf
around, cheekpieces and straps, star above flanked by palm branches.
Rev: ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ (of King Herod), tripod, ceremonial bowl
(lebes) above, flanked by date LΓ (year 3) and .
C
a. Crude issue.
6205 6206
6205. AE 3 prutot, 4.45 g average. 3 obv. dies, 6 rev. dies.

Obv: Shield with decorated rim.
Rev: ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ, crested helmet flanked by date LΓ (year 3)
and .
S

Obv: Poppy on stalk.
Rev: ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ, winged caduceus flanked by date LΓ (year 3)
and .
R
a. Without date or monogram.
6207
6207. AE prutah, 2.50 g average. 1 obv. die, 3 rev. dies.
Obv: Palm branch with objects (leaves?) on either side.
Rev: ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ, aphlaston flanked by date LΓ (year 3) and .
R
a. With “o” from king’s name to l. of aphlaston.
b. Without date or monogram.
Mint of Jerusalem (?), Undated Series, 37–4 bce
6208 6209
6208. AE prutah, 0.08–1.5 g range for nos. 6208–6210. 3 obv. dies, 3 rev. dies.
Obv: BACIΛ ΕVC HP ΩΔΗC (King Herod).
Rev: Anchor within laurel wreath.
S
6209. AE prutah.
Obv: ΒΑCIΛΕΩC ΗΡΩΔΟΥ (of King Herod) in concentric circles.
Rev: Anchor within a circle decorated with fine vertical strokes or rays,
top of anchor as  or anchor ring.
S
a. Circle around anchor decorated with V-shaped lines.
6210e
6210
6210. AE prutah.
Obv: ΒΑCIΛΕΩC ΗΡΩ ΔΟΥ in uneven lines.
Rev: Anchor within circle decorated with V-shaped lines.
S
a. Anchor within circle and zigzag line.
b–d. Variations with crude inscriptions.

e. Irregular with retrograde inscription.
6211 6211a

Obv: ΗPΩΔOΥ ΒΑCΙΛΕΩC, closed diadem, cross within.
Rev: Tripod table, flat object (vessel?) upon it, flanked by palm
branches.
S
a. Diadem is open.
6212
6212. AE prutah, 1.48 g average for nos. 6212–6215. 8 obv. dies, 10 rev. dies.
Obv: ΗPΩΔOΥ ΒΑCΙΛΕΩC, closed diadem cross within, inscrip-
tion often incomplete.
Rev: Tripod table.
S
Obverse dies are much larger than reverse dies for many Herodian coins; this situation
results in the coins being particularly crude and incomplete.
a. Diadem is open.
6213
6213. AE prutah.
Obv: ΗPΩΔOΥ ΒΑCΙΛΕΩC, cross outside of diadem, inscription
often incomplete.
Rev: Tripod table in circle.
S
6214 6215
6212a
6214. AE prutah.
Obv: ΗPΩΔOΥ ΒΑCΙΛΕΩC, small closed diadem with no cross,
inscription often incomplete.
Rev: Tripod table in circle.
S
a. Diadem is open.
6215. AE prutah.
Obv: ΗPΩΔOΥ ΒΑCΙΛΕΩC in irregular lines.
Rev: Tripod table.
S
6216 6217
6216. AE half-prutah. 10 obv. dies, 8 rev. dies.

Obv: ΗPΩΔOΥ ΒΑCΙΛΕΩΣ, tripod table with object upon it.
Rev: Two crossed palm branches in circle. S
a. Irregular crude variety.

Obv: ΗPΩΔOΥ ΒΑCΙΛΕΩC, tripod table.
Rev: Palm branch upright within circle.
S
a. Palm branch is crude.
6218
6218. AE half-prutah. 1 obv. die, 1 rev. die.
Obv: ΗPΩΔOΥ ΒΑCΙΛΕΩC, tripod table.
Rev: Bunch of grapes with vine branch.
RRR
Grapes and vine are clear on at least one specimen; thus, this is the f irst Jewish coin
to feature grapes, which are repeated on a coin of Archelaus and coins of the Bar
Kokhba Revolt.
6221
6219 6222
6219. AE prutah, 1.42 g average. Massive issue, dies not enumerated.

Obv: HPW BACIΛ, anchor.
Rev: Two cornucopias splayed outward, with caduceus between, dots
above.
C
a. HPW BACI.
b. HPWΔ BACIΛE.
c. Greek reads outward.
d. Irregular issue, Greek is retrograde.
e. Irregular issue, extremely crude.
Many varieties of this coin exist with various inscription combinations, all based on
ΗPWΔOΥ ΒΑCΙΛΕWC, including many errors. Nos. 6219–6222 may be related to
the founding of Herod’s port at Caesarea Maritima, 22–10/9 bce.
6220. AE prutah. 5 obv. dies, 5 rev. dies.

Obv: Anchor, no legend.
Rev: Two cornucopias splayed outward, caduceus between, dots above.
S
a. Irregular issue, crude anchor.
b. Both sides quite crude.
This type resembles no. 6219 of Herod I, but one cannot rule out Bijovsky’s suggestion
that the coin may be of Herod Archelaus, since there is no inscription and the shape of the
anchor somewhat resembles no. 6224.89
6221. AE half-prutah, 0.86 g average. 57 obv. dies, 62 rev. dies.

Obv: ΒΑCΙΛ HΡWΔ flanks cornucopias.
Rev: Eagle standing r.
C
a. Irregular crude issue.
b. Irregular issue, eagle faces l.
c. Double struck.
The first coin issued by a Jewish ruler with a graven image.

Obv: HPWΔΟΥ BACIΛEOC, anchor.
Rev: War galley with oars, ram, and aphlaston, sails l.
S
a. Different style war galley.
Herod Archelaus, 4 bce–6 ce

But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his
father Herod, he was afraid to go thither... (Matthew 2:22).
Archelaus was the oldest son of Herod by his Samaritan wife, Malthace.
In Herod’s final will, he designated Archelaus as future king of Judea and
Samaria. However, since Herod’s title was not hereditary, Archelaus need-
ed confirmation by Augustus. After the mourning period for his father,
Archelaus prepared to travel to Rome. Before he departed, however, he
met with representatives of various groups in the Temple area. A crowd
gathered and tested Archelaus’s sincerity and good will by making de-
mands. The people wanted Archelaus, for example, to drastically reduce
taxes. Members of the crowd also began to protest the death of the group
of scholars whom Herod had executed for removing the golden eagle from
the Temple gates. This interaction led to riots against Archelaus’s troops,
intensified by the huge influx of pilgrims into Jerusalem for the Passover
festival. Archelaus soon lost his patience and sent his soldiers against the
crowd, killing some 3,000 Jews.90
In Rome, where Archelaus hoped to argue his case before the em-
peror, there was a bitter power struggle between him and Antipas.91 After
hearing arguments, Augustus altered the terms of Herod’s will and named
Archelaus ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Philip (4 bce–34 ce)
received the title tetrarch of Batanaea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, and some
other minor lands. Antipas (4 bce–39 ce) was named tetrarch of Peraea
and Galilee.92 This decision abolished the Judean monarchy, but the em-
peror promised that the title “king” would be forthcoming if Archelaus
governed well.
Archelaus, however, “on taking charge of his ethnarchy did not forget
old feuds, but treated not only the Jews but even the Samaritans with great
brutality. Both parties sent deputies to Caesar to denounce him, and in the
ninth year of his rule he was banished to Vienna, a town in Gaul, and his
property transferred to the imperial treasury.”93 Thus, Archelaus’s territo-
ries were annexed into the province of Syria and placed under direct rule
of the prefect Coponius.
The Parable of the Pounds mentions a hated ruler, believed to have
been Archelaus, “But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him,
saying, we will not have this man to reign over us” (Luke 19:14).
Based upon his inability to reasonably govern his subjects, one may
conclude that Archelaus can be blamed for the areas he governed falling
into Roman hands.
We assume that Archelaus continued manufacturing coins at Jeru-
salem. His earliest issue was probably a prutah nearly identical to one of
Herod’s latest issues, with the addition of the abbreviation of ethnarch on
the reverse (no. 6223).
The style and method of manufacturing coins at the Jerusalem mint
continued, and Archelaus issued a two-prutot coin (no. 6225) comparable
in size to Herod’s two-prutot coin (no. 6211) as well as prutah and half-
prutah coins. Archelaus’s coins generally copied the designs of his father
with minor variations—anchors, cornucopias, wreaths, galleys, grapes, and
helmets. All of the inscriptions on the coins of Archelaus are in Greek.
Archelaus’s coins carry the word (or abbreviation) ethnarch and his
name, “of Herod the Ethnarch.” Although the title ethnarch is attested
elsewhere in the Roman Empire, the only known instance of the title’s
use on coins are on those of Archelaus. He did not use graven images or
other symbols offensive to the Jews on his coins, nor do any of his coins
carry dates, so there is no way of dating the coins more precisely than to
his reign.
COINS OF HEROD ARCHELAUS

Border of dots on both sides unless noted.
Axis is usually vertical.
6223 6224
6223. AE prutah, 1.16 g average.94
Obv: HPWΔΟΥ (of Herod), anchor.
Rev: EΘ on r., N above (Ethnarch), two cornucopias splayed outward,
adorned with ribbons, caduceus between horns, dots above.
S
There are many varieties of inscriptions and placement of letters.
6224. AE prutah, 1.28 g average.

Obv: HPWΔΟΥ, anchor with long, slender arms.
Rev: ΕΘ / ΑΝ within wreath.
S
Reverse varieties with four to eight letters exist, including ΕΘ ΝΑΡ ΧΟΥ; some letters
may be out of order or retrograde.
6225 6227
6225. AE 2 prutot, 2.74 g.

Obv: HPWΔHC (Herod), two cornucopias adorned with grapes, horns
parallel, turned l.
Rev: EΘN PXA CH (Ethnarch), war galley facing l. with aphlaston,
oars, cabin, ram.
S
a. Cornucopias turned r.
b. Cornucopias turned r., obverse legend blundered.
6226. AE prutah, 1.35 g.

Obv: HPW, two cornucopias adorned with grapes, horns parallel, turned l.
Rev: EΘN / PA / HX (Ethnarch), war galley facing l. with aphlaston,
oars, ram.
S
a. Cornucopias turned r.
b. Irregular issue, crude.

Obv: EΘNAPXOY (of the Ethnarch), crested helmet with cheek straps,
viewed from front, caduceus below l.
Rev: HPWΔOY (of Herod), bunch of grapes on vine with small leaf on l.
C
a. Inscriptions are juxtaposed obverse to reverse.
b. Obverse carries incuse of helmet motif on reverse.
c.–e. Irregular issues.
6228
6228. AE half-prutah, 1.19 g average.
Obv: HPW, galley prow facing l.
Rev: EΘN within wreath.
C
a. Prow facing r.
b. Reverse inscription NEΘ.
Herod Antipas, 4 bce–39 ce

And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in and danced, and
pleased Herod...the king said unto the damsel, ask me whatsoever thou
wilt... And she came in...and asked saying, I will that thou give me by
and by on a charger the head of John the Baptist (Mark 6:22–25).
Antipas was full brother to Archelaus. With their half-brother, Philip, they
had been educated in Rome. Herod willed to Antipas the tetrarchy of
Galilee and Peraea and the Jewish portion of Transjordan. Augustus con-
firmed this territory and title. Antipas inherited a tetrarchy without much
infrastructure; his new capital was Sepphoris, probably at the time the only
real town in his territories. He rebuilt it “to be the ornament of all Galilee
and called it Autocratoris.”95 Several public structures had existed at Sep-
phoris for some time and were probably still in use when Antipas became
tetrarch. Meyers reported a fortified structure in Sepphoris, which “appears
to have been in use by ca. 100 bce judging by the coins, pottery, and other
late Hellenistic finds. Several mikvaot (ritual baths) also date back to this
period and their large size suggests some form of public usage.”96
Antipas eventually began to devote his attention to the creation and
“founding” of a new city, Tiberias. He moved his capital there and appar-
ently founded the city between 17/18 and 20/21 ce. Avi-Yonah explains
that the actual event most probably took place in the year 18, which was
not only the sixtieth birthday of Tiberius, but also the twentieth anniver-
sary of his holding the Tribunicia Potestas. The year 18/19 ce was also the
twenty-second year of the reign of Antipas as tetrarch.97
Not only did Antipas share his father’s interest and talent for building
great cities, he was “the most talented ruler and politician among all of
Herod’s sons,” according to Stern.98 Antipas’s tetrarchy had a clear Jew-
ish majority, including the often-rebellious population of the Galilee. Yet
Antipas ruled for 43 years without any armed rebellions in either Galilee
or Peraea.
Called “that fox” by Jesus (Luke 13:32) on account of his cunning,

Antipas is usually the “Herod” mentioned in the New Testament. John
the Baptist lived and preached in the Galilee and loudly protested the
marriage of Antipas to his own niece, Herodias. John was arrested for his
activities. Antipas ordered his execution at the behest of Herodias after her
daughter by an earlier marriage, Salome, had pleased Antipas with a dance.
He offered Salome a wish and she (after consulting with her mother) re-
quested John’s head on a platter.99
Pontius Pilate sent Jesus to Antipas when he learned the man was a
Galilean:
As soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction he sent

him to Herod who himself was also in Jerusalem at the time. Then
he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him noth-
ing.... And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked
him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate
(Luke 23:7–15).
When Caligula became emperor in 37 ce, Antipas tried to get into his
good graces, but Caligula’s good friend (and Antipas’s nephew and broth-
er-in-law) Agrippa I, grandson of Herod I, had already been granted the
title of king in Herod Philip’s previous territory. It troubled Antipas that
he remained only a tetrarch; it was not difficult for Herodias to persuade
him to appeal to Caligula for equal recognition. Antipas and Herodias
sailed to Rome to press his case. Part of this campaign consisted of striking
the coins dated year 43 (nos. 6246–6249), naming Caligula, the only coins
of Antipas that mention a Roman emperor. Agrippa used his powerful
position at court to accuse his uncle of allying himself with the Parthians
and building an arms cache to battle Rome. Caligula banished Antipas to
Lugdunum in Gaul (modern Lyon, France) and confiscated his property,
adding it to Agrippa’s kingdom.100
Meshorer expanded the number of known denominations and dates
of Herod Antipas’s coins and described four denominations for each
year Antipas minted coins at Tiberius beginning in 20/21 ce. Meshorer
equates these coins with the Roman dupondius, as, semis and quadrans
denominations and points out that in Jewish sources, these coins have
the corresponding names of pundion, issar, musmis, and kuntrunk. He
cites Rabbinic sources that suggest the largest denomination is equiva-
lent to 1/12 denarius; therefore, the following denominations are the half
1/24 denarius; the quarter 1/48 denarius, and the eighth 1/96 denarius;
although the standard Roman relationship to the silver denarius would
have been 1/8: 1/16: 1/32: 1/64.101
Antipas was the first Jewish ruler who had a date struck on each coin
issued. The dates were not consecutive. Coins were struck in his regnal years
4 (1 bce/1 ce), 24 (19/20 ce), 33 (28/29 ce), 34 (29/30 ce), 37 (32/33 ce),
and 43 (38/39 ce). Since the coins are all quite scarce, one may assume that
they were struck only during the date years and not continued during the
intervening years. What possible events might have prompted a coin-issuing
year is not known. It may have simply been the need to add, as required, base
metal coins in circulation for day-to-day financial transactions.
A significant new Antipas type was discovered and dated to 1 bce/1 ce
(no. 6229). 102 This coin is a prutah and was likely struck at Sepphoris.103 On
the coin’s obverse, it shows a grain of barley or wheat surrounded by a clear
Greek inscription: “Herod (year) 4.” On its reverse is a seven-branched
palm tree with a club-like trunk and three letters abbreviating “Herod.” 104
Until this coin was discovered, the first coins known to be struck
by Antipas were dated “Year 24” (of Antipas’s reign) and thought to be
struck in 20/21 ce.105 Meshorer had attributed the delay in Antipas’s first
coinage to the reality that he was “forced to establish an original basis
for his administration; no previous governing system existed for his tet-
rarchy.”106 Antipas started with no government, little infrastructure and,
ergo, no mint.
This coin sheds a different light and seems to show that Herod Anti-
pas did not wait 24 years to issue his first coinage. Since the coin is dated
to the fourth year of his reign, it indicates that he likely struck at least a
trial coinage at his first capital of Sepphoris. The coin was produced by the
method and style of typical Jewish or procuratorial prutot of the period.107
The weight is consistent with prutot from the period of Herod Archelaus;
the edges are beveled, and it was clearly struck on a strip of cast flans,
chopped away from coins on either side.108
The palm-tree motif is not remarkable for Jewish coins. In 6/7 ce, only
six years after its use on the coin under discussion, the palm tree appears on
a coin of Coponius; it appears later on coins of the Jewish War, Bar Kokh-
ba Revolt, and in the Judea Capta series, among others. However, this coin
would mark the palm tree’s first appearance in the Judean series. The grain
of either barley or wheat is also not a surprising design for an ancient Jew-
ish coin, although this coin is unique in its presentation of a single grain.
Ears of grain appear on coins of the Hasmonean kings, 109 Herod Philip,
Agrippa I, Agrippa II, and the procurators, Coponius and M. Ambibulus.
All of Antipas’s subsequent coins resembled Roman provincial coins.
Since he ruled a territory with a significant Jewish majority, Antipas was
careful not to use portraits or graven images. The designs are reeds, palm
branches, or palm trees, save one late issue that depicts a bunch of dates,
and inscriptions within wreaths. Except for the last coins of Antipas, all
carry the name of the city in which they were struck, Tiberias. This issue
was the first Jewish ruler’s coins to carry the name of a Roman emperor,
Caligula, and no doubt honored him.
The coins of Antipas are usually found in poor condition, quite cor-
roded. This is due to the poor alloy of the coins as well as moisture and
other environmental conditions in the northern territories where Antipas
ruled and where the coins circulated. They also circulated in the Jordan
Valley, and coins found in that drier area are generally better preserved.
Herod Antipas is consistently referred to as “Herod” in the Gospels, as
on the coins. In Matthew 14:1 and Luke 9:7 he is correctly called “Herod
the tetrarch,” as on the coins. But in Mark 6:14 he is incorrectly called
“King Herod.” Antipas is also mentioned in the following New Testa-
ment verses: Matthew 14:3, 14:6, 14:9; Mark 6:14–27; Luke 3:1, 3:19, 9:9,
23:7–15; Acts 5:27, 13:1.
COINS OF HEROD ANTIPAS

Mint of Sepphoris (?), Year 4, 1 bce/ce
Axis of Antipas coins is ↑.
6229
6229. AE prutah, 14.1 mm, 1.58 g.
Obv: TETPA[PX]HC Δ (Tetrarch [year] 4), grain of barley or wheat.
Rev: HPW (Herod), palm tree with seven branches and club-like trunk,
below and to r., reading outwardly.
One known
Mint of Tiberias, Year 24, 20/21 ce
6231
6230
6230. AE full denomination, 15.16 g average. 3 obv. dies, 9 rev. dies.110
Obv: TIBE PIAC (Tiberias), wreath.
Rev: HPWΔΟΥ TETPAPXOY (of Herod the Tetrarch), L KΔ (year 24),
reed upright.
R
6231. AE half-denomination, 7.79 g average. 6 obv. dies, 12 rev. dies.

Obv: TIBE PIAC within wreath.
Rev: HPWΔΟΥ TETPAPXOY, L KΔ, reed upright.
R
6232 6233
6232. AE quarter-denomination, 3.96 g average. 6 obv. dies, 16 rev. dies.

Rev: HPWΔΟΥ TETPAPXOY, L KΔ, reed upright.
R
6233. AE eighth-denomination, 1.67 g average. 6 obv. dies, 6 rev. dies.

Obv: TI BE within wreath.
Rev: HPWΔ TETPAP, LKΔ, reed upright.
R
Year 33, 29/30 ce
6234 6235
6234. AE full denomination, 11.51 g average. 4 obv. dies, 24 rev. dies.
Rev: HPWΔOY TETPAPXOY (of Herod the Tetrarch), L ΛΓ, palm
branch upright.
R

Rev: HPWΔOY TETPAPXOY, L ΛΓ, palm branch upright.
R

Rev: HPWΔOY TETPAPXOY, L ΛΓ, palm branch upright.
R
6237. AE eighth-denomination, 3.04 g average. 1 obv. die, 4 rev. dies.

Obv: T C (T[iberia]s) within wreath.
Rev: HPWΔOY (of Herod), L ΛΓ, palm branch upright.
RR
Year 34, 30/1 ce

Rev: HPWΔΟΥ TETPAPXOY, L ΛΔ (year 34), palm branch upright.
6239. AE half-denomination, 5.97 g average. 1 obv. die, 13 rev. dies.

Rev: HPWΔΟΥ TETPAPXOY, L ΛΔ, palm branch upright.
R

Rev: HPWΔΟΥ TETPAPXOY, L ΛΔ, palm branch upright.
RR

Rev: HPWΔOY (of Herod), L ΛΔ, palm branch upright.
RR
Year 37, 33/4 ce
6242 6243

Obv: TIBE PIAC, star above, within wreath.
Rev: HPWΔΟΥ TETPAPXOY, L ΛZ (year 37), palm branch upright
flanked on l. by a cornucopia.
RR

Rev: HPWΔΟΥ TETPAPXOY, L ΛZ (year 37), palm branch upright.
R
6245
6244
Rev: HPWΔΟΥ TETPAPXOY, L ΛZ (year 37), palm branch upright.
R

Rev: HPWΔΟΥ, L ΛZ (year 37), palm branch upright.
RR
Year 43, 39/40 ce
6247
6246

Obv: ΓAIΩ KAICAP ΓEΡMA NIKΩ (for Gaius Caesar Germanicus)
within wreath.
Rev: HPWΔHC TETPAPXHC (Herod the Tetrarch), ETO CMΓ (year
43), seven-branched palm tree with two date clusters.
R

Obv: ΓΑΙΩ ΚΑΙCAP ΓΕΡΜΑ ΝΙΚΩ within wreath.
Rev: HPWΔHC TETPAPXHC, L MΓ, palm branch upright.
R
6249
6248
Obv: ΓΑΙΩ ΚΑΙ CAP (for Gaius Caesar) within wreath.
Rev: HPΩΔHC TETPAPXHC, L MΓ, bunch of dates.
RR

Obv: ΓΑ ΙΩ (for Gai[us]) within wreath.
Rev: HPWΔHC TETPAPXHC, L MΓ, palm branch upright.
RR
[Herod]111 Philip, 4 bce–34 ce
Now in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate
being governor of Judea and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his
brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis…
(Luke 3:1).
Son of Herod I and Cleopatra of Jerusalem, Philip was educated in Rome

with his older half-brothers, Archelaus and Antipas. He received the final
portion of his father’s kingdom—the northeastern section—as well as the
title tetrarch at the same as his brother Antipas.
Like his father and brother Antipas, Philip also enjoyed building cities.
The most important city was Panias at the spring that creates a main tribu-
tary of the Jordan River, which was named (of course) Caesarea after the
emperor. It became known as Caesarea Philippi to avoid confusion with
his father’s city of Caesarea Maritima, and was Philip’s capital:
When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his dis-
ciples… (Matthew 16:13).
Philip became a ruler at the whim of Augustus. In Herod’s original

will, he designated Antipas to succeed him. In a second will, however, he
gave the nod to his second son, Archelaus. But only the emperor was pow-
erful enough to decide who would succeed, and when Herod died, Augus-
tus modified Herod’s second will. He did not name any one of the three
sons to be king to succeed their father. Instead, Augustus named Archelaus
“ethnarch” and entitled him to 500 talents income each year from his do-
main, and named Antipas and Philip as “tetrarchs,” giving each of them
200 and 100 talents annual income, respectively.
While Archelaus and Antipas competed for the favor of Augustus,
each vying for the kingship, Philip seems to have been satisfied with the
small domain assigned to him. Stern calls Philip “least colorful” of Herod’s
sons.112 He was also the least violent and achieved the historic status of
being a peace-loving man and a good administrator. Josephus tells how
Philip traveled throughout his kingdom and set up tribunals in a stately
manner to settle the problems of his constituents.113
Philip was the first husband of the notorious Berenice, his own great-
niece and sister of Agrippa II. Upon his death in 34 ce, she married an-
other member of the Herodian family, Aristobulus, king of Chalcis. At
that time, Philip’s land was annexed to the Roman province of Syria, but
in 37 ce it was given to Herod I’s grandson, Agrippa I. Philip was buried
at Bethsaida, which he had rebuilt and renamed Julias in honor of Julia, the
daughter of his original patron, Augustus.114
As the least well-known of Herod’s three sons, it is ironic that Philip
is the only one, and the first Jewish ruler, whose face we are able to see.
His jutting nose was almost comically large for the rest of his face. He had
curly, short hair and a sharp jawline with a prominent chin.
Herod I had built a splendid Roman temple at Caesarea Philippi, the
Augusteum of Panias, which Philip depicted on most of his coins with a
facade of four columns and a staircase. His coins were issued in three de-
nominations. Herod Philip is mentioned in the following New Testament
verses: Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17–29; Luke 3:19.
Graven Images, Laurel, and Thunderbolt

Philip was the first Herodian ruler to issue provincial coins that reflected
his status as a client king of Rome. In the tradition of the Hasmoneans,
neither Philip’s father nor his older half-brothers issued any coins with
human images.115 Philip’s tetrarchy consisted of territories formerly ruled
by Zenodorus of Ituraea: Trachonitis, Auranitis, Batanaea, and Gaulani-
tis—where Philip made his capital, at Paneas. The area had a relatively
small Jewish population116 and “this fact finds notable expression on Phil-
ip’s coins. He gave them an international and pagan character in the belief
that this was in keeping with the region and the eastern Roman provinces
in general.”117
Most Roman provincial coins at this time depicted the emperor (or a
family member) on the obverse and another image on the reverse, usually
temples or gods. Philip’s coins follow these patterns and depict an obverse
image of Augustus, Livia, Tiberius, or Philip himself (nos. 6250, 6251,
6263, 6266),118 the first of a Jewish royal dynasty to use his own face on a
coin (Fig. 7.6). His later relatives Agrippa I, Aristobulus of Chalcis, Herod
of Chalcis, and Agrippa II, are all depicted on coins.119
The various royal images used on Philip’s coins are mostly conven-
tional. One coin (no. 6260) depicts jugate busts of Tiberius and Livia. On
another die used in multiple years, the field in front of the head of Tiberius
is decorated with a laurel branch (no. 6264). The laurel branch has not been
discussed in detail, but the discovery of a thunderbolt beneath the head of
Tiberius on this particular obverse provides an opportunity.120
Examination of the coins struck from this obverse die shows that
numerous previously published examples show traces of the thunderbolt.
Madden’s 1864121 drawing (Fig. 7.7) depicts a well-centered coin with a
bare head of Tiberius, a laurel branch in front of him, and the top of a
thunderbolt beneath his head. Madden’s drawing was made by copying a
7.6. Herod Philip’s portrait recreated from

his coins. (Graphic: Fontanille.)
7.7. Tiberius’s portrait with thunderbolt

below and laurel to r. (Madden 1864.)
coin of the same obverse die as coin no. 6264, yet neither Madden nor any
subsequent numismatist describes this thunderbolt.
We identified 44 examples122 of Philip’s coins with this obverse die
combined with 16 different reverses. The dates: 26/27 ce (LΛ=year 30;
one example)123; 29/30 ce (LΛΓ=year 33; × 2; 1 reverse die identified);
30/31 ce (LΛΔ=year 34; × 18; 8 reverse dies identified); and 33/34 ce
(LΛZ=year 37; × 20; 7 reverse dies identified). Most of these coins are
either poorly preserved or struck slightly off center, with the missing por-
tion of the thunderbolt design partly or completely missing beneath the
emperor’s head.
Some other provincial coins struck under Tiberius depict a thunder-
bolt on either the obverse or the reverse.124 An imperial bronze as struck
in Rome under Tiberius depicts a deified bust of Augustus on the obverse
and a winged thunderbolt on the reverse.125 The thunderbolt, among other
objects such as an oak wreath, star, and patera, are “of a general simplicity
and universal nature that would have appeal in the provinces”126 and are
also clear references to the entry of Augustus to the pantheon of gods.
In general, lightning or more specifically the thunderbolt symbol—a
conflation of the lightning and the clap of thunder immediately following
it—is related to the god Zeus/Jupiter. “The Greeks and Romans respected
lightning so much that they considered any point struck by lightning as
holy and built their temples on these sites.”127
7.8. Agrippa I’s bust recreated from his coins by

artists at The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. (Israel
Museum.)
The coins of Philip with the laurel and thunderbolt appear to be the
singular pairing of these two objects on an ancient coin struck under Ti-
berius. Suetonius provides us with insightful evidence about the double
depiction. “Tiberius was somewhat neglectful of the gods and of religious
matters,” Suetonius wrote. At the same time, Tiberius was “addicted to
astrology and firmly convinced that everything was in the hands of fate, he
was nevertheless immoderately afraid of thunder. Whenever the sky was
lowering, he always wore a laurel wreath, because it is said that kind of leaf
is not blasted by lightning.”128 The laurel’s immunity to lightning was a
widespread belief at the time, Pliny the Elder (23–79 ce) claimed, “Among
things that grow in the ground [lightning] does not strike a laurel bush.”129
Considering Suetonius’s remarks on Tiberius’s astraphobia (fear of
thunder and lightning) and the emperor’s faith in the protection afforded
by a laurel wreath, we can conjecture that Philip was aware of this person-
ality trait and chose to employ it on his coins.
COINS OF [HEROD] PHILIP

Mint of Caesarea Philippi (Paneas)
Year 5, 1/2 ce, under Augustus,
Many coins have blundered legends, Greek Σ may appear as C.
Axis of Philip coins is ↑.
6250 6251
6250. AE 24 mm, 8.48 g average.130

Obv: KAICAPOC CEBACTOY (of Caesar Augustus), Augustus bare
head r.
Rev: ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ (of Philip the Tetrarch), LE (year 5),
Herod Philip bare head r.
RR
6251. AE 18 mm, 4.80 g average.

Obv: ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ, LE, Herod Philip bare head r.
Rev: CEBAC KAICAP (Augustus Caesar) outward, the Augusteum of
Panias (shown as a tetrastyle temple) on high platform, lily in pediment.
RR
Year 12, 8/9 ce
6252 6252a
6252. AE 20 mm, 8.09 g average.
Obv: KAICAPI CEBACTΩ (for Caesar Augustus), Augustus laureate
head r.
Rev: ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ, LIB (year 12) between columns, the
Augusteum of Panias, stairs leading to it, dot in pediment. The dot
may represent the clupeus virtutis, the shield proclaiming the virtues
of Augustus.131
R
a. Retrograde reverse.
b. Star countermark on obverse.
c. Φ countermark on obverse.
6253. AE 20 mm, 5.93 g average.

Obv: KAICAPI CEBACTΩ, Augustus laureate head l.
Rev: ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡ, LIB between columns, the Augusteum of Panias,
floral design in pediment.
R
a. Reverse is retrograde.
Year 16, 12/13 ce
6254 6255a
6254. AE 20 mm, 6.16 g average.
Obv: KAICAPI CEBACTΩ, Augustus laureate head r.
Rev: ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ, L Iς (year 16) between columns, the
Augusteum of Panias, stairs leading to columns, dot in pediment.
R
a. Star countermark on obverse.
b. Φ countermark on obverse.
Year 19, 15/16 ce under Tiberius
6255. AE 19 mm, 5.43 g average.

Obv: TIB KAICAPI ΣΕΒΑΣ (for Tib[erius] Caesar Augustus), Tiberius
laureate head r.
Rev: ΦΙΛΙΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΧΟΥ, L IΘ (year 19) between columns, the Au-
gusteum of Panias, no podium, staircase below, dot in pediment.
R
a. Date is retrograde.
b. Star countermark obverse.
c. Φ countermark on obverse.
Year 30, 26/27 ce
6256. AE 19 mm, 7.78 g average.

Obv: TIBEPIOΣ ΣEBAΣTOΣ KAIΣAP (Tiberius Augustus Caesar),
Tiberius laureate head r., laurel branch in r. field, thunderbolt beneath.
Rev: ΕΠΙ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ (in the time of Philip the tetrarch),
LΛ (year 30) between columns, the Augusteum of Panias on low
platform, dot in pediment.
R
6257. AE 17 mm, 3.66 g average.

Obv: Tiberius laureate head r.
Rev: ΕΠΙ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ (in the time of Philip the tetrarch),
LΛ (year 30) between columns, the Augusteum of Panias on low
platform, dot in pediment.
RR
6258. AE 14 mm, 2.51 g for one example

Obv: IΟΥΛΙΑ ΣEBAΣTH (Augusta Iulia), Livia draped bust to r.
Rev: ΚΑΡΠΟΦΟΡΟΣ (fruit-bearing), L Λ, hand holds three ears of
grain.
RRR
Year 33, 29/30 ce
6259 6260
6259. AE 18 mm, 5.15 g average.
Obv: KAIΣAPOΣ ΣEBACTOΥ, Tiberius laureate head r.
Rev: ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ, L ΛΓ (year 33) between columns, the
Augusteum of Panias on low platform, dot in pediment.
R
a. Obv: TIBEPIOΣ ΣEBAΣTOΣ KAIΣAP.
Rev: ΕΠΙ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ.
b. Obv: Same as 6261.
Year 34, 30/31 ce
6260. AE 24 mm, 9.61 g average.

Obv: ΣΕΒΑΣΤWИ (of the Augusti), Tiberius and Livia jugate heads r.
Rev: ΕΠΙ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ (in the time of Philip the Tetrarch),
the Augusteum of Panias on high platform with clupeus virtutis in
center (see no. 6252 above).
R
a. Star countermark obverse, X countermark reverse.
This issue is not dated, but as noted in the previous edition, Shraga Qedar believes this
coin belongs to the series of year 34, based on style and historical circumstances. Strickert
agrees with this conclusion.132
6261. AE 19 mm, 5.94 g average.

Obv: TIBEPIOΥ ΣEBAΣTOΣ KAIΣAP, Tiberius laureate head r., laurel
branch in r. field, thunderbolt beneath.
Rev: ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ ΚΤΙΣ (of the founder, Philip the tetrarch),
L Λ Δ (year 34) between columns, the Augusteum of Panias, small
inverted triangle on pediment.
R
6263 6264
6262
6262. AE 14 mm, 3.23 average from 4 coins.
Obv: IΟΥΛΙΑ ΣEBAΣTH (Augusta Julia), Livia draped bust to r.
Rev: ΚΑΡΠΟΦΟΡΟΣ, L ΛΔ, hand holds three ears of grain.
R
6263. AE 11 mm, 1.68 average.

Obv: ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ (of Philip), Herod Philip bare head r.
Rev: L Λ Δ within wreath.
RR
6264. AE 18 mm, 6.06 average.

Obv: TIBEPIOC CEBACTOC KAICAP, Tiberius laureate head r.,
laurel branch in r. field, thunderbolt beneath.
Rev: EΠI ΦIΛIΠΠOY TETPAPXOY, L Λ Z (year 37) between columns
of the Augusteum of Panias on low platform, dot in pediment.
R
6265. AE 14 mm, 2.99 g average from 5 coins.

Obv: IOYΛIA CEBACTH, Livia draped bust r.
Rev: ΚΑΡΠΟΦΟΡΟΣ (fruit-bearing), L ΛZ, hand holds three ears of
grain.
R
6266. AE 11 mm, 1.45 g average.

Obv: ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ (of Philip), Herod Philip bare head r.
Rev: L Λ Z within wreath.
RR
a. Z is retrograde.
Agrippa I, 36/37 to 43/44 ce
Now about that time Herod [Agrippa] the king stretched forth his
hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of
John with the sword (Acts 12:1–2).
Grandson of Herod I and Mariamne the Hasmonean, Marcus Julius

Agrippa was born in 11/10 bce. His parents were Aristobulus, son of
Herod I and Mariamne, and Berenice, daughter of Costobar and Herod’s

sister Salome. His parents were first cousins—rather common in royal
families at the time.
Agrippa’s family was devastated by his own grandfather Herod I, who
executed Mariamne and Costobar before Agrippa was born. When Agrip-
pa was three, Herod murdered his father and uncle Alexander.
Agrippa was named after Mark (Marcus) Antony, who was responsi-
ble for Herod’s kingship, Julius Caesar, who granted citizenship to Herod’s
father, Antipater, and Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, son-in-law and close
associate of Augustus.133
Josephus reports that Herod raised Aristobulus’s children after he
killed their father, “taking care of the orphans and showing his remorse for
the murder of his sons by his compassion for their offspring.”134 Agrippa
was educated in Rome, where he was taken, at around age five, by his
mother, who may have been protecting him against his grandfather’s para-
noid whims that already resulted in so many family murders. The young
Agrippa was especially friendly with Claudius and Gaius (later Caligula).
Once when Agrippa and Caligula were driving together in the former’s
chariot, Agrippa commented that he hoped that Caligula would succeed
the elderly Tiberius as emperor and become “lord of the world.” Agrippa’s
coachman, Eutychus, overheard this conversation and later, when he was
in trouble on another matter, bargained and declared that he had an im-
portant secret to tell the emperor.
When Tiberius heard about what Agrippa had said, he had him fet-
tered and taken to prison. While leaning against a tree, still wearing his
royal purple, waiting to be taken to his cell, an owl landed on a branch
above Agrippa’s head. Another prisoner saw this omen and told Agrippa
that he was able to tell fortunes by observing birds, and the owl was a good
omen sent by Agrippa’s god. It meant he would soon be released and re-
stored to his former positions. The prisoner warned Agrippa, however, that
when he saw that owl again he would die within five days.
Agrippa was imprisoned for about six months, until Tiberius died
on March 16, 37 ce. Caligula indeed ascended to the throne and quickly
proved his friendship to Agrippa by setting him free and crowning him
king of his uncle Philip’s former tetrarchy. The Roman Senate then con-
ferred the rank of praetor on Agrippa, and Caligula presented him with a
golden chain equal in weight to the iron chain he had worn in prison.
Two years later, Agrippa’s uncle Antipas, egged on by his wife Herodi-
as, visited Caligula and asked for more power. However, this annoyed Cal-
igula, who banished Antipas to Gaul and added his territories to Agrippa’s.
We have several primary sources for information on Agrippa I’s life,
career, and death: the New Testament (Acts 12), Josephus, Philo, and
Cassius Dio. He is also mentioned many times in the Rabbinic literature,
but Daniel Schwartz notes “those rabbis who looked back upon him after
a few generations, and especially in light of the destruction of the Second
Temple, seem to have viewed his reign as a transient and insignificant epi-
sode. And, in fact, there is something to say for this view of the monarch,
a man whose burial place no one even cared to record.”135
The sources leave little doubt that Agrippa was a benevolent king for
the Jewish people. He carefully followed Pharisaic tradition in Jerusalem
and was quite popular. Both Josephus and the Talmud praise him. His ini-
tial unquestioning loyalty to Rome eventually gave way to deep religious
and nationalistic feelings, and Agrippa soon set about surrounding Jeru-
salem with “a wall on such a scale as, had it been completed would have
rendered ineffectual all the efforts of the Romans in the subsequent siege.
But before the work had reached the projected height, he died….”136
Agrippa was also a consummate politician. When he traveled out of
his Jewish territories, he was a liberal patron of Greek culture. He also
had “a gentle disposition and he was a benefactor to all alike…but to his
compatriots he was proportionally more generous and more compassion-
ate…he scrupulously observed the traditions of his people. He neglected
no rite of purification and no day passed for him without the prescribed
sacrifice.”137
The Talmud tells of Agrippa’s attendance at the Feast of Tabernacles
in 41 ce. According to tradition, Agrippa read from the Book of Deuter-
onomy, and when he got to the passage “Thou mayest not set a stranger
over thee that is not thy brother,”138 he burst into tears because he felt this
passage referred to his own rule. However, the Talmud says that when the
people observed the king’s emotions, they cried out, “Fear not, Agrippa!
Thou art our brother! Thou art our brother!”139 Much of his popularity
among the Jews was because he went out of his way to reach an under-
standing with the leaders of the Pharisees.
Since Agrippa was king of Judea during the decade after the death
of Jesus, he faced issues relating to the spread of Christianity, and in
these matters, he sided more with the stern views of the Sadducees.
Agrippa ordered the execution of the apostle James, son of Zebedee,
and imprisoned the apostle Peter with the intention of killing him,
although Peter escaped.140
Agrippa was present in Rome when his patron Caligula was murdered.
Josephus tells us he contributed significantly to insuring the succession of
Claudius, another of his close childhood friends. In return, Claudius not
only confirmed Agrippa’s position but also handed over the territories of
Judea and Samaria, plus an award of the consular rank. Agrippa I now had
united under his rule the entire territory governed by his grandfather.
Agrippa was an enthusiastic client king of Rome. Josephus tells of
a royal meeting Agrippa convened in Tiberias. The meeting took place
shortly after Agrippa built a “sumptuous and elegant” theater in Berytus,
and when it was finished he staged a giant gala/execution in which 1,400
“malefactors” were punished by being pitted against each other, 700 versus
7.9. Meeting of the kings: from left, Agrippa I; his brother, Herod of Chalcis; Pol-
emo II, king of Pontus; and Antiochus IV of Commagene.
700, as gladiators, “In this way he brought about the utter annihilation of
these men.”141
When Agrippa finished his massacre of criminals at Berytus, he pro-
ceeded to Tiberias, where he convened the meeting of other Roman client
kings from eastern territories. He was visited by Antiochus IV, king of
Commagene; Sampsigeramus, king of Emesa; Cotys IX, king of Armenia
Minor; Polemo II, king of Pontus; and Agrippa’s brother Herod, king of
Chalcis. “His converse with all of them when he entertained and showed
them courtesies was such as to demonstrate an elevation of sentiment that
justified the honor done him by a visit of royalty.”142
The meeting had a rather untimely end, however, because at the same
time, “[Vibius] Marsus, the governor of Syria arrived. The king therefore,
to do honor to the Romans, advanced seven furlongs outside the city to
meet him. Now this action, as events proved, was destined to be the begin-
ning of a quarrel with Marsus; for Agrippa brought the other kings along
with him and sat with them in his carriage. However, Marsus was suspi-
cious of such concord and intimate friendship among these regional rulers.
He took it for granted that a meeting of the minds among so many chiefs
of state was prejudicial to Roman interests. He therefore at once sent some
of his associates with an order to each of the kings bidding him set off
without delay to his own territory. Agrippa felt very much hurt by this and
henceforth was at odds with Marsus.”143
Agrippa’s meeting of the kings offers an interesting look at the poten-
tial alliances between the men who ruled at the pleasure of Rome during
the first century, not to mention how uncomfortable those alliances could
make the local Roman representatives.
We can see some of these rulers via portraits on their coins, specifi-
cally Agrippa himself (Fig. 7.8), Antiochus IV of Commagene, Agrippa’s
brother Herod of Chalcis (who became the second husband of Agrippa’s
daughter Berenice), and Polemo, king of Pontus (who became the third
husband of the same Berenice) (Fig. 7.9).
Josephus’s account of this meeting is contained in the same chapter
that describes Agrippa’s death, so it probably occurred quite late in his life,
around 42 ce.
Schwartz summarizes an historic view of Agrippa’s reign as related to
Judea and Rome: “On the one hand, under Agrippa all of Palestine was
reunited under a Jewish monarch—only to allow all of it, rather than a

third as formerly, to return to direct Roman rule after his death. In other
words, while it briefly appeared that through Agrippa Judea could avert the
steamroller of Roman history, it turned out that he helped smooth its path.
And, on the other hand, a man who knew better than anyone that the fate
of Judea, and of the Jews of the Mediterranean world, was dependent upon
Rome, was stubbornly viewed by too many people as a harbinger of the
type of anti-Roman Jewish nationalism embodied by some of his ances-
tors. The hopes which were raised by his enthronement, and which refused
to die with him, contributed to the faith which led to the great rebellion of
66–73 ce, and to catastrophe.”144
In 44 ce, Agrippa attended games and celebrations in honor of the em-
peror at Caesarea Maritima. On the second day of the festivities, Agrippa
wore a robe of woven silver to the amphitheater. Flatterers who saw his
robe sparkling in the sun called out that he was a god and begged him to
take mercy on them. Josephus says that Agrippa took the flattery a bit too
seriously, and began to think of himself a god. Shortly thereafter, he saw an
owl sitting on a rope. The owl harkened back to the day he was imprisoned
in Rome by Tiberius, and Agrippa recognized the appearance of the owl
as a warning of his impending death. Soon he developed severe pains in
his bowels, and he had to be carried away. In five days, Agrippa died.145 A
more likely scenario is that enemies poisoned him.
In the Acts of the Apostles, we have a similar telling: “And he went
down from Judea to Caesarea and was spending time there. Now he was
very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon and with one accord they
came to him, and having won over Blastus the king’s chamberlain, they
were asking for peace, because their country was fed by the king’s country.
And on the appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took
his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. And the
people kept crying out ‘The voice of a god and not of a man!’ And imme-
diately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the
glory, and he was eaten by worms and died.”146
Agrippa I died in 44 ce at age 54. His reign of seven years was a brief
golden age in the period of Roman rule over Judea, especially for the three
years that he reigned over Judea itself, and a kingdom as large as that of
his grandfather’s. It is somewhat fitting that Agrippa I, an heir to both the
Hasmonean and Herodian bloodlines, was the last Jewish king to reign
over Judea.
The coins struck under Agrippa I are rare, with the exception of the
single coin that was minted in large numbers in Jerusalem for use by the
people of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. This common type stands alone
among Agrippa’s coins because it carries no graven image—on one side it
depicts three ears of grain and on the other side an umbrella-like canopy
that was a symbol of power (no. 6274). This was also the only prutah-style
coin that Agrippa I struck.
Lönnqvist attempted to show that Agrippa II minted the common

prutot dated year 6 (canopy/3 ears grain).147
However, the metallurgy, size, and shape of this coin place it in the
period in the midst of the prefect and procurator issues struck from 6 to
66—the time of Agrippa I.148Epstein et al. studied this coin type using X-
ray fluorescence and lead-isotope ratios and concluded that “the elemental
isotope ratio, archaeological evidence, and numismatic data strongly sup-
port that these coins were minted by Agrippa I.” Even more specifically,
the evidence pointed to a date of 44 +/-5 ce, which is precisely on target.149
Aside from this typical Judean prutah, however, the denomination and
value of Agrippa’s other coins are not clear. Agrippa’s other coins were
struck at Caesarea Paneas and dated years 2 (38/39 ce) and 5 (40/41 ce),
and at Caesarea Maritima and dated years 7 (42/43 ce) and 8 (43/44 ce).
These coins for use in non-Jewish areas of his territory reflect on Agrippa’s
early life and friendships at the Roman court, as recalled by Josephus. Thus,
his coins depict Caligula, his wife, Caesonia, his sisters, Julia, Drusilla and
Agrippina, and his daughter, Drusilla.
A remarkable coin (no. 6281) depicts on one side a scene in which
Agrippa I and his brother Herod of Chalcis crown Claudius with a wreath.
On the other side, two clasped hands appear within a wreath and two
concentric circles of Greek, which translate as “A vow and treaty of friend-
ship and alliance between the Great King Agrippa and Augustus Caesar
[Claudius], the Senate and the People of Rome.”
Other rare coins of Agrippa I depict his portrait, as well as the name
and image of his wife, Cypros, as well as two types that depict his young
son, the future Agrippa II. (In this respect Agrippa I followed the practice
of the Julio-Claudian emperors in portraying members of their immediate
family on coinage. Because of the prohibition against graven images, there
are no known sculptural busts of the ancient Jewish kings. This situation, of
course, has led to a lot of curiosity, and some years ago, Ya’akov Meshorer,
then numismatic curator at the Israel Museum, commissioned a sculptor
to create a bust of Agrippa based on his interpretation of Agrippa’s images
on various coins (Fig. 7.8).
Agrippa I is the “Herod” who is mentioned throughout verses 1–23 of
the Book of Acts.
COINS OF AGRIPPA I
Axis of Agrippa I coins is ↑.
Mint of Caesarea Paneas, Year 2, 37/38 ce
6267. AE 24 mm, 15.90 g.

Obv: ΓAIΩ… (for Gaius...), LB (year 2), Caligula laureate head l.
Rev: IOYΛIA ΔPOYΣIΛΛA AΓPIΠΠINA ( Julia, Drusilla, Agrippina),
Julia, Drusilla, and Agrippina, from l., (the sisters of Caligula), Julia
leans on column, the other two hold cornucopias.
RRR
6268
6270
6268. AE 20 mm, 7.97 g average.150
Obv: BACΙΛΕΩC ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑC (of King Agrippa), Agrippa I diademed
head r.
Rev: ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ ΥΙΟΥ ΒΑCIΛΕΩC (Agrippa, son of the king), LB be-
neath horse, Agrippa II rides horse r.
RR
6269. AE 16 mm, 8.8 g average.151

Obv: ΚΥΠΡΟC (Cypros), Cypros (wife of Agrippa) head r.
Rev: ΓΑΙΩ ΚΑΙCAΡΙ (for Gaius Caesar), LB, hand holds ears of grain,
and vine in r. field.
RR
Struck Year 5, 40/41 ce
6270. AE 24 mm, 11.55 g average.

Obv: ΓAIΩ KAIΣAPI ΣEBAΣTΩ ΓEPMANIKΩ (for Gaius Caesar
Augustus Germanicus), Caligula laureate head l.
Rev: NOMIΣ[MA] BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΓPIΠΠA (coin of King Agrippa), LE
(year 5), Germanicus stands in triumphal quadriga r.
RR
6271. AE 19 mm, 5.80 g average.

Obv: ΚΑΙΣΩΝΙΑ ΓΥΝΗ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΥ (Caesonia, wife of Augustus), Cae-
sonia head l.
Rev: ΔΡΟΥΣΙΛΛΗ ΘΥΓΑΤΡΙ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΥ (for Drusilla the daughter of
Augustus), LE in l. field, Drusilla (daughter of Caligula) stands l.
with a branch over her shoulder, holding a small Victory.
RR
6272. AE 17 mm, 3.36 g average.

Obv: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ, Agrippa I diademed, draped, bust to r.
Rev: ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗ ΚΥΠΡΩ (of Queen Cypros), LE in l. field, Cypros (wife
of Agrippa), veiled, stands front, holding long scepter in her l. hand
and object in her raised r. hand. RR
6273. AE 15 mm, 2.70 g average.

Obv: ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ ΥΙΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ (Agrippa, son of King
Agrippa), LE in l. field, young Agrippa II bare head l.
Rev: BAΣ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ ΦΙΛOKAIΣAP (King Agrippa, friend of Caesar),
two cornucopias splayed outward, crossed at bases.
RR
Mint of Jerusalem,
Year 6, 41/42 ce
6274
Obv: BACIΛEWC ΑΓΡΙΠΑ (of King Agrippa), umbrella-like canopy
with fringes.
Rev: Lς (year 6), three ears of barley and leaves.
CC
a. Irregular issue, crude and blundered.
b. Brockage of obverse on reverse.
c. Apparently unstruck on reverse.
Mint of Caesarea Maritima,

Year 7, 42/43 ce
6276
6275
6275. AE 25 mm, 15.26 g.

Obv: TIBEPIOΣ KAIΣAP ΣEBAΣTOΣ ΓEP (Tiberius Caesar Augustus
Germanicus), Claudius laureate bust r.
Rev: BAΣIΛΕΥΣ MEΓΑΣ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑΣ ΦΙΛΟΚΑΙΣAP (the Great King
Agrippa, friend of Caesar), LZ (year 7) in pediment, distyle temple,
within, two figures stand facing each other and hold circular objects
(pateras?), below, figure kneels l., in center, torso holds another object.
R
a. Head left countermark on obverse.
Burnett suggests this reverse “implies that one [figure] is supposed to be Agrippa and
the other the emperor Claudius. On both coin designs, the Emperor is not only togate
but has his toga drawn over his head (capite velato) and holds a patera, in a religious
gesture. The figure of the King, to our left, also holds a patera. My suggestion in 1987
was that the scene may represent the consecration of the treaty between the two rulers
in the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill in Rome.152 Suetonius relates
how ‘Claudius cum regibus foedus in foro icit porca caesa ac vetere fetialium praefatione
adhibita’ (Claudius struck a treaty with kings in the Forum, sacrificing a pig and ap-
plying the ancient formula of the fetial priests).153
“Although Suetonius does not mention a temple, the fetial ceremony (which in-
volved singing a hymn and killing a pig) may be alluded to on Agrippa’s coin, since I
believe that the kneeling figure is engaged in killing a pig, the usual Roman sacrifice to
consecrate a treaty or oath.”154
6276. AE 20 mm, 8.18 g average.

Obv: BAΣIΛΕΥΣ MEΓΑΣ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑΣ ΦΙΛΟΚΑΙΣAP, Agrippa I dia-
demed, draped bust r.
Rev: KAIΣAPIA H ΠΡΟΣ TΩ ΣEBAΣTΩ ΛΙMHNI (Caesarea, which is
by the port of Sebastos), LZ, Tyche stands l., her r. hand on rudder and
her l. holds palm branch.
R
a. Head left countermark on obverse.
b. Crab in field to l. of Tyche.
6277
6278
6277. AE 16 mm, 4.38 g average based on 3 coins.

Obv: AΓPIΠΠOY YIOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ (of Agrippa, son of the King), young
Agrippa II bust l.
Rev: LZ in fields, inverted anchor.
RRR
Year 8, 43/44 ce
6278. AE 24 mm, 15.81 g average.

Obv: BAΣ AΓPIΠAΣ ΣEB KAIΣAP BAΣ HPΩΔHΣ (King Agrippa,
Augustus [Claudius] Caesar, King Herod), date LH in exergue, Agrip-
pa I (on l.), and his brother Herod of Chalcis r., crown Claudius
with a wreath while he sacrifices with patera over altar.
Rev: OPKIA BAΣ ME AΓPIΠΠA ΠP ΣEB KAIΣAP A K ΣYNKΛHTON
K ΔHM ΡΩΜ ΦIΛI K ΣYNMAXI AYT (A vow and treaty of friend-
ship and alliance between the great King Agrippa and Augustus Caesar,
the Senate and the People of Rome), two clasped hands within wreath
in two concentric circles.
RRR
a. Head left countermark on reverse.
This historic coin is invariably in poor condition. This is Meshorer’s restoration of the
inscription.
6279. AE 25 mm, 14.53 g average.

Obv: TIBEPIOΣ KΛAYΔ KAICAP ΣEBAΣTOΣ ΓEPM (Tiberius
Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus), Claudius laureate bust to r.
Rev: BAΣIΛΕΥΣ MEΓΑΣ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑΣ ΦΙΛΟΚΑΙΣAP (the Great King
Agrippa, friend of Caesar), LH in pediment, distyle temple, within,
two figures stand facing each other and hold circular objects (pat-
eras?), below, figure kneels l., in center, torso holds another object
(see no. 6275).
RR
a. Clearer reverse details.
b. Male head l. in oval countermark on obverse.
6280. AE 20 mm, 7.32 average.

Obv: BAΣIΛΕΥΣ MEΓΑΣ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑΣ ΦΙΛΟΚΑΙΣAP, Agrippa I dia-
demed, draped bust to r.
Rev: KAIΣAPIA H ΠΡΟΣ TΩ ΣEBAΣTΩ ΛΙMHNI, LH in r. field,Tyche
stands l., r. hand on rudder and l. holds palm branch.
RR
Herod of Chalcis, 41–48 ce

Aristobulus of Chalcis, 57–92 ce
Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobu-
lus’s household (Romans 16:10).
The descendants of Herod I remained loyal to Rome and were rewarded

with both rank and privilege. Herod of Chalcis (sometimes called Herod
III) was the brother of Agrippa I. The traditional Herodian relationship
with Rome led not only to the descendants of Herod the Great ruling
Jewish districts but also large areas in the Near East that had little or no
connection with the Jews.
At Agrippa I’s request, in 41 ce, Claudius granted Agrippa’s older
brother Herod the kingdom of Chalcis in Coele-Syria, a land neither con-
sidered part of the Jewish territory nor inhabited by Jews. Among Herod
I’s other descendants were grandson Tigranes V (6–12 ce) and another
descendant (possibly a great-grandson) Tigranes VI (60–62 ce) who be-
came Herodian kings of Armenia155 but showed no interest in the Jewish
people or their religion.
Herod of Chalcis, however, was keenly interested in his Jewish breth-
ren. Josephus reports that in 44 ce, after the death of Agrippa I, he “asked
Claudius to give him authority over the Temple and the holy vessels and
the selection of the high priests—all of which requests he obtained. This
authority, derived from him, passed to his descendants alone [Agrippa II]
until the end of the war.”156
When Herod of Chalcis died in 48/49 ce, Claudius assigned his
throne to to Agrippa II, Herod of Chalcis’s nephew and brother-in-law,
who shortly gave up that throne to rule his great uncle Herod Philip’s
former kingdom, more directly connected with his ancestral fortunes. Rep-
etition of names and assorted inter-marriages amongst the Hasmoneans
and Herodians are confusing. But here is one clarification—Agrippa II
was Herod of Chalcis’s brother-in-law since upon the death of his first
wife (and cousin) Mariamne, Herod of Chalcis married Berenice, sister of
Agrippa II and his own (much younger) niece!
Herod of Chalcis’s son was Aristobulus, a great grandson of Herod
I and first cousin of Agrippa II (Fig. 7.10). Aristobulus was married to
the infamous Salome, who earlier had danced before Herod Antipas and
7.10. Images of Herod of Chalcis (l.) and Aristobulus of Chalcis (r.) recreated from
their coins. (Graphic: Fontanille.)
demanded (at her mother’s insistence) the head of John the Baptist. (Aris-
tobulus struck coins with his own portrait on the obverse and Salome’s
portrait on the reverse, no. 6286). As previously mentioned, Salome’s first
husband was her uncle, Herod Philip, a son of Herod I.
Aristobulus did not succeed to any throne upon his father’s death. He
had to wait until Claudius died to achieve royalty in his own right. Jose-
phus reports: “In the first year of Nero’s reign [54 ce]...the government of
Armenia Minor was placed by Nero in the hands of Aristobulus, son of
Herod, King of Chalcis.”157 Josephus later mentions “Aristobulus of the
region named Chalcidice.”158 Tacitus agrees on the year of the appoint-
ment.159 Neither reference, however, gives a clue about why Nero sent a
member of the Herodian family to rule over part of Armenia. “Aristobulus’
rule over Lesser Armenia was quite successful, at least if we judge from the
fact that he held his throne for 17 years,” Kokinos notes.160
Tigranes V was a grandson of Herod I, and in 60 ce, Nero granted
Greater Armenia to Tigranes VI (Fig. 7.11), Herod’s great-grandson. In
72, Aristobulus’s Lesser Armenia territory was returned to Armenia. “As
compensation Aristobulus was presented with his father’s old kingdom of
Chalcis, where we find him in 72/73 setting out with an army to support
the invasion of Commagene.”161
The latest coins of Aristobulus were dated to Year 17 (70/71 ce). The
final year of his reign can be deduced from the other coins of Chalcis.
Frank Kovacs discovered in 2010 a coin with a portrait of both Aristo-
bulus and Salome clearly dated to the year 13 (no. 6286). In the subsequent
decade, more than 20 of these formerly extremely rare coins have been
noted in trade, and each coin shows a legible date of Year 13. “Thus those
reported (with reservations) for years 3 (Γ) and 8 (Η) are certainly misread-
ing of Year 13 (IΓ). Since year 13 corresponds to 66/67 ce, the first year
of the Jewish War, Aristobulus’s coinage is logical as a token of loyalty to
7.11. Portrait coins of Tigranes V (top row) and Tigranes VI, scions of
the Herodian Dynasty. (Photos: Kovacs.)
7.12. c. 48–100 ce monumental inscription in Beirut Museum. (Author photo.)

[Rex magnus Agrippa Philocaesar et r]egina Berenice regis magni A[grippae filii] [coloniae Iuliae
Augustae Felici Beryto impensis suis balneum(?) qu]od rex Herodes proavs eorum fecerat ve[tustate
dilapsum] [refecerunt et ronaverunt stat]uis(?) marmoribusque et columnis [s]ex.
“The great King Agrippa Philocaesar and Queen Berenice, children of the great
King Agrippa, restored in the colonia of Julia Augusta Felix Berytus, from their own
money, this bathhouse (?), which their ancestor, King Herod, had built and which
had fallen to ruins, and re-erected the marble statues and these six columns.”
(Author’s photo.)
Rome and his patron Nero. The propaganda value of a pro-Roman coinage
by a Herodian client king is self-evident in this context. The same applies
to Aristobulus’s issue in Year 17, which corresponds to 70/71 ce, recog-
nizing the new emperor Vespasian and the destruction of the Jerusalem
Temple. Thus, the issues of Aristobulus appear to have been struck in the
context of the Jewish War for propagandistic and political purposes.”162
COINS OF HEROD OF CHALCIS

Year 3 = 43/44 ce
Axis is ↑.
6281. AE 26 mm, 14.58 g average.

Obv: BAΣIΛ. HPΩΔHΣ. BAΣIΛ. AΓPIΠΠAΣ (King Herod, King Agrip-
pa), in exergue KΛAYΔIOΣ KAIΣAP ΣEBAΣTOΣ (Claudius
Augustus Caesar), Claudius stands l. with toga over his head be-
tween Agrippa I and his brother Herod of Chalcis, who crown the
emperor with a wreath.
Rev: KΛAYΔI ΩKAIΣA PI ΣEBAΣ TΩ ETΓ (for Claudius Caesar
Augustus, year 3) within circle and wreath.
RRR
6282
6282. AE 25 mm, 13.96 g average.

Obv: BAΣIΛΕYΣ ΗΡΩΔΗΣ ΦΙΛΟΚΛΑΥΔΙΟΣ (King Herod, friend of
Claudius), Herod of Chalcis diademed bust to r.
Rev: KΛAYΔI ΩKAIΣA PI ΣEBAΣ TΩ ETΓ (for Claudius Caesar Augus-
tus, year 3), within circle and wreath.
RR
6283. AE half-denomination, 20 mm, 5.85 g average.

Obv: BAΣIΛΕYΣ ΗΡΩΔΗΣ ΦΙΛΟΚΛΑΥΔΙΟΣ (King Herod, friend of
Claudius), Herod of Chalcis diademed bust to r.
Rev: KΛAYΔI ΩKAIΣA PI ΣEBAΣ TΩ ETΓ (for Claudius Caesar Au-
gustus, year 3), within circle and wreath.
RR
6284. AE quarter-denomination, 16 mm, 4.01 g average.

Obv: BAΣIΛEYC HPΩΔHC (King Herod), Herod of Chalcis diademed
bust to r.
Rev: KΛAY ΔIΩ KA IΣAPI (for Claudius Caesar) within wreath.
RR
ARISTOBULUS KING OF LESSER ARMENIA

received title and kingdom from Nero in 54/55 ce
Axis is ↑.
Mint of Nicopolis ad Lycum or Chalcis, Year 13 = 66/67 ce
6285. AE 24 mm, 7.22 g average.

Obv: BACIΛΕΩC APICTOBOΥΛΟΥ ET IΓ (of King Aristobulus, year
13), Aristobulus diademed bust l.
Rev: ΝΕΡΩ ΝΙ ΚΛΑΥ ΔΙΩ ΚΑΙCΑ ΡΙ CΕΒΑCΤΩ ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙΚΩ (for
Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus) within wreath.
RR
6286
6286. AE 21 mm, 13.24 g average.
Obv: BACIΛΕΩC APICTOBOΥΛΟΥ ET IΓ (of King Aristobulus, year
Rev: BACIΛΙCCHC CAΛΩΜΗC (of Queen Salome), Salome bust l.
RR
Year 17 = 70/71 ce
6287. AE 23 mm
Obv: BACIΛΕΩC APICTOBOΥΛΟΥ ΕΤ IZ (of King Aristobulus, year
Rev: TITΩ ΟΥΕCΠΑ CIANΩ ΑΥ ΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡ CEBACT Ω (for Titus
Vespasian Emperor Augustus) within wreath.
RR
a. Monogram in square countermark on obverse.
6288. AE 15 mm.
Obv: BACIΛΕΩC APIC...(of King Aristobulus), Capricorn to l. star above.
Rev: ETOYC AZ (year 17), hand holding scales.
RR
Agrippa II, 49/50–94/95 ce (?)
King Agrippa, do you believe in prophets? I know that you do. And
Agrippa replied to Paul, In a short time you will persuade me to become
a Christian (Acts 26:27–28).
There is little doubt that Agrippa II, whose full name was Marcus Julius
Agrippa, was a full client of Rome and even supported the Romans in
battle during the Jewish War. Before the outbreak of the war, Agrippa II
followed “the delicate path trod by his father, patronizing Jews, Greeks,
Romans and ‘Syrians’ alike.” Although Agrippa II was “probably the best
placed individual to prevent or limit the War that brought about the de-
struction of Jerusalem and its Temple. Yet he failed to act when the leading
voices in Jerusalem implored him to use his influence....”163
Other Jews did not take a strict stand against the Romans, includ-
ing Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai, who had his followers smuggle him out
of the besieged Jerusalem in a coffin. The famed teacher then received
approval from either Vespasian or Titus to open an academy for Jewish
learning in Yavne ( Jamnia), to the southwest of Jerusalem.164 In Yavne, he
formulated the changes in Judaism that enabled it to survive the destruc-
tion of the Jerusalem Temple and move forward to become one of the few
world religions to flourish for thousands of years.
It is ironic that if the Jews had won the war against Rome, Ben Zakkai
would have never led the movement for Judaism to develop the way it did.
Arguably, Judaism would have continued to exist as a Temple-centric cult,
based on pilgrimage and animal sacrifice, and would not have evolved into
a religion that substituted prayer for sacrifice and the “heavenly” Jerusalem
for the “earthly” Jerusalem. One key reason the Jews did not win the war
against Rome was that civil war raged among the Jews themselves. Perhaps
if the Jews had won, the civil war coupled with the Jerusalem Temple cult
might have prevented Judaism from surviving and thriving. Meanwhile,
other religions and civilizations from that time have become extinct.
I mention Rabbi Ben Zakkai’s story here to underline that Agrippa
was not alone in his support of making accommodations with Rome. In
effect, the pro-Roman party believed that Roman rule would continue to
allow Jewish institutions and teachings to flourish. Nevertheless, the Zeal-
ots (as told in the legend of Masada) preferred death to subjugation to
Roman rule.
Both sides had defensible viewpoints. In taking the Roman side, one
can argue, both Ben Zakkai, who was pro-negotiation, and Agrippa II,
who was pro-capitulation, tried to achieve a solution allowing survival of
the Jewish people.
Agrippa II was a major force in the ancient Holy Land from 49/50
ce to 94/95 ce. Nevertheless, he “has been relegated to the margins of
7.13. Young Agrippa II’s image recreated

from his coins. Graphic: Fontanille.
history to the extent that he was denied a walk-on part in the classic
seventeenth-century French dramas, Bérénice of Jean Racine and Tite
et Bérénice of Pierre Corneille.” Jacobson describes him as a mediocrity
with a rather “dull mind” that “might be put down to the considerable
inbreeding in his genetic makeup.”165
“His parentage,” Jacobson notes, “was somewhat incestuous, his father
and mother being cousins, with his mother, Cyprus, the granddaughter
of both Herod’s eldest brother Phasael and of Herod himself by his Has-
monean wife Mariamne I. That made him a great grandson of Herod the
Great on both sides of the family.”166
When his father Agrippa I died in 44 ce, Agrippa II was about 16
years old. Toward the end of his reign, Agrippa I was involved in some
activities that antagonized Rome. Still, he was a favorite of Claudius. Jo-
sephus says the emperor was inclined to pass along the kingdom directly
to Agrippa II. However, he was persuaded not to delegate the kingship “to
one who was quite young and had not even passed out of boyhood, and
who would find it impossible to sustain the cares of administration.”167
However, the young man soon received key responsibilities. For ex-
ample, Claudius assigned him guardianship of the high priest’s robes in
Jerusalem.168 Meanwhile, Claudius again brought the Jewish kingdom un-
der direct Roman rule and in 44 ce sent the procurator Cuspius Fadus to
govern. When Agrippa II’s uncle, Herod, king of Chalcis, died in 48 ce,
Claudius gave his throne to Agrippa II. Not long before Claudius died, in
53 ce, he transferred Agrippa II to a larger kingdom including his great-

uncle Philip’s former tetrarchy and some other areas. The young Agrippa
II (Fig. 7.13) continued to acquire power in 56 ce, when Nero assigned
him a portion of the Galilee including Tiberias, Tarichaeae, Abila, and
Livias-Julias.
By that time, Agrippa II was around 28 years old and seemed to have
full control over his domain. This phase is marked by the first era men-
tioned on his coinage, discussed below.
Agrippa II had two sisters. The first, Drusilla, married Aziz, king of
Emisa, and later married Antonius Felix, procurator of Judea. His other
sister Berenice III had three notable husbands (Marcus Julius Alexander,
Herod, king of Chalcis, and Polemo, king of Pontus), almost became em-
press of Rome to Titus, and reigned as queen alongside her brother, as
confirmed in a first-century Latin inscription from Beirut (Fig. 7.12).
Agrippa II issued the most extensive series of coins struck by a Jewish
ruler in ancient Israel. He struck coins in seven bronze denominations,169
plus medallions (unusually large coins, often used to commemorate an
event or person), over more than half a century, at various mints, and based
on two major eras and one secondary era. Agrippa II’s extensive coinage
still holds much to be fully understood.
Coinage Under Claudius Ascribed to Agrippa II

During the reign of Claudius (41–54 ce), Agrippa II became the most
important and influential Jewish personality in the Roman world. He tried
to build on the legacy of his father and grandfather.
From around 48/49 ce (when he was granted the kingdom of Chalcis)
until around 67/68 ce (when he issued the first dated coin with his own
royal title), a series of provincial bronze coins were struck at Tiberias and
at mints believed to be Caesarea Paneas and Caesarea Maritima. These
coins continue the tradition of Agrippa I, and each coin depicts one or
more members of the imperial family of Rome, with the exception of the
coins struck at Tiberias. The latter coins resemble the coins of Antipas and
carry both the date and name of that mint (nos. 6296–6298). Although
none of the coins struck under Claudius refers to Agrippa II by name, we
know that he had clear and growing responsibilities over at least some of
these areas. It is possible that these were early coins under his authority.
Kushnir-Stein argues that the Roman procurators may have issued these
coins or perhaps that they were city coins,170 although none of them car-
ries a city ethnic. Meshorer, on the other hand, suggests attribution of this
group to the Roman administration under Agrippa II, based “on numis-
matic and historical data, after an increase in the number of Land of Israel
coins in the possession of scholars within a specified area of distribution.”
This group of coins, then, appears to be a group not necessarily struck
by Agrippa II, but struck in or near his prospective territories. Andrew

Burnett notes that they are extremely odd, and the use of Latin is very
unusual. “The Claudian/Britannicus coins make sort of sense, but the very
odd Neronian coins [nos. 6299–6300] are really strange inasmuch as they
also lack any corresponding coins for Nero. This topic is definitely an area
for further research.”171
During the years these coins were struck, the former territories of
Agrippa I were governed by Roman procurators or legates of Syria. While
Agrippa II was gaining an increasingly powerful position in these terri-
tories, it is possible that he brought his power to bear on mints outside
Jerusalem, although he was not yet in a position to issue coins with his own
name on them. The coins minted at Tiberias resemble those of Agrippa
II’s great uncle Antipas, while other coins are similar to Roman provincial
coins, except for some use of Latin rather than Greek legends. None of
these coins shows any similarities to the coins of the Roman procurators
of Judea. It seems plausible that Agrippa II had a hand in these coins,
which we attribute to the Roman administration of the territories during
Agrippa II’s pre-royal period.
Eras and Mints

Among the great enigmas of Jewish numismatics has been to understand
the multiple dating eras of the coins of Agrippa II. All of Agrippa II’s
coins bear dates, except for a three-denomination series struck under Nero.
Most also depict imperial portraits, but it has not been easy to understand
the placement of Agrippa’s eras. The problem is that two coins of Agrippa
II are double-dated according to two distinct systems (nos. 6306, 6307),
as discussed below. If those two dating eras are applied to all of Agrippa
II’s coins as the principal eras, however, an illogical picture emerges, which
means that the dating is not correctly placed.
There has long been a consensus that multiple minting eras exist for
Agrippa II, but what are they? In an attempt to solve the mystery, Madden,
in 1864, suggested four dating eras that he applied to Agrippa II’s coins.
In 1914, Hill rejected this and maintained a system based upon a single
era beginning in 61 ce.172 Meshorer suggested two eras, beginning in 56
and 61 ce,173 which Kokinos also supports.174 Alla Kushnir-Stein notes,
“Coins dated by two different eras could have hardly been produced in
the same place simultaneously.”175 Thus she suggests that different mints
simultaneously operated and produced similar coins, and each mint dated
coins according to different regnal eras.
Kushnir-Stein believes that Agrippa II’s most logical era began in the
year 49, “mentioned by Josephus in BJ 2.284. Josephus reported that the
Jewish revolt began in the twelfth year of Nero and the seventeenth year of
Agrippa, in the month of Artemisos. This means the spring of 66. Seyrig
has [also] shown that the starting point of Agrippa’s era is the autumn of
49.”176 She adds, “Since one of the anachronistic coins features Pan, the
tutelary deity of Caesarea Paneas, the era of 49 must belong to this city.”177
This discussion leads back to Agrippa II’s two rare double-dated coins,
which belong to this series (nos. 6306, 6307). Both coins carry reverse
inscriptions proclaiming “year 11 which is also year 6.” These were appar-
ently struck in 60 ce and thus correspond to the era of 49 combined with
a secondary local era of 54 ce. Kushnir-Stein explains, “When Agrippa
was appointed king over Chalcis, there must have been a counting by his
regnal years that started in 49/50. Josephus reports that, several years later,
Claudius took Chalcis away from Agrippa, but gave him instead the for-
mer territories of Philip, Lysanias, and Varus. When he moved into these
new territories Agrippa may well have retained his earlier era, with an ad-
ditional era, marking the beginning of his actual rule in these territories.”178
It seems that these small double-dated issues were the earliest coins
bearing Agrippa II’s royal title, and the only coins referring to both eras
beginning in 49 ce and 54 ce. Coin no. 6310 may have also been dated to
the era of 54 ce.
Kushnir-Stein further concludes that Agrippa II’s second major era
began in 60/61 (Table 7.2). This is the year Nero shaved his beard and re-
founded Caesarea Philippi as his royal capital, renamed Neronias.179
Agrippa II’s first Flavian mint was Caesarea Paneas, based on use of
the Pan motif on an early Flavian medallion (no. 6311) and rare pseudo-
medallions (no. 6316) dated to years 26 and 27 of 49 ce. I believe that the
medallions commemorated the inauguration of Agrippa II’s mint at Caesar-
ea Paneas beginning in 74/75 ce, just a year following the fall of Masada.180
One coin type of Agrippa I mentions the harbor of Caesarea Mari-
tima (nos. 6276, 6280), thus establishing that Agrippa II’s father operated
a mint there. It had been speculated that Agrippa II followed his father,
however, Andrew Burnett observes that Caesarea Maritima was not part
of Agrippa II’s kingdom, thus he likely did not mint coins there. He quotes
Kushnir-Stein, who studied the find records of Agrippa II coins, and re-
ports, “According to the picture I get from the find spots of Agrippa II’s
coins the issues dated by the era of 60 ce emanate from Tiberias. This is
certain at least for the dates 19, 24, and 25. These predominate in the Low-
er Galilee and especially around the Sea of Galilee. I have information on
32 coins of Agrippa II found in the Sea of Galilee Area (on the very coast
and no more than some 10 km inland; the bulk comes from excavations),
of which 26 are from these years. Among the latter, there are 10 coins of
year 19, the two coins from Capernaum included.”181
Another example is seen when one compares the series dated year
18 (nos. 6337–6339) and the series dated year 29 (nos. 6322–6324). The
coins with these dates exist with three denominations. Both obverse types
and reverse types are similar, but for the dates. One therefore wonders
how these coins could both be struck according to the same era consider-
Agrippa II’s Flavian coinage according to

the eras of 49 and 60 ce
Wreath
Wreath
Shield
Shield
Other
Other
Era of
Era of
Julian
Tyche
Tyche
49 CE
60 CE
Nike
Nike
Nike
Nike
Year
6/11 60/1
-- 73/4 V T D 14
T/D med. 74/5 V D 15
26 V T D
T/D med. 75/6 --

27 V T D V med. 2
cornuc.
29 V T D 77/8 V T D 18
78/9 T D Ship, 19
30 T
Julia
Tyche/ 83/4 --
34
cornuc.
35 Wreath 84/5 D(G) D(G) Wreath 24
85/6 D(G) Cos X 25
86/7 D(G) Cos XII 26
93/4 D(G) 29
Table 7.2. V=Vespasian; T=Titus; D=Domitian without titles; D(G)=Domitian

with Germanicus title; Med. = Medallion. Coins dated year 35 could have been
struck according to the era of 60. Table modified after Kushnir-Stein 2002.
ing these scenarios. If, for example, the coins were struck according to the
era of 49 ce, when Agrippa II assumed his first royal position, the year
18 coins would have been struck in 66/67 ce and the year 29 coins would
have been struck in 77/78 ce. Since Vespasian only became emperor in 69,
however, this era would be impossible for the year 18 coins. On the other
hand, if the dating era began in 60 ce, the year 18 coins would have been
struck in 77/78 CE and the year 29 coins would have been struck in 88/89
ce, ten years after Vespasian’s death, but with the same legend as when he
was alive. Similarly, it is unlikely that the unusual Regnal Year (RY) 29
bronze with Domitian as emperor/Tyche-Demeter (no. 6350) would have
been struck in Caesarea Paneas era RY 29 (77/78 ce), long before Domitian
became emperor, so we attribute that coin to the Tiberias mint.
The recognition of these two major eras and a secondary era solves a
number of problems in the dating of coins of Agrippa, although they still
may not fit perfectly. This is an area requiring further study and discussion,
and one hopes that evidence from controlled archaeological excavations

and other studies might shed additional light.
We further note that three coins struck under Claudius and dated to
53/54 ce were struck in Tiberias (nos. 6296–6298). In addition, the first
of Agrippa II’s coins that commemorates the Roman victory over the Jews
(no. 6310) was struck in Tiberias. Moreover, the coin was dated to year 15,
which might have been related to 69/70 (according to the secondary era
of 54 ce), when Jerusalem was destroyed, or to 74/75 ce (according to the
era of 60 ce), the year after the absolute end of the war when Masada fell.
Kushnir-Stein also observed that wreath style on the reverse of no.
6346 is nearly identical to the wreath style on coins of Herod Antipas,182
as well as the issues under Claudius. This confluence of data supports the
identification of Tiberias as Agrippa II’s second mint.
We give serious consideration to the possibility that nos. 6351–6356
were minted in Rome and imported. Burnett notes that the style of these
coins closely resembles Roman issues (Fig. 7.15), the inscriptions are
largely in Latin, and, like Roman issues, this group has a 6 o’clock striking
axis unlike the 12 o’clock axis for Agrippa II’s other coins.183 These coins
could have also been struck at a large provincial mint such as Antioch or
Caesarea.
Burnett also fully rejects the portrait on coin struck under Agrippa II
with a female head and the title CEBACTH (no. 6344) as possibly rep-
resenting Agrippa’s sister Berenice, suggested by Maltiel-Gerstenfeld.184
Burnett argues that this identification is “extremely unlikely.”185 He adds
that Livia would also be an unlikely choice, since Livia was the wife of
Augustus, and such a late portrait of her would be most unusual. Bur-
nett proposes, however, “Given the hierarchical nature of the coinage, one
might then suppose that the Sebaste of our coin was none other than Julia
the daughter of Titus, who appears precisely at this time on the coinage of
Rome with the title Augusta.... Her appearance would complete the impe-
rial ‘family set’ appearing on the coinage of Agrippa at the very beginning
of Titus’ own reign.”186
Denominations
Jacobson used statistical analysis and identified seven different denomi-
nations that “can be readily recognized as the unit of currency of later
Seleucid coinage, which has been identified as the hemichalkon denomi-
nation.”187 He explains the denominations as 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 (plus
larger medallions).188 The Seleucid currency system did not suddenly reap-
pear with the coins of Agrippa II but was inherited from the Seleucids by
the Hasmoneans and continued under their successors, including Herod
I. The most common Seleucid coin units are 2, 4, and 8. “The decimal de-
nomination (10 units) may reflect influence from Roman metrology (e.g.,
1 aureus = 100 sestertii). The issuing of ternary multiples (3 and 6), which
are not encountered in Seleucid coinage, may have been prompted by the
desire to include denominations that equate to Roman semisses and asses,
and thereby connect the coinage of Agrippa II with the Roman system so
as to achieve a readily convertible currency.”
Indeed, Agrippa II’s coins that are ternary multiples were dated year
25 and year 26 and comprise the Latin series coins that were likely struck
in Rome. In addition to a 6 o’clock axis, these coins are made from an alloy
that more closely resembles Roman issues during this period rather than
coins struck in the ancient Holy Land.189
The largest coins struck by Agrippa II in his regnal years 26 (74/75
ce) and 27 (75/76 ce) may be medallions (or just large coins) struck to
commemorate the inauguration of Agrippa II’s mint at Caesarea Paneas.190
One type depicts Pan with dual obverse busts of Titus and Domitian, and
the second type depicts a portrait of Vespasian with a reverse showing
Tyche-Fortuna holding a rudder on a globe.
Agrippa II’s Flavian coins also mainly follow a pattern of obverse-
reverse combinations. The largest coins, possibly two denominations,
generally carry Vespasian’s portrait and a Tyche reverse; the next denomi-
nation carries Titus’s portrait and a Nike (Victory) carrying a wreath; the
next denomination portrays Domitian and a reverse with Nike support-
ing a shield on her knee, and the smallest denomination carries a por-
trait of either Domitian or Tyche with either a legend or the cornucopia
reverse. This pattern does not hold true for the Domitian portrait coins
that are tentatively attributed to a Roman mint.
Agrippa II under Nero

Meshorer believes that Agrippa II was responsible for two coins issued
at Sepphoris that “impressively reflect the political situation at that time.
His name does not appear on either of the two coin types, and only the
name of Sepphoris is mentioned on them. However, it is absolutely clear
that he was behind the minting....”191 While Josephus says that Agrippa II
did not have jurisdiction over Sepphoris, he says that during the unsettling
governorship of Gessius Florus, “Sepphoris, by submission to Rome, had
forthwith become the capital of Galilee, and the seat of the royal bank and
the archives.”192 This event was then a relocation of the central bank, and
we can assume mint, from a city of rebels ( Jerusalem) to a mostly Jewish
city (Sepphoris) that happily received the Romans. The reverse legend on
these coins (nos. 6308, 6309) reads, “in the days of Vespasian in Neronias-
Sepphoris city of peace.” We include the coins here, but they may not have
been struck directly under Agrippa II.
Agrippa II struck a second group of coins referring to Nero, this time
with the emperor’s portrait. All three denominations of this type (nos.
6303–6305) carry the inscription “Caesarea which is also Neronias.” The
name Neronias also appears on a double-dated coin (no. 6306). Agrippa

II’s great-uncle Herod Philip had given Paneas the name “Caesarea” and
Agrippa II added “Neronias” to the city name.193 We can therefore con-
clude that both of Agrippa II’s double-dated coins were struck at Panias.
Neronias, as a city name, did not last, “since immediately after Nero’s
murder the Roman Senate ruled on damnatio memoriae, an act intended to
blot out his name and memory. All acts of commemoration carried out in
his honor during his lifetime were annulled including the naming of places
after him. The name Neronias, which was added to Paneas and Sepphoris,
thus vanished soon after its appearance.”194
The Sepphoris coins, and quite possibly the Nero portrait coins, were
minted in 67/68 ce, the second year of the Jewish War.195 This timing
coincides with the peaceful surrender of Sepphoris to the Roman army
commanded by Vespasian.
Judea Capta Issues of Agrippa II

After the double-dated coins struck at Panias, there were no additional
issues for almost seven years. This gap is likely attributable to the Jewish
War. Indeed, the year minting resumed, 73/74 ce, was the year following
the fall of Masada in 73 ce.
Not only did Agrippa II support the Roman position during the Jew-
ish War but he also actively assisted the Romans. When some of Agrippa’s
Jewish subjects joined in the revolt, he sent forces to besiege Gamla, where
his troops were not successful. When Vespasian’s army arrived, Agrippa’s
forces continued to support the Romans in controlling Tiberias and again
besieging Gamla, during which Agrippa himself was slightly wounded.196
Meshorer notes, “Only following the end of the conflict, when life un-
der the new political situation achieved some stability, did the Jewish king
mint coins honoring the three Flavians.”197
Among the most interesting aspects of Agrippa II’s coinage, which
seems to have been largely overlooked, is that from the first year of this
series, the coins commemorate not only Emperor Vespasian, but also both
his sons, Titus and Domitian. This characteristic is noteworthy because
of the lengths to which some researchers have gone to underscore their
beliefs that Domitian did not participate in the Jewish War and thus never
referenced the event on his coinage.198
Historic evidence shows that Titus campaigned in Judea, but Domi-
tian did not. Nevertheless, Domitian was Vespasian’s second son, and as
such, he lent political and other support back in Rome. Josephus tells us
that Domitian rode a white horse during the famous victory procession,
commemorated on the Arch of Titus, built under Domitian. If Domitian
was so far removed, why did Agrippa II commemorate him on coins long
before it was even known that he would become emperor? The only answer
may be that he really was sufficiently politically involved to warrant mint-
7.14. Throughout his reign, Agrippa struck a series of Victory coins strikingly similar
to Vespasian and Titus’s locally issued Judea Capta coins. The reverse on left is a Ju-
dea Capta coin of Titus (no. 6464) and the coin on right is a coin of Agrippa II with
his name and Domitian’s portrait dated to Year 19, or 78/79 CE (no. 6343).
ing coins in Domitian’s name. This issue has significant bearing on the se-
ries of coins struck in ancient Israel under Domitian, and this is discussed
further in Chapter 11.
Consider the coins that depict Nike walking to the right and hold-
ing both a wreath and a palm branch. Nike corresponds to Victoria, and
represents a winged victory. This symbolism refers to Rome’s defeat of
Agrippa II’s own Jewish people. This motif was already used as an em-
blem of Roman victory in Judea on coins of Vitellius and bear a striking
resemblance to local Judea Capta issues struck under Vespasian and Titus
(nos. 6472–6474) (Fig. 7.14). In fact, one locally issued Judea Capta coin
of Titus (no. 6475) depicts Nike with shield on knee without a palm tree,
nearly identical to the Agrippa II issues.
The people who handled these coins on a daily basis knew and un-
derstood the meaning of this motif. After all, the Roman victory allowed
Agrippa II to retain his kingship. The fact that he was a vassal of Rome
does not mitigate some loyalty to the Jewish tradition. At the end of
Agrippa’s speech to the Jewish people, pleading with them to avoid war, he
wept when he said, “Take pity, then, if not on your children and your wives,
at least on your mother city and its sacred precincts. Spare the Temple and
preserve...the sanctuary with its holy places.... I call your sanctuary and
God’s holy angels and our common country to witness, that I have kept
back nothing which could conduce to your preservation....” 199
Agrippa II’s coins with Judea Capta themes “provides clear, concrete
evidence that Agrippa II found it imperative to emphasize his wholehearted
commitment to Rome and celebration of its victory in the Judean-Roman
War,” Jacobson notes. “In his preference for these coin motifs, Agrippa dis-
played his complete disavowal of the rebellious Jews and implicit lack of
concern about their fate.”200
Further proof that Agrippa II commemorated the Roman victory
over the Jews on his coins is found in a coin explained by Shraga Qe-
dar (no. 6310). This bronze coin was struck in 69/70 ce in Tiberias. On
the obverse, around a palm branch, the coin carries the legend NIK[H]
CEB[ACTOY]. The Latin translation is VICTORIA AVGVSTI (victory
of the emperor) and was certainly a tribute to the Roman victory over the
Jews. This coin was no doubt Agrippa II’s official proclamation of the vic-
tory of Rome in the Jewish War.201
COINS IN THE REIGN OF CLAUDIUS

ASCRIBED TO AGRIPPA II
Mint of Caesarea Paneas
Dotted border both sides unless noted.
Axis is ↑ unless noted.
6289. AE 8 units, 23 mm, 11.65 g average.202

Obv: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG PM TR P IMP PP, Claudius lau-
reate head l.
Rev: ANTONIA BRITANNICVS OCTAVIA, Britannicus flanked by
Antonia, on l., and Octavia (the three children of Claudius), each
holds a cornucopia.
RR
6290. AE 4 units, 18 mm, 7.13 g average.

Obv: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG PM TR IM PP, Claudius laureate
head r.
Rev: BRITANNICVS AVG, Britannicus bare head r.
RR

Obv: BRITANNICVS AVG F, Britannicus bare head r.
Rev: SC within wreath.
R
Mint of Caesarea Maritima

Obv: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IM PP, Claudius lau-
reate head r.
Rev: Rudder within wreath.
RRR

Obv: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IM PP, Claudius lau-
reate head r.
Rev: Inverted anchor within wreath.
R

Obv: KΛAY IOC...., Claudius laureate head r.
Rev: OB CS in wreath.
R

Obv: KΛAY IOC...., Claudius laureate head r.
Rev: AΓPIΠΠEINHΣ ΣEBAΣTHΣ (of Agrippina Augusta), Agrippina II
(mother of Nero) veiled, seated l., holds branch and cornucopia,
crescent above head.
RR
a. With countermark XF of the Tenth Roman Legion on obverse.
Era of Claudius,
Mint of Tiberias
Year 13, 53/54 ce

Obv: TIBE PIAC (Tiberias) within wreath.
Rev: KΛAYΔIOY KAICAPOC (of Claudius Caesar), L IΓ (year 13), palm
branch upright.
R
6297

Rev: KΛAYΔIOY KAICAPOC, L IΓ, palm branch upright.
R

Rev: KΛAYΔIOY KAICAPOC, L IΓ, palm branch upright.
R
Struck Under Nero

Mint of Caesarea Paneas
6299 6300

Obv: AGRIPPIN AVG, Agrippina II (mother of Nero) seated l. holds
branch and cornucopia.
Rev: OCTAVIA AVGVST, Octavia (wife of Nero) veiled, standing l.,
holds patera over flaming altar.
RR

Obv: DIVA POPPAEA AVG, distyle temple, female figure seated l.
within.
Rev: DIVA CLAVD NER F, round hexastyle temple, female figure
stands l. within, holds cornucopia.
R
The only coin issued in the name of Claudia, Nero’s daughter, who died in infancy in
63 ce.

Obv: NEPΩNOC KΛAYΔIOY ΓEPMANIKOY KAICAPOC CE
(Nero Claudius Germanicus Caesar), Nero laureate, slightly draped
bust to r.
Rev: AΓPIΠΠEINHC CEBACTHC, Agrippina II veiled, seated l., holds
branch and cornucopia, crescent above head.
R
a. With X or XF countermark of the Tenth Roman Legion on

obverse.
6302

Obv: NEPΩNOC CEBACTOY KAICAPOC (Nero Caesar Augustus),
Nero laureate, draped bust to l.
Rev: AΓPIΠΠEINHC CEBACTHC, Agrippina II draped bust to l.
R
COINS OF AGRIPPA II AS KING

Struck under Nero
Mint of Caesarea Paneas (as Neronias)
Axis is ↑ except for coins of the Rome mint.

Obv: ΝΕΡΩΝ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΥ (of Nero Caesar Augustus), Nero
laureate bust to r., lituus in front of face.
Rev: EΠΙ ΒΑCIΛΕ ΑΓΡΙΠΠ ΝΕΡΩ ΝΙΕ (in the time of King Agrippa,
Neronias), circle and wreath.
R
This coin and the following two coins were issued to commemorate Agrippa’s re-
founding of Caesarea Paneas as Neronias. It was once believed that the IE in the
reverse legend referred to a date, but this is not the case; rather, it is the last letters of
ΝΕΡΩΝΙΕ, the name of the mint city Neronias.

Obv: ΝΕΡΩΝ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΥ, Nero laureate bust to r., lituus in
front of face.
Rev: EΠΙ ΒΑCIΛΕ ΑΓΡΙΠΠ ΝΕΡΩ ΝΙΕ, circle and wreath.
S
6305
Obv: ΝΕΡΩΝ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΥ, Nero laureate bust to r., lituus in
front of face.
Rev: EΠΙ ΒΑCIΛΕ ΑΓΡΙΠΠ ΝΕΡΩ ΝΙΕ, circle and wreath.
S
Eras beginning 49 and 54 ce

Caesarea Paneas Mint (Caesarea Neronias)
Year 11, which is also year 6, 60/61 ce
6306
6307
Obv: KAICAPIA TH KAI NEPWNIAΔI (for Caesarea which is also
Neronias), Tyche wearing crown of turreted city walls, bust to r.
Rev: BAC AΓP ETOYC AI TOY KAI ς _ (year 11, which is also year 6
of King Agrippa), two cornucopias splayed outward, crossed at base
with winged caduceus rising between horns.
RR
6307. AE 1 unit, 13 mm, 1.85 g average.

Obv: BACIΛIEΩC MAPKOY AΓPIΠΠOY (of King Marcus Agrippa),
hand r., holding ears of barley and fruit.
Rev: Monogram, a combination of K for KAI with ς (year 6), all within
diadem, ETOYC AI TOY (year 11) around.
RR
Era of Nero
Mint of Sepphoris (Neronias)
Year 14 = 67/68 ce
6308 6309
6308. AE 24 mm, 11.47 g average.

Obv: ΕΠΙ ΟΥΕCΠΑCIANOΥ ΕΙΡΗΝΟΠΟΛΙ ΝΕΡΩΝΙΑ CEPΠΦΩ (in
the time of Vespasian, in Irenopolis-Neronias-Sepphoris), two cornuco-
pias splayed outward, caduceus between.
Rev: LΔΙ ΝΕΡΩΝ ΚΛΑΥΔΙΟΥ ΚΑΙCAPO C (year 14 of Nero Claudius
Caesar), circle and wreath.
R
This coin names Vespasian while he was Nero’s general and refers to Sepphoris as “Nero-
nias” to honor the emperor, and as “Irenopolis” or “City of Peace.”
6309. AE 17 mm, 8.56 g average.

Obv: SC ΕΠΙ ΟΥΕCΠΑCIANOΥ ΕΙΡΗΝΟΠΟΛΙ ΝΕΡΩΝΙΑC
CEΠΦΩΡ.
Rev: LΔΙ ΝΕΡΩΝ ΚΛΑΥΔΙΟΥ ΚΑΙCAPO C within circle and wreath.
RR
Meshorer believed that the two Sepphoris coins belong in the Agrippa II series. Kushnir-
Stein, on the other hand, believed they are city coins of Sepphoris.
Mint of Tiberias
Era beginning 54 ce
Year 15, 69/70 ce

Obv: BA ΑΓΡΙΠΑ ΝΙΚ CEB (King Agrippa, victory of Augustus), ET IE
(year 15), palm branch upright.
Rev: TIBE PIAC within wreath.
RR
This coin might have been struck according to the era beginning in 60 ce, thus dating to
74/75. In the first case, the coin would have been struck just after the Jewish War ended,
and, in the second case, it would have been struck in the year after the absolute end of
the war when Masada fell in 73 ce. In either case, the iconography, reflecting both the
coins of Herod Antipas and the pre-royal issues of Agrippa II struck in Tiberias, suggests
that this coin is a reference to the victory of Agrippa II’s Roman allies in the Jewish War.
AGRIPPA II UNDER FLAVIAN RULE

Caesarea Paneas Mint
Era beginning 49 ce
Year 26, 74/75 ce
6311. AE medallion, 35 mm, two coins 19.79 g, 28.66 g.

Obv: AYTOKPA • TITOC • KAICAP • ΔOMITIANOC (Emperor
Titus Caesar Domitian), confronted laureate busts of Titus, wear-
ing paludamentum and cuirass decorated with gorgon head on l.,
and Domitian, draped and with globe at point of neck on r.
Rev: BACIΛEΩC • AΓPIΠΠAC • ETOYC • KS • (of King Agrippa year
26), Pan walks l., playing pipes (syrinx) held in r. hand and pedum
over l. shoulder, tree trunk on r.
RRR
This coin is significant since it establishes the identification of the mint of Caesarea
Paneas during the first year Flavian coinage was struck there. Previously, only small-
er module (c. 30 mm) coins, with simple busts of Titus and Domitian, were known
(no. 6317). This coin seems to have been an inaugural medallion of Agrippa II’s mint
for Flavian coinage in Paneas. It is also noteworthy that Agrippa II chose to honor the
sons of the emperor on this issue.203
6312
6312. AE 10 or 8 units, 30 mm, 16.77 g average.

Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑ ΟΥΕCΠΑCI KAICAP CEBACTΩ (for Emperor Vespa-
sian Caesar Augustus), Vespasian laureate bust r.
Rev: ΕΤΟΥ ΚS BA ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ (year 26, King Agrippa), Tyche-Demeter
stands l. wearing kalathos, holding grain ears in r. hand and cornu-
copia in l.
S
a. Irregular, crude issue.
6313. AE 10 or 8 units, 28 mm, 17. 53 g average.

Obv: Vespasian laureate bust r. as on no. 6312.
Rev: Tyche-Demeter as on no. 6312, but inscription all around instead of
across fields.
S
6314a
Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡ ΤΙΤΟC KAICAP CEBAC (Emperor Titus Caesar Augus-
tus), Titus laureate bust, draped and cuirassed r.
Rev: ΕΤΟ ΚS BA ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ, Nike-Victory advances r., holds wreath in
r. hand and palm branch over shoulder in l.
S
a. Titus laureate head, star in upper r. reverse field.
b. Crescent in upper r. reverse field.
6315c
6318
Obv: ΔOMIT KAICAP (Domitian Caesar), Domitian laureate bust to r.
Rev: ΕΤ ΚS BACI ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ, Nike-Victory stands r., l. foot on helmet,
writes on shield that rests on her l. knee.
S
a. Star upper r. reverse field.
b. Crescent upper r. reverse field.
c. Countermarks of standing figure and head on obverse.
Year 27, 75/77 ce
6316. AE medallion, 34 mm, 21.27 g average.

Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑ ΟΥΕCΠΑCIANΩ KAICAPI CEBACTΩ (for Emperor
Vespasian Caesar Augustus), Vespasian laureate, draped bust to r.
Rev: BACIΛΕΩC AΓΡΙΠΠΑ ΕΤΟΥC KZ, Tyche stands l., rudder on
globe in r. hand, cornucopia in l.
RR
a. A similar coin struck on a smaller flan.
6317. AE medallion, 30 mm, 22.8 g average.

Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑ ΚΑΙCAP TITOC KAI ΔΟΜIΤΙΑΝΟC (Emperors Cae-
sar Titus and Domitian), confronted laureate busts of Titus on l. and
Domitian on r.
Rev: BACIΛΕΩC AΓΡΙΠΠΑ ΕΤΟΥC KZ (of King Agrippa, year 27),
Pan walks l., playing pipes (syrinx) held in r. hand and holds pedum
over l. shoulder, tree trunk on r., small crescent in upper l. field.
RR
This coin copies the inaugural medallion struck in year 26 (no. 6311), but the iportraits
are less adorned, and is struck upon a smaller flan.
6318. AE 10 or 8 units, 30 mm, 15.95 g average.

Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑ ΟΥΕCΠΑCI KAICAP CEBACTΩ, Vespasian laureate
bust to r.
Rev: ΕΤΟΥ ΚZ BA ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ (year 27, King Agrippa), Tyche-Demeter
as on no. 6242, star in field l.
R
a. No star in reverse field.

Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡ ΤΙΤΟC KAICAP CEBACTΩ (for Emperor Titus Caesar
Augustus), Titus laureate bust to r., draped and cuirassed.
Rev: ETOY KZ BA ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ, Nike-Victory advances as on no. 6314,
star upper l. field.
R
a. No star in reverse field.

Obv: ΔΟΜΙΤIAN ΚΑΙCAP (Domitian Caesar), Domitian laureate bust
to r.
Rev: ΕΤΟ ΚZ BA ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ, Nike-Victory with shield as on no. 6315,
star in upper r.
S
a. On the reverse the first A was left out and squeezed into the field.
6321
Obv: ΔΟΜΙΤIANOC ΚΑΙCAP, Domitian laureate, draped, and cui-
rassed bust to r.
Rev: ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ ΕΤΟ ΚZ, BA between two cornucopias splayed out-
ward, crossed at base.
R
Year 29, 77/78 ce
6323a
6322

Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑ ΟΥΕCΠΑCI KAICAPI CEBACTΩ, Vespasian laureate
bust to r.
Rev: ΕΤΟΥ ΚΘ ΒΑ ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ (year 29, King Agrippa), Tyche-Demeter
as on no. 6312.
R

Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡ ΤΙΤΩC KAICAP CEBACTΩ, Titus laureate, draped, and
cuirassed bust to r.
Rev: ΕΤ ΚΘ ΒΑ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ, Nike-Victory advances r. as on no. 6314.
R
a. Titus bust not draped.

Obv: ΔΟΜΙΤIANOC ΚΑΙCAP, Domitian laureate, draped, and cui-
rassed bust to r.
Rev: ΕΤΟΥ ΚΘ ΒΑCI ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ, Nike-Victory with shield as on
no. 6315.
R
Year 30, 78/79 ce
6325. AE medallion, 29 mm, 21.36 g, one published.

Obv: AYTOKP TITΩ KAICAP CEBACTΩ, Titus laureate bust r.
Rev: ETOY Λ BACIΛEΩC AΓPIΠΠA (year 30, King Agrippa), Tyche
stands l., rudder on globe in r. hand, cornucopia in l.
One known

Obv: AYTOKP TITΩ KAICAP CEBACTΩ, Titus laureate, draped
bust to r.
Rev: ETOY Λ BA AΓPIΠΠA, Tyche-Demeter as on no. 6312.
RR
6327
Year 34, 82/83 ce
Obv: BA AΓP (King Agrippa), Tyche crowned with turreted city walls r.
Rev: ET ΔΛ (year 34), cornucopia.
R
Year 35, 83/84 ce
6328
Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑ ΔΟΜΙΤΙΑ ΚΑΙCAΡ Α ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙ (Emperor Domitian
Caesar Germanicus), Domitian laureate bust to r.
Rev: ΕΤΟΥ ΕΛ ΒΑ ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ (year 35, King Agrippa), Tyche-Demeter
as on no. 6312.
RR

Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑ ΔΟΜΙΤΙΑ ΚΑΙCAΡ Α ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙ, Domitian laureate
bust to r.
Rev: ΕΤΟΥ ΕΛ ΒΑ ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ (year 35, King Agrippa), Nike-Victory
advances r. as on no. 6314.
RR
a. Reverse legend reads ΕΤΟΥ ΛΕ ΒΑ...
6330
Obv: ΑΥΤΟ ΔΟΜΙΤ (Emperor Domitian), Domitian laureate bust r.
Rev: ΒΑ ΑΓP ΕΤ ΕΛ (King Agrippa, year 35) within wreath.
S
Tiberias Mint
Era beginning 60 ce
Year 14, 73/74 ce
6331

Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑ ΟΥΕCΠΑCI KAICAPI CEBACTΩ, Vespasian laureate
bust r.
Rev: ΕΤΔΙ ΒΑ ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ (year 14, King Agrippa), Tyche-Demeter wears
kalathos, holds grain ears in r. hand and cornucopia in l., stands l.,
star in top l. field.
R
a. Smaller module and reverse inscription is LIΔ BACIΛ
AΓPIΠOY (year 14 of King Agrippa).

Obv: AYTOKP TITOC KAICAP CEBAC, Titus laureate, draped, and
cuirassed bust r.
Rev: ETIΔ BA AΓPI ΠΠA, Nike-Victory advances r., holds wreath in r.
hand and palm branch over shoulder in l.
R
6333 6334
6333. AE 8 units, 24 mm, 10.78 g average

Obv: AYTOKP TITOC KAICAP CEBAC, Titus laureate bust r.
Rev: LΙΔ ΒΑC ΑΓΡΙΠΟΥ (year 14 of King Agrippa), Nike-Victory ad-
vances r., holds wreath in r. hand and palm branch over shoulder in l.
R
a. Irregular, crude issue.

Obv: ΔΟΜΙΤΙΑ ΚΑΙCAP, Domitian laureate bust r.
Rev: LIΔ ΒΑCI ΑΓ ΡΙΠΟY, Nike-Victory standing l., l. foot on helmet,
writes on shield, which rests on her l. knee.
R
a. Cut in half to use as change.
Year 15, 74/75 ce

Obv: Vespasian laureate bust to r. as on no. 6331.
Rev: ET IE BA ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ (year 15, King Agrippa), Tyche-Demeter
wears kalathos, holds grain ears in r. hand and cornucopia in l.,
stands l.
R

Obv: ΔΟΜΙΤΙΑ ΚΑΙCAP, Domitian laureate bust r.
Rev: ETOΥ IE ΒΑCI ΑΓΡΙΠΠΑ, Nike-Victory stands r., l. foot on hel-
met, writing on shield, which rests on her l. knee.
R
a. On reverse legend is ETOΥ EI...
Year 18, 77/78 ce
6340
6337

Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑ ΟΥΕCΠΑCI KAICAP CEBACTW, Vespasian laureate
bust r.
Rev: ETOΥ ΗΙ ΒΑ ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ (year 18, King Agrippa), Tyche-Demeter
stands l.
R

Obv: AYTOKP TITOC KAICAP CEBAC, Titus laureate bust r.
Rev: ET HI BA ΑΓΡ ΙΠΠΑ, Nike-Victory advances r., holds wreath in r.
hand and palm branch over shoulder in l.
R

Obv: ΔOMITIANOC KAICAP, Domitian laureate bust r.
Rev: ETOY HIBA AΓPIΠΠA, Nike-Victory stands r., l. foot on helmet,
writes on shield that rests on her l. knee.
R
Year 19, 78/79 ce

Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚΡ ΤΙΤΟC KAICAP CEBACTOC, Titus laureate, draped,
and cuirassed bust r.
Rev: ΕΤΟΥ ΙΘ ΒΑ ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ (year 19, King Agrippa), Tyche-Demeter
stands l.
R

Obv: ΑΥΤΟΚ ΤΙΤΟC KAIC CEBACTOC, Titus laureate, draped, and
cuirassed bust r.
Rev: EΤΟ ΙΘ ΒΑ ΑΓΡ ΙΠΠΑ, galley with oars sails l.
RR
This coin, no. 6342, and no. 6343 possibly commemorate the voyage of Agrippa and his
sister Berenice to Rome, where they hoped and expected that Titus would choose her as
his wife.
6342
Obv: ΔΟΜΙΤΙΑΝΟC ΚΑΙCAP, Domitian laureate bust r.
Rev: ΕΤΟ ΙΘ ΒΑ Α ΓΡΙΠΠ, galley with oars sails l.
R

Obv: Laureate bust of Domitian as on no. 6342.
Rev: ΕΤΟΥ ΙΘ ΒΑ ΑΓΡΙΠ, Nike-Victory with shield as on no. 6339.
R

Obv: CEBACTH (Augusta), Female veiled head r.204
Rev: LΙΘ ΒΑ (year 19, King Agrippa), inverted anchor.
RR
Year 24, 83/84 ce
6345

Obv: ΔΟΜΕΤ ΚΑΙCAP ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙ (Domitian Caesar Germanicus),
Domitian laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust r.
Rev: ΕΤΟ ΚΔ ΒΑ ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ (year 24, King Agrippa), Nike-Victory ad-
vances r., holds wreath in r. hand and palm branch over shoulder in l.
S

Obv: ΔΟΜΕΤ ΚΑΙCAP ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙ, Domitian laureate bust r.
Rev: ΕΤΟ ΚΔ ΒΑ Α ΓΡΙΠΠ within wreath.
S
6347 6348

Obv: ΔΟΜΕΤ ΚΑΙ ΓΕΡΜΑN, Domitian laureate bust r.
Rev: ΕΤΟ ΚΔ ΒΑ / ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ, Nike-Victory stands r., l. foot on helmet,
writes on shield, which rests on her l. knee.
S
Year 25, 84/85 ce

Obv: ΔΟΜΕΤ ΚΑΙC ΓΕΡΜΑN, Domitian laureate bust r.
Rev: ET KE ΒΑC AΓΡ ΙΠ (year 25, King Agrippa), eight-branched palm
tree with two bunches of dates.
S

Obv: ΔΟΜΕΤ ΚΑΙCAP ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙ, Domitian laureate bust r.
Rev: ΕΤ ΚΕ ΒΑ AΓ, cornucopia.
R
Year 29, 88/89 ce
6350. AE 8 units, 26 mm, average 13.13 g from 2 coins.

Obv: AYTOKPA KAICAP ΓEPMANIK (Emperor Domitian Caesar
Germanicus), Domitian laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust r.
Rev: ΕΤΟΥ KΘ ΒΑ ΑΓΡΙ ΠΠΑ (year 29, King Agrippa), Tyche-Demeter
wearing kalathos, holds grain ears in r. hand and cornucopia in l.,
stands l.
R
Rome Mint
Era beginning 60 ce
Year 14, 73/4 ce
Axis is ↓.
Year 25, 84/85 ce
6351. AE as205 (6 units), 27 mm, 11.50 g average.

Obv: IMP CAES DIVI VESP F DOMITIAN AVG GER COS X, Domi-
tian laureate bust r.
Rev: MONETA EΠI BA AΓPI AVGVST (Money of Augustus, in the time
of King Agrippa Augustus), ET KE (year 25), SC in exergue, Mo-
neta, draped, stands l. holds scales in r. hand and cornucopia in l.
RR
6352. AE as (6 units), 27 mm, 10.13 g average.

Rev: SALVTI EΠI BA AΓPI AVGVST (for the health of Augustus in the
time of King Agrippa), ET KE (year 25), SC in exergue, square altar.
RR
The above two coins as well as nos. 6353 and 6354 were copied directly from Roman
as coins of Domitian (see p. 274). They combine the original Latin legends with local
Greek legends. Some theories suggest that these coins were minted in Rome; other theo-
ries suggest that the dies were made in Rome or locally by Roman artisans and struck at
Caesarea Maritima.
Year 26, 85/86 ce
6353
6353. AE as (6 units), 28 mm, 10 g average.

Rev: MONETA EΠI BA AΓPI AVGVST, ET KS (year 26), SC in ex-
ergue, Moneta, draped, stands l. holds scales in r. hand and cornu-
copia in l.
RR
6354. AE as (6 units), 27 mm, 9.71 g average.

Rev: SALVTI EΠI BA AΓPI AVGVST, SC in exergue. ET KS, square
altar.
RR
6355 6356
6355. AE semis (3 units), 20 mm, 4.79 g average.

Obv: IM CA D VES F DOM AV GER COS XII, Domitian laureate bust r.
Rev: ΕΠΙ ΒΑ ΑΓΡΙ (in the time of King Agrippa), ET KS (year 26) in
fields, SC (by decree of the senate) below, two cornucopias splayed
outward, winged caduceus between.
S
6356. AE semis (3 units), 20 mm, 5.22 g average.

Obv: IM CA D VES F DOM AV GER COS XII, Domitian laureate bust r.
Rev: Large SC, EΠI BA AΓPI (in the time of King Agrippa), ET KS (year
26) in exergue.
S
7.15. Two bronze as coins of Domitian; Agrippa II’s nos. 6351 and 6353 were copied
from the coin on top (RIC II 756) and Agrippa II’s nos. 6352 and 6364 were copied
from the coin below (RIC II 224).
7.16. Near Herod I’s mausoleum at Herodium, three stone sarcophagi were discov-
ered in fragments. Two were light colored and this one was red stone. The red sar-
cophagus was decorated in an opulent but restrained fashion with rosettes and pal-
mettes. It was found smashed into hundreds of pieces. Archaeologists assume that
even though Herod’s name does not appear on it, this sarcophagus held the king’s
body and was destroyed by the Jewish rebels who vented their anger upon it. (Photo:
Israel Museum).
CHAPTER EIGHT
The Roman governors of Judea
A
fter Herod Archelaus was banished in 6 ce, Rome assigned a se-
ries of governors called prefects (up to the time of Claudius) and
procurators (thereafter) to directly govern the territory of Judea.
Josephus and Tacitus do not use the word “prefects,” and refer to Ju-
dea’s governors simply as procurators.1 The title prefect is known only
from a stone discovered at Caesarea in 1961, now in the Israel Museum
(a facsimile is on display at Caesarea), inscribed with Pilate’s name and
title as “PRAEFECTVS IVDAEA” (Fig. 8.1). This fragment is the only
archaeological evidence for the existence of Pilate, although he is known
from historical accounts and the New Testament. Why don’t we consider
the coins struck under Pontius Pilate to be archaeological evidence? The
coins of Pontius Pilate, just like the coins of the other Roman governors
of Judea, never once mention their names. The only names used on coins
are those of emperors (or family members) at whose pleasure the prefects
…]S TIBERIVM
…PON]TIVS PILATVS
…PRAEF]ECTVS IVDA[EA]
8.1. Inscription mentions Pontius Pilate as well as his title, “Prefect of Judaea,” dis-
covered on a stone in secondary use at the Roman theater at Caesarea Maritima.
(Israel Museum.)
275
and procurators served. At this time, the province of Judea (later including
Galilee and Samaria) was linked to Syria, but with its own governor.
With the exception of the three years Agrippa I reigned as king (41–
44 ce), the prefects and procurators governed until 66 ce, when the Jewish
War began. A principal advantage of being governor was the power to
levy taxes on behalf of Rome and to retain a good portion of this wealth.
Hence the seeds of the Jewish rebellion against Rome were firmly planted
at the beginning of this era and fertilized by cruelty, greed, and oppressive
taxation. For the most part, the Roman governors minimized their contact
with the Jews except when it involved enriching themselves. The policy
of keeping their distance held true even for Tiberius Alexander, who was
born a Jew, and Antonius Felix, who married a Jew, Drusilla, the daughter
of Agrippa I.
The men appointed to these jobs between 6 and 41 ce governed Ju-
dea and took a supervisory role over the Jerusalem Temple, including the
power to appoint the high priest. Following Agrippa I’s reign, the terri-
tory governed by these governors was expanded to include Samaria and
the Galilee. The right to appoint the high priest was transferred first to
Agrippa I’s brother Herod, king of Chalcis, and later to Agrippa I’s son,
Agrippa II.
The Roman governors of Judea established their headquarters at Cae-
sarea Maritima, Herod’s magnificent harbor city. They traveled to Jeru-
salem only on special occasions, such as Jewish festivals, when they tem-
porarily moved their seat of government to stay on top of the large influx
of pilgrims to Jerusalem. Unlike the governors of Syria, the prefects and
procurators of Judea were not former senators or other aristocrats but
came from a lower social class known as equestrians. This group originally
included members of the cavalry; membership was based upon personal
wealth. Equestrians outnumbered Roman senators but had fewer privi-
leges. Antonius Felix was the only procurator who was a freedman and not
a member of the equestrian class.
Since only the names of members of the imperial household appear
on them, coins of the Roman governors must be attributed to individuals
based on the dates of the coins, which correspond to the regnal years of the
Roman emperors. For this reason, Israel Numismatic Research, the journal
of the Israel Numismatic Society, has taken an editorial position on the ap-
propriate way to attribute them. Alla Kushnir-Stein, a leading Israeli nu-
mismatist, writes that “if a coin is placed under a heading that includes…
two basic components—the emperor’s name and the year of his rule—it is
easy to identify it immediately. Moreover, these components correspond to
what one actually sees on a coin, with no speculative elements involved.”2
Previous editions of this guide have referred to these coins in this way,
but we have also added the generally accepted dates for each of the gover-
nors who may have ruled during each period. While this contains an ele-
The Roman Governors of Judea 277
ment of speculation, it follows tradition. We continue to list the generally

accepted dates.
Kushnir-Stein, points out that “Josephus gives few precise chrono-
logical indications about the periods of tenure of most of the governors
involved, and the exact years of their comings and goings remain very un-
clear. For instance, the coin dated to ‘year 5’ of Nero (58/9 ce), often ap-
pearing under the name of Festus, has an equal, if not greater chance of
having been struck under that official’s predecessor, Antonius Felix.
“Another example is the issue under the emperor Augustus dated ‘year
39.’ If counted by a proper era—that of autumn 31 bce—this issue be-
longs to 8/9 ce. Josephus tells us that there were three governors under
Augustus—Coponius, Marcus Ambibulus, and Annius Rufus—and that
the emperor died during the administration of Rufus. He further adds that
Augustus’ successor, Tiberius, dispatched Valerius Gratus to replace Rufus.
We have no precise knowledge of when each of these governors replaced
another, and most of the dates appearing in scholarly literature are no more
than conjecture.” 3
With this perspective in mind, we present the group as follows.
Governors of Judea under Rome

(traditional dating)
Augustus (27 bce–14 ce)
Coponius (6–9 ce)
Marcus Ambibulus (9–12 ce)
*Annius Rufus (12–15 ce)
Tiberius (14–37 ce)
Valerius Gratus (15–26 ce)
Pontius Pilate (26–36 ce)
Caligula (37–41 ce)
*Marullus (37–41 ce)
Claudius (41–54 ce)
*Cuspius Fadus (44–46 ce)
*Tiberius Alexander (46–52 ce)
*Ventidius Cumanus (48–54 ce)
Antonius Felix (52–54 ce)
Nero (54–68 ce)
Antonius Felix (54–60 ce)
Porcius Festus (60–62 ce)
*Albinus (62–64 ce)
*Gessius Florus (64–66 ce)
*No known coins issued during these years

We do not know why coins were issued only during the rule of six of
the fourteen prefects and procurators. Meshorer suggests “it is possible
that not all of them showed an interest in minting, and perhaps they in-
herited a market saturated with coins.”4 It is also possible that, in some
instances, coins from dated dies continued to be struck in subsequent years.
Kanael writes that the mintage of Agrippa I’s common prutah (no. 6274)
was so great that the procurators who succeeded him did not need to strike
coins for ten years.5
Governors before Agrippa I

Neither Josephus nor other historians tell us much about the first three
governors. With regard to Coponius, the first governor, Josephus reports
that “the territory of Archelaus was now reduced to a province, and Co-
ponius, a Roman of the equestrian order, was sent out as procurator, en-
trusted by Augustus with full powers, including the infliction of capital
punishment.”6
The Syrian governor Quirinus was sent to Judea to accompany Co-
ponius. Quirinus’s task was to administer all of the property formerly
owned by Herod Archelaus and to undertake a census to determine taxa-
tion for Rome. A census was taken in every land that became a Roman
province. The Jews regarded it as a sign of servitude and protested ve-
hemently. Eventually, the high priest intervened, the Jewish people were
pacified, and the census was taken.
While Coponius was in office, the long-standing hatred and rivalry
between the Jews and Samaritans was revived. Josephus reports that dur-
ing a Passover celebration, “the priests were accustomed to throw open the
gates of the Temple after midnight. This time, when the gates were first
opened, some Samaritans, who had secretly entered Jerusalem, began to
scatter human bones in the porticoes and throughout the Temple. As a
result, the priests, although they had previously observed no such custom,
excluded everyone from the Temple, in addition to taking other measures
for the greater protection of the Temple.”7
In spite of these disruptions, Coponius maintained a decent relation-
ship with the Jews, and one of the gateways to the Temple Mount was
called “the door of Coponius.” He was recalled to Rome in 9 ce, shortly
after the Samaritan incident, and Marcus Ambibulus was sent to suc-
ceed him.8
Following Marcus Ambibulus and Annius Rufus, Tiberius appointed
Valerius Gratus as prefect of Judea in 15 ce. Thus, he became the fourth
prefect in fewer than ten years. Since the earlier prefects each had only a
few years in Judea, they had to act aggressively to acquire wealth.
Josephus writes that “during the twenty-two years that he [Tiberius]
was the emperor he sent altogether two men, Gratus and Pilate, his suc-
cessor, to govern the Jewish people.”9
Little is known about Gratus and his administration, even though
it is believed his tenure lasted 11 years. He ousted High Priest Annas
ben Seth, and appointed Ishmael ben Phabi I, Eleazar ben Ananias,
and Josephus Caiphas. The Talmud suggests that motivation for the fre-
quent changes was economic: “Because money was paid for the purpose
of obtaining the position of high priest, [they] were changed every 12
months,” and “Since they used to hire it [the office of high priest] out for
money, their days were shortened.”10
The latest coins struck under Pontius Pilate’s government are unique
among those of the prefects and procurators, since they are the only coins
that carry symbols that are specifically offensive to the Jewish religion.
Reasons for this are not clear, although it has been suggested that Pilate
was a follower of the anti-Semitic usurper L. Aelius Sejanus in Rome,
whose power peaked during 29–32 ce. Sejanus oversaw a mass expulsion
of Jews from Rome beginning in 19 ce. Tiberius had Sejanus arrested for
treason in 32 ce and executed, although his issues with the Jews did not
play a significant role in this event.
Pilate’s coins hold special interest because of his place in both Chris-
tian and Jewish history. Pilate is mentioned in all four of the Christian
Gospels and Matthew tells that “when they had bound him [ Jesus], they
led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.”11
Pilate was the official responsible for the conviction of Jesus on the
charge of sedition and the subsequent crucifixion. The power of capital
punishment was a basic prerogative of the governor of Judea.
Clues to the reasons why Pilate’s coin motifs appeared to be antago-
nistic to Jews can also be found in the works of Philo and Josephus. Philo
describes Pilate’s rule including “the bribery, the insults, the robberies,
the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly
repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty” adding, among
other things, that Pilate did not “wish to do anything which would please
his subjects.”12
Josephus says Pilate “took a bold step in subversion of the Jewish prac-
tices, by introducing into the city the busts of the emperor that were at-
tached to the military standards, for our law forbids the making of images.
It was for this reason that the previous procurators, when they entered
the city, used standards that had no such ornaments. Pilate was the first
to bring the images into Jerusalem and set them up, doing it without the
knowledge of the people, for he entered in the night. But when the people
discovered it, they went in a throng to Caesarea and for many days entreat-
ed him to take away the images.”13 Pilate was eventually forced to remove
the standards with portraits of the emperor and others, and also a series of
inscribed golden shields that had been erected in Jerusalem.
The Jewish people seem to have had mixed feelings about Pilate who,
Meshorer notes, seemed to “reveal a mixture of good will and creative
rule…with continuous disputes, misunderstandings, and a lack of commu-
nication with the Jews.”14 If Pilate had really wanted to offend the Jews, he
would have portrayed the Roman emperor on his coins. Perhaps that was
not within his mandate. But he did use the images of the simpulum and
the lituus, both emblems of the Roman cult (Fig. 8.2).
The lituus is also known as an augur’s wand. Banks explains that “at the
very time when he was trying to get along comfortably with the Jews, he
had the effrontery to provide those devout people of Judea for their daily
use a coin bearing, in its augur’s wand, a symbol of one of the very customs
which the Children of Israel had been specifically taught to abominate.
Ever since the days of Moses they had been warned repeatedly against
divining or augury in any form.”15
8.2. Connections show combination of obverse and reverse die pairings for some
lituus coins dated to year 18 of Tiberius, 31/32 ce (Graphic: Fontanille.)
The simpulum, depicted on another Pilate coin, is a ladle with a high

handle. It was used to make libations during pagan sacrifices and was a
common symbol of the Roman priesthood.
It is a bit mysterious that the same coin that depicts the simpulum on
the obverse has a reverse illustrating three ears of grain. This choice might
indicate that Pilate’s intentions were not so bad and it was his “ignorance
rather than his unsympathetic nature which was the major cause of his
difficulties,”16 Meshorer notes. On the other hand, the outer two ears are
shown as drooping. Was this a design element, or Pilate’s proclamation of
power over the Jewish inhabitants?
Pilate’s term ended in 36 ce when he ordered the massacre of Sa-
maritans on Mount Gerizim in Shechem (modern Nablus), where they
had gathered for a religious ceremony. The Samaritan community con-
vinced Vitellius, then Rome’s legate in Syria, to order Pilate back to
Rome for trial.
Governors after Agrippa I

The governors who took power after Agrippa I’s short reign (41–44 ce)
were even worse than their predecessors. Neither Tiberius Julius Alexan-
der nor Cumanus seem to have issued coins during their rule. But there
was a bawdy incident that took place under Cumanus, during Passover in
Jerusalem, that shows the way Roman soldiers treated the Jews. Cuma-
nus sent a cohort of guards to prevent any disorders among the gathered
crowd, and they stationed themselves on the roof of the portico of the
Temple. Josephus reports that “thereupon one of the soldiers, raising his
robe, stooped in an indecent attitude, so as to turn his backside to the Jews,
and made a noise in keeping with his posture.” The soldiers were brutal
in the riot that ensued, and Josephus reports that more than 30,000 Jews
were killed, not only by the soldiers but “trodden under foot and crushed
to death by one another…and the feast was turned into mourning for the
whole nation....”17
Antonius Felix was the final procurator sent to Judea by Claudius, and
he remained after Nero became emperor (Fig. 8.3). Felix married Drusilla,
daughter of Agrippa I.
And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who
was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in
Christ (Acts 24:24).
Of Felix, the Roman historian Tacitus reports that he “played the ty-
rant with the spirit of a slave, plunging into all manner of cruelty and
lust....”18 This behavior refers to Felix’s lowly status as a freedman, the only
8.3. Coin dated year 14 of Claudius, 54 ce, struck

under A. Felix (no. 6377), copies design of aureus by
Claudius (r.) struck 41–45 ce in the name of Claudius’s
father, Nero Claudius Drusus.
procurator who was not an equestrian. Felix also oversaw the treacherous
murder of Jonathan the high priest.19
Josephus reports that “when Porcius Festus was sent as successor to
Felix by Nero, the principal of the Jewish inhabitants of Caesarea went up to
Rome to accuse Felix; and he had certainly been brought to punishment....”20
Antonius Felix imprisoned Paul, but Porcius Festus sent him to
Rome to be tried. Festus served as procurator under Nero, from 59 to 62
ce. According to traditional dating, Festus was the last governor of Judea
to issue coins during his reign, perhaps due to the confusion and strife
leading up to the Jewish War, which began in 66 ce. The often-violent
Jewish Zealots, known as the Sicarii (literally, dagger-men), increased
significantly in number during the rule of Festus, even though he tried
in vain to crush them.
During Festus’s tenure, Agrippa II (who did not rule Judea, but only
geographically close lands, yet he received power from the emperor to con-
trol the Temple [Fig. 8.4], its grounds, and to appoint high priests) added
an additional level to the former Hasmonean palace. This higher floor al-
lowed Agrippa, who was king, but not from a priestly family, to overlook
the proceedings in the Temple court. To counter, the Jewish priests built a
wall screening the Temple from Agrippa’s palace.
At Agrippa’s request, Festus ordered this wall demolished. However,
a delegation headed by High Priest Ishmael ben Phabi traveled to Rome
to petition the emperor to overrule Festus and allow the wall to stand.
Nero’s wife, Poppaea, interceded on behalf of the Jews and influenced her
husband to support the high priest. It is not clear why Poppaea was sym-
pathetic toward the Jews, but this event is one of two instances in which
she lobbied successfully on their behalf.
Festus died in 62, while still in office, and he was succeeded by Albinus.
Of Albinus, Josephus wrote, “Not only did he embezzle public moneys
and rob a multitude of private citizens of their property and burden the
whole people with imposts, but he released captive highwaymen for ran-
soms from their relatives…. Every villain gathered a band of his own, and
Albinus towered among them like a robber-chief, using his adherents to
plunder honest citizens. The victims remained silent; others, still exempt,
flattered the wretch in order to secure immunity.
“…[H]is successor, Gessius Florus, made him appear by comparison
a paragon of virtue. [He] ostentatiously paraded his outrages upon the na-
tion and, as though he had been sent as hangman of condemned criminals,
abstained from no form of robbery or violence…he stripped whole cities,
8.4. Model of the Jerusalem Temple during the Second Temple Period at the scale
model on display at The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. (Author’s photo.)
ruined entire populations…his avarice brought desolation upon all the cit-
ies, and caused many to desert their ancestral haunts and seek refuge in
foreign provinces.”21
Florus’s abuses of the Jews mounted, antagonizing and punishing
them until they could tolerate no more. The final insult came when Florus
demanded 17 talents from the Temple treasury for government expenses,
and no doubt his personal use.22 In their outrage, bands of sarcastic Jews
took to the streets with signs begging pennies for “the poor, destitute Flo-
rus.” This mockery enraged the procurator, who called upon his troops to
sack the upper city; more than 600 Jews were killed.
His treachery was so great that Berenice, sister of Agrippa II, who was
visiting Jerusalem at the time, went barefoot to Florus and implored mercy
for her fellow Jews. But he insulted and ridiculed her and drove her away.23
To prevent Florus from further plundering the Temple, the Jews de-
stroyed all the approaches and bridges to the holy site. Now, the Jews
gathered around Agrippa II and begged him to denounce Florus to Nero.
Agrippa demanded that first the people restore the broken connections to
the Temple and pay the back taxes they owed to Rome. The Jews met both
demands but balked when Agrippa said they ought to honor Florus as the
representative of Rome until he was replaced. Agrippa was pelted with
stones and he quickly fled the city.
In their distaste for Florus and subsequent discontent with Rome, the
Jews decided to cease the daily sacrifice for the emperor in the Temple, a
tradition going back to the time of Augustus. This action was a declaration
of war.24
With the exception of Pontius Pilate, the coins of the prefects and
procurators do not carry symbols abhorrent to the Jews. They generally
carry agricultural symbols, an amphora, or a goblet. One coin of Felix
shows crossed shields and spears that were copied from Roman coins and
“meant to express the might of his rule,” according to Meshorer.25
Irregular Coins
Irregular or crudely engraved and struck bronze coins were made during
the reigns of Hasmonean and Herodian rulers, but they are often difficult
to fully assess since all of the coins of Herod I except for his dated series
(in which irregulars do not occur) were so crudely engraved and manufac-
tured. Under the Roman governors, however, the number and variations
of irregular coins struck increases tremendously. This growth can probably
be attributed to the need for many more bronze coins in the increasingly
Romanized low-level economy of Judea. (Bronze coins were used in the
markets, but gold and silver coins were used in commerce.) During the
early first century there were Jewish artisans but few Jewish artists. The
principal reason for this situation was the prohibition against graven im-
ages, so there was little demand for the fine arts of painting, sculpting, or
engraving gems and dies. For most coin types issued in Judea after the exile
of Herod Archelaus in 6 ce, there exist several die types of fine, high-style
work, more dies exhibiting average work, and additional dies exhibiting
crude work which also includes retrograde inscriptions, errors in the in-
scription, and just peculiar-looking copies of the master designs (see dis-
cussion p. 22).
Countermarked Coins
Fr. A. Spijkerman published a countermarked coin of Valerius Gratus in
1963; it was the first noted example of a countermarked coin of a prefect or
procurator of Judea. Lönnqvist published the most detailed study to date
on these coins and reported that there were “to our knowledge 20 counter-
marked coins of Valerius Gratus and Pontius Pilate.”26
The countermarks, which occur on Valerius Gratus’s coins of the palm
branch type (nos. 6367–6369) and both coin types of Pontius Pilate (nos.
6370–6371), consist of a palm branch within a circle. Sometimes the let-
ters CΠ flank the palm branch. Lönnqvist identifies the first letter as a
Greek sigma, which often appears in this lunate form on provincial coins
and inscriptions. He cites evidence that it abbreviates the Greek word for
“cohort”—a tactical military unit, which was a major element of a legion.
Lönnqvist concludes that the countermarks appeared on the coins after
29/30 ce, but before 41 ce. He refers to the book of Acts:
Now there was a certain man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centu-

rion of what was called the Italian cohort... (Acts 10:1).
This cohort was comprised of Roman citizens and may be identified

with the Cohors II Italica, known from inscriptions. Lönnqvist argues that
this cohort “had been the detachment which applied the countermarks
on the coins of the Roman prefects of Judea. The dating of this passage of
the text of the Acts and the countermarks coincide well, the countermarks
having been applied after 31/32 and before 41 ce, and the text of Acts be-
ing placed around 40. This new evidence from the countermarks of the Ju-
dean provincial coinage lends strong support to the credibility of the New
Testament on this point. Epigraphical material shows that this cohort had
been transferred (back) to Syria by 69.”27
Although these countermarked coins of the prefects and procura-
tors are extremely rare today, Lönnqvist has identified at least 12 different
countermark dies, thus indicating that the number of coins countermarked
by the Cohors II Italica may have been significant.
Coins of the Roman Governors of Judea

All with dotted border on both sides.
Average weight before Agrippa I, 1.90 g.
Axis is mostly vertical ↓ or ↑.
Mint of Jerusalem (possibly Caesarea Maritima)
Under Augustus 27 bce–14 ce,

dated to regnal years.
by Coponius 6–9 ce
6357 6358
6357. AE prutah.
Obv: KAICAPOC (of Caesar), ear of grain curved to r.
Rev: LΛς (year 36 = 5/6 ce), eight-branched palm tree bearing two
bunches of dates.
C
a. Finely engraved dies.
b. Different style.
The ς sometimes looks like a Γ.

by Marcus Ambibulus 9–12 ce
6358. AE prutah.
Obv: KAICAPOC, ear of grain curved to r.
Rev: LΛΘ (year 39 = 8/9 ce), eight-branched palm tree bearing two
bunches of dates.
C
6359 6360
6359. AE prutah.
Rev: LM (year 40 = 9/10 ce), eight-branched palm tree bearing two
bunches of dates.
C
6360. AE prutah.
Rev: LMA (year 41 = 10/11 ce), eight-branched palm tree bearing two
bunches of dates.
C
a. Obverse is reverse brockage, date not clear.
b. Struck on small flan, date not visible.
c. Irregular issue, date not visible.
d. Unstruck flan for prefect or procurator coin.
Under Tiberius 14–37 ce, dated to his regnal years.

By Valerius Gratus 15–26 ce possibly 15–17/18 ce
6361 6362
6361. AE prutah.
Obv: KAI CAP (Caesar), within wreath.
Rev: TIB (Tiberius) LB (year 2 = 15/16 ce), two cornucopias splayed
outward.
S
a. Irregular, struck on a tiny flan.
b. IOY ΛIA within wreath.
6362. AE prutah
Obv: IOY ΛIA ( Julia—Julia Livia, mother of Tiberius), within
wreath.
Rev: LB (year 2 = 15/16 ce), upright palm branch.
S
a. Irregular, crude.
b. Irregular, crude, blundered obverse legend.
c. Irregular, crude, obverse legend is retrograde.
d. Irregular, KAI CAP retrograde within wreath.
6363 6364 6364b
6363. AE prutah.
Obv: KAI CAP, within wreath.
Rev: TIBEPIOY (of Tiberius) above, LΓ (year 3 = 16/17 ce), crossed corn-
ucopias, caduceus between.
S
a. Irregular issue.
b. TIBEIPOY on reverse.
6364. AE prutah.
Obv: IOY ΛIA, within wreath.
Rev: LΓ (year 3 = 16/17 ce), three lilies in bloom.
C
a. Irregular, small flan, obverse legend is retrograde.
b. KAI CAP on obverse.
6365 6366 6367

6365. AE prutah.
Obv: IOY ΛIA, small bunch of grapes and vine leaf above.
Rev: LΔ (year 4 = 17/18 ce), narrow-necked amphora with scroll handles.
S
6366. AE prutah.
Obv: TIBEPIOC (Tiberius), vine leaf on tendril.
Rev: KAICAP (Caesar) above, LΔ (year 4 = 17/18 ce), kantharos with
scroll handles.
S
6367a 6368 6369
6367. AE prutah.
Obv: TIB KAI CAP (Tib[erius] Caesar), within wreath tied at base with
an X.
Rev: IOY ΛIA ( Julia), LΔ (year 4 = 17/18 ce), palm branch.
C
a. Irregular issue, retrograde.
6368. AE prutah.
Obv: TIB KAI CAP, within wreath tied at base with an X.
Rev: IOY ΛIA ( Julia), LЄ (year 5 = 18/19 ce), palm branch.
C
6369. AE prutah.
Obv: TIB KAI CAP, within wreath tied at base with an X.
Rev: IOY ΛIA ( Julia), LIΛ (year 11= 24/25 ce), palm branch.
C
a. Countermark of branch flanked by CΠ in oval on rev., date
not clear.
By Pontius Pilate 26–36 ce, possibly 17/18–36 ce
6370 6371
6370. AE prutah.
Obv: TIBEPIOY KAICAPOC LIς (of Tiberius Caesar, year 16 =
29/30 ce), simpulum (libation ladle).
Rev: IOYΛIA KAICAPOC ( Julia the Empress), three bound ears
of grain, the outer two droop.
S
b. Double struck both sides.
c. Reverse is obverse brockage.
d. Simpulum retrograde.
6371a 6372
6371. AE prutah.
Obv: LIZ (year 17 = 30/31 ce) within wreath.
Rev: TIBЄPIOY KAICAPOC (of Tiberius Caesar), lituus.
S
a. LIS (retrograde Z). This is possibly year 29.
b. HZ (the L and the I carelessly engraved together appear as
an H).
c. Irregular, crude with blundered legends.
d. Both sides retrograde.
e. Double struck, lituus on both sides.
f. Overstruck upon a coin of Agrippa I.
6372. AE prutah.
Obv: LIH (year 18 = 31/32 ce) within wreath.
Rev: TIBЄPIOY KAICAPOC, lituus.
S
a. Wreath is upside down.
b. HH within wreath.
c. LH within wreath.
d. LHI within wreath.
e. H.TI within wreath.
f. Countermark of branch flanked by CΠ in oval on rev.
7373
6373. AE prutah.
Obv: TIBЄPIOY KAICAPOC LIς (of Tiberius Caesar, year 16 = 29/30 ce),
simpulum (libation ladle).
RR
This is a hybrid of types from nos. 6370 and 6371.
6374 6375
6374. AE prutah.
Obv: IOYΛIA KAICAPOC, three bound ears of grain, the outer
two droop.
RR
6375. AE prutah.
Obv: LIZ (year 17 = 30/31 ce) within wreath.
Rev: IOYΛIA KAICAPOC, three bound ears of grain, the outer
two droop.
RR
Under Claudius 41–54 ce, dated to his regnal years.

by Antonius Felix 52–59/60 ce
Average weight after Agrippa I, 2.27 g.
6376 6377
6376. AE prutah.
Obv: IOY ΛIA AΓ PIΠΠI NA ( Julia Agrippina—wife of Claudius) within
wreath tied at bottom with an X.
Rev: TI KΛAYΔIOC KAICAP ΓЄPM (Ti[berius] Claudius Caesar
Germ[anicus]), LIΔ (year 14 = 54 ce) beneath two crossed palm
branches.
C
a. Irregular, crude, blundered legends.
b. Irregular, blundered legends, some retrograde.
c. Obverse wreath tied at top.
d. Irregular on odd-shaped flan, which shows how large the
coin on a fully rounded flan with all design and legend would be.
e. Obverse is brockage of obverse, reverse is normal.
f. Reverse is obverse brockage.
6377. AE prutah.
Obv: NEPW KΛAY KAICAP (Nero Clau[dius] Caesar—son of Claudius),
two oblong shields and spears crossed.
Rev: BPIT (Brit[annicus]—younger son of Claudius), LIΔ KAI (year 14
of Caesar = 54 ce), six-branched palm tree bearing two bunches of
dates.
C
b. Irregular, crude.
c. Irregular, very crude, obverse legend retrograde.
d. Reverse is obverse brockage.
6378 6379
6378. AE prutah.
Obv: NЄPW KΛAY KAICAP, two oblong shields and spears crossed.
Rev: TI KΛAYΔIOC KAICAP ΓЄPM (Ti[berius] Claudius Caesar
Germ[anicus]), LIΔ (year 14 = 54 ce), two crossed palm branches.
RR
6379. AE prutah.
Obv: IOY ΛIA AΓ PIΠΠI NA ( Julia Agrippina—wife of Claudius) within
wreath tied at bottom with an X.
Rev: BPIT (Brit[annicus]—younger son of Claudius), LIΔ KAI (year 14 of
Caesar = 54 ce), six-branched palm tree bearing two bunches of
dates.
RR
Under Nero 54–68 CE, dated to his regnal years.

by Porcius Festus 59/60–62 ce
6380
6380. AE prutah.
Obv: NЄP / WNO / C (of Nero) within wreath, bottom tied with X.
Rev: LЄ KAICAPOC (year 5 = 58/59 ce, of Caesar), palm branch.
C
a. Flan strips remain.
b. Finely engraved dies.
c. Irregular, crude and blundered.
d. Second N retrograde.
e. Both Ns retrograde.
f. First N retrograde on obverse, reverse is retrograde.
g. Both Ns retrograde on obverse, reverse is retrograde.
h. Both Ns retrograde on obverse, reverse is brockage.
i. Die crack horizontally across reverse.
j. Cut for change in ancient times.
CHAPTER NINE
The Jewish War
T
he war of the Jews against Rome was not a local revolt but a full
scale war, even though it pitted the sophisticated Roman army
against nonmilitary Jewish forces. Josephus reports that it was “the
greatest not only of the wars of our own time, but, so far as accounts have
reached us, well-nigh of all that ever broke out between cities or nations.”1
Ever since Archelaus was banished to Gaul in 6 ce, and the ensuing rule of
the first Roman prefect, the Jews, a predominantly poor, agrarian popula-
tion, had been subjected to heavy Roman taxation.
Financial pressures were all the more intolerable since local rulers were
no longer Jewish, but Romans who heaped one abuse on another. Compli-
cating the picture, the Jews had fragmented into several parties with vari-
ous views and interests. The Jewish masses scratched their livelihood from
the land and could foresee little more than increasing poverty. Most priests
and landowners made up a rich, aristocratic class among the Jews in Je-
rusalem. Religion aside, they were similar to the Roman aristocrats. There
was little recognition of the suffering by the majority of the Jews. A Jewish
middle class consisted of small merchants, artisans, and some more afflu-
ent peasants. On one hand, these Jews dearly wanted peace, yet they were
proud, observant people and did not appreciate exploitation by a Jewish
aristocracy. “It was generally true,” Goodman notes, “that the richer Jews
were more attracted to, or inclined to indulge in, Greek culture. Herod had
introduced athletic festivals, music contests, wild beast fights, and gladia-
tors to Jerusalem.”2
Hence, when the war with Rome erupted, the Jewish masses rebelled
against the priests and princes of the Jews almost as much as against the
Romans who, after all, had been masters of the Jewish rulers since the first
days of Herod I’s reign.
During the summer of 66 ce, the procurator Florus conscripted 17
talents from the Temple treasury “making the requirements of the impe-
rial service his pretext”3 and lit a fuse against the Roman overlords. This
dispute might have been settled, since Agrippa II came to Jerusalem when
he heard that many of his fellow Jews were killed while protesting Flo-
rus’s treachery. Agrippa and his sister Berenice urged the Jews to comply
with the wishes of Rome, which they may have been able to negotiate.
293
Eloquently, and at length, Agrippa spoke mainly to the uncommitted ma-

jority, ignoring extremists whose minds he could not change. Some of the
people said that their war was against Florus, not Rome. Agrippa had to
explain that “your actions are already acts of war against Rome: you have
not paid your tribute to Caesar, and you have cut down the porticoes com-
municating with Antonia. If you wish to clear yourselves of the charge of
insurrection, re-establish the porticoes and pay the tax; for assuredly the
fortress does not belong to Florus, and it is not Florus to whom your money
will go.”4
The Jews followed Agrippa’s advice for a while, but he continued to
urge submission to Florus, which was not tolerated. Until this time, Agrip-
pa II had the middle class behind him, but when he and Berenice con-
tinued to push their positions as peace party advocates, they were forced
to flee Jerusalem to escape the mob’s fury. Their departure dashed hopes
of avoiding war and placed Agrippa squarely on the Roman side of the
conflict. Thus, he maintained his throne and influence in the region for a
quarter of a century after Jerusalem was destroyed.
In the middle of the summer of 66, a group of sicarii (so-called “knife-
men” named for the small blades they carried) commanded by one named
Menahem, attacked and massacred the Roman garrison at Masada. Ma-
sada thus became the first Jewish rebel stronghold. The desert fortress was
the location of both the first and last major military action of the war!
Around this time in Jerusalem, one of the Temple priests, Eleazar, son
of the former high priest Ananias, convinced the Temple hierarchy to dis-
continue all sacrifices made for non-Jews. Thus ended the daily sacrifices
on behalf of the emperor. This “single, symbolic act, the decision to stop the
loyal sacrifices, [Eleazar] and his friends proclaimed themselves the popu-
lar leaders of an independent nation,” according to Goodman.5 Josephus
believed that more than any other act, this “laid the foundation for the war
with the Romans.”6
The high priests and religious leaders, whether Pharisee or Sadducee,
maintained that Roman rule was not a threat to the Jewish religion, and
most of them supported the peace party. Jewish fighting ability was ham-
pered by internal dissension between the factions.
Jewish aristocrats recognized the strength of the insurgents and re-
quested and received military aid from Florus and Agrippa. Their small
force captured all of Jerusalem except for the Temple area, where the zeal-
ots and sicarii maintained control. “Eleazar’s faction had the advantage
that it was protected from physical attack by the walls of the Temple, and
on the propaganda front he and his friends remained on the offensive,
trying to harness the grievances of the impoverished to their cause by the
burning of the debt archives. This act was probably, like the cessation of the
sacrifices, only symbolic, for creditors usually kept a second copy of debts
owed and would not be more than inconvenienced by the loss…but the
appeal to the poor might be no less effective for that, especially Eleazar’s
The Jewish War 295
main opponents within the ruling class, especially his father Ananias, had
been responsible for some of the most blatant oppression of the lower
class,”7 according to Goodman.
The initial Jewish victories sent shock waves throughout the Roman
Empire. As Agrippa II had predicted, Jews everywhere were murdered. In
Caesarea, more than 20,000 Jews were massacred in a single bloody hour.
In Damascus, 10,000 more were killed. There was similar carnage in An-
tioch, Alexandria, and other cities.
The Romans wanted to quicky stamp out the rebellion, lest other lo-
cal potentates get the wrong idea about the strength of the empire. Late
in 66, from their position in nearby Syria, Rome’s Twelfth Legion under
the leadership of the Roman governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus, marched
toward Jerusalem and aimed to quiet the embattled Jews. Even though
the Jewish forces that met Gallus’s army consisted of factions squabbling
among themselves, they united to present a strong front and rout the Ro-
man garrisons stationed in and around Jerusalem.
Cestius Gallus and his troops, Josephus reports, “suffered heavily,
without any retaliation upon their foes…in their utter helplessness the
troops were reduced to groans and the wailings of despair, which were
answered by the war-whoop of the Jews, with mingled shouts of exultation
and fury. Cestius and his entire army were, indeed, within an ace of being
captured.”8 The Romans fled that night under cover of darkness, but the
Jews pursued them into the Beit Horon pass and cut the remnants of their
force to pieces. The Jews “collected the booty which had been left on the
route, and, with songs of triumph, retraced their steps to the capital. Their
own losses had been quite inconsiderable; of the Romans and their allies
they had slain five thousand three hundred infantry and four hundred and
eighty of the cavalry.”9
When word of Gallus’s defeat reached Nero, he recognized the dan-
gerous situation and called upon his most distinguished general, the aging
Flavius Vespasianus, who had led Rome’s armies to victory in Germany
and Britain.
Vespasian arrived at Akko-Ptolemais in 67 along with the powerful
Fifth and Tenth Legions and soon was joined by his son Titus lead-
ing the Fifteenth Legion. Vespasian’s first tactic was to encircle Galilee,
where the Jewish forces were under the command of general Yosef ben
Matityahu. Galilee fell within a few months, but before it did, Yosef
( Joseph) surrendered to Vespasian and tried to convince his fellows to
do the same. They did not. Meanwhile, Joseph befriended Vespasian and
became a court follower and historian. He became the most important
historian of his day, known by the name he took as a freed slave of Ves-
pasian’s family—Flavius Josephus.
By the autumn of 68, Vespasian’s troops had largely crushed the revolt
throughout Judea. Only Jerusalem and a few zealot-held fortresses such
as Machaerus and Masada remained. These were ignored while Vespasian
prepared to besiege Jerusalem. At about this time, Nero was murdered and
civil war rocked Rome, which survived the tumultuous year of 68/69ce, the
year of the four emperors—Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian. During
this political upheaval, the war was temporarily halted. The pause allowed
Simon bar Giora, a charismatic Jewish-Idumaean rebel leader, to regroup.
His forces seized Hebron and parts of Idumaea, then entered Jerusalem
and took over much of the city.
The Eastern legions proclaimed Vespasian emperor and within a year,
he successfully claimed the throne in Rome and sent his son Titus to crush
the Jewish uprising once and for all. Three factions of Jews engaged in civil
war within Jerusalem, providing the Romans with considerable help.
One faction of Jews was led by the Galilean firebrand John of Gis-
chala, who entered the city at the end of 67 ce with the remnants of his
army that had escaped the vengeance of Titus in the north.10 After some
battles and intrigue, and the murder of a moderate leader and former high
priest Ananias, son of Ananias, John became the leader of the Zealots,
who controlled the Temple and its environs. Josephus reports that some
of John’s Zealots put on women’s clothes and perfume and went through
the city with braided hair and painted eyes trying to attract men and then
unexpectedly killing them for sport.11 No wonder the people invited rebel
leader Simon bar Giora and his army into the city.
Bar Giora was joined by ordinary citizens in Jerusalem, where he laid
siege to John and his forces at the Temple. A priest named Eleazar ben
Simon fell out with John and formed a third faction of armed Jews within
the city. The civil war that ensued among Eleazar, John, and Simon was
mutually suicidal, and although each of them may have had a personal
rationale, this war was without positive outcome for the Jewish people.
Tacitus reported that for the Jewish factions, “it was upon each other that
they turned the weapons of battle, ambush, and fire, and great stocks of
corn went up in flames.”12
These were harsh days for Jews. The situation deteriorated rapidly and
little hope was in sight. This led to an irrational growth of messianic hopes,
which was encouraged by revolutionary leaders. Tacitus explains, “The ma-
jority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded
to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from
Judea would go forth men destined to rule the world.”13
Both Tacitus and Josephus tell a similar story that reflects the supersti-
tions rife in Jerusalem at the time. Josephus says the tale “would, I imagine,
have been deemed a fable, were it not for the narratives of eyewitnesses.”14
Tacitus concisely reports, “In the sky appeared a vision of armies in con-
flict, of glittering armor. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up
the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman
voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same
instant came the rushing tumult of their departure.”15
The Jewish War 297
Josephus reports that the fighting inside Jerusalem was so vicious that
pious Jews had to climb over dead bodies to reach the Temple to offer
sacrifices as usual. Eventually Eleazar’s forces were diminished and those
remaining were absorbed into the Zealots. Toward the end of the war, as
Titus’s troops were preparing to breach the walls, the scene inside Jerusa-
lem was gruesome, but the Jews fought on. “They displayed an inflexible
determination, women no less than men, and the thought that they might
be compelled to leave their homes made them more afraid of living than of
dying,”16 according to Tacitus.
Titus’s siege machines pounded the city and its walls with battering
rams and huge stones. Even while Titus was at work on the outside of
Jerusalem, his allies, famine and plague, struck down thousands of the be-
sieged Jews. Slowly but surely, Titus’s men and machines tore down the
three walls of the city.
When the last wall fell, the survivors holed up in the Temple com-
pound and continued to resist for six more days. It is said that Titus had
ordered the Temple itself saved, but as his troops smelled the success that
had so long eluded them, they burnt it to the ground and butchered its
protectors. Even after this, however, isolated pockets of resistance flickered
in the Temple area, and it was a month before all were wiped out.
Throughout the conflict, at least four high-ranking Jews stood with
Titus: the apostate Tiberius Alexander of Alexandria, former procurator
of Judea and chief of staff; Agrippa II commanded an army of auxilia-
ries; Berenice, sister of Agrippa II and mistress of Titus, had hoped to
become his wife; and the turncoat historian, Josephus, who chronicled
the campaign.
Upon Titus’s victory, Josephus writes, a Roman officer “selected the
tallest and most handsome of the youth and reserved them for the tri-
umph; of the rest, those over 17 years of age he sent in chains to the works
in Egypt, while multitudes were presented by Titus to the various prov-
inces, to be destroyed in the theatres by the sword or by wild beasts; those
under 17 were sold….The total number of prisoners taken throughout the
entire war amounted to 97,000, and of those who perished during the
siege, from first to last, to 1,100,000.17 Of these the greater number were
of Jewish blood, but not natives of the place; for, having assembled from
every part of the country for the feast of unleavened bread, they found
themselves suddenly enveloped in the war, with the result that this over-
crowding produced first pestilence, and later the added and more rapid
scourge of famine.”18
John and Simon, ironically, were among the survivors. They ap-
proached Titus and asked him to allow them to go into the desert with
their followers and their families, to resume their lives and way of worship.
Titus was enraged by the vanquished leaders trying to dictate terms to
him and ordered his army to enter Jerusalem and sack the city. John and
Simon ended up being taken to Rome as captives and, after being paraded
through Rome in the “Triumph,” John was sentenced to life in prison and
Simon was executed.
The golden showbread table, menorah, and other holy objects from
the Temple were taken to Rome and put in the Temple of Peace.19 These
holy items have long since disappeared, but we can see an image of them
today on the reliefs on the Arch of Titus that was built to commemorate
Titus’s victory over the Jewish nation (Fig. 9.1). This arch stands today
not as a monument to its Roman builders, whose civilization has long
since disappeared, but as a monument to the Jewish people who outlived
their conquerors by many generations and millennia. A second arch was
constructed in memory of Titus’s victory in 81 ce at the Circus Maximus,
but remains are fragmentary.
When the Jerusalem Temple was burnt, the Jewish revolt was not
yet entirely crushed. After Titus sailed home to celebrate, Roman troops
marched on Zealot fortresses at Herodium, just south of Jerusalem, and
then on to conquer the hilltop fortress at Machaerus across the Jordan
River. A band of Zealots held out at the mountain fortress Masada near
the Dead Sea for a full three years.20 Even when Masada succumbed, the
Jewish people did not. Their faith depended more on tradition and laws
than on sanctuary and sacrifices. Virtually at the moment of Rome’s vic-
tory, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, with Titus’s blessing, was establishing a
center of learning in the town of Yavneh.
Smallwood observes that “Rabbi Johanan’s escape, technically an act
of treachery, was the Jews’ spiritual salvation, when the Rabbinic school
which he founded took the place of the Sanhedrin as the supreme Jewish
religious authority, and its president, the Nasi or patriarch, replaced the
high priest as the Jews’ leader and spokesman, both religious and political.
9.1. Relief on the Arch of Titus, Rome, depicts the Judean triumph, in which the
golden showbread table, menorah, and other holy objects were put on display. (Au-
thor photo.)
The Jewish War 299
But just as the high priests from 6 to 66 had been appointed by the procu-
rators and then by client kings bound to support Roman interests, so the
appointments of the Nasi after 70 were ratified by the Roman authorities,
who could thus ensure that Jewish leadership remained in the hands of
politically acceptable men.”21
Silver Coins of the Jewish War

Precise manufacturing was a hallmark of the silver coins of the Jewish War.
These coins were uniform in weight, purity, shape, and striking. Engraving
of the dies was the best in the history of Judea where, for the first time we
can clearly see “a mint geared for large-scale production, not with the work
of part-time amateur artisans,” according to Roth.22
This consistency in the silver coins of the Jewish War is remarkable
considering the ongoing civil war and changes in power within the Jew-
ish community. The political situation was “not consistent with the stable
minting of coins by the rebels’ government throughout the five years of the
revolt,”23 Rappaport notes. Yet the changing situation among the Jews did
not affect the striking of the silver coins, which reflected a “relatively set-
tled condition and the confident atmosphere of the country at the time,”24
according to Roth.
Neither Seleucids nor Romans had previously allowed the Jews to issue
silver coins. Hence the autonomous series of sheqels, half-sheqels, and quarter-
sheqels were designed not only as currency but to make a bold political state-
ment, “an ostentatious demonstration of the recovery of independence,”25
writes Roth, who argues that the minting of coins by an autonomous Jewish
government “was a religious as well as a patriotic necessity.”26
Jewish War silver coinage was “first and foremost minted to provide
for the Temple’s expenditures for provisions and maintenance and the pro-
Roman Jewish aristocracy, both high priestly circles and rich noble laymen,
by pretending to support the revolt, grasped onto the leadership of the
rebellious movement in order to control the rebels, to weaken their hold
on the people and to avoid a hopeless confrontation with Rome,”27 Rap-
paport suggests.
Commodities and services required by the Temple included sacrificial
animals, wine, incense, olive oil, wheat, and related products. Temple work-
ers and artisans needed to be paid, no matter how menial their jobs.
Thus, the silver coins were needed for multiple reasons. Their im-
portance was surely not taken for granted, and there is every reason to
believe that the symbols and slogans used on the coins were carefully
selected to showcase Jewish iconography of the time. Goodman notes,
“The regular record on the coins of the progress of the new era pro-
claimed a self-consciously new state, with a self-consciously new name:
not ‘Judah,’ which was too close to Judea (the Roman name for the prov-
ince), but ‘Israel.’”28
The obverse of the sheqels depicts a chalice and the paleo-Hebrew in-
scription “Sheqel of Israel,” with the date in the same Hebrew letters above
the chalice. The reverse shows a staff with three pomegranate buds and
carries the inscription “Jerusalem the holy.” Jewish sheqels weigh on average
around 14 g, (with a range of 11.8–14.8 g) and the edges have been ham-
mered (peened) uniformly, except on the specimens of the first year, and
a few of the second year, which are hammered, but in a somewhat cruder
manner. This time-consuming manufacturing technique is unique to this
series and may have been undertaken to show the special nature of the
coins, or possibly to thwart cheats who would shave or trim away the silver
for their own gain.
Deutsch and Drei have shown that the sheqel and half-sheqel flans were
hammered prior to striking.29 The average weight of the Jewish War half-
sheqels is around 6.8 g, with a known range from 6–7.2 g.
Scholarly controversies raged over these sheqels for hundreds of years.
Once most scholars believed that the “thick Jewish sheqels,” as they were
called in the late 1800s and early 1900s, were issued under Simon Mac-
cabee, who was granted permission to mint coins by Seleucid King Antio-
chus VII Sidetes. By the mid-twentieth century, however, it had become
clear that Simon never actually issued coins since Antiochus revoked his
grant. Archaeological and historical evidence have proven that the silver
Jewish sheqels date from the Jewish War.
The Jewish War coins spanned the first five years of the war, until Jeru-
salem’s destruction. Hence the sheqels were issued with five different dates,
from year one to year five; the first year spanned May 66 (and possibly
later) to March 67, the second, third, and fourth years spanned the months
of April 67 to March 70, and the fifth year extended only from April to
August of the year 70.
Deutsch documents 1,221 sheqels30 and half-sheqels of the Jewish War,
and identifies 520 different dies from which they were struck (Table 9.1).31
The other silver coins include quarter-sheqels (nos. 6385, 6395) from
the first and fourth years, which are excessively rare and each struck from
only one die set. The fourth-year quarter-sheqels are the only coins in this
series that deviate from the standard design.
As one might expect, the rarity of the various sheqels and half-sheqels is
relative to the number of dies used in each year. For the sheqels, the coins of
the second year make up around 50% of the known coins followed by year
3, around 25%, year 1, around 18%, year 4, around 6% and year 5 around
2%. The half-sheqels are split around 30% each for the first through third
years with around 2% for the fourth year and only two known specimens
for the fifth year.
These numbers and ratios seem logical, with one exception. Accord-
ing to the numbers of dies, the sheqels of year 4 should be roughly com-
parable in number to those of year 1. Instead, however, there are fewer
than half as many year 4 sheqels as there are year 1 sheqels. The explanation
The Jewish War 301
for this phenomenon is likely due to Obv. Rev.

dramatic deterioration of the situa- Sheqels #
Dies Dies
tion within Jerusalem in the fourth Year 1 10 27 160
year of the war. There was probably
Year 2 19 203 439
a shortage of silver as well as great
turmoil. It is also possible that some Year 3 20 96 220
coins remained in the Temple vicin- Year 4 9 29 53
ity, where they were taken and melt- Year 5 5 10 14
ed by the Romans. Half- Obv. Rev.
Goldstein and Fontanille dis- Sheqels Dies #
Dies
covered that virtually none of the Year 1 5 12 99
reverse dies are shared between years
Year 2 7 30 124
of production. In other words, al-
though more than 200 nearly iden- Year 3 6 23 105
tical reverse dies were used over five Year 4 4 2 78
years of production, the reverses Year 5 1 1 2
were each invariably used for only a
single year. Thus, “each year’s reverse Table 9.1. Die tabulation and known
dies apparently were discarded at the number of specimens for Jewish War
end of that year.”32 Among the rare sheqels and half-sheqels, after Deutsch
exceptions is one reverse die that 2017.
was used for both year 4 and year 5
half-sheqels.
While the obverse dies of the sheqels and half-sheqels are always dated,
the reverses are basically identical. Therefore, it is not clear why, in a time
of duress, Jewish minters would go to the trouble to create new reverse dies
for the sheqels and the half-sheqels every year. Furthermore, the reverse dies
outnumber the obverse dies by significant margins in each year, overall by
a ratio of 5:1, according to Deutsch. This difference may have been due to
mechanical issues, since the reverse dies likely deteriorated at a faster rate
than the obverse dies. Technical evidence, however, leaves no doubt that
perfectly good reverse sheqel and half-sheqel dies were discarded at the end
of each minting year (Fig. 9.2).
Until the beginning of the Jewish War, the most common silver coins
circulating in Judea were Tyre sheqels and half-sheqels. These coins are fur-
ther discussed in Chapter 12, but it is not likely that they were produced
under Herod I, as Meshorer suggests.33 On the other hand, it is possible that
through the mid-first century the Tyre mint struck coins mainly for use by
the Jews, “who used them for payment of all kinds to the Temple. Probably
the Tyrian mint, as well as the moneychangers in Jerusalem, reaped a profit
from the exchange of its coins. At the same time, the Temple treasury got
the purest silver coins on the market at the time. The Tyrian mint ceased
to mint its sheqels before the revolt broke out, and when the revolt began,
the half-sheqel tax and other donations from the Diaspora to the Temple
may have been reduced significantly. Concurrently, the Temple authority
9.2. Connection chart showing how obverse and reverse dies could combine for year
1 silver sheqels (left) and year 4 bronze quarter-sheqels. (Graphic: Fontanille)
combined its economic needs with popular national public opinion and
minted—for its own use—coins, with which it could acquire what was
necessary for the continuation of the Temple’s functioning.”34
Silver stocks of the Jerusalem Temple were probably the source for
the silver used to mint the silver sheqels and fractions. Since at one point
in the war, Jerusalem was cut off from the Jewish Diaspora as well as areas
of Judea itself, the income to the treasury was likely dramatically curtailed.
However, there had been an accumulation of silver from previous contri-
butions as well as the booty taken from the Romans during Jewish suc-
cesses early in the war.
The Jewish War 303
Rappaport believes that the lo-

cation of the mint of the silver coins
was in the Temple area and directed
by Temple officials who were sym-
pathetic to the aspirations of the
Zealot party. “In any case the coins
issued by the mint were intended
primarily to meet the needs of the
Temple and not mainly to supplant
the Tyrian or any other coinage. At
the same time the messages of these
coins did not contradict the ideolo-
gies of any of the rebel parties and
so could have been tolerated by all
of them,”35 he writes.
The legends and objects de-
picted on the sheqels are consistent
with the ideology of the Zealots,
who “did not have a charismatic or
messianic leadership but a collective
one. Their center and base was the
holy mount and the Temple itself.
They believed that Jerusalem was
impregnable and that they had the 9.3. Irregular silver sheqels of the first,
right to use its resources because they fourth, and fifth years with similar irregu-
were fighting for the Temple.” lar engraving traits. (Fontanille.)
Somewhat crude silver sheqels are
dated to the first, fourth, and fifth years of the war, it is not clear if these
were struck at the central mint or an alternate mint. Hoard evidence sug-
gests they circulated together with normal sheqels (Fig. 9.3).
Thus, the sheqels, half-sheqels, and quarter-sheqels were adopted as sig-
nificant currency in Judea, “without regard to the political inclinations and
aspirations of the various parties and groups.”36
Bronze Coins of the Jewish War

Bronze coins of the Jewish War differ from the silver coins in many re-
spects. An increasing body of research that points to a possible mint for
bronze coins at a separate location and operated by a different political
faction. The bronze coins, particularly the prutot, were of very small value
and were principally used as small change in the marketplace.
Rappaport suggests that Simon bar Giora’s party most likely minted
the bronze coins. He observes that their slogans “represent a more radical
ideology”37 than the slogans on the silver coins. “Jerusalem the holy” pro-
claimed on the sheqels is less extreme than the “freedom of Zion” slogan on
the bronze coins dated to the second and third years, which is less radical
than the “for the redemption (or salvation) of Zion” on the coins of the
fourth year.
Furthermore, Rappaport points out, the bronze coins were dated only
to the years 2, 3, and 4, which is consistent with Simon’s activity. “In the
first year of the revolt Simon was occupied with the stabilization of his
party, moving from one place to another and chased by the Hanan govern-
ment. Only in years two and three was he able to initiate minting in bronze
somewhere outside of Jerusalem. In year four, Simon occupied the greater
part of the city and became the most powerful and important leader. In
year five the two camps, of Simon and of John and the Zealots, were unit-
ed, and Jerusalem was besieged. Even the Temple minted few sheqels and
bronze was not minted at all.”38
We now know, however, that bronze coins were also dated to the first
year. A third specimen of a year one prutah from a private collection has
been examined (no. 6386). This coin allows us for the first time to read
additional letters and complete an accurate reading for the first time. This
shows that the coin was clearly dated to the first year.
Goldstein and Fontanille examined various aspects of the symbols
and legends on the Jewish War coins and also suggest that the fourth-
year bronze coins were not struck by the same mint that issued the silver
sheqels.39 The year-four bronzes vary from the sheqels in that they have a
different symbolism, different legends, and a slightly different paleogra-
phy. Rappaport argues that all of the bronze coins were issued at a mint
under Simon bar Giora’s rule, although he suggests that some technical
differences between the earlier dated bronzes and the year four bronzes
“may have been a result of bar Giora’s moving the mint from its temporary
location in his camp to a more stable and better equipped setting in Jeru-
salem.... Also, it may be explained by Simon’s elevation to the more impor-
tant leader in Jerusalem and the subsequent Roman siege of the city. The
upgrading of the message of his bronze coins from ‘freedom’ to ‘salvation’
may also be connected to the decision to mint heavier denominations.”40
Siege Coins and Civil War

The bronze coins of the fourth year date to 69/70 ce and may comprise
the first series of “siege coins” ever minted. This group contains three dif-
ferent sizes of bronze coins, inscribed “half,” “quarter,” and one without a
denomination, which is clearly an eighth. It has been suggested that these
were “fictitious” fractions of the Jewish silver sheqels, but because they were
not silver fractions, the word sheqel itself was never mentioned on these
coins.41 The Jews besieged in Jerusalem by the Roman army under Titus
struck these coins not long before its destruction
“In every possible sense of the term these are true siege-pieces,” ac-
cording to Newell. “By the dates they bear they were struck in the city of
The Jewish War 305
Jerusalem itself when that city was being closely invested by Titus and his
army; by the fictitious value inscribed on them they show that though of
bronze, they were intended to pass as the half and quarter of a silver sheqel;
and lastly by the legend legeulat Zion (to the redemption of Zion) they give
us what must have been the daily prayer of the hard pressed and despairing
Jews during the last few terrible months of their heroic revolt.”42
Besieged by the Romans and fighting among themselves, the Jews in
Jerusalem by the fourth year were in the midst of a terrible famine. Jose-
phus relates the dismal situation: “The recklessness of the insurgents kept
pace with the famine…as corn [grain] was nowhere to be seen, they would
rush in and search the houses, and then if they found any they belabored
the inmates as having denied the possession of it; if they found none they
tortured them for more carefully concealing it. The personal appearance of
the wretches was an index whether they had it or not: those still in good
condition were presumed to be well off for food, while those already ema-
ciated were passed over, as it seemed senseless to kill persons so soon to
die of starvation. Many clandestinely bartered their possessions for a single
measure—of wheat, if they were rich, of barley, if they were poor; then
shutting themselves up in the most remote recesses of their houses, some
in the extremity of hunger devoured the grain un-ground, others so baked
it as necessity and fear dictated. Nowhere was any table laid; they snatched
the food half-cooked from the fire and tore it in pieces.”43
Josephus tells of a famine so desperate that “necessity drove the vic-
tims to gnaw anything, and objects which even the filthiest of brute beasts
would reject they condescended to collect and eat: thus in the end they
abstained not from belts and shoes and stripped off and chewed the very
leather of their bucklers.”44 In one gruesome tale, Josephus tells of a mother
who ate the roasted body of her own child.45 He concludes that “no other
city ever endured such miseries, nor since the world began has there been
a generation more prolific in crime.”46
If it had not been for the strong will of John’s and Simon’s oppos-
ing factions, the simple, unaffiliated people of Jerusalem might have suc-
cumbed earlier. However, the rebels provided a strong backbone, possibly
rooted in greed as well as devotion.
Witnesses to the War

Sometimes we forget that coins were not made to collect—they are mate-
rial remains from earlier civilizations. We see this in archaeological excava-
tions that revolve around revealing evidence related to the destruction of
the Jerusalem Temple and the subsequent burning of most of Jerusalem.
The destruction of the Temple took place on the ninth day of the He-
brew month of Av in 70 ce. The ninth of Av usually occurs in July or Au-
gust and is still celebrated by Jews as the fasting holiday Tisha b’Av [ninth
of Av]. Some refer to it as the saddest day in Judaism; it not only com-
9.4. Burnt and melted

half- and quarter-sheqels
of the fourth year of
the Jewish War discov-
ered in excavations near
the Temple Mount in
Jerusalem. (Photo: Clara
Amit, Israel Antiquities
Authority)
memorates the destruction of Herod’s Temple but also of the First Temple,
as well as the date Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 and other tragic
events in Jewish history.
One of the most emotional discoveries took place in 1970, the first year
of Jerusalem excavations led by Nahman Avigad, when his team uncovered
the remains of a house that was burnt in 70 ce during the war. Avigad re-
ports on the uncovering of debris and finding rooms many feet under the
current city streets, where, “Soot reigned over all, clinging to everything.
It covered the plastered walls, and even the faces of our workmen turned
black. There was no doubt that the fire had rampaged here, apparently fed
by some highly inflammable material contained in the rooms. It may well
have been some oil, which would account for the abundance of soot.”
Pottery, stone vessels, broken glass, iron nails, and coins were found
strewn about the building and it soon became “quite clear that this build-
ing was razed by the Romans in 70 ce, during the destruction of Jerusa-
lem,” Avigad wrote.
“Something amazing occurred in the hearts of all who witnessed the
progress of excavations here. The burning of the Temple and the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem suddenly took on a new and horrible significance. Per-
sons who had previously regarded this catastrophe as stirring but abstract
and remote, having occurred two millennia ago, were so visibly moved by
the site that they occasionally would beg permission to take a fistful of soil
or a bit of charred wood ‘in memory of the destructions.’”
Gabriela Bijovsky of the Israel Antiquities Authority studied numis-
matic evidence of the burning of Jerusalem. She discusses two groups of
burnt coins that date to the end of the Jewish War that were discovered in
excavations around the Temple Mount led by Benjamin Mazar (Fig. 9.4).
Evidence from those excavations correlates quite closely with comments of
Josephus, who may even have witnessed the events:
“The Romans, thinking it useless, now that the Temple was on fire, to
spare the surrounding buildings, set them all alight, both the remnants of
the porticoes and the gates, excepting two, one on the east and the other on
the south; these, also, they subsequently razed to the ground. They further
The Jewish War 307
burnt the treasury-chambers, in which lay vast sums of money, vast piles of
raiment, and other valuables.”47
Bijovsky discusses “two previously unpublished assemblages of bronze
coins discovered in 1975 [which] shed additional light on the dramatic
events that accompanied the destruction of the city by the Romans.” Both
groups were found in connection with “the shop and on an adjacent paved
Herodian-period street running parallel at that point to the Western Wall.”
The first hoard was found on the floor of a Herodian vault room at
Robinson’s Arch; a bronze juglet and cooking pot were discovered along
with 34 coins. Among those coins were 33 bronze coins of the Jewish War
and one of Agrippa I. The second group of 13 coins was discovered nearby
and consisted of one coin of Agrippa I, one procurator coin, and 11 coins
of the Jewish War.
Somewhat surprisingly, the two most common coins among the total
of 47 coins found here were 27 examples of the year-four bronze quar-
ter-sheqel (no. 6397) and 11 examples of the year-four bronze half-sheqel
(no. 6396). Only three examples of the more common eighth-sheqel were
found. The half and quarter are quite rare coins, and this number of these
coins seems significant. Bijovsky points out that the coins in these groups
were “almost exclusively struck during the fourth year of the revolt, April
69 through March 70.” Thus, many of them did not have time to circulate
far outside of the city.
Bijovsky notes that all of these 47 coins (for the two groups) are poorly
preserved. “Most of them bear evidence of severe burning, some to a point
that defies identification of the types, while others are merely blistered.
Some of the coins of the original assemblages may have completely melted
and were therefore not recovered.... The coins described here constitute
an even more vivid testimony of destruction by fire,” Bijovsky writes. “The
incidence of fourth year coins in “archaeological contexts, helps to provide
indications about the movements of the rebels and the advance of the Ro-
man army.”
For example, she cites a hoard of 19 fourth-year bronzes that was
found at Herodium, among ashes. These coins provided evidence as to the
earliest time of the collapse and burning of this room, and thus it is known
than the room was occupied by Jewish rebels as late as the fourth year of
the war.
Bijovsky also cites the excavations at Qumran, where no coins of the
fourth year have been found in excavations. She quotes her colleague Don-
ald Ariel, also of the Israel Antiquities Authority, as noting that “this ab-
sence leads to the conclusion that Qumran was abandoned before the end
of the third year of the revolt, namely in 68/69.”
Because of the frequency of fourth-year coins in the two Jerusalem
hoards, Bijovsky confirms “their character was more of an emergency na-
ture.” This corresponds with earlier descriptions of these fourth-year is-
sues as the world’s first “siege coins.” Bijovsky believes that “perhaps [these
coins] found their way to the two spots under Robinson’s Arch close to the
time when the Temple and its surroundings were being set to the torch.”48
Slogans on Jewish War Coins

Precise wording of the legends and selection of the images on the coins of
the Jewish War suggests that whatever else their faults might have been,
the leaders had a clear understanding of how to use coins as a method of
communication and political propaganda.
The first coins minted in 66 ce were the silver sheqels and half-sheqels,
with the legends “Jerusalem [the] holy” and “Holy sheqel” or “half-sheqel.”
In these legends we see a parallel to the legend on the contemporary Tyr-
ian silver coins that carry the legend “Of Tyre, the Holy and Inviolable.”
Although the striking of these coins was revolutionary, their legends were
rather generic and likely to be embraced by the Jews.
The slogans on the lower-value coins, meant to be used in day-to-day
transactions, differed significantly in tone. Huge numbers of bronze prutot
were dated to the second and third years of the war, and each coin carried
the words, “[for the] freedom of Zion,” one of the earliest-known records
of a Zionistic slogan.49
That slogan represented a kind of rallying cry for the Jews. For years,
the Romans had effectively used their coins to carry political messages;
why shouldn’t the Jews do the same? Thus, in the days when there were no
mass media and no internet, coins were used to communicate the Jewish
message of hope for a free Jerusalem and a free people.
Roth agrees that this was “certainly not accidental [and] may well
reflect the fresh political circumstances of this time, for Simon bar Giora
had by now entered Jerusalem and established his supremacy there.”50
It is also possible that Simon relocated his mint to Jerusalem during
this difficult time and that the change in message reflects the Jewish
insurgents’ realization that they would soon be defeated by the powerful
Roman machine. Hence, the change in tone from the call for physical
“freedom” from oppression versus “redemption” or “salvation,” which has
a more spiritual tone.
Goldstein and Fontanille add that “freedom does not necessarily imply
confrontation and can conceivably be obtained by mutual consent, possibly
as a result of negotiation, whereas redemption denotes salvation or a forced
release from a status of war and oppression.”51
Jerusalem was destroyed early in the war’s fifth year. A new Jewish Di-
aspora grew throughout the ancient world. Refugees from Judea bolstered
Jewish communities already in exile in Rome, Alexandria, and other cities.
Emotionally as well as practically, these Diaspora Jews of the first century
ce looked toward the day that their Temple would be rebuilt and they
would return to their holy Jerusalem.
The Jewish War 309
Symbolism of the Feast of Tabernacles

The motifs used on the coins of the fourth year foreshadow this yearning.
The principal symbols on these coins reflect the Jewish holiday of Sukkot,
also called the Feast of Booths or the Feast of Tabernacles. During the
days of the Second Temple, it was the most significant of three pilgrimage
festivals (Passover, Shavuot [Pentecost], and [Tabernacles]). It was a popu-
lar holiday of harvest and thanksgiving with great festivity and rejoicing.
Sukkot also plays a role in the New Testament, as background for one of
Jesus’s appearances in Jerusalem.
Now the Feast of Booths was at hand. His brothers therefore said to
Him, “Depart from here, and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may
behold Your works which You are doing” ( John 7:2–3).
The Book of Leviticus mentions some of the special observances of

Sukkot:
...And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches
of palm-trees and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and
ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days....Ye shall dwell
in booths seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall dwell in
booths; that your generations may know that I made the children of Is-
rael to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt...
(Leviticus 23:39–43).
The types of vegetation referred to were named “the four species” by

Rabbinic authorities. The “fruit of goodly trees” is the citron, a lemon-
like citrus fruit (etrog in Hebrew); the “boughs of thick trees” are myrtle
twigs (hadasim); the palm branch is called lulav; and willows are called
aravot (Fig. 9.5). In the ancient world, there was a great deal of symbolism
linked to palm branches, not only by the Jews but in the Greek and Roman
worlds as well. Hence, Nike often holds a palm branch.
When the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed in 70 ce, Rabbi Johanan
ben Zakkai ruled that wherever Jews celebrate the holiday of Sukkot, they
9.5. Sukkot ritual items

shown on Jewish War
bronze coins: date palm
with collection baskets,
etrog, lulav bunch. (Graphic:
Fontanille.)
should take “the four species” in their hand for seven days to commemorate
the Temple. They were held while reciting prayers and psalms.
Even today, “the four species” are used by Jews throughout the world to
celebrate Sukkot. The palm branch, two willow branches, and three myrtle
twigs are wrapped together and held in a bunch in the right hand. This
bunch became collectively known as a lulav, probably because the lulav is
its largest component. The etrog is held in the left hand.
As a simple palm branch, we have already seen the lulav appear on
coins of John Hyrcanus I, Alexander Jannaeus, Herod I, and Herod An-
tipas. Now, with the coins of the fourth year of the Jewish War, “the four
species” as symbols of Sukkot and the pilgrimage to Jerusalem take center
stage. Each of the three bronze coins dated “year four” (nos. 6396–6398)
depicts variations of “the four species.”
The Ritual Chalice and Pomegranate Staff

The ritual chalice is also related to the Jewish holidays. Romanoff sug-
gested it was related to the omer, a sacrifice of first fruits mentioned in
Leviticus:
When ye are come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap
the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of
your harvest unto the priest. And he shall wave the sheaf before the
Lord, to be accepted for you... (Leviticus 23:9–11).
Earlier descriptions of this cup suggested it was related to drink-

ing wine, but Romanoff argues that this is not a drinking chalice. “It
is doubtful whether or not the vessel was a drinking cup. The dotted
[beaded] border would make drinking almost impossible. The cup, ‘kos,’
in the Temple was used for sacrificial blood; while the drinking of wine
in the Temple was forbidden, and... the Jewish coins do not contain any
symbol of blood sacrifices.”52
Goldstein and Fontanille observe that an omer cup is not mentioned
in any ancient sources and believe it is more likely that this is a generic
Temple chalice, and perhaps even a “chalice of salvation.” In either case, we
note that this chalice with a beaded rim is the only design that exists on
both the silver and bronze coins of the Jewish War.
Another possibility is that the object is being viewed in the wrong
scale and it is not a small cup but a large basin, the Temple “laver” (Exodus
30:18) used for washing before entering the holy place.
The pomegranate buds (Fig. 9.6) on the sheqels have often been de-
scribed as hanging on a sprig or branch. Deutsch, however, asserts that
this symmetrical object with a clear round base (or handle) more likely
represents “the staff of the high priest. This identification solves two prob-
lems—first, the fact that this is a cultic object connected with the Temple
The Jewish War 311
9.6. Photo of an actual pomegranate bud superimoposed on the reverse of a Jewish

War silver shekel. (Author’s photo.)
of Jerusalem may explain why it was chosen to appear on these coins. Sec-
ondly, it is possible that the staff represents the minting authority, whether
this was the Priesthood, or the Temple as an institution.”53
Date Palm Tree

According to Rabbinic tradition, the “honey” listed among the seven spe-
cies that bless the land of Israel was the honey from dates (Deuteronomy
8:8). The bronze half-sheqel of the fourth year of the Jewish War against
Rome depicts a date palm, together with baskets for gathering its first fruit
for the annual Sukkot sacrifice (Fig. 9.7).
The first appearance of the date palm tree (as opposed to a branch) on
a Judean coin occurs on the first coin of Herod Antipas and later appears
on coins of the Roman prefects of Judea. Although the palm tree was used
on coins of other cities, particularly Tyre, the palm tree has become com-
monly associated with ancient Judea, especially in the eyes of the Romans
and others who visited, but did not live there.
A large number of the Judea Capta coins struck by the Roman em-
perors Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian to commemorate their
victory over Judea in 70 ce depict the palm tree to symbolize ancient Judea
(Fig. 9.8). To Rome at least, the date palm tree was the single symbol di-
rectly associated with the land of the Jews.
The most extensive use of the palm tree on ancient Jewish coinage oc-
curs during the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In almost every instance, even on the
irregular coins, the palm tree appears with seven branches. (This version
also appears on of the bronze half-sheqel of the Jewish War.) It is tempting
to make a connection with the seven-branched menorah that once stood
9.7. Jewish War bronze half-sheqel (no. 6396), year 4, and pilgrim’s ring with simi-
lar palm tree and basket motif from the same period. Such rings were probably
purchased by pilgrims who traveled to Jerusalem for holidays such as the Feast of
Tabernacles. (Author’s photo.)
9.8. Vespasian’s Judea Capta gold (top left), silver (top right), and bronze coins were
struck to commemorate the defeat of the Jews and destruction of Jerusalem at the
end of the Jewish War. (Author’s photo.)
The Jewish War 313
in the Jerusalem Temple. Since Rabbinic teachings forbade depiction of

the Temple objects themselves (specifically the menorah and the show-
bread table), it is possible that the seven-branched palm tree artistically
was meant to represent the menorah.
Romanoff does not mention the menorah-palm tree connection. He
describes the palm tree as “a fruit-bearing tree, growing near water.... The
sight of such a tree meant the presence of water, an ever-ready meal, and
rest in its shade. This tree became the symbol of Judea where palm trees
grow in greater number than in any other part of Palestine. It also repre-
sented Judea the productive, Judea the blessed, and the palm motif fig-
ured prominently on the walls, doors and pillars of the Tabernacle and the
Temple....The palm tree has thus a double meaning, the symbol of Judea
and the symbol of abundance and plenty.”54
Amphora and Vine Leaf

A variation of the amphora and vine leaf designs were initially used on a
coin of Valerius Gratus (no. 6365). Both the procurator coins and the Jew-
ish War coins depict a vessel on one side and a vine leaf on the other side.
It is likely this amphora was used for wine libations.
Meshorer notes that coins of the Roman governors were widely circu-
lated right up until the Jewish War. “Although the procurators attempted
to mint coins depicting designs which would not offend the local populace,
the symbol of the amphora reminded the Jews of the Roman libations of
wine poured out before idols.”55
Alternatively, Meshorer suggests that the bronze coins of the Jewish
War represent the antithesis of the Roman motifs. He writes that the am-
phoras “on the Jewish issues may symbolize the sacred libations of wine
made in the Temple. The vessels depicted on the coins of the revolt are
not copies of the Roman amphoras; they are Jewish and of a different
style than the classical Greco-Roman models represented on the coinage
of Valerius Gratus.”56
Romanoff adds, “From Mishnaic sources we learn that only two liq-
uids, water and wine, usually required covers.”57 (Milk containers also
needed to be covered.) This requirement is of interest since the amphora
shown on the “year three” coin is clearly covered.
They used to fill a golden flagon holding three logs with water from
Siloam. When they reached the Water Gate, they blew on the shofar a
sustained, a quavering and another sustained blast. The priest whose
turn of duty it was went up the Altar-Ramp and turned to the right
where were two silver bowls…. They had each a hole like a narrow
snout, one wide and the other narrow so that both bowls emptied them-
selves together…. The bowl to the west was for water and that to the
east was for wine…. As was the rite on a weekday so was the rite on a
Sabbath save that on the eve of the Sabbath they used to fill with water
from Siloam a golden jar that had not been hallowed, and put it in a
special chamber. If it was upset or uncovered, they refilled it from the
laver, for wine or water which has been uncovered is invalid for the
Altar (Mishnah, Sukkah 4, 9–10).
“Here we have our vessels,” E. W. Klimowsky writes. “The big golden

flagon holding three logs was that with a lid and also the one without it,
which is on the coins of the First Jewish War.” He adds that in describ-
ing the “natural size of the golden amphora, the Mishnah reports that
the contents were three logs of water taken from Siloam. This would be
about one and a half pints…[thus] the size of the golden amphora was
not considerable.”58
Temple Tribute and Other Jewish Rituals

According to the Mishnah and other sources, the Temple tribute was pay-
able only in Tyrian coinage, and this condition included the annual half-
sheqel that every Israelite had to pay to the Temple.
The five selas due for the [firstborn] son should be paid in Tyrian coin-
age the thirty due for the slave [that was gored by an ox] and the fifth
due from the violator and the seducer, and the hundred due from him
that hath brought up an evil name, all all to be paid according to the
value of the sheqels of the sanctuary, in Tyrian coinage. Aught that is
to be redeemed may be redeemed with silver or its value, save only the
sheqel-dues (Mishnah, Bekhoroth 8:7).
Since the Mishnah was not codified until the third century ce, well
after the Jewish War, one might infer that even during the Jewish War
the payment made to the sanctuary should be in the coinage of Tyre.
There still is a widespread belief that the Jewish War half-sheqels were
issued specifically to fill the need for contributions to the Temple. Gold-
stein and Fontanille suggest that the quantity of the half-sheqels was
more tightly controlled than that of the sheqels and, furthermore, “since
the half-sheqels were needed in the Temple by the beginning of each year,
they were slated for the earliest production. They were struck before the
sheqels, allowing the required quota of half-sheqels to be minted in years
with regular production.”59
Further discussion and a description of the use and origins of Tyrian
sheqels is provided in Chapter 12.
The Jewish War 315
COINS OF THE JEWISH WAR

Mint of Jerusalem
Year One, May 66 (or later)–March 67 ce
All with dotted border on both sides unless noted.
Average weight Jewish War sheqels,13.8 g, 6.8 g (half).
Average weight of the Jewish War prutah, 2.51 g.
A LARS Y LQS
‫שקל ישראל א‬
HSDQ MLSERY
6381 ‫ירושלם קדשה‬
6381. AR sheqel. 1 obv. die, 1 rev. die.60
Obv: LARSy LkS (sheqel [of ] Israel), A ([year] 1) above ritual chalice with
smooth, wide rim, pellet on either side, the base has pearled ends,
circle of dots all around chalice and also outer legend.
Rev: US¿k M>Säry (Jerusalem [the] holy), stem with three pomegran-
ates, pearl at base, circle of dots all around pomegranates and also
outer legend.
RRR
This coin is a prototype of the first-year sheqel and is, therefore, the first coin type of the
Jewish War. These are three only known specimens at this time.
In the late 1970s, an Arab dealer in Jerusalem offered me a group of six sheqels.
Three were year two, two were year three, and the sixth was one of these coins. The price
asked for the six coins was $6,000. The dealer was well known for often dealing in forged
coins. I rejected the deal, but instead offered $4,000 for the five sheqels, not including
the sixth. At the time, this coin type had not been published. While it looked authentic to
me, I was not certain enough to overcome my doubts, and $2,000 for a questionable coin
was a lot of money. It was to my sincere chagrin that these rare coins were eventually
proven authentic!
6382. AR sheqel. 1 obv. die, 7 rev. dies.

Obv: LARSy LkS (sheqel [of ] Israel), A ([year] 1]) above wide-rim ritual
chalice with wide, smooth rim, pellet on either side, flat base with
pearled ends.
Rev: US¿k M>Säry ( Jerusalem [the] holy), staff with three pomegranate
buds, round base.
RR
6383
6383. AR sheqel. 7 obv. dies, 21 rev. dies.

Obv: LARSy LkS (sheqel [of ] Israel), A ([year] 1) above ritual chalice
with smooth rim, pellet on either side, flat base with pearled ends.
Rev: US¿k M>Säry ( Jerusalem [the] holy), staff with three pomegranate
buds, round base.
RR
a. Reverse die is a bit crude.
LQSH YXC
‫חצי השקל‬
6384
6384. AR half-sheqel. 5 obv. dies, 12 rev. dies.
Obv: LkSU yZx (half of a sheqel), A ([year] 1) above ritual chalice with
smooth rim, pellet on either side, flat base with pearled ends.
Rev: Pomegranate staff as on no. 6383.
RR
a. Variety with large chalice.
LQSH @BR
‫רבע השקל‬
6385
6385. AR quarter-sheqel. 1 obv. die, 1 rev. die.

Obv: LkSU CBR (quarter of a sheqel), A ([year] 1) above ritual chalice as
on no. 6384.
RRR
6386
The Jewish War 317
6386. AE prutah.
Obv: A US¿k ∙M>Säry ( Jerusalem [the] holy, [year] 1), amphora with
fluted body, broad rim, and two handles.
Rev: LARSy (Israel), vine leaf on small branch.
RRR
a. Another example.
b. Overstruck specimen.
Notice the new reading based on the photograph. There are three known examples; see
discussion on p. 304.
Year Two, April 67–March 68 ce
BS LARS Y LQS
‫שקל ישראל שב‬
HSEDQH MYLSERY
6387
‫ירושלים הקדושה‬
Obv: LARSy LkS (sheqel [of ] Israel), BS (year 2) above ritual chalice
with pearled rim, the base is raised by projections on ends.
Rev: USä¿kU My>Säry ( Jerusalem the holy), staff with three pome-
granate buds, round base.
R
LQSH YXC
‫חצי השקל‬
6388

Obv: LkSU yZx (half of a sheqel), BS (year 2), above ritual chalice with
pearled rim, the base is raised by projections on ends.
RR
6389 6389a
MYTS TNS NEYX T[E]RC
‫שנת שתים‬ ‫חר]ו[ת ציון‬
6389. AE prutah.
Obv: MyTS TES (year 2), amphora with broad rim and two handles.
Rev: EäYZ TRx (freedom of Zion), vine leaf on small branch with tendril.
C
a. Reverse inscription is EäYZ TäRx.
b. Irregular issue.
c. Irregular issue, retrograde both sides.
d. Double struck both sides.
e. Overstruck on a serrated Seleucid bronze.
f. Struck on a small flan.
A large number of irregular issues occur in many forms from the crudely engraved to
those with completely retrograde inscriptions.
Year Three, April 68–May 69 ce
(S
‫שג‬
6390 6391

Obv: LARSy LkS (sheqel [of ] Israel), (S (year 3) above ritual chalice
R

Obv: LkSU yZx (half of a sheqel), (S (year 3) above ritual chalice with
RR
The Jewish War 319
6392 6392a
SELS TNS NEYX T[E]RC
‫שנת שלוש‬ ‫חר]ו[ת ציון‬
6392. AE prutah.
Obv: SäLS TES (year 3), amphora with broad rim, two handles, and
conical lid decorated with tiny globes hanging around edge.
Rev: EäYZ TäRx (freedom of Zion), vine leaf on small branch.
S
a. With long flan strips.
b. Reverse inscription is EäYZ TRx.
c. Irregular issue, extremely rare for the third year.
Less common than the second-year issue, the ratio is estimated to be roughly 1 to 8, a
significantly reduced production. Irregular issues of the third year are very rare.
Year Four, April 69–March 70 ce
¿S
‫שד‬
6393 6394
Obv: LARSy LkS (sheqel [of ] Israel), ¿S (year 4) above ritual chalice
RR
a. Irregular variety exists from a single die set.
We see for the first time since the second-year coins some poorly engraved (irregular) dies,
possibly reflecting fewer available artisans due to the stressful conditions of the Jewish
government near the end of the Jewish War (Fig. 9.3).

Obv: LkSU yZx (half of a sheqel), ¿S (year 4) above ritual chalice with
RRR
D LQSH @BR
‫ד‬ ‫רבע השקל‬
6395
6395. AR quarter-sheqel. 1 obv. die, 1 rev. die.
Obv: LkSU CBR (quarter of a sheqel), three palm branches tied together
at their stalks.
Rev: ¿ (4) surrounded61 by a wreath of palm branches, tied in X at bottom.
RRR
For many years, the single example of this coin existed in the collection of the British
Museum, London. G. F. Hill, the legendary Keeper of the Coins, wrote in his catalog of
this collection that it was “unique but of not absolutely undoubted authenticity, which
was acquired with the Hamburger collection.… I am distinctly inclined…to accept the
coin as antique, but I include it in the catalog with some reserve.”
Hill’s instinct has proven to be correct. After around 2004, three additional exam-
ples of this coin, from the same dies, surfaced in the market. I had previously examined
the coin in the British Museum, and I was fortunate to examine one of the recent finds
microscopically and to study the third example in photographs taken before, during, and
after cleaning of the original thick crust of oxidation and encrustation (Fig. 9.9). Thus,
there are four known examples of this coin.
Hill made another interesting observation unrelated to authenticity. He pointed
out that unlike the other coins of the Jewish War, this coin shows the distinct influence
of the procurator coins in that there is an X at the bottom of the wreath and the obverse
of three palm branches “recall the three barley-ears on the procurator coins of year 17/18
ce of Tiberius [no. 6370].”62 We note that three ears of grain also adorn the prutah of
Agrippa I. Why this change of types took place, we simply do not understand at this time.
9.9. Year 4 quarter-sheqel that came into the market around 2004, said to have been
part of a hoard of sheqels, including some fractions. This photo, obtained in the mar-
ket, shows the coin before (left), during, and after cleaning..
The Jewish War 321
NiYX TLAGL
‫לגאלת ציון‬
YXC @BRa TNS
6396 ‫שנת ארבע חצי‬
6396. AE half-sheqel, 26 mm, average 15.5 g, range 12.3–17.7 g.
Obv: yZx CBRA TES (year four, half ), two lulav bunches flank an
etrog (citron).
Rev: EñyZ TLA(L (to the redemption of Zion), seven-branched palm
tree with two bunches of dates, flanked by baskets of dates.
R
a. Irregular issue, some letters retrograde.
b. Cut in half to make smaller unit of money.
@YBR @BRw TNS

‫שנת ארבע רביע‬
6397
6397. AE quarter-sheqel, 22 mm, average 8.9 g, range 5.55–10.62 g.
Obv: CyBR CBRó TES (year four, quarter), two lulav bunches.
Rev: EñyZ TLA(L (to the redemption of Zion), etrog.
R
a. Irregular issue.
6398 6398b
6398. AE eighth-sheqel, AE 20 mm, 5.5 g, range 4–9.7 g.
Obv: CBRó TES (year four), lulav bunch flanked by an etrog on either
side.
Rev: EñyZ TLA(L (to the redemption of Zion), chalice with pearled
rim.
S
a. Irregular, crude lettering.
b. Irregular, retrograde reverse.
c. Irregular, retrograde both sides.
d. Overstruck on a Ptolemaic bronze.
Year Five, April–August, 70 ce
US
‫שה‬
6399 6399a

Obv: LARSy LkS (sheqel [of ] Israel), US (year 5) above ritual chalice
with pearled rim, the base is raised by projection on ends.
Rev: US¿k M>Säry ( Jerusalem the holy), staff with three pomegranate
buds, round base.
RR
a. Irregular issue from the British Museum.

b. Irregular issue from the “Baldwin’s Hoard.”
The widely discussed irregular example of this coin was struck from a single pair of
dies. In the mid-1980s, thirteen Year 5 sheqels, all struck from the same die set and all
heavily cleaned, were found in the vault of Baldwin’s, a legendary London coin dealer.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, an unknown person had marked the group
as forgeries. However, the dies matched the previously thought-to-be unique specimen
in the British Museum collection,63 which had been acquired in 1887. The reverse of
the BM specimen is covered with a layer of silver chloride. This type of corrosion forms
during a long period underground. The silver chloride plus the circumstances of acquisi-
tion of the BM specimen seem to establish its authenticity. The remainder of the group
remains controversial and trades at a lower price than the other Year 5 sheqels, although
scanning electron microscopic studies of the entire group suggests authenticity.64 Optical
microscopic examination of the coins shows specific manufacturing attributes that may
not have been known to forgers of the nineteenth century. On the other hand, some argue
that the coins of the Baldwin’s group were manufactured from contact dies created us-
ing the BM specimen. The British Museum Laboratory studied five year 5 sheqels using
XRF and concluded that “there is no definitive reason to doubt the authenticity of this
group of Year 5 sheqels.”65
The Jewish War 323
6400. AR half-sheqel. 1 obv. die, 1 rev. die, rev. die re-used from fourth year.
Obv: LkSU yZx (half of a sheqel), US (year 5) above ritual chalice with
RRR
This limited issue was struck with a single obverse die combined with a reverse die of
year 4.
Mint of Gamla, 67 ce
6401
6401. AE 20–22 mm.

Obv: Crude paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic, see below, crude ritual chalice.
Rev: Crude paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic, see below.
RRR
a. Reverse struck from a second die.
Seven examples of this coin, inspired by the silver sheqels of Jerusalem, were discovered
in excavations at Gamla in the central Golan Heights (Figs. 9.10, 9.11); four examples
are known in private collections. All were struck from the same obverse die and one of
two reverse dies.66 Gamla was described by Josephus as a town and stronghold of Jews
during this period, and he reported that Romans led by Vespasian and Titus conquered
Gamla on October 20, 67 ce. According to Farhi they were struck for propaganda and
not commercial needs.67
The crudeness of the paleo-Hebrew and Aramaic inscription makes it difficult to
read. Meshorer first read the inscriptions ‫( לגאלת‬for the redemption of ) (obv.) and
[‫(ירשלם הק ]דשה‬ho[ly] Jerusalem) (rev.).68 Farhi later read the obverse as ‫ב גמלא‬
(Gamla [year] 2) or “in Gamla.”69
“The benefits of this modest coin surpass its local significance, [it] is possibly the only
item that offers us a glimpse into the ideology that guided a provincial rebel authority
far from the provisional government in Jerusalem (which would probably have disap-
proved of its minting if asked).”70
The Aramaic name Gamla originates from the shape of the hill, which resembles the
back of a camel (Figs. 9.10, 9.11). Around the early first century ce, Gamla occupied
around 36 acres and had a population of 3,000 to 5,000.71 Archaeological remains
suggest that the town’s principal economy was olive and grain cultivation, olive oil,
and livestock. Josephus and archaeological evidence suggest that most or all of Gamla’s
population was Jewish.
9.10. The Aramaic name Gamla originates from the shape of the hill, which re-
sembles the back of a camel. (Photograph: Danny Syon.)
9.11. Remains of the Gamla synagogue, which dates to the first century ce and is one
of the earliest known. (Photograph: Danny Syon.)
CHAPTER TEN
Bar Kokhba Revolt

Simon ben Kosba, President over Israel, to Yehonathan and Masabala,
peace. [My order is] that you search and seize the wheat which is in the pos-
session of Hanun (Bar Kokhba’s Letters, The Wooden Letter).
A
fter Titus and his army conquered Jerusalem and expelled its in-
habitants, and the warriors of Machaerus and Masada finally fell, a
wave of refugees from the Holy Land bolstered Jewish communi-
ties already in exile. Emotionally as well as practically, these diaspora Jews
looked toward the day that the Temple would be rebuilt and they could
return to their holy Jerusalem.
These feelings simmered for decades and boiled over around 40 years
after the fall of the Second Temple. There was a significant Jewish revolt
between around 115 and 117 ce during the reign of Trajan. It was called
the War of Quietus, after the Roman general L. Quietus, who crushed
the revolt in Mesopotamia and became governor over the area of ancient
Judea. It was also referred to as the “Kitos” war, a reference to Quietus’s
name in Aramaic. This war was actually a series of local revolts that took
place throughout the ancient Near East in Cyrenaica, Cyprus, Egypt, and
Mesopotamia. It is possible that these revolts were a direct result of both
the aftermath of the reign of Domitian (who was especially hard on Jews
and Christians) as well as attacks under Trajan’s rule on both Jewish and
Christian leaders. Partly because of the Jewish uprisings, Trajan was ulti-
mately unsuccessful in his Parthian campaign, and he had to give up on his
plan to turn Parthia into a Roman province.
Both the Jewish War and the War of Quietus affected the Jewish peo-
ple so profoundly that wedding rituals were made less ornate to reflect
mourning of the tragic loss of life. “During the war with Vespasian the
Rabbis decreed against the use of crowns by bridegrooms.... During the
War of Quietus they decreed against the use of crowns worn by brides…”
(Mishnah Sotah 9, 14).
By 132 ce, a new Jewish revolt arose, but this time the battle was
fought again in Judea, where the fervent followers of the faith went “under-
ground” both figuratively and literally and once again began to challenge
Roman might. The spiritual leader of this revolt was Rabbi Akiba, and the
325
10.1. Hadrian’s bronze coin depicts a classic Roman foundation scene in which the
veiled emperor symbolically plows (around the city) with a cow and a bull, imperial
standard behind, and the Latin legend is COL[ONIA] AEL[IA] KAPIT[OLINA]
COND[ITA] (“The Colony of Aelia Capitolina, the foundation.”) Hadrian’s bust is
shown on obverse. cf. Meshorer (Aelia) 2.
military leader was Simon ben Kosba, also known as Simon bar Kokhba.
(The word ben in Hebrew means "son of," and has the same meaning as
bar in Aramaic.)
Akiba recognized Bar Kokhba as the Messiah. Not all of his contem-
poraries agreed. Rabbi Johanan ben Tortha told Akiba, “Grass will grow in
your cheeks and He (the Messiah) will still not have come.”1
The Bar Kokhba Revolt likely occurred, as Cassius Dio reports, be-
cause Hadrian rebuilt Jerusalem as the Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina
(Fig. 10.1),which began at the time of his visit to the area in 130 bce.2
Earlier scholars believed Hadrian’s supposed ban of circumcision was a
primary cause of this war, but today many scholars suggest that this opin-
ion was mistaken, and if Hadrian did in fact outlaw circumcision, it may
have been an outcome of the Bar Kokhba Revolt and not a cause. “There
is no source either in Greek and Latin, or in the Talmudic literature, from
which it is possible to conclude that the ban on circumcision preceded the
Bar Kokhba revolt.”3
At any rate, there is no doubt that only 60 years after the end of the
Jewish War, many Jews remained preoccupied with regaining Jerusalem
and rebuilding the Temple and its cult. Bar Kokhba, bolstered by Rabbi
Akiba’s endorsement, had the messianic aura.
Although Bar Kokhba was the leader of a relatively small army, leg-
ends say that he was a great warrior. Once when he went into battle, he im-
plored his Lord, “Neither help us nor discourage us!”4 When his enemies
hit him with their stones, “He would catch the missiles from the enemy’s
catapults on one of his knees and hurl them back, killing many of the foe.”5
Saint Jerome wrote that Bar Kokhba gave the impression that he was
breathing fire by “fanning a lighted blade of straw in his mouth with puffs
of breath.”6
Bar Kokhba and his followers were a true underground army. Roman
historian Cassius Dio reports that they “occupied the advantageous posi-
tions in the country and strengthened them with mines and walls, so that
they would have places of refuge when hard pressed and could commu-
nicate with one another unobserved underground; and they pierced these
subterranean passages from above at intervals to let in air and light.”7
Bar Kokhba Revolt 327
Eshel and Zissu, leading scholars of this period, point out, “In hun-
dreds of sites throughout the Judean foothills, man-made underground fa-
cilities have been discovered.... Many of these complexes contained dated
material, enabling the scholars to establish their main period of use to the
Bar Kokhba Revolt.”8 The caves were often large complexes with a dozen
or more rooms connected by tunnels. They contained water cisterns, ritual
baths, storehouses, workshops, columbaria, hiding areas, and synagogues.
When Hadrian sent his general Julius Severus to Judea, he began
slowly to smother the flames Bar Kokhba had ignited. Dio reports, “Very
few of [the Jews] in fact survived. Fifty of their most important outposts
and nine hundred and eighty-five of their most famous villages were razed
to the ground. Five hundred and eighty thousand men were slain in the
various raids and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine,
disease, and fire was past finding out.”9
Dio does not report in the same detail about Roman difficulties, but
notes, “Many Romans…perished in this war.” Just how many can be seen
by his next sentence: “Therefore Hadrian in writing to the senate did not
employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors, ‘If you
and your children are in health, it is well; I and the legions are in health.’”10
Thus, at great expense, Rome extinguished another flicker of Jewish
freedom. Bar Kokhba’s coins mark an end to the minting of Jewish coins
in antiquity.
Bar Kokhba never captured Jerusalem, a fact underlined by coin finds:
of more than 50,000 coins found in archaeological excavations there, only
four were Bar Kokhba coins.11 These coins were probably pocket souvenirs
of Jews or Roman soldiers. Most Bar Kokhba hoards and single finds have
been found in the general area of Hebron, between the hills and the west
coast of the Dead Sea, and this region is considered to be the focal point
of the war.12 The distribution of known findspots for Bar Kokhba coins,
and how these findspots might help to determine the territory under Bar
Kokhba’s control, is a topic of continuing study. Numismatic material dis-
covered in controlled excavations shows that Bar Kokhba coins circulated
farther west and north of Jerusalem, where rebel activities took place.13
David Amit and Gabriela Bijovsky of the Israel Antiquities Authority
point out that the question of the territory where Bar Kokhba was ac-
tive has been a key issue between the minimalists, who believe the revolt
took place only in Judea, and others who believe that the territory of the
revolt should be expanded farther to the north. Archaeological evidence
“includes the remains of settlements, hiding complexes, pottery and nu-
mismatic evidence, and enable[s] us today to determine that the area of the
revolt included the region of Judea from the northern Negev in the south
to the area of Modiin-Lod in the north,” and specifically “the northern
limits of the Lod foothills,”14 Amit and Bijovsky report.
Like his predecessors in the Jewish War as well as his Roman foes,
Bar Kokhba understood the political impact that coins could have. Thus,
coins were struck with slogans designed to keep the spark of hope kindled
among his people: “Year one for the redemption of Israel,” “Year two of the
freedom of Israel,” “For the freedom of Jerusalem,” and a simple, hopeful,
“Jerusalem.” Bar Kokhba’s first name, Simon, also appeared on the coins,
and he sometimes styled himself “Prince of Israel.” Another name, “Elea-
zar the Priest,” also appears on both bronze and silver coins, and this name
is discussed below.
Mildenberg, author of the standard work on coins of the Bar Kokhba
Revolt, wrote a 1949 article on the Eleazar coins, that reminds us of the
vintage of much of the knowledge about this topic.15 At that time, neither
Mildenberg nor anyone else knew even the identity of the issuing author-
ity of the Bar Kokhba coins. Mildenberg writes, “Bar Kokhba himself may
well have given the order for the coinage, but we cannot justifiably assume
that he desired to put his own first name on the coins, particularly as there
is not the slightest indication that his name was actually Simon. Whatever
claims this man, whose deeds have thrilled later ages, may have made even
in those years, he would surely not have described himself as Nasi [Hebrew
for ‘President’], since this was the title of a house of scribes who succeeded
each other in the presidency of the Sanhedrin.” Mildenberg further added
in a footnote that “it seems improbable that ‘Simon’ of the coins can be
identified with Bar Kokhba and Bar Kokhba regarded as the authority for
the coinage.”
How dramatically knowledge can change quickly after relevant ar-
chaeological discoveries!
As Yigael Yadin wrote, “When all the fragmentary tales and traces of
Bar Kokhba were assembled they amounted to no more than the lineaments
of a ghost. He figured in Jewish folklore more as a myth than a man of flesh
and blood, as impersonal as a Hercules or a King Arthur. It was centuries
of persecution of the Jews and their yearning for national rehabilitation that
turned Bar Kokhba into a people’s hero—an elusive figure they clung to
because he had demonstrated, and was the last to demonstrate, that the Jews
could fight to win spiritual and political independence.”16
In the 1950s, Yadin’s team discovered a group of coins, objects, and
papyrus documents in Judean desert caves near the Dead Sea. These items
were the famous Bar Kokhba letters. In his book about the discovery, Yadin
recalls the emotion of his initial report:
“There has grown up a custom for the President of Israel to invite
archaeologists to his home from time to time to report on their discover-
ies. To one of these meetings in 1960 were invited all the leaders of an
expedition of four teams searching caves in the Judean Desert. It was to
be attended by the Prime Minister, then Mr. David Ben-Gurion, Cabinet
ministers, Members of the Knesset, and distinguished writers and other
guests. I had led one of the four teams and I set out for the President’s
home with my secret in my brief case.
“A screen had been erected at [President] Ben Zvi’s house, and when
my turn came to report, I projected on to the screen through a film slide
the colored photograph of part of a document and read out aloud the first
line of writing upon it: ‘Shimon Bar Kosba, President over Israel.' And
turning to our Head of State, I said, ‘Your Excellence, I am honored to be
able to tell you that we have discovered fifteen dispatches written or dic-
tated by the last President of ancient Israel 1800 years ago.’”17
Until Yadin and his colleagues translated the name on these docu-
ments, there was no proof that Bar Kokhba’s first name was Simon except
for the coins. Indeed, as Mildenberg’s work showed, some doubted that it
was his name at all. Bar Kokhba’s letters show that the man’s name was ac-
tually Bar Kosba. Yadin noted, “His name was written KSBA, without the
vowels, as is the custom in Aramaic and Hebrew. It was only from one of
the Greek letters that we learned that his name was pronounced Kosba.”18
Bar Kokhba is one of the versions of his name that came to us through
the literature, by way of early Christian authors Justin Martyr and Euse-
bius. It probably related to the leader’s messianic aspirations. Bar Kokhba
means “son of a star,” and most believe that it is a reference to Rabbi Akiba’s
recitation of scripture in support of Bar Kokhba as Messiah: “There shall
go forth a star out of Jacob” (Numbers 24:17). On the other hand, most
Jewish sources refer to him as Bar (or Ben) Koziba, which can be translated
as “son of a liar” or “deceiver.” Perhaps this reference evolved after his failed
messianic mission to overcome Hadrian’s forces.
Bar Kokhba’s letters show that he “was a very meticulous and strict
commander, who never ceased from threatening his subordinates with
punishments if his orders were not followed.... Some of the letters show
that Bar Kokhba was also meticulous in fulfilling the Jewish command-
ments (mitzvot),” Eshel and Zissu note.
As an historical figure, Bar Kokhba is continually being reassessed.
Yael Zerubavel, among others, has written that modern Israel’s early ap-
proach to Bar Kokhba was to glorify him in spite of the grim outcome
of his revolt. A recent Israel Museum study guide asks whether the Bar
Kokhba Revolt was “a symbol of heroism and readiness to fight for na-
tional freedom or a careless act that brought a national disaster?”19
Zerubavel notes that “The gradual loss in the once sacred status of
the Bar Kokhba revolt is further manifested in the changes that the Israel
Museum recently introduced.... In 1997 the Museum removed the Bar
Kokhba and Babatha papyri and other objects related to the Bar Kokhba
period from the Shrine of the Book… to their appropriate historical loca-
tion within the area designated for Second Temple Judaism and the Ro-
man period.”20
Who Was Eleazar the Priest?

Who was the enigmatic Eleazar the Priest named on Bar Kokhba’s coins?
The bronze and silver coins with the name Eleazar were struck pri-
marily in the first year of the war. Hybrid Eleazar coins, combining first-
year dies with later dies, were sparingly struck in both the second and third
years of the war.
Eleazar has previously been identified by scholars as either Eleazar
HaModai, Rabbi Eleazar Ben Azaria, or Eleazar ben Harsom. Others dis-
pute this and suggest that Eleazar’s identity is nothing but conjecture.
We suggest another approach based on the observation that all im-
ages and slogans on Bar Kokhba coins, as well as rabbinic literature and
the Dead Sea letters, clearly show that Bar Kokhba was attempting to
bring about the rebirth or reconquest of all of Judea, especially Jerusalem.
He wanted to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple. All messages and images on
his coins are directed toward that end. If the Eleazar the Priest on Bar
Kokhba’s coins was a living individual, the reference was unique among
Bar Kokhba’s legends and imagery, all of which referred to an idealized
resurrection of the Jewish Temple cult in Jerusalem. The sole exception are
the coins that name Bar Kokhba himself. Even among those coins, how-
ever, his name was sometimes used in word-play linking his name with the
Sh’ma prayer. Bar Kokhba may have found a reference to Eleazar the Priest
attractive: the historic Eleazar had stood at Joshua’s side as Joshua led the
Israelite tribes in conquering Canaan some 1500 years earlier, and now Bar
Kokhba aspired to reconquer Judea and restore the glory of the Jerusalem
Temple. The cryptic form of the Eleazar the Priest inscriptions and the
discontinuation of the use of most Eleazar coin dies early in the second
year of the war also provide substantial clues to the nature of this coinage.21
During the time of Bar Kokhba, the oral tradition of Judaism was
well established; the principal written religious document was the Hebrew
Bible. One may assume that in Bar Kokhba’s time, as today, if one asked
a person familiar with the Bible ‘‘Who is Eleazar the Priest?’’ a common
answer would invariably be ‘‘the son of Aaron.’’
The name Eleazar the Priest, like the images, slogans, and paleo-
Hebrew script on Bar Kokhba coins, refers to a glorious past. While the
idea that the mention of Eleazar the Priest on Bar Kokhba’s coins is a
messianic allusion to the son of Aaron has not been proven, this previously
ignored possibility is well worth consideration.
Mint and Methods

The mints of Bar Kokhba were unlike other mints in the ancient world. All
of the coins struck under the Jewish leader were struck upon contemporary
coins circulating in Judea at the time. This method was likely used because
Bar Kokhba coins were created without the benefit of a fully equipped
mint due to limited resources, a short time frame, and no inherited in-
frastructure. Meshorer suggested that the overstriking was a political act,
“a sort of small act of vengeance and a clear political declaration.”22 This
argument is a convenient explanation with some inherent truth, but it
seems that practical considerations were the primary reasons for the mas-
sive overstriking. For example, Greek coins, Jewish coins, and Nabataean
coins23 were all overstruck by the Bar Kokhba mint in addition to Roman
coins. The process suggests that minters were pulling coins from circula-
tion, and the reason they overstruck more Roman and Roman provincial
coins was simply that there were more of these coins in circulation at the
time. While it is simple today for an observant person to find traces of
previous coins on most Bar Kokhba issues, this overstruck image was not
as obvious to people at the time who were simply using the coins in com-
merce. The Bar Kokhba slogans and images were more than sufficient to
make their political statements of strength and sovereignty. Coins were
“the best mass media of the time,” Mildenberg observed.24
Bar Kokhba’s letters also shed some light on the money of this period
of Jewish history. One of the documents is a lease transaction. After deal-
ing with the particulars, the document states that the parties will each “pay
half of the money less sixteen dinars, which are four sela‘im only....” The
money is referred to in its “foreign currency” value, that is, dinars (denarii
or drachms) as well as its Jewish value, sela‘im (tetradrachms). Four dinars
equal one tetradrachm; the contemporary name used for the large silver
Bar Kokhba coins was sela. In another of these documents, it is written
that “Eleazar receives for the lease twelve silver zuzim which are ‘three
sela‘im.’”25 Thus, the Jewish name for the drachm-denarius during Bar
Kokhba’s time was zuz.
Most of the silver tetradrachms (or sela, pl. sela‘im) were struck upon
tetradrachms of Antioch or similar coins and weigh around 14 g. (Milden-
berg recorded specimens ranging from 11.4–15.4 g.) The silver zuz (pl.
zuzim) were struck upon local drachms, including Nabataean drachms, or
Roman denarii and weigh around 3.3 g (recorded range is 2.1–3.7 g). The
bronze coins had much greater weight variances since these coins were
struck upon coins from Ascalon, Gaza, Caesarea, or other nearby cities.
Occasionally, a Bar Kokhba coin was struck upon a Ptolemaic bronze coin
that had remained in circulation for hundreds of years before being re-
cycled by the Jewish rebels.
Bar Kokhba mints struck large, medium, and small bronze coins. These
coins were struck upon all kinds of coins in circulation, so it is difficult to
determine their exact value (Table 10.1). Meshorer observes, “The differ-
ence in weight between coins that are ostensibly of the same denomination
can reach 200%.”26
Foreign coins were prepared by hammering in metal “pans” (for silver
coins) or both hammering and filing (for the bronze) to remove traces of
Table 10.1. Average Weights of Bar Kokhba Bronze Coins

Coin Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Wreath/Amphora 19.93 20.70 –
Palm Tree/Vine Leaf 12.53 11.36 12.50
Lulav/Lyre or Harp 10.23 6.27 6.10
Palm Tree/Grapes 5.25 5.06 4.89
From Eshel and Zissu 2019: 127. Note that these are all overstruck on various circu-
lating coins so great variances can occur.
the alien symbols. However, traces of the original coin can usually be seen
on the silver coins, and file marks are not uncommon on the bronze coins.
Rarely, an imperial portrait or a few letters from the original coin remain
on the bronze coins.
The Talmud explains: “For it was taught: The prutah which the Sages
mentioned is an eighth of an Italian issar. Thus one denar = six silver ma‘ahs;
one ma‘ah = two pundion; one pundion = two issars; one issar = two musmis;
one musmis = two kuntrunk; one kuntrunk = two prutahs. Hence the prutah
is an eighth of an Italian issar.”27
Based on this explanation, Meshorer suggests that the large Bar Kokh-
ba coins are equal to one ma’ah (sestertius), the medium coins equal one
pundion (dupondius), and the small coins equal one issar (as). There may be
a fourth bronze denomination equal to a semis, but because of the over-
striking on such a wide variety of coins, this is not fully understood.28
Bar Kokhba also struck irregular coins of silver and bronze, char-
acterized by their crude style and inscription errors. Barag pointed out
there were at least two Bar Kokhba mints, one of which manufactured
“regular” and another that issued “irregular” coinage. Not a single die link
is known between “regular” and “irregular” Bar Kokhba issues, further
bolstering this theory.
Barag suggests that Herodium was a likely location for the central
mint of Bar Kokhba. Ehud Netzer’s excavations there uncovered Herod’s
tomb and an elegant, small amphitheater with a beautifully decorated
royal box.29 Less publicized is an extensive underground complex of Bar
Kokhba, which was a “headquarter of the rebels’ administration during the
Second Jewish Revolt...also a base for guerilla warfare against the Roman
units.”29a In the 1960s, 837 Bar Kokhba bronze coins of nearly all types
were discovered at Herodium.30 Netzer’s excavations uncovered another
five coins.31 More Bar Kokhba coins, not yet published, have also been
discovered at Herodium.32
Even though the second mint produced cruder versions of Bar Kokhba
coins, it nevertheless also supplied official money to the population where
it operated and disseminated the same messages as the central mint. Proof
of this aspect is that the hoards of Bar Kokhba coins contain both “regular”
and “irregular” issues, which circulated together.
Bar Kokhba’s Sheqel

Only months after Mildenberg’s book was published, he described a
unique didrachm (half-sela) of Bar Kokhba (no. 6442), which depicted a
distyle Temple (as opposed to the tetrastyle Temple on the larger silver
sela) with the showbread table shown lengthwise inside.33 (See below for
further discussions of the showbread table.) Barag notes that this coin is
similar in style to the “irregular” issues and, in fact, is the only coin of this
denomination issued during the Bar Kokhba war. This didrachm is there-
fore a rare innovation, probably from the second mint, which otherwise
crudely copied other Bar Kokhba silver and bronze coins of all denomi-
nations. Barag suggests the second mint of “irregular” Bar Kokhba coins
might have been located in the area north or northwest of Jerusalem. Since
Mildenberg published this coin, a second example, acquired in 1921–22
by Samuel Rafaeli, was located in the collection of the Israel Antiquities
Authority.34 As of this writing, four specimens are known.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this rare coin is that it is actually
a sheqel of Bar Kokhba. This is specified in document P. Yadin 46, found
in the Cave of Letters. In a simple deed from the Eli’ezer ben Shemu’el’s
archive, the lessee is required to deliver “ten denarii, which are [equivalent
to] two sela’s plus one sheqel” to the property owner.35
This document clearly states that two denarii are equal to a sheqel, and
four denarii are equal to a sela. The denarius at this time is also referred
to as a zuz (now also a half-sheqel). This statement means that the sheqel
had been devalued from the time of the Jewish War, since at that time a
quarter-sheqel was equal to a denarius or drachm and a sheqel was equal to
a tetradrachm. Sixty-three years later the Jewish sheqel had a value of only
two denarii or drachms, and the predominant larger denomination is the
sela, equal to four denarii or drachms. A single Bar Kokhba zuz or denarius
was therefore worth half a sheqel at this time. One could argue that the
amount of the Judean sheqel could never vary because of the sacred half-
sheqel Temple tribute. However, at Bar Kokhba’s time there was no longer
a Temple, and the “Jewish tribute” was paid to the Romans.
Finds in the Caves

In 2010, I delivered a paper at the “Judea and Rome in Coins” conference
sponsored by University College, London, and Spink & Son. I quoted
Leo Mildenberg, who observed that while there is no known hoard in
which the coins of the Jewish War and the Bar Kokhba Revolt are found
together “this in no way precludes the possibility that Bar Kosba’s men
knew of the rebel coins from the Bellum Judaicum or even that they had
seen such coins.” Martin Goodman further suggested that the Bar Kokhba
coins show a “clear desire to link their uprising with the revolt that ended
in ce 70.”
Another paper delivered at the conference by an old friend caused me

to sit up straight, pay attention, and correct Mildenberg’s statement! For
the first time, I heard details about the discovery of a Bar Kokhba Revolt
coin hoard that contained a sheqel from the Jewish War. The paper, by Boaz
Zissu, chair of the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology
at Bar Ilan University, was entitled “The Bar Kokhba Treasure Chest from
the Judean Hills.”
Zissu and his team discovered pottery and weapons together with
three hoards totaling around 120 coins in a “hidden wing” of a cave in the
Judean Hills, near the site of ancient Beitar, where Bar Kokhba’s rebels
fought their “last stand” against Hadrian’s troops in 135 ce. The focus of
most articles about their discovery was that this was the largest find of Bar
Kokhba coins ever made in an archaeological context.36
During his lecture, Zissu showed photographs of the finds from the
cave at Me’arat Ha-Te‘omim (Cave of the Twins), where the only entrance
was by way of a dangerous, narrow approach. Beyond the opening of the
cave was a small chamber, and this path led to a hall where Bar Kokhba’s
followers apparently hid. Zissu pointed out that this space is one of an in-
creasing number of caves and underground rooms and tunnels discovered
where Bar Kokhba’s rebels literally went “underground” to escape the Ro-
man soldiers. When Bar Kokhba’s followers took to these hideouts, they
often brought food, weapons, drinks, coins, and various documents, and
all of these objects have been discovered in the caves. Archaeologists also
found bronze keys in the caves, which may have been keys to abandoned
homes to which the Jewish fighters hoped to return. Neither did they re-
turn to reclaim their significant treasures of gold, silver, and bronze coins.
Illegal excavators had already looted most of the caves in the area,
including this cave, Zissu noted. His group studied the cave anyway to see
what could be learned. Zissu thrives on exploring tiny, dusty, claustropho-
bic nooks of craggy caves. At one point he noticed a crack in the stones
on the floor. He looked into it with a flashlight and saw some coins. This
observation led to the first coin discovery, hoard “A,” containing sela‘m and
zuzim totaling a value of 153 zuzim. Zissu believes looters overlooked the
hoards because they were so well hidden.
Hoard “B” consisted of nine silver coins, a bronze needle (a precious
tool for life in the wilderness), and a bronze Hasmonean coin (Fig. 10.2).
The silver coins were typical of the coins often reported to have been found
in hoards with Bar Kokhba silver coins and included two Bar Kokhba
zuzim, three drachms of Trajan minted in Arabia, Roman denarii of both
Domitian and Trajan, a cistophoric tetradrachm of the same period, and a
Jewish War sheqel dated “year 2.” At Horvat ‘Ethri’ a Jewish War half-sheqel
of the third year was discovered hidden in the floor of one of the under-
ground chambers and this discovery also suggests the Jewish War coin had
been in the possession of Bar Kokhba followers.37
10.2. Hoard “B” from Me’arat Ha-Te‘omim (Cave of the Twins). (Boaz Zissu
Photograph.)
These discoveries are remarkable and represent the first and only direct
connections yet discovered between the coins of Bar Kokhba Revolt and
the Jewish War. The very fact that Mildenberg noted that such a connec-
tion was suspected, but never previously shown, illustrates the importance
of this find.
Another interesting aspect is that some coin hoards seem to be not
only a stash of personal wealth but show that people sometimes also held
old coins that might have been meaningful to the owners. The Jewish War
sheqel in hoard “B” had been saved for some 64 years, well beyond the time
the coin had been invalidated by the Flavian victory and destruction of Je-
rusalem. The sheqels were 14 g of nearly pure silver and had significant bul-
lion value even if they were not valid coins. Since this hoard also contains a
virtually valueless 240-year-old prutah of Hyrcanus I, we must consider the
possibility that this family’s savings also constituted a sentimental coin col-
lection. We noted a similar situation with regard to the Bar Kokhba lamp
hoard that was buried no earlier than 151/2 ce, but contained a neatly col-
lected set of Bar Kokhba bronze coins that had long been invalidated and
retained no monetary value (see pp. 2–3).38 Meshorer also observed that
Bar Kokhba coins were sometimes perforated and used as jewelry charms
long after the revolt ended.39
Bar Kokhba Test Strike

The die types of Bar Kokhba War coins have been well-published by
Mildenberg and supplemented by Kaufman.40 Since the Bar Kokhba mint
overstruck circulating coins, there are a number of odd results. These oddi-
ties include coins depicting motifs from both the Bar Kokhba strike and
the previous coin, coins struck upon unusually large or small host coins,
drachms (zuzim) struck upon fourrée (silver-plated) drachms or denarii, and
at least one tetradrachm (sela) struck upon a bronze flan for unknown rea-
sons. (See next page for the story of a fascinating overstrike.)
Nothing in the published Bar Kokhba corpus, however, hints at this
unusual object (Fig. 10.3) brought to my attention by a private collector
(no. 6443a):
Bar Kokhba, 132–135 ce, struck in the third year 134/5 ce.
Obv. Ancient Hebrew inscription in two lines “SIMON” within a wreath, me-
dallion at top, all within a border of dots.
Rev. Ancient Hebrew inscription around, beginning lower l. “To the Freedom
of Jerusalem” around upright palm branch with tip curled slightly to l., all within a
border of dots.
Bronze rectangle, 6.46 g, 21.9 × 16.4 mm, the thickest part is 3.3 mm, the thin-
nest is 2.6 mm near the center of the longest dimension. Axis is 12 o’clock. The
obverse is slightly convex and reverse slightly concave. All edges show evidence of
having been chopped from a larger piece of flat bronze before striking.
Same dies as Mildenberg 205, no. 65, (O–14, R–37).41
Microscopic examination with 5× to 35× magnification reveals a hard,

compact encrustation of earth on the obverse and the edges. This covering
is consistent with similar encrustations seen on many Bar Kokhba coins.
The reverse of the object had been manually cleaned prior to our inspec-
tion. Microscopic study reveals that the cleaning was somewhat crude and
some of the patina was removed unevenly.
This small bronze rectangle was struck from a well-documented pair
of dies from the Bar Kokhba mint. In other die pairings, this obverse die is
also coupled with reverse dies dated to the second year of the Bar Kokhba
Revolt. Thus, we can safely establish the first use of this die set early in
the third year, after the year-2 dies were no longer used. There is so little
deterioration in the obverse die that it may represent the first instance in
which it was paired with an undated reverse die.
Because this die set can be placed at or near the beginning of the un-
dated zuzim of Bar Kokhba, it is likely a test strike. It may have been cre-
ated to establish that the new undated die would “strike” well when paired
with a die from the previous year, thus sparing the need for a fresh die to
immediately be put into use. Mildenberg shows that this obverse die was
eventually used to strike hundreds if not thousands of undated coins, as
well as a number dated to the second year.42
10.3. Bar Kokhba test strike.
Most known ancient test pieces were struck upon lead flans and are
frequently (but not exclusively) uniface. One should then ask why this test
piece was struck on a bronze fragment. The logical reason is that the Bar
Kokhba mint did not include a smelting and flan-manufacturing opera-
tion. Therefore, unlike other “full-service mints,” the Bar Kokhba mint had
no reason to store raw metal such as lead, which would have been used to
make bronze alloy a bit easier to strike.
Given the nature of the Bar Kokhba style of minting, it is curious that
a piece of “scrap” bronze would be used instead of a bronze “blank” that had
been prepared for restriking a bronze coin. Since the bronze coins retained
a fiduciary value higher than their value as bronze, the use of scrap has
some logic.
Overstrike with a Story

As mentioned above, minting upon previous coins often creates interest-
ing situations. In this case, a Bar Kokhba denarius was struck upon one of
the Judea Capta denarii of Vespasian, and the legend IVDAEA from the
previous coin remains quite clear!
This coin (no. 6459) was one of the many Judea Capta coins struck at
Roman mints to commemorate the Flavian defeat of the Jews in 70 ce that
found their way back to the homeland of the Jews. The coin eventually fell
into the hands of the fervent followers of Bar Kokhba in around 133/4 ce,
and was restruck with their own designs and legends.
At least one coin had come full circle in its existence. Novels could
(and have) been written covering less time and have told stories less con-
vincingly than does this coin. It commemorated the defeat of the Jews and
was part of a series of coins that humiliated them. It was later resurrect-
ed during Bar Kokhba’s nationalistic revolt and, when it was overstruck,
helped humiliate Hadrian’s armies, which finally overcame Bar Kokhba’s
rebels but not without great difficulty.
All of the story is in the coin, since the legend IVDAEA can be seen
clearly as the under type on the reverse of the coin, which also depicts two
ceremonial trumpets and the legend “For the freedom of Jerusalem.” On
the obverse of the coin, the full outline of Vespasian’s portrait along with
a few letters of the Latin legend can be seen with the bunch of grapes and
portions of “Simon.”
Was it random that this coin of Vespasian, first struck in 71 ce, was
restruck more than 60 years later? That’s an interesting question. This coin
had been in circulation for at least 60 years. Bar Kokhba coins were struck
upon imperial and provincial coins from Nero to Hadrian.43 Mildenberg
concludes that most of the restruck coins were not captured directly from
Roman legions in the area. Instead, they were “gifts, contributions, taxes,
rent or war loans from the Jewish population,” thus “returning the heav-
ily circulated, by and large pre-Hadrianic money to the Jewish peasants
whence it had come, but in a new and specifically Jewish guise.”44
Imagine that a Jew had obtained this Judea Capta coin from circula-
tion and had held it, possibly as a souvenir. When the time came, under
Bar Kokhba, he or she gladly turned it in to be restruck by a “sovereign”
Jewish nation—or at least by rebels who sought to form one.
Temple and Other Symbols

The Bar Kokhba coins are attractive and diverse despite being issued dur-
ing a period of severe economic and political stress. Notable designs in-
clude an image of a tetrastyle Temple, sacred vessels and musical instru-
ments used within the Temple, and agricultural objects such as the etrog
and lulav, palm tree, branch, grapes, and vine leaves, usually connected to
Sukkot, as discussed below.
Meshorer summarizes several theories as to the identification of the
tetrastyle structure and concludes that it is “a schematic geometric shape
representing the Temple to all who viewed it, but not the actual building.”
The schematic nature of this facade is underlined since it is depicted on
the sela’im as a tetrastyle temple but on the Bar Kokhba didrachms only two
columns are shown.
Other variations of the Temple facade also appear on Bar Kokhba
coins. Isadore Goldstein makes remarkable observations about the depic-
tion. First, he notes that the wavy line (no. 6441) and the cross or star (nos.
6415–6417, 6439, 6440) above the Temple are not fanciful but have a real
meaning. Goldstein suggests that the schematic view shown on the coins
was the actual appearance of the sanctuary, a view that could be seen from
the Temple courtyard (Fig. 10.4).
Three distinct objects appear above the Temple on different Bar
Kokhba sela’im. In addition to the star, a cross, or a wavy line are shown.
Some have made the unlikely argument that the rosette or star above the
Temple is a reference to R. Akiba’s messianic reference to Bar Kokhba
referencing Numbers 24:17.45 More likely, the star and the cross rep-
resent the twinkling golden candelabra donated by Helena, queen of
Adiabene (see p. 467). “Helena set a golden candelabra over the door
of the Sanctuary,”46 and the rabbis said that when the sun was shining
“sparkling rays proceeded from it.”47 The wavy line seems to represent
the Mishna’s report that “a golden vine was positioned over the entrance
to the sanctuary and hung over the beams.”48 Pilgrims hung donative
10.4. Reconstructed view of the Jerusalem Temple looking toward the entrance to
the sanctuary. This image shows both the golden vine, which appears on some Bar
Kokhba selaìm as a wavy line, and the twinkling golden chandelier donated by Hel-
ena, queen of Adiabene, depicted as a cross or star on some Bar Kokhba selaìm. The
twelve steps are also represented on the selaìm, shown as a kind of horizontal ladder
below the Temple. (Graphic: Fontanille.)
10.5. Possible reconstruction of the showbread table based upon images on the Bar
Kokhba silver selaìm and the half-sheqel (didrachm). (Courtesy Dan Barag.)
objects—golden grapes and leaves—on the vines which were periodically

removed and placed in safekeeping.
Another key design element is the arched object between the central
pair of columns that has often been described as the Ark of the Covenant.49
Reifenberg suggested an Ark of the Torah containing scrolls.50 Dan Barag,
in an elaborate discussion, suggests that the object is the showbread table
(Fig. 10.5). Barag’s argument is buttressed by the design on the sheqel coin,
which seems to show a different view of the centermost object.51 Meshorer
passed on any firm conclusion and observed that “scholars have reached no
consensus” about either the object or the exact nature of the structure that
stands within.52
Another credible explanation is Romanoff ’s note that the dotted de-
sign between the central columns “suggests the Ark, hidden behind the veil
(as described in Exodus 40:3).”53 He points out that “according to late Jew-
ish tradition the Holy of Holies in the time of the Second Commonwealth
did not house the Ark of the Covenant. It is quite possible because of
inaccessibility for the laymen to the sanctuary, this fact was known only to
the high priests and a few others, the general belief being that the Ark was
there. The tetradrachms may suggest the rebuilding of the Temple, accord-
ing to the Scriptures, with the Ark inside.”54 Romanoff cites the Talmud,
10.6. From coin images, a lyre (l.) and a harp.
which mentions the staves used to carry the ark, which “were not seen,
but protruded through the curtain and looked like two woman’s breasts.”55
Indeed, the graphic image on the Bar Kokhba tetradrachms depicts two
dots, reminiscent of the Talmudic description. (The authors of the Talmud
may have even referred to an example of this coin.) The image suggests
an idealized, rebuilt Temple containing some kind of Ark that replaced
the original Ark and scrolls lost when the First Temple was destroyed and
now replaced with parchment Torah scrolls. Such an idealized reconstruc-
tion would be consistent with Bar Kokhba’s messianic message. Eventually,
every synagogue contained an Ark, the formal location where Torah scrolls
are stored.
Goldstein suggests that this representation may represent a generic ob-
ject within the Temple entrance. He also points out the horizontal ladder-
like object is not a balustrade or fence as some have suggested but is a styl-
ized version the twelve steps leading up to the Temple that were described
by both Josephus and in the Mishnah. “Not one of the dies recorded by
Mildenberg depicts more than twelve steps.”56
Thus, while Bar Kokhba may never have been ordained “Messiah” by
Akiba, and while he may never have considered himself more than the
“Nasi” who owned crown land and leased it to the Judean peasants, there
is little doubt that his coins, “the best mass media of the time,”57 loudly
proclaim his messianic message.
Trumpets and lyres or harps are also depicted on Bar Kokhba’s coins.
The trumpets recall an inscription discovered on a stone from the Jerusa-
lem Temple, now in the Israel Museum, that declares in Hebrew, “To the
place of the trumpeting…” (see Fig. 10.10). A similar pair of trumpets also
are depicted prominently on the Arch of Titus.
The harp, which has a sound box shaped like a skin bag (nevel in He-
brew, chelys in Greek), and the narrower lyre, with a chest-like sound box
(kinor in Hebrew, kithara in Greek), have been associated with the Jewish
religion since ancient times (Fig. 10.6).
Praise him with lyre and harp (Psalm 150:3).
Hanan Eshel explains, “The considerable difference between the

weight of bronze coins with a harp issued in the first and second year of
the revolt created confusion as coins with the same design were of different
weights. This may have led to a change in the design from a harp to a lyre
in the undated/third-year issues of the revolt.”58
Other objects depicted on the Bar Kokhba coins include the palm tree,
by now a clear symbol of Judea, as well as objects related to Sukkot, the
Feast of Tabernacles, some images of which were also used on the coinage
of the Jewish War. The lulav bunch, which contains palm, myrtle, and wil-
low alongside the etrog are shown on the tetradrachms and the lulav bunch
alone on the didrachm. Other coins depict only a branch, the most promi-
nent part of the lulav bunch.
Grape clusters and vines already appeared on coins of Herod I and his
son Archelaus (nos. 6218, 6227), and a vine leaf was used on Jewish War
prutot. Grape bunches are a common motif in Jewish art in the first and
second centuries and seem to be linked not only to the agricultural bounty
of the land and related celebrations such as Sukkot, but also to use as “the
fruit of the vine” in Jewish ritual from ancient times. Use of these motifs on
coins “manifests the hope for the resumption of another essential part of
the cult, the pilgrimage on the three festivals demonstrated by the symbols
of Sukkot,”59 according to Barag.
The jug appearing on the Bar Kokhba zuzim may also be related to
celebrations of Sukkot, according to Adler, who believes the jug repre-
sents “the golden flagon used in the water libation ceremony performed
on the Temple altar during the Feast of Tabernacles. The branch ap-
pearing to the side of this flagon, previously identified as a palm frond,
should be recognized instead as a willow-branch, symbolizing the wil-
low-branch ceremony that took place at the Temple altar in conjunction
with the water libation ceremony…the numismatic evidence provided by
the Bar Kokhba denarii is the only evidence of the willow-branch ritual
outside of Rabbinic literature.”60
In ancient times, the willow-branch ritual was carried out daily in the
Jerusalem Temple, according to the Talmud: “There was a place below Je-
rusalem called Motsa. They went down to there, and collected young wil-
low branches, and then came and set them upright along the sides of the
altar, with their tops bent over the top of the altar. They then sounded a
prolonged [trumpet] blast, a quavering note, and a prolonged blast.”61
The Split “Abu Jara”

Bronze and silver coins chopped in half for use as small change are a well-
known phenomenon in the ancient Levant.62 Some Bar Kokhba coins
were cut in this way during the time they circulated.63
10.7. The split Abu Jara, type as no. 6405.

It has also been suggested that the Bar Kokhba coins are cut because
after the war they were invalidated. However, the number of cut Bar Kokhba
coins is so small as compared to the number of intact coins, that this practice
does not seem to be a phenomenon that was related to invalidation.
Some years ago, a friend phoned from the Old City of Jerusalem to
say that one of the villagers from Beitar, near Bethlehem, had brought him
half of an “Abu Jara,” a large bronze struck by Bar Kokhba during the first
and second years of the revolt (nos. 6404, 6405, 6432, 6433). The Arabic
nickname Abu Jara, literally, “father of the jar,” refers to the size of the coin
and the large amphora this coin depicts.
On my next visit to Jerusalem, I went to pick up the half-coin and to
my surprise learned that the same villager had found the other half of the
same coin, about 600 yards away (Fig. 10.7).
This case may be the only example of the recovery of both halves of
the same coin. Logically, the distance between the two parts of a cut coin
is a function of the time the parts circulated—more time, farther apart.
Since these halves were found so close together, we can only guess that the
cutting of this coin took place very near the end of the Bar Kokhba War.
Dating the coin in this way leads to a second theory. The modern Arab
village of Beitar is in the immediate vicinity of the ancient town of Beitar,
the village where Bar Kokhba’s men fought their last battle against Hadri-
an’s troops in 135 ce. We know from the Talmud that after the revolt, the
coins struck by Simon no longer had any monetary value.
Cassius Dio reports that by the end of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, “nearly
the whole of Judea was made desolate, a result of which the people had
forewarning before the war. For the tomb of Solomon, which the Jews
regard as an object of veneration, fell to pieces of itself and collapsed, and
many wolves and hyenas rushed howling into their cities.”64
Bar Kokhba Coins in Europe

(and Kentucky!)
In 1952, Robert Cox of Clay City, Kentucky, found an unusual coin in a

pen where he was keeping cattle and a few pigs just outside of town, near
Kentucky Route 15. Cox, a hardware store operator, had plowed the field
10.8. Article from Louisville, KY, Courier-Journal, July 12, 1953 proclaiming the “dis-
covery.”
the summer before, and it was the first time that local residents could recall
that this land had been turned over (Fig. 10.8). It was one of three similar
coins found in Kentucky.
This story was retold by Dr. Cyrus Gordon: “Other contacts with
the Roman Mediterranean of the second century A.D. have meanwhile
come to light in Kentucky, where inscribed Hebrew coins of Bar Kokh-
ba’s rebellion against Rome were dug up in Louisville, Hopkinsville, and
Clay City....”65
A long string of numismatic experts subsequently determined that
the coins were all modern replicas (probably intended as souvenirs, since
they were not made cleverly enough to be called “forgeries”). Apparently
the “experts” originally consulted were certainly not. Harvard’s renowned
Frank Moore Cross commented that Gordon’s theory “simply did not
make sense.” Thus, the replica coins were either deliberately planted in
Kentucky to deceive, or may have been lost souvenirs from a few years
earlier, or fraud may have been attempted. They are certainly not ancient
coins (Fig. 10.9).
10.9. Fake Bar Kokhba sela exactly like the coin said to have been found in Clay City,
KY, in 1952. (Hendin Collection at the Israel Museum.)
On the other hand, genuine ancient Bar Kokhba coins have been
discovered buried in Europe. More than 30 years ago, a London coin
dealer received a small hoard of bronze coins from Spain, which he held
for my review. Among them was a Bar Kokhba bronze coin with the
legend “Simon, prince (or leader) of Israel.” That group was convincing,
with uniform patinas, but unfortunately, it was not provenanced so did
not provide much information.
However, a study reports on sixteen (genuine) bronze Bar Kokhba
coins found at Roman sites in three different provinces in Europe. One
coin was found in Britannia, a dozen were found in Pannonia (one in Vin-
dobona, nine in Carnuntum, and two in Brigetio) and three were found
in Dacia, each in remains of a different Roman camp: Ilisua, Pojejena, and
Ulpa Traiana Sarmizegetusa.66
The coin found in Britannia (in 1913) was one of the impressive large
bronze coins with “Simon” in a wreath on one side and an amphora on the
other. The coin was found alongside other coins ranging from the reigns of
Claudius (41–54 ce) to Valentinian I (364–375 ce). The Roman historian
Cassius Dio tells us that Sextus Julius Severus, governor of Britannia, was
sent to Judea to help suppress the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and “there is no
question that he brought with him some units from Britannia.”67
The largest number of Bar Kokhba coin finds in Europe was from
Pannonia, which corresponds to today’s Western Hungary and also en-
compassed parts of Austria, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Bosnia and
Herzegovina. In Vindobona (modern Vienna), a small Bar Kokhba bronze
(grapes/palm tree) was found in 1913 on a street that was part of a road
system near an ancient Roman camp. The earliest coin found there was
from the time of Trajan (98–117 ce). The Tenth Legion Gemina was sta-
tioned there, and three inscriptions suggest that some commanders from
this legion served in Judea during Hadrian’s reign, which corresponds with
the Bar Kokhba War.68
Nine more Bar Kokhba bronzes were found in Carnuntum, in Austria.
None of the coins was found in controlled excavations. One coin is in
the Carnuntum Museum. Several inscriptions suggest that some of the
cohorts of the Legion XIV Gemini and XV Apollinaris were stationed
there. Two more Bar Kokhba bronzes of the palm tree/vine leaf type were
found in Brigetio (Szöny, in modern Hungary). One coin was found in
a common grave in a Roman villa, and the second find location was not
reported, but it was pierced, “which shows that it was brought to Brigetio
as a souvenir,” according to Eshel and colleagues. Three more palm tree/
vine leaf bronzes of Bar Kokhba were found at different sites in Dacia,
largely modern Romania, and a Roman province adjacent to the Black Sea.
One coin was found at Ilisua, at the headquarters of the Roman fort. One
coin was found in Pojejena, the garrison of the Cohors V Gallorum, and a
third coin was found in the region’s capital, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa,
at the Temple of Aesculapius, near the base of the Legion IV Flavia.
What were Judean coins doing in Europe? Eshel suggests that “be-
cause most of the coins discussed here were found in Roman military con-
texts, we can assume that many if not all of them were brought back to
Europe by Roman soldiers after the Bar Kokhba Revolt ended in Judea. Of
these sixteen coins, only one was pierced; it seems to have been used as a
pendant. The … coins discussed in this article were found at seven different
Roman sites. Three of them were legionary camps, and two sites in Dacia
were bases of auxiliary units. In the case of some legionary camps we have
hints that parts of the legions stationed in these camps were sent to fight
in Judea during the Bar Kokhba Revolt.”69
Eshel also predicts that Bar Kokhba coins will also be discovered in
Moesia (modern Bulgaria) in the future because “two of the three legions
situated in Moesia Inferior (Legio V Macedonia and Legio XI Claudia)
are mentioned in the Beitar inscription.”
The supposition that Roman soldiers picked up these coins in Judea
as pocket souvenirs and brought them home seems probable. Even if the
Romans had no affinity for the Jews, it is fairly common for soldiers to
bring home such items. When my father, a U.S. Army physician, returned
from World War II, he brought home a few German coins and pieces of
paper money. Another possible scenario is that Jewish slaves of Centurions
or higher-ranking legionnaires took Bar Kokhba coins to Europe.
10.10. First-century ce Hebrew inscription on parapet discovered on the Temple

Mount in 1968: “To the place of the trumpeting.” (Israel Museum)
COINS OF BAR KOKHBA

Year One, 132/3 ce
TCA TPs
=ARs Y T=AG=
‫שנת אחת‬
6402 ‫לגאלת ישראל‬
6402. AR sela.
Obv: ML§.Ry ( Jerusalem) on three sides of facade of the Jerusalem
Temple, idealized Ark with scrolls in center of entrance.
Rev: LAR§y TLA¯L TxA TE§ (year one for the redemption of Israel),
lulav with etrog at l.
RR
a. Irregular issue.
NHVjH RZoLA
‫אלעזר הכוהן‬
6403
6403. AR zuz.
Obv: EU,:U R\CLA (Eleazar the priest), jug with handle, willow branch
at r.
bunch of grapes with branch and small leaf.
RR
URY
mL s
‫ירו‬
6404 ‫שלם‬
6404. AE large bronze, 32 mm.
Obv: ML§ .Ry (Jerusalem) within a wreath.
amphora with two handles.
RR
6405
AY sP PIom s
LARs Y
‫שמעון נשיא‬
‫ישראל‬
Obv: LAR§y Ay§E EÄCM§ (Simon, Prince of Israel) within a wreath.
amphora with two handles.
R
6406
6406. AE middle bronze, 24 mm.

Obv: LAR§y Ay§E EÄCM§ (Simon Prince of Israel), palm branch
within a wreath.
wide lyre (nevel or chelys) of six (sometimes four or five) strings.
R
a. Irregular issue, retrograde legends.
6407 6408

Obv: LAR§y Ay§E EÄCM§ (Simon Prince of Israel) across fields,
seven-branched palm tree with two bunches of dates.
vine leaf on tendril.
R
a. Different style of epigraphy.
b. Overstruck on a coin with L.X.F. countermark of Tenth Legion,
seen on center of leaf.
c. Irregular issue.

Obv: CM§ (Sma—abbreviating Simon), seven-branched palm tree with
two bunches of dates.
vine leaf on tendril.
RR
a. Irregular issue.
O> A ‫א לע‬
H¿ ùõ ‫זנ רה‬
6409 Hû ‫כה‬
a b c
6409. AE small bronze, 18 mm.
Obv: EU,:U R\CLA (Eleazar the priest), seven-branched palm tree with
R
a. Obverse retrograde inscription.
b. Obverse retrograde variation.
c. Obverse inscription variation.
d. Irregular issue.
6410 6411

Obv: ML§.Ry ( Jerusalem), seven-branched palm tree with two bunches
of dates.
RR
a. Galley in rectangular countermark on obverse.
b. Irregular issue.
Hybrid Coins Dated with Year One and Year Two

6411. AR zuz.
Obv: LAR§y TLA¯L TxA TE§ (year one for the redemption of Israel),
Rev: LARSy RxL B§ (year two of the freedom of Israel), palm branch.
RR
6412 6413
6412. AR zuz.
Obv: LAR§y TLA¯L TxA TE§ (year one for the redemption of Israel),
Rev: LARSy RxL B§ (year two of the freedom of Israel), wide
lyre (nevel or chelys) with three strings, four dots on sound box.
RR
6413. AR zuz.
Obv: C M§ (Sma—abbreviating Simon), the letters form a triangle, in a
wreath of thin branches wrapped around eight almonds, medallion
at top, tendrils at bottom.
Rev: EU,:U R\CLA (Eleazar the priest), fluted jug, handle on l., willow
branch on r.
R
While this coin is not dated, the only other use of the Eleazar name on a zuz is combined
with a die of the first year. Thus, this coin must be a hybrid issue of the first and second
year rather than a coin of the third year, where other undated issues are assigned.
The abbreviation “Sm‘” can also be read “Shma.” This may have a dual meaning in
this use of the first three letters of Bar Kokhba’s first name: first, a simple abbreviation,
and second, as the first word of the prayer, the Shema, which is believed to have been one
of Bar Kokhba’s rallying cries.
Coins Dated Year Two, 133/4 ce
6414. AR sela.
Obv: MLS.Ry ( Jerusalem) on three sides of facade of Jerusalem Temple,
idealized Ark with scrolls in center of entrance.
Rev: LAR§y RxL B§ (year two of the freedom of Israel), lulav with etrog
at l.
RR
This type of sela was struck with an obverse die type of the first year, thus it is also a
hybrid. We place it here because it is clearly dated in the reverse die to the second year.
6415. AR sela.
Obv: MLS .Ry (Jerusalem) on three sides divided by + above facade of
Jerusalem Temple, idealized Ark with scrolls in center of entrance.
Rev: LAR§y RxL B§ (year two of the freedom of Israel), lulav with
etrog at l.
RR
a. Irregular issue.
RC= Bs
=ARs Y
‫שב לחר‬
6416 ‫ישראל‬
6416. AR sela.
Obv: MLS .Ry ( Jerusalem) on two sides, + above facade of Jerusalem
Rev: LAR§y RxL B§ (year two of the freedom of Israel), lulav with
etrog at l.
R

a. Variations, ¥ instead of y on obverse and S instead of §.
b. Irregular issue.
6417
6417. AR sela.
Obv: EÄCM§ (Simon) on two sides, star above facade of the Jerusalem
Temple, idealized Ark with scrolls in center.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), lulav with etrog
at l.
R
a. Variations, Ö instead of Ä on obverse.
6418 6421
6418. AR zuz.
Obv: C M§ (Sm‘—abbreviating Simon), the letters in a triangle, in a
wreath of thin branches wrapped around eight almonds, medallion
at top, tendrils at bottom.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), wide lyre (nevel
or chelys) with three strings, four dots on sound box.
R
a. Lyre is different shape.
6419. AR zuz.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew as on no. 6418.
Rev: LAR§y RxL B§ (year two of the freedom of Israel), palm branch.
R
a. Irregular issue.
6420. AR zuz.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), fluted jug, han-
dle on l., willow branch on r.
R
6421. AR zuz.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), two trumpets
upright.
R
a. Struck upon a denarius of Otho, his name on obverse.
6422. AR zuz.
Obv: EÄCM§ (Simon) bunch of grapes in three lobes hanging from
branch, a leaf to l. and a tendril to r.
or chelys) with three strings, four dots on crescent-shaped sound
box.
RR
In this series, sometimes the obverse may use the letter vav in either Ä or Ö form.
6423
6423. AR zuz.
Obv: Bunch of grapes as on no. 6422.
R
In this series, sometimes the obverse may use the letter vav in either Ä or Ö form.
a. Irregular issue.
6424
6424. AR zuz.
R
6425. AR zuz.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), elongated lyre
(kinor or kithara) with three strings.
R
6426. AR zuz.
Obv: ÖECM§ (Simon), the letters form a square with one in the center,
within a wreath of thin branches wrapped around eight almonds,
medallion at top, tendrils at bottom.
or chelys) with three strings, four dots on sound box.
RRR
a. Paleo-Hebrew letters are arranged EÖCM§ (Simon).
6427 6429
6427. AR zuz.
RRR
a. Obverse as on 6426a.
6428. AR zuz.
RRR
The obverse die used in coins 6426–6428 was used on only a very few coins. It may have
broken or been a trial die whose use was never extended further.
6429. AR zuz.
Obv: EÖCM§ (Simon), five letters in two lines, within a wreath of thin
branches wrapped around eight almonds, medallion at top, tendrils
at bottom.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), palm branch.
R
6430. AR zuz.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew as no. 6429.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), two trumpets
upright, dot between.
R
6431. AR zuz.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew as no. 6429.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), elongated lyre
(kinor or kithara) with three strings.
R
6432

Obv: ML§ .Ry ( Jerusalem) within a wreath.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), amphora with
two handles.
RR
6433
Obv: E,C M§ (Simon) within a wreath.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), amphora with
two handles.
RR
The photographed example is double struck on the obverse.
6434

Obv: LAR§y AySE EÄCM§ (Simon Prince of Israel), palm branch
within a wreath.
or chelys) of four or five strings.
RR
6435
Obv: ML§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), palm branch within
a wreath.
or chelys) of four or five strings.
RR
6436 6436a
Obv: CM§ (Sma—abbreviating Simon) across fields, seven-branched
palm tree with two bunches of dates.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), vine leaf on
tendril.
S
a. Simon in five letters on obverse, many varieties of this type.
b. Struck on a serrated Seleucid coin.
c. Irregular issue.
d. Irregular issue overstruck on coin with Tenth Roman Legion coun-
termark.

Obv: EU,:U R\CLA (Eleazar the priest) across fields, seven-branched
palm tree with two bunches of dates.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), bunch of grapes
with branch and small leaf.
RR
6438
of dates.
Rev: LAR§y RxL BS (year two of the freedom of Israel), bunch of grapes
R
Undated Coins Attributed to Year Three, 134/5 ce
6439 6439a
6439. AR sela.
Rev: ML§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), lulav with etrog at l.
S
a. Irregular issue.
6440. AR sela.
Rev: ML§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), lulav, no etrog.
R
6441
6441. AR sela.
Obv: EÄCM§ (Simon) on two sides, wavy line above facade of the Jeru-
salem Temple, idealized Ark with scrolls in center of entrance.
Rev: ML§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), lulav with etrog at l.
RR
a. Variety with lulav more elongated, rounded.
b. Wavy line of four semi-circles connected by horizontal lines above
Temple.
6443
6442
6442. AR half–sela (sheqel).

Obv: EÄCM§ (Simon) on sides of distyle facade representing the Jerusa-
lem Temple, idealized Ark or showbread table in center of entrance.
Rev: ML§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), lulav, no etrog.
RRR
It is not known whether the building depicted here was meant to also be a schematic
image of the Jerusalem Temple, as Meshorer suggested, or if the building simply received
two columns instead of four because it was half the denomination. Barag suggests that
this type was struck at Bar Kokhba’s second mint, responsible for the irregular coins, and
this different mint site explains the somewhat unusual epigraphy.
6443. AR zuz.
Obv: EÖCM§ (Simon) within a wreath of thin branches wrapped around
eight almonds, medallion at top, tendrils at bottom.
Rev: ML§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), palm branch.
S
a. Trial strike, same dies, p. 337.
6444. AR zuz.
Rev: ML§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), two trumpets up-
right, dot between.
S
6445
6445. AR zuz.
Rev: ML§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), fluted jug, handle
on l., willow branch on r.
S
6446. AR zuz.
Rev: ML§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), elongated lyre (kinor
or kithara) with three strings.
S
6447. AR zuz.
Obv: .CEM§ (Simon, in this case, actually Simna, since letters are rear-
ranged) within a wreath of thin branches wrapped around eight
almonds, medallion at top, tendrils at bottom, there are a pair of
dots, one inside and one outside, between each section.
R
6448. AR zuz.
Rev: ML§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), two trumpets
upright, dot between.
R
6449. AR zuz.
S
6450 6451
6450. AR zuz.
on l., no willow branch.
S
6451. AR zuz.
S
6452. AR zuz.
Obv: E,CM§ within a wreath of thin branches wrapped around eight
almonds, medallion at top, tendrils at bottom, a pair of dots, one
inside and one outside, between each section.
S
6453. AR zuz.
right, dot between.
S
6454. AR zuz.
Obv: Paleo-Hebrew as on nno. 6452.
S
6454
6455
6455. AR zuz.
S
6457
6456
6456. AR zuz.
S
6457. AR zuz.
Obv: E,CM§ (Simon), bunch of grapes in three lobes hanging from
branch, which has a tendril to l. and a leaf to r.
S
a. Irregular issue.
b. Irregular issue.
6458 6458a
6458. AR zuz.
right, dot between.
S
a. Irregular issue.
Drawing 6458b shows a denarius of Trajan similar to a drachm struck in Bostra. This
type was often overstruck by Bar Kokhba zuz coins, and drawing 6458 shows an ex-
ample.
6459. AR zuz.
Same as 6458 but struck on a Vespasian Judaea Capta denarius with IV-
DAEA legend, which is clear on this example.
RR
a. Another example, no. 6421 struck upon IVDAEA type.
This overstrike could occur with any zuz. There are only a few known examples with the
IVDAEA remaining clear.
6460. AR zuz.
S
6461. AR zuz.
S
6462
6462. AR zuz.
S
a. Fourrée example.
b. Reverse with regular design plus obverse brockage.
c. Irregular issue.
d. Cut to invalidate or make change.
There has been some support for the idea that Bar Kokhba coins were cut to invalidate
them after the war. However, since such a miniscule percentage of both bronze and silver
coins have been cut, it seems far more likely they were simply cut to make change.
6463

Obv: ML§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), palm branch within
a wreath.
Rev: E,CM§ (Simon), elongated lyre (kinor or kithara) with three
strings.
S
a. Some examples of this coin were struck from “clashed dies” and
show several incuse letters from the reverse on the right side of the
obverse.
b. Irregular issue.
6464
Obv: E,CM§ (Simon), seven-branched palm tree with two bunches of
dates.
Rev: ML§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), vine leaf on tendril.
S
a. Irregular issue.
b. Overstruck on a Hadrian coin of Gaza.
6465 6466
Obv: EU,:U R\CLA (Eleazar the priest), seven-branched palm tree with
Rev: L§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), bunch of grapes with
branch and small leaf.
R

of dates.
Rev: L§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), bunch of grapes with
branch and small leaf.
S
a. Irregular issue.
6467
Obv: E,CM§ (Simon), seven-branched palm tree with two bunches of
dates.
Rev: L§,Ry T,RxL (for the freedom of Jerusalem), bunch of grapes
S
a. Regular style, but size and weight of a prutah.
b. Struck over a serrated Seleucid coin.
c. Irregular issue.
d. Irregular issue struck on prutah flan.
10.11. Inscription, on display at the Colosseum in Rome, records restoration dur-

ing the reigns of Theodosius II and Valentinian III, who reigned from 425–455 ce,
perhaps to repair damages from an earthquake in 443. However, this inscription was
cut upon a piece of marble that contained an earlier inscription. The original inscrip-
tion probably stood above one of the entrances. The “ghost” inscription has been
recreated from a series of small holes in the marble and stated that the Colosseum
was built with “booty” probably taken from the Jerusalem Temple in 70/71 ce (see
p. 376). This event is also commemorated on the Arch of Titus, located nearby at the
entrance to the Roman Forum. (Author photo.)
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Judaea and Rome

Roman Republican
Jewish Reference Coins
Aristobulus was not able to make resistance, but was deserted in his
first onset, and was driven to Jerusalem; he also had been taken at first
by force, if Scaurus, the Roman general, had not come and seasonably
interposed himself and raised the siege ( Josephus, Wars, 1, VI: 2).
P
ompey the Great besieged Jerusalem in 63 bce and intervened in
the civil war between the brothers Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus
II. Aristobulus II, a supporter of the Sadducees, ousted his older
brother Hyrcanus II from both the high priesthood and the throne in Je-
rusalem. Hyrcanus II, taking advice from Antipater the Idumaean (father
of Herod I), promised the Nabataean King Aretas III territorial conces-
sions in exchange for his support against his brother. Aretas provided
an army of 50,000 soldiers who joined Hyrcanus’s troops and besieged
Aristobulus in Jerusalem.1
At this time, Pompey was consolidating his power in the recently cre-
ated province of Syria. He sent his legate M. Amelius Scarus from Damas-
cus to Jerusalem, where he met with both parties. Josephus reports that a
bribe by Aristobulus settled the matter (“three hundred talents offered by
Aristobulus outweighed considerations of justice”), and the Roman or-
dered Aretas to return to his homeland, Nabataea. On the way, Aristobu-
lus’s troops pursued and defeated the Nabataeans.2
Pompey met with each of the Hasmonean brothers in 63 bce in
Damascus. Pompey told them that he would resolve the matter when he
arrived in Jerusalem. Aristobulus II was not satisfied with this plan and
departed, taking his troops to his fortress at Alexandrion (also known as
Sartaba), on the northern boundary of Judaea. An enraged Pompey fol-
lowed with his army, and Aristobulus promptly surrendered. Shortly, Pom-
pey’s general, Aulus Gabinius, led a force to take Jerusalem, but this time
the supporters of Aristobulus refused to surrender and thus Pompey had
Aristobulus arrested and prepared to besiege Jerusalem.3 (Up to this point
we use the name Judea. In this chapter we use the Roman version, Judaea.)
365
In Jerusalem, some of Hyrcanus II’s supporters opened a gate for the

Romans, thus allowing the Romans to gain a foothold and, after three
months of siege and battle, capture the area surrounding the Temple.4 The
dramatic conclusion, as reported by Josephus, was Pompey’s entrance to
the Temple:
“Of all the calamities of that time none so deeply affected the nation as
the exposure to alien eyes of the Holy Place, hitherto screened from view.
Pompey indeed, along with his staff, penetrated to the sanctuary, entry
to which was permitted to none but the high priest, and beheld what it
contained: the candelabrum and lamps, the table, the vessels for libation
and censers, all of solid gold, an accumulation of spices and the store of
sacred money amounting to two thousand talents. However, he touched
neither these nor any other of the sacred treasures and, the very day after
the capture of the temple, gave orders to the custodians to cleanse it and
to resume the customary sacrifices. He reinstated Hyrcanus as high priest,
in return for his enthusiastic support shown during the siege, particularly
in detaching from Aristobulus large numbers of the rural population who
were anxious to join his standards. By these methods, in which goodwill
played a larger part than terrorism, he, like the able general he was, concili-
ated the people.”5
Bacchius the Jew

Pompey’s military adventures in the east led to the issue of two Republican
denarii. The first, in 58 bce by M. Amelius Scarus and P. Plautius Hyp-
saeus,6 commemorates the defeat of King Aretas III by Scarus (nos. 6468,
6469). The coin’s obverse depicts a camel with a bearded male figure kneel-
ing alongside it, holding a palm branch in his outstretched left hand. He is
identified as REX ARETAS. (This coin is one of the earliest examples of a
Roman moneyer memorializing an event from his personal history, rather
than that of an ancestor, on a coin.)
The second coin, struck in 54 bce by A. Plautius, has a reverse motif
that is nearly identical to the camel and kneeling figure on the previous
coin, but in this case, the inscription is not REX ARETAS, but BAC-
CHIVS IVDAEVS (no. 6470). The camel was so remarkable that St. Hart
suggests that “these issues were opportunities seized to introduce the weird
and wonderful eastern beast, the camel, to a delighted and curious public.”7
“Bacchius the Jew” has been an enigma in numismatics. The most
popular opinion is that the figure on the coin represents Aristobulus II, ally
of Aretas III, and commemorates Aristobulus’s unsuccessful insurrection
against both his brother Hyrcanus II and Pompey.8
However, the similarity of the figure to the one labeled REX ARE-
TAS suggests a generic quality to the figures—they wear the same beard,
the same hair, the same robes, and stand in the same pose. These similari-
ties suggest just “how incidental in the official eyes at this period was the
Judaea and Rome 367
detail of the eastern campaigns as far as the Jews and the Nabataean Arabs
were concerned.”9 In all likelihood, each was little more than a generic
representation of an eastern potentate.
However, the legend BACCHIVS IVDAEVS is far from generic. Yet
there are no records of Bacchius the Jew, not even a late legend in the Tal-
mud. Who was this “mystery man of the Roman official commentary of
Judaea?” asks St. Hart, who suggests “he was certainly some military leader
of at least considerable local importance....”10
On the other hand, St. Hart observes that while both coin types were
intended to enhance Roman military prestige, “There is no thought here
that Judaea is a major military liability as it afterwards became. The Jewish
question is obviously over. This numismatic reference to it may be half-
playful.”11 Unlike the later Vitellius and Flavian series, the Republican de-
narii do not commemorate Rome’s conquest of Judaea. Rather, Pompey’s
adventures in Judaea marked Rome’s earliest incursion and victory and
thus commemorated the beginning of a change of the axis of power in the
ancient Holy Land. Now the Jews, while retaining their own rulers, began
tilting away from the Greeks of Egypt and Syria and toward Rome.
We suggest that BACCHIVS IVDAEVS is not only half-playful but
tauntingly mean and mischievous as well. There are numerous suggestions
that many Romans and Greeks believed the ancient Jewish religion to be
a cult of Dionysus, the popular god of grapes and winemaking, feasting,
drunken behavior, and ecstasy. Josephus does not discuss any aspects of
Bacchus and the Jews, but he mentions that Herod I presented a golden
vine to the Temple.12 It was used to hang donatives of golden grapes and
vine leaves13 and the vine was said to be part of the booty taken to Rome by
Titus. Among the important prayers in Judaism, both ancient and modern,
are those prayers that call upon the monotheistic God to bless “the fruit of
the vine.” Grapes were also one of the seven species listed in Deuteronomy
8:8 as special products of the ancient Land of Israel.14
The relationship the Greeks and Romans fantasized to exist between
the Jews and Dionysus may also be related to the traditional mythology
that Dionysus was the son of Semele, “who was the daughter of Cadmus,
who, being a Phoenician, was a Semite who spoke a language closely akin
to Hebrew.”15
Plutarch wrote that the holiday of Sukkot (Tabernacles) was celebrat-
ed as a Bacchanalia, “for that which they call the Fast they celebrate in the
midst of the vintage, furnishing their tables with all sorts of fruits while
they sit under tabernacles made of vines and ivy; and the day which im-
mediately goes before this they call the day of Tabernacles. Within a few
days after they celebrate another feast, not darkly but openly, dedicated
to Bacchus, for they have a feast amongst them called Kradephoria, from
carrying palm-trees, and Thyrsophoria, when they enter into the temple
carrying thyrsi. What they do within I know not; but it is very probable
that they perform the rites of Bacchus.”16
Plutarch’s contemporary, the vituperatively anti-Jewish Tacitus, wrote

that the “practices of the Jews are sinister and revolting, and have en-
trenched themselves by their very wickedness…. [T]heir priests used to
perform their chants to the flute and drums, crowned with ivy, and a gold-
en vine was discovered in the Temple; and this has led some to imagine
that the god thus worshipped was Prince Liber (Bacchus)…. [B]ut the two
cults are diametrically opposed. Liber founded a festive and happy cult: the
Jewish belief is paradoxical and degraded.”17
Thus, BACCHIVS IVDAEVS was likely a mischievous pun, deriding
activities in the east—a power-struggle between brothers and a mysterious
monotheistic religion that inexplicably (to the Romans) had no use for the
pantheon of Greco-Roman gods.
ROMAN REPUBLIC
M. Aemilius Scaurus and Pub. Plautius Hypsaeus, 58 bce
6468
6468. AR denarius.
Obv: M SCAVR AED CVR above, EX S C in fields, REX ARETAS
below, King Aretas kneels r. with palm branch in l. hand, alongside
camel.
Rev: P HVPSAEVS AED CVR above, CAPTVM on r., C HVP SAE
COS PREIVE in exergue, Jupiter drives quadriga l. and hurls
thunderbolt, scorpion below horses.
S
6469. AR denarius.
Obv: M. SCAVR above and AED CVR in exergue on obv.
Rev: Jupiter drives quadriga as on no. 6468, no scorpion.
S
A. Plautius, c. 54 bce
6470
Judaea and Rome 369
6470. AR denarius.
Obv: A. PLAVTIVS AED CVR S C, turreted head of Cybele r.
Rev: BACCHIVS IVDAEVS, bearded male figure kneels r. with palm
branch in l. hand, alongside camel.
S
Judaea Capta Coin of C. Sosius

Pompey’s defeat of Aristobulus II in favor of the weaker Hyrcanus II,
whose chief aide was Herod I’s pro-Roman father, Antipater, marked the
practical end of the Hasmonean dynasty (see Chapter 6). In 42 bce, Herod
and his brother Phasael were named tetrarchs of Galilee and Jerusalem, re-
spectively; thus, Hyrcanus II was “entrusting to them the whole of Judaea.”
In 40 bce Mattityah Antigonus, youngest son of Aristobulus II, bribed
the Parthian King (“a thousand talents and five hundred women”)18 to in-
vade Jerusalem and help him win back the crown and position of high
priest, still held by his uncle, Hyrcanus II. The Parthians captured both
Hyrcanus II and tetrarch Phasael, who died in captivity.19
Herod escaped Jerusalem and traveled to Rome, ostensibly to help
mediate an end to the hostilities among the Jews. Instead, he was named
king in 40 bce by a declaration of the Roman Senate and approval of the
triumvirate, marshaled by Mark Antony. However, Herod was a king with-
out a kingdom, since Mattathias Antigonus was in control on the ground
in Jerusalem.
Mark Antony ordered Sosius to support Herod. Sosius sent two le-
gions and personally followed with the remainder of his army,20 which
joined Herod and began a five-month siege of Jerusalem. The city was
taken October 3, 37 bce, and Sosius ordered his soldiers to pillage. After
a horrendous massacre of Jews, Herod himself intervened to restrain the
soldiers from further destroying his new capital by promising to reward
them, including Sosius, appropriately from his own funds, since he could
not bear to see Jerusalem, his capital, gutted and destroyed.21 Antigonus
surrendered to Sosius, who insulted him and derided him by calling him
by the feminine “Antigone.” Finally, Sosius “dedicated a golden crown to
God and departed from Jerusalem, taking Antigonus in chains to Antony,”
who was wintering at Antioch.22
Herod’s victory brought Judaea completely under Roman influence.
Antony granted Sosius not only the title empereor, which was first given to
him by his legions, but also awarded him a triumph in 34 bce in Rome.23
No record exists of any of Sosius’s activities between his victory for Herod
on October 3, 37 bce and September 3, 34 bce, the date his deferred tri-
umph was celebrated.
This coin was likely struck in 36 bce (no. 6471) in the name of C.
Sosius under Mark Antony. It is not clear why these coins were struck at
the relatively obscure island city of Zacynthus, but the attribution seems
nearly certain according to Gardner, who notes the ZA inscription and

the coins found on or near the island.24 The only evidence of a relationship
between Sosius and Zacynthus is numismatic, “sufficient to demonstrate
that for several years Sosius occupied quite a unique position in regard to
the island, being very possibly master of its revenues.”25 Antony had a fleet
stationed in Zacynthus in 39 bce, and Sosius himself commanded the left
wing of Antony’s fleet at Actium, but there is no other known connection.
Three other coins with the name of Sosius were struck at Zacynthus, one
with a portrait of Antony and an eagle (RPC I 263, 1290), one with the
head of Apollo and a tripod (RPC I 263, 1292), and finally one with the
head of Neptune and a dolphin and trident (RPC I 263, 1293).
Gardner notes, “It may well seem curious to find the successive hon-
ors of Sosius carefully chronicled in the coins of a small island, when he
apparently was not in its neighborhood. But the evidence is far too clear
and conclusive to be rejected, and we can only suppose that in some way
Zacynthus regarded its history as bound up in that of the Roman officer.”26
It is possible that Sosius stopped at Zacynthus for a time on his return trip
to Rome as a victorious emperor. Perhaps the local boule ordered the mint-
ers to create a special coin in his honor that spoke “in the same idiom as
the reverses of Caesar’s denarii which indeed set standards of which Sosius’
coin is not the only imitation.... The contemporary public … could read
this picture at once, the mourning captives were Jew and Jewess, and could
be no other: to celebrate this conquest of Jerusalem and due installation of
Herod as everyone then knew.”27
St. Hart’s reference is to Julius Caesar’s denarii of late 46–45 bce that
depict on the reverse CAESAR beneath a trophy of Gallic arms and two
captives seated, clearly a female on the right, facing right, and a bearded
male on the left, facing left. 28 This coin was struck in Spain for veterans
of Munda, a part of Julius Caesar’s Civil War (49–45 bce). A similar coin
with a bearded male seated beneath a trophy of arms was struck at Caesar’s
moving mint. 29
Sosius’s coin of Zacynthus modified Caesar’s type only slightly, depict-
ing both captives seated to right. This coin takes its place in the evolution
of typology of Roman victory coins, since it is also clearly a distinct proto-
type of the Judaea Capta series to follow more than 100 years later. Sosius’
Jerusalem victory coin depicts figures of both a mourning Jewess and a na-
ked male with his hands tied behind him. Gruber suggested that the male
figure represents Antigonus and the female, a generic Judaean.30 Since this
coin did not commemorate a defeat of the Jewish people per se (as did the
Vitellius and Flavian Judaea Capta coins to follow), it seems plausible that
Gruber was correct and that the male figure was intended to represent the
defeated Hasmonean, Mattityah Antigonus.
Judaea and Rome 371
Coin of C. Sosius, Zacynthus, Achaea, 36 bce
6471
6471. AE 19 mm.
Obv: Mark Antony’s head to r., ZA behind.
Rev: C SOSIVS IMP, trophy between Jewess, head in hands, seated on
l., and naked Jewish captive, looking back, seated on r, both to r.
RRR
Judaea Capta
Thy men shall fall by the sword, And thy mighty in the war. And her
gates shall lament and mourn; And utterly bereft she shall sit upon the
ground (Isaiah 3:25, 26).
So fell Jerusalem in the second year of Vespasian’s reign, on the 8th Sep-
tember, captured five times before and now for the second time laid
utterly waste. . .. There was no one left for the soldiers to kill or plunder
( Josephus, The Jewish War, 21, 22).
Two thousand years ago, when the Near East erupted in violent warfare,
there was no internet or cable news network to inform the world. The
Roman emperors could not depend on radios, magazines, newspapers, or
Twitter. They used another method of communication with extraordinary
skill—coins.
One does not usually equate coins with communications. Neverthe-
less, in ancient times, as we have discussed, coins were the best available
mass communications.31 Hart discusses three methods of official commen-
tary on the ongoing events taking place in Rome, “whereby men might be
instructed how they ought to think of this or that transaction or this or
that notable public figure....” These are public occasions such as triumphs,
public buildings such as arches or other monuments, and coins.
Unlike the first two categories, coins represented a program of out-
reach, since triumphs and public buildings were in one place and the coins
could travel across the world as quickly as a person travels, carrying the
official version of the news. This was the ultimate political use of coins.
They allowed the authorities to “not only indicate how you should think of
passing public events, they could also to a great…extent determine upon
which passing public events out of an always wide choice your attention
should be fixed.”32
M. P. Charlesworth observed that the Romans used this method of

communication with great skill. “Coins passed through the hands of the
highest and lowest, into the coffers of the rich and under the country farm-
er’s hearthstone, might be stored in imperial Rome itself or in some hut
along the mountains of Lusitania, and upon these coins were placed words
and symbols that could be understood by the simplest. This use of coin-
age with its legends and pictures, gave emperors, and the city mints that
echoed Roman policy, a most potent instrument in the ancient world for
fashioning opinions and influencing men’s views....”33
Michael Grant writes that Roman coins, “served a propaganda pur-
pose far greater than has any other national coinage before or since. This
was the means which the Roman government, lacking modern media of
publicity, used to insinuate into every house in the empire each changing
nuance of imperial achievement and policy. Their unremitting use of this
means is evidence enough...that in the course of their vast circulation these
coins were studied with an attentiveness that is quite alien to our practices.”
Even Vespasian’s second son, Domitian, issued a series of coins echo-
ing his family’s victory although he had nothing to do with the campaigns
against the Jews. During his brief reign, Vitellius, who preceded Vespasian,
mounted his own public-relations campaign with some Judaea Capta is-
sues designed to capitalize on Vespasian’s success.
Vitellius Begins the Series

It is generally, but incorrectly, believed that the first Judaea Capta coins com-
memorating the Roman defeat of the Jews in 70 ce were struck by Vespa-
sian. Vitellius struck several Judaea Capta issues during his short reign.
The Roman campaign against the Jews began in 66 ce and was led by
Vespasian, and concluded by his son Titus after Vespasian was proclaimed
emperor. This war began while Nero was emperor. When Nero committed
suicide on June 9, 68 ce, Galba, governor of Spain, succeeded him. Galba
was assassinated on January 15, 69 ce, after a reign of only seven months.
Otho followed Galba, but Otho’s reign lasted only three months because
the Roman legions in Upper Germany had proclaimed Vitellius emperor
on January 2, 69 ce. Otho committed suicide on April 17. Vitellius was an
obnoxious glutton who was held in contempt by the Roman Senate. He
was assassinated and his body dragged through the streets of Rome and
thrown into the Tiber.
Vespasian was proclaimed emperor at Alexandria on July 1, and other
legions declared for him and invaded Italy on his behalf shortly thereafter.
Thus, there were four emperors involved in the Jewish War before
Vespasian—Nero, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. Nero was probably in no
position to issue coins because it was so early in the war that the outcome
was not clear. Galba and Otho had such short and tumultuous reigns that
they probably had no time. Vitellius, on the other hand, apparently knew
Judaea and Rome 373
Vespasian, his chief rival for the throne, was approaching victory. In an ef-
fort to consolidate and spread word of his power, Vitellius issued the first
Judaea Capta coins. The basic types are two bronzes:
1. Bronze (brass) sestertius, reverse showing Victory, naked to waist,
standing r., l. foot set on helmet, inscribing OB CIVES SERV in three
lines on round shield attached to palm tree. VICTORIA AVGVSTI, S C
(no. 6489).
2. Bronze as, reverse showing Victory, draped, stepping l. and placing a
shield on a trophy, beneath which is a captive seated l. on a globe. VICTOR
AVGVSTI, S C (no. 6490).
Both of these reverse types were later struck under Vespasian, and the
sestertius reverse was also struck under Titus. Neither Flavian coin was ever
thought to be anything other than a Judaea Capta issue.
Mattingly misses a point when he talks about the sestertius mentioned
above: “A favourite Victory theme—Victory inscribing a shield OB CIVES
SERV: the idea that the safety of Rome is bound up with the Victory of
Vitellius is aptly conveyed.”34 Mattingly does not mention that the Victory
is associated with a palm tree, a clear reference to victory over Judaea.
In describing the as, however, he notes that, “For the motif of Victory
erecting a trophy, compare types of Vespasian, showing Victory inscribing
shield. The captive seated below reminds one of the Jewish captives on
Vespasian’s Judaea Capta types.”35
Hart sheds additional light on these coins: “[Victory’s] first appear-
ance with a palm tree is not with Vespasian, but with Vitellius of evil
memory. We may accordingly submit that the Vitellius types are already
celebrating, and are the true numismatic beginning of the celebration of
the Jewish defeat in the First Revolt. The fact that this type and modifi-
cations of it are used by Vespasian and Titus for this purpose, and that a
variant of the same design appears on the cuirass of the Sabratha statue,
are best explained by supposing that it was for this very purpose that the
type had first been used in the time of Vitellius,” Hart writes. “This case is
much strengthened by the fact that the very same reverse sestertius dies for
this type were used by both Vitellius and Vespasian.”36
Hart further notes evidence from Tacitus that the “back of the war
was broken” early in 68 ce. “There is therefore time for Vitellius also to
anticipate the final victory. The palm-tree firmly connects his Victoria type
with Judaea.”
Here, a surprising coin enters this discussion: a fourrée denarius of Vi-
tellius with a clear, classic Judaea reverse (no. 6488). It shows beyond a
doubt that Vitellius did issue Judaea Capta coins. Some may argue that
this coin is a fourrée and thus a contemporary (ancient) forgery, not a mint
issue. This may be the case, but if it were a contemporary forgery, it would
have been made during the reign of Vitellius. Because Vitellius was so
thoroughly disliked, it is hardly thinkable that a forgery of a Vitellius coin
would have been created after Vespasian ascended to the throne. Therefore,
as a forgery, it must have been copied after a coin type that was known at
the time. Since during Vitellius’s reign Vespasian had not yet issued any
coins, this fourrée must have been copied from a coin of Vitellius.
The Flavian Dynasty

The Judaea Capta series was the broadest and most diverse series of coins
commemorating a Roman victory issued to that time. Vespasian and his
sons intended for their victory over the Jews to be the talk of the empire.
Universal attention was their desire, Hart observes: “All the world must
know and meditate upon the destruction of that rebellious and warlike na-
tion, the Jews, and that a long and difficult war, with disturbing possibili-
ties of complications throughout the empire is over.”37
No doubt Vespasian and his sons also looked at the victory as a sta-
bilizing factor. It came just after Vespasian became emperor, at the end of
the alarming year of four emperors. Such a victory was the stuff of which
a new dynasty was made, and Vespasian established it. He thus announced
his strength, wisdom, and good judgement, and publicly proclaimed his
greatest victory.
Vespasian could promote his victory in a triumphal celebration or build
a victory arch or two. However, these were single events — the people had
to come to observe them. The coins of the realm, handled and examined
many thousands of times each day throughout the empire, could spread
the word.
Flavius Vespasianus was born in 9 ce, the son of a tax collector and
small-scale money lender. After serving as a legionary commander in the
invasion of Britain (43–44 ce), as consul and governor of Africa, and ac-
companying Nero to Greece in 66 ce, Vespasian was sent to Judaea. The
Jews had already dealt some severe blows to Rome, but by June of 68 ce
Vespasian had claimed victory over all of Judaea except Jerusalem and a
few minor fortresses, including Masada.
When Nero died, Rome was plunged into confusion, and three em-
perors followed in rapid succession. In July 69, Vespasian’s eastern legions
proclaimed him emperor. Shortly thereafter, he returned to Rome and sent
his son Titus to finish his chores in Judaea. On June 23, 79, Vespasian died
an apparently natural death.
Titus Flavius Vespasianus succeeded his father on the throne. Titus
had been entrusted with full command of the Jewish War after mid-69,
when his father was required to focus his attention on the rebellion against
Vitellius. Titus was victorious in Judaea late in 70, when the Temple and
much of Jerusalem was burned.38
David Vagi narrates, “[B]ecause of the suspicion aroused by the ex-
treme loyalty of his soldiers, Titus sailed at once for Italy, arriving early in
71. Upon reaching Rome he surprised his father (who was not expecting
Judaea and Rome 375
him) saying ‘Here I am father, here I am!’ Together Titus and his father
celebrated the Judaean Triumph, with young Domitian at their side.”39
Titus was in love with the Jewish princess Julia Berenice, sister of
Agrippa II. They lived together in Rome for a while, but he soon sent her
away. She returned when he became emperor, but he rejected her again.
Apparently, Titus could not risk the wrath he would incur by marrying an
eastern princess; the memory of Cleopatra was still on the minds of Ro-
man senators.
Titus died at age 42, on September 13, 81 ce, from unknown causes.
His younger brother, Titus Flavius Domitianus, succeeded him.
Defining the Series

Judaea Capta coins were struck in gold, silver, and bronze of various de-
nominations. Bronze coins were also issued locally in Judaea, struck in
Caesarea, with the Greek legend ΙΟΥΔΑΙΑΣ ΕΑΛWΚΥΙΑΣ (sometimes
written ΕΑΛΩΚΥΙΑΣ).
The Roman Judaea Capta coins carry Latin legends such as IVDAEA
RECEPTA, IVDAEA CAPTA, IVDAEA DEVICTA, DE IVDAEVS,
and simply IVDAEA. A number of VICTORIA AVGVSTI types carry
images that belong to this series. Some of the coins have no legend at all;
the depicted scene tells the entire story.
The connection between a coin’s design and the Jewish War can be in
the images (types), the legend, or more tentatively the date of issue. Some-
times all three factors are involved. The Judaea Capta coinage seems to
have been a multilayered program intended to focus and influence public
opinion. The coins can be set into different categories.
• Coins that carry specific legends together with specific types.

• Coins that carry specific legends and types.
• Coins that depict specific types: emperor and captive(s); Vic-
tory and captive; Victory with palm tree, captives, palm tree,
trophy, or triumphal parade.
• Coins that have some similarities to the aforementioned types
and were struck in relevant years. This group includes the
bronze asses and dupondii with the generic legends VICTORIA
AVGVSTI and VICTORIA NAVALIS.
The Judaea Capta theme is featured on coins from the beginning

of Vespasian’s reign until 73 ce. But almost no Judaea Capta coins were
struck again until 77/78, when they may have commemorated the tenth
anniversary of the outbreak of the Jewish War. When Vespasian died and
Titus became emperor, the Roman mints once again produced a number
of Judaea Capta issues.
The Flavian coinage comprised an ongoing public relations campaign

designed to portray the new Flavian dynasty as formidable. Images on
the coins portray the physical dominance of Rome, the emperor, and the
legions as well as the humiliation of the defeated enemy.
In a 2013 auction,40 a Vespasian gold aureus with the unique reverse
legend IVDAEA RECEPTA was purchased by David and Jemima Je-
selsohn (It is now on display at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.) Gambash
and colleagues concluded that the coin is authentic. Based on legend, de-
sign, and portrait style, they believe it was issued prior to the standard
IVDAEA CAPTA victory series. The RECEPTA legend is “in direct con-
tradiction to a triumphal ceremony and the dedication of arches to Titus
for his victory over the Jews…” they write, and conclude that this coin “ex-
presses what must have been an earlier and short-lived policy, completely
opposed to the one eventually adopted, and for that reason immediately
discarded....” It may have been Titus “who impulsively rushed to declare,
that Judea was back under the yoke (Iudaea recepta), only to be called to
order by his father. In this case our coin is likely to have been minted
in Judea, either in Jerusalem or somewhat later in Caesarea Maritima.”41
Ariel believes that the importance of this coin “has not even begun to be
assimilated by historians.”42
Coins with victory legends such as VICTORIA AVGVSTI and
VICTORIA NAVALIS and generic victory motifs without captives, a
palm tree, or other specific reference to Judaea are secondary extensions
of the original campaign; leading their audience to a broader impression
of glory and victory than a single campaign. It is not clear that every
victory-themed Flavian coin was related to the Jewish War victory, and
we have omitted these coins from this catalog.43 On the other hand, there
are sufficient clues to indicate those coins that are surely linked to the
Judaea Capta series.
The single coin type listed here that does not carry the precise imagery
described above is the sestertius (nos. 6548, 6554, 6560, 6565, 6969), illus-
trating a scene described by Josephus, in which the mounted Titus battles
a fallen enemy on foot.44
One of the standard symbols used in conjunction with the Judaea
Capta motifs is the trophy, which requires some explanation to readers
familiar with modern trophies. The Roman trophy is also known as a field
trophy of arms as opposed to the marble trophies in the forms of structures
that were built as public monuments. The trophies depicted on coins were
generally created on the battlefield, where victorious soldiers decorate a
tree trunk or a spear thrust into the ground with arms of the vanquished
including the helmet, cuirass, crossed swords, and shield.
Judaea and Rome 377
Colosseum and Judaea

GBC 5 was the first reference to suggest that the legendary Flavian colos-
seum sestertii should be considered part of the Judaea Capta series. Late
in 2007, Arturo Russo of Numismatica Ars Classica showed me a colosse-
um sestertius he described as possibly depicting a palm tree with Vespasian
standing on its left and a captive to the right in a tableau of sculptures, and
directly below it was a victory quadriga facing front.45 These typical Judaea
Capta motifs are on the highest point of relief on the obverse of these coins,
and on the vast majority of specimens either one or both scenes are worn or
obscured because the coins were frequently weakly struck or worn.46
The colosseum coins of Titus (and those in his memory by Domitian)
are certainly an extension of the Judaea Capta series because:
• The iconography on the coins links directly to known Judaea

Capta types.
• The colosseum sestertii were struck in 80/81 ce, the tenth
anniversary of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish
Temple.
• Titus’s depiction, on the reverse(!), of the coin shows him
surrounded by military booty.
• The colosseum was financed by booty from the Jewish War,
as recognized at the time it was built and dedicated.
In 1995, Prof. Géza Alföldy of the University of Heidelberg published

a remarkable reading of a “ghost” inscription behind a later marble inscrip-
tion.47 The inscription was on a stone that had been discovered in second-
ary use in the Colosseum in 1913. The later inscription, quite easily legible,
refers to repairs to the building that took place around 444 ce. The scholars
who studied this stone noted a series of small holes that were drilled to
fasten metal letters to the marble for an earlier inscription (Fig. 10.11).
Alföldy reconstructs the earlier inscription as follows:
I[MP(ERATOR)] T(ITVS) CAES(AR) VESPASI[ANVS

AVG(VSTVS)] / AMPHITHEATRV[M NOVVM?] / [EX]
MANVB(I)S (vacat) [FIERI IVSSIT (?)]
The Emperor Titus Caesar Vespasian Augustus ordered the new am-
phitheater to be made from the (proceeds from the sale of the) booty.
Evidence also exists that the letter T for Titus was squeezed into the
inscription in antiquity. This addition is possible since Vespasian first dedi-
cated the Colosseum in 75 ce when only the first three stories had been
completed. The Colosseum was re-dedicated by Titus in 80/81 ce, when he
may have modified the original inscription to include reference to his name.
Louis Feldman points out that Alföldy’s reconstruction is hypothetical,

but has already been endorsed by other key scholars in the field. Feldman
notes that none of the ancient sources mentions how the Colosseum was
financed. Apparently, these inscriptions appeared in abbreviated form at the
minor doorways. If this follows a standard pattern in Roman buildings, there
may have been a larger and more complete version of the same inscription
at the main entrance.48
When Vespasian became emperor, Rome had just been through the
year of four emperors. Suetonius points out that Rome was literally bank-
rupt and Vespasian himself “declared at his accession that 40 billion gold
pieces were needed to put the country on its feet again.”49 This huge deficit
was the largest sum of money ever mentioned in antiquity, Feldman says.
He further suggests that Judaea was the only logical conquered area under
Vespasian that could have yielded substantial booty although Vespasian
had earlier commanded troops in Germany and Britain.50
Josephus describes the Temple as opulent, “covered on all sides with
massive plates of gold.” He says that the golden altar and golden menorah
alone weighed at least two talents and that huge amounts of treasures were
found in the Temple vaults. “The spoils in general were borne in promiscu-
ous heaps; but conspicuous above all stood out those captured in the Tem-
ple at Jerusalem,”51 Josephus writes. The Letter of Aristeas, as paraphrased
by Josephus, describes the Temple as extravagant and sumptuous beyond
any precedent, in which no expense had been spared. The lavishness of the
booty of Judaea was also depicted on the Arch of Titus.
It was probably in 75 ce that Vespasian dedicated the first three levels
of the Colosseum, but he died before it was completed. It is not even clear
if it was completely finished in time for its dedication by Titus in 80/81,
on the tenth anniversary of the destruction of Jerusalem. Elkins says that
many Roman buildings were shown on coins as completed before they ac-
tually were. “The reverse of Titus’s sestertii depicts the emperor as a trium-
phant ruler surrounded by the spoils of war, with which the construction
of the Colosseum was funded,” according to Elkins.52
Elkins also notes that the Colosseum sestertii are different from most
other Roman bronze coins because they are smaller than most sestertii of
the period and, more significantly, carry no imperial portrait on the ob-
verse.53 He adds that the image of the Colosseum on a coin represents the
first appearance of any entertainment venue on a Roman coin. A spec-
tacular aerial view allows us to see both the interior of the Amphitheater
as well as its facade. Inside is a clear representation of the imperial box.54
The Colosseum is flanked on the coins by the Meta Sudans (a fountain)
and the porticus of the Baths of Titus, which on some coins appear at the
left and right and on other coins at the right and left. While some have
suggested this perspective represents two different views of the building,
it is more likely artistic license, since the imperial box could not be seen
from both the south and the north but can be clearly seen on both variet-
ies. Elkins’s research suggests that the imperial box was on the northern
Judaea and Rome 379
side of the building, so our view of the entrance facade is probably from
the south.55
Elkins believes these sestertii were initially issued as largess “for distri-
bution by the emperor at games in the Colosseum.... If all Titus’s (Colos-
seum) sestertii were struck before July 80, they could have been distributed
during the inaugural games; if, as I have suggested, they were struck both
in 80 and 81 ce, they could have been distributed piecemeal throughout
the first couple years of the Colosseum’s use. Domitian’s small issue of Col-
osseum sestertii would have been distributed at the games held in honor of
his deceased and divine brother.” It is also possible, Elkins says, that Titus
might have ordered one Colosseum piece to be given “to every spectator at
the inaugural games.” 56
Perhaps the most convincing reason to link the Colosseum sestertii to
the Judaean issues is the construction of the building as portrayed on some
of the coins.57 The facade had four tiers of arches. The lowest tier has four
empty arches. The second tier has six arches all containing figures, large
sculptures, the center of which depicts a quadriga to front. The third tier
has seven arches and the center arch contains a palm tree flanked by two
figures, probably the emperor or Nike and a Jewish captive.
The Judaea tableau along with the victory quadriga are placed at the fo-
cal point of the Colosseum’s facade, convincingly identifying the building, as
well as the coin commemorating it, as a fixture in the Judaea Capta series.
Domitian’s Judaea Capta

It was long believed that the coins of Domitian struck at Caesarea Ma-
ritima were the last of the Judaea Capta series.58 In the 1960s, scholars
began to shift and in 1962, Weisbrem wrote, “No coin of Domitian bears
a legend referring to such a victory [over the Jews], such as occurs on the
coins of Vespasian and Titus. Domitian took no part in the war between
Rome and Judaea and furthermore, as Titus’ rival, tried to belittle his ac-
complishments. It is, therefore, most unlikely that Domitian would issue
coins in commemoration of Titus’ victory in Judaea.”59
Carradice codified this theory: “The coins issued by the Roman ad-
ministrators of the province of Judaea during the reign of Domitian used
to be classified a continuation of the early Flavian Judaea Capta series, but
now it is generally recognized that they are a separate series whose types
do not refer to the Flavian victories in Judaea.”60
The authors of Roman Provincial Coinage state that these coins of
Domitian “are now accepted as a separate series. They are strongly ‘Impe-
rial’ in character, with the emperor’s portrait, Latin inscriptions and some
designs clearly borrowed from the coinage of Rome.”
I do not accept the reinterpretation.61 It is true that Domitian, the sec-
ond son of Vespasian, did not play a part in the Jewish War. On the other
hand, we find no evidence that he made any effort to distance himself from
this major victory of his father and his brother—in fact, the Judaean vic-
tory was the founding legend of the Flavian dynasty.
The ancient sources say Domitian was envious and competitive with
his brother, Titus. Those who argue against the Domitian coins being part
of the Judaea Capta series suggest that he would never boast of a victory
that was mainly associated with his brother and father.
Historians, however, do not say that Domitian spurned association
with the family victory in Judaea. Josephus writes that in Titus’s triumphal
parade in Rome there appeared “a large group carrying images of Vic-
tory, all fashioned of ivory and gold. Behind them Vespasian drove first,
with Titus behind him, while Domitian rode alongside in magnificent ap-
parel and mounted on a horse that was itself a sight worth seeing.”62 Thus,
Domitian had no embarrassment being associated with this victory.
Suetonius reports that upon Vespasian’s death, Domitian claimed that
“his father’s will must have been tampered with, since it originally assigned
him a half-share in the Empire. He never once stopped plotting, secretly or
openly, against his brother. When Titus fell suddenly and dangerously ill,
Domitian told the attendants to presume his death by leaving the sickbed
before he had actually breathed his last; and afterwards granted him no
recognition at all, beyond approving his deification. In fact, he often slight-
ed Titus’s memory by the use of ambiguous terms in speeches and edicts”63
In spite of this (possibly true) tale, however, the Arch of Titus was
built in Rome during Domitian’s reign. This arch specifically commemo-
rated his brother’s victory in the Jewish War. The arch is a monument to
Flavian domination and victory in the Jewish War, thus a monument to
Domitian himself, the last reigning Flavian emperor.
Consider the coin struck in Domitian’s name by Agrippa II, great
friend of the Flavians. Qedar first explained this coin (no. 6310) struck by
Agrippa in year 15 of his era beginning in 54 ce or 69/70 ce. It is Agrippa
II’s own Judaea Capta coin commemorating the victory of his Flavian al-
lies over his Jewish nation.
Another series of Agrippa II’s coins began in the year 14 of his era of
60 ce, and was struck at Caesarea Maritima (see p. 250 for a full discussion
of the eras of Agrippa II). Among these year 14 coins are several types that
are repeated under Agrippa II. One of these coins deserves closer examina-
tion: the coin with Victory standing left and writing on a shield resting on
her knee (no. 6334). Similar coins were struck in at least eight additional
years by Agrippa II. The year 14 corresponds to 73/4 ce. Since Domitian
did not issue his first GERMANIA CAPTA coin until 85 ce there can be
no connection at all.64
The prototype for these coins of Agrippa II may have been the
VICTORIA AVGVSTI sestertius, first struck by Vitellius, and later
repeated by both Vespasian and Titus, from Rome and other Euro-
pean mints. Agrippa adopted the design without the date palm tree,
which had already become a symbol of ancient Judaea. Interestingly, all
Judaea and Rome 381
examples of this coin type struck under Agrippa II carry the obverse
portrait of Domitian. Furthermore, in the long series of coins struck by
Agrippa II, the coins with Domitian’s portrait are more common than
those coins with portraits of Vespasian or Titus.
An almost identical coin was struck under Domitian at the mint of
Pella and dated to 82/83 ce.65 Is this a coincidence? If so, how can we then
further explain another Domitian coin of Pella struck in 82/83, this one
depicting a date palm tree?66 Agrippa II struck a similar coin with Domi-
tian’s head and palm tree in year 25 (84/85 ce).
Meshorer cites Eusebius, who “relates that after the destruction of Je-
rusalem, some Jewish-Christian inhabitants fled to Pella, and perhaps it is
they who inspired the issue of coins commemorating Rome’s victory over
Jerusalem.” Thus while Meshorer rules out the Domitian coins of Caesarea
as commemorating Rome’s victory over Jerusalem; he inconsistently sug-
gests that Pella’s coins of Domitian commemorated this victory.67
With this background, we focus on the coins of Domitian struck at
Caesarea Maritima following the coins with portraits of Vespasian and
Titus. Carradice has created three groups based on obverse legends and
portrait styles. The first group (nos. 6477–6480) is dated to 81/82 ce and
contains the rarest examples, the foundation coin and emperor in mili-
tary dress, Victory with wreath, and rudder. These coins were struck before
Domitian’s Roman mint issued any coins related to Germany.
The second group (nos. 6481–6484) dated after 83 ce, displays the
Minerva and Victory series. Domitian claimed Minerva’s special protec-
tion, and her worship reached its highest popularity under him. Minerva
was very closely associated with Athena and Nike, the goddess who be-
stows victories.
The final group (nos. 6485-6487), dated to 92/93 ce, depicts the palm
tree, Nike/Victory, and trophy.
From the third group, the latest, smallest coin is patterned after a Ves-
pasian DE IVDAEA aureus (no. 6500). Certainly, the palm tree is also
connected to the earlier palm tree motifs of Pella and Agrippa, as well as
other palm tree coins linked to Judaea.
Why should Domitian play such a prominent role on various “Vic-
tory” type coins struck in ancient Israel, if it was not intended as a con-
tinuing message to the local populace? It seems logical that local officials,
perhaps even Agrippa II, were declaring the message to the populace that
what applied to the father and the first son held true for the second son.
While the local coinage follows Domitian’s Roman series and does not
specifically mention Judaea, how could Domitian’s interests be hurt by
the glorification that came from association with the victory in the Jewish
War? Domitian’s claim was closer than most—Vespasian and Titus were
his father and brother.
The Talmud contains a legal status called chazaka, essentially that the
status quo is always assumed unless compelling factors mitigate against
it.68 It would seem that, similarly, Domitian invoked the status quo, and
followed Vespasian and Titus by striking a series of coins depicting Victo-
ry-style reverses in mints very near the not-yet-forgotten battlegrounds of
the Jewish War. It must be assumed that the people of Judaea interpreted
these images as nothing less than a continuation of the Judaea Capta coin-
age.
Thus, the Judaea Capta motifs had not disappeared from the local
coinage with the death of the two victors. Some coins with the Victory
motif issued under Domitian—minted before his successes in Germany—
logically relate to the Roman victory in the Jewish War. Types previously
associated with the Jewish War were repeated on later coins of the same
emperor. These latter types were deliberately open to interpretation, but
their association with the Jewish War, both in the minds of the issuing
authorities and of the local population, appears more than likely.69
THE JUDAEA CAPTA COINS
Vespasian
6472. AE 20 mm.
Obv: AΥTOKP OΥ EΣΠAΣIANOΥ (of Emperor Vespasian), Vespasian
laureate head r.
Rev: ΙΟΥΔΑΙΑΣ ΕΑΛWKΥAΣ ( Judaea captured), Nike stands r. with l.
foot on helmet, she writes with r. hand on shield hanging from
palm tree.
R
6473
Titus
6473. AE 20 mm.
Obv: AΥTOKP TIT OΣ KAIΣAP (of Emperor Titus Caesar), Titus laure-
ate head r.
Rev: ΙΟΥΔΑΙΑΣ ΕΑΛWKΥAΣ, Nike stands r. with l. foot on helmet,
she writes AΥT T KAIC with r. hand on shield hanging from palm tree.
S
a. Head and standing figure in two rectangular countermarks

obv.
Judaea and Rome 383
6474 6476
6474. AE 20 mm.
Obv: AΥTOKP TIT OΣ KAIΣAP, Titus laureate head r.
Rev: ΙΟΥΔΑΙΑΣ ΕΑΛΩKΥAΣ, Nike stands r., writing on shield sup-
ported by her knee, palm tree at r.
S
6475. AE 20 mm.
Rev: IOΥΔAIAΣ EAΛΩKΥIAΣ, Nike stands r. with l. foot on helmet,
she writes with r. hand on shield on her knee (no palm tree!).
RRR
6476. AE 24–25 mm.

Rev: IOΥΔAIAΣ EAΛΩKΥIAΣ, (sometimes different forms of C, Σ
and Ω, W) trophy, Judaea sits mourning l. below l., her hands tied,
shield to r. of trophy.
S
a. Rectangular countermark with head to r. on obverse.
Domitian
Struck 81/82 ce
6477. AE 30 mm.
Obv: IMP DOMITIANVS CAESAR DIVI F AVG, Domitian laure-
ate head r.
Rev: DIVOS VESPASIANVS above and below, founder plows with ox
and cow to r.
RRR
6478. AE 24–26 mm.

ate head r.
Rev: DIVOS T AVG, Titus in military dress stands and faces front
holding spear in r. hand and parazonium in l.
RR
6479. AE 22–24 mm.

ate head r.
Rev: VICTORIA AVG, Nike in long gown advances l. holding wreath
in r. hand.
R
6480. AE 13–15 mm.

ate head r.
Rev: Rudder.
S
Struck 83 (?) ce
6481. AE 26–28 mm.

Obv: IMP DOMITIAN CAES AVG GERMANICVS, Domitian
laureate head r.
Rev: Minerva stands r. on galley with shield in l. hand and spear in r., on
l. is a trophy, on r. a palm branch.
S
6482
6482. AE 23 mm.
Obv: DOMITIANVS CAES AVG GERMANICVS, Domitian laure-
ate head l.
Rev: Minerva in flowing gown advances l. holding trophy in r. hand and
shield and spear in l.
C
6483. AE 16–18 mm.

Obv: IMP DOMITIANVS CAESAR GERMANICVS, Domitian
laureate head r.
Rev: Nike in flowing gown advances l., holding wreath in r. hand and
trophy in l.
C
6484. AE 13–15 mm.

Obv: IMP DOMITIANVS, Domitian laureate head l.
Rev: CAES AVG GERMANICVS, winged caduceus.
S
Judaea and Rome 385
Struck 92/93 ce
6485. AE 26–28 mm.

Obv: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM PM TR P XI, Domitian ra-
diate head r.
Rev: IMP XXI COS XVI CENS P P P, seven-branched palm tree with
S
a. Rectangular countermark with Tyche l. and oval countermark
with bust to r. on obverse.
6486. AE 23–24 mm.

Obv: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM TR P XII, Domitian laureate
head r.
Rev: IMP XXIII COS XVI CENS P P P, Victory in flowing gown
advances l., holding wreath in r. hand and small trophy in l.
R
a. Rectangular countermark with bust to r. on obverse.
6487
6487. AE 18–20 mm.
Obv: IMP DOMIT AVG GERM, Domitian laureate head r.
Rev: VICTOR AVG, trophy.
S
Vitellius, 69 ce
Mint of Rome
6488. AR (fourrée) denarius.

Obv: A VITELLIVS GERMAN IMP TR P, Vitellius laureate head r.
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, mourning Jewess sits to r. of trophy, facing r.
One known
6489. AE sestertius.
Obv: A VITELLIVS GERM IMP AVG PM TR P, Vitellius laureate
head r.
Rev: VICTORIA AVGVSTI, S C in fields, palm tree, mourning Jew-
ess sits on r. to r., behind tree, Victory stands with l. foot on helmet,
inscribing OB CIVES SER (or variant) on shield set on tree.
RR
a. S C in exergue.
6490. AE as.
Obv: A VITELLIVS GERM IMP AVG PM TR P, Vitellius laureate
head r.
Rev: Draped Victory steps l. and places shield on trophy, captive sits
beneath, upon globe, around VICTOR AVGVSTI, S C in ex-
ergue.
RR
Vespasian, 69–79 ce
Mint of Judaea (Jerusalem or Caesarea Maritima)
Undated, c. 21 December 69–early 70 ce
Gold aurei
6491. AU aureus.
Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG, Vespasian laureate head
r., drapery on l. shoulder.
Rev: IVDAEA RECEPTA, Jewess stands l. before palm tree in atti-
tude of mourning.
One known
Mint of Rome
6492. AU aureus.
Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG, Vespasian laureate head r.
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, mourning Jewess sits on r. to r. of trophy,
head resting on hand.
S
6493
6493. AU aureus.
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, on r. mourning Jewess sits on r. to r. of palm
tree, hands bound behind her back.
RR
Judaea and Rome 387
72–73 ce
6494
6494. AU aureus.
Obv: IMP CAES VESP AVG PM COS IIII, Vespasian laureate head r.
Rev: Palm tree, on l. Vespasian stands r. in military dress facing r., l. foot
on helmet, holding spear in r. hand and parazonium in l., on r.
mourning Jewess sits to r.
R
6495. AU aureus.
Rev: Vespasian stands in triumphal quadriga to r., holds branch in r.
hand and scepter in l.
R
Aureus and denarius are believed to be forgeries when IMP is in exergue.
6496. AU aureus.
Obv: T CAES IMP VESP PON TR POT, laureate head of Titus to r.
Rev: Palm tree, on l. Titus stands r. in military dress facing r., l. foot on
helmet, holding spear in r. hand and parazonium in l., on r. mourn-
ing Jewess sits to r.
R
6497. AU aureus.
Obv: T CAES IMP VESP PON TR POT, Titus laureate head r.
Rev: Titus stands in triumphal quadriga to r., holds branch in r. hand
and scepter in l.
R
79 ce
6498. AU aureus.
Rev: TR POT X COS VIIII, Victory draped, advancing l. erecting a
trophy, beneath it sits weeping Jewish captive to l.
RR
6499. AU aureus.
Obv: T CAESAR IMP VESPASIANVS, Titus laureate head r.
Rev: TR POT VIII COS VII, Jewish male captive kneels r., hands
bound behind, above is trophy made of helmet, cuirass, crossed
swords, and shield.
RRR
Mint of Lyon
Undated, c. 71 ce
6502
6500
6500. AU aureus.
Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG TR P, Vespasian laureate
head r.
Rev: DE IVDAEIS, trophy.
RRR
a. Fourrée silver denarius.
6501. AU aureus.
Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG TR P, Vespasian
laureate head r.
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, mourning Jewess, hands bound behind her
back, sits on r. to r. of palm tree.
RRR
6502. AU aureus.
head r.
Rev: IVDAEA DEVICTA, Jewess stands on l. of palm tree facing l.,
hands bound in front.
RRR
6503. AU aureus.
head r.
Rev: TRIVMP AVG, Emperor stands in triumphal quadriga with
horses pacing r., he holds palm branch and eagle-tipped scepter,
behind stands Victory crowning him accompanied by trumpeter,
in front of the horses is a soldier escorting a captive.
RR
Judaea and Rome 389
6504. AU aureus.
Obv: IMP CAES VESPAS AVG PM TR P IIII P P COS IIII,
Vespasian laureate head r.
Rev: DE IVDAEIS, trophy.
R
Mint of Spain (Tarraco?)

Undated, c. late 69–70 ce
6505. AU aureus.
Obv: IMP•CAESAR•VESPASIANVS•AVG, Vespasian laureate head
r. (dots not always present).
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, mourning Jewess sits on r. to r. of trophy.
RR
Mint in Judaea70
After 70 ce
6506. AU aureus.
Obv: IMP T CAESAR VESPASIANVS (outward), Titus laureate bust
with aegis r.
Rev: IVDAEA DEVICTA (outward from top l.), Victory stands r., l.
foot on helmet, inscribes IMP T CAES on shield hanging on
palm tree.
RR
a. IVDAEA DEVICTA (outward from low r.), inscribes VICT
AVG on shield.
6507. AU aureus.
Obv: IMP T CAESAR VESPASIANVS (outward), Titus laureate bust
with aegis to r.
Rev: [PAX] AVGVST (outward), mourning Jewess sits r. on r., Tyche
stands behind, to r. wearing short chiton with spear and parazo-
nium, l. foot on shoulder of Jewess.
One known
Mint of Antioch
72–73 ce
6508. AU aureus.
Obv: IMP VESPAS AVG PM TR PPP COS IIII, Vespasian laureate
bust l.
Rev: Vespasian, nude, stands front, head l., holds spear in hand and
raises female kneeling r.
RR
Mint of Rome
Silver denarii
6509. AR denarius.
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, mourning Jewess sits on r. to r. of trophy, head
resting on hand.
C
a. Vespasian head l., fourrée.
6510. AR denarius.
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, on r. mourning Jewess sits of palm tree, to r.,
hands bound behind her back.
R
71 ce
6511. AR denarius.
Obv: IMP CAES VESP AVG P M, Vespasian laureate head r.
RR
72–73 ce
6512. AR denarius.
RR
Judaea and Rome 391
6513. AR denarius.
and scepter in l.
RR
a. Obverse legend T CAES IMP VESP PON TR POT CENS.
74 ce
6514. AR denarius.
Obv: IMP CAESAR in exergue, Titus stands in triumphal quadriga to
r., holds branch in r. hand and scepter in l.
Rev: IMP VESP across fields, Victory stands r. on prow holding branch
and wreath.
R
a. T CAESAR in exergue on obverse.
This coin copies a denarius struck by Octavian at the time of the Battle of Actium (BM-
CRE 4343, RSC 115); however, it appears that Vespasian’s mint selected this design
because of its similarities to earlier issues commemorating the victory in Judaea. It may
have been struck only a few months after the holdouts at Masada were defeated by Titus.
79 ce
6515. AR denarius.
Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG (outward), Vespasian lau-
reate head r.
Rev: TR POT X COS VIIII, draped Victory advancing l. erecting a
trophy, beneath it sits weeping Jewish captive l.
RRR
a. Laureate head of Vespasian l.
6516. AR denarius.
Obv: T CAESAR IMP VESPASIANVS (outward), Titus laureate head r.
Rev: TR POT VIII COS VII, male Jewish captive kneels r., hands
bound behind, trophy above.
S
Mint of Lyon
Undated, c. 71 ce
6517. AR denarius.
head r.
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, on r. mourning Jewess sits of palm tree, to r.,
her hands bound behind her back.
RR
6518. AR denarius.
head r.
Rev: IVDAEA DEVICTA, palm tree, on l. Jewess stands facing l.
R

Undated, c. late 69–70 ce
6519. AR denarius.
Obv: IMP•CAESAR•VESPASIANVS•AVG, Vespasian laureate head r.
(dots not always present).
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, mourning Jewess sits on r. to r. of trophy.
RRR
Mint of Antioch
72–73 ce
6520. AR denarius.
Obv: IMP CAES VESP AVG COS IIII, Vespasian laureate head r.
Rev: Palm tree, on l. Vespasian stands r. in military dress facing r., l. foot
on helmet, holding spear in r. hand and parazonium in l., on r.
mourning Jewess sits to r.
S
6521. AR denarius.
S
Judaea and Rome 393
6522. AR denarius.
S
6523. AR denarius.
and scepter in l.
S
Mint of Rome
Sestertii
70 ce
Obv: IMP CAES AVG VESPAS COS II TR POT, Vespasian laureate,
draped bust r., globe below.
Rev: S C in fields, palm tree, Victory on l. stands r. and inscribes shield
on tree VIC AVG, mourning Jewess sits on r. to r.
RR
Obv: IMP CAES AVG VESPAS COS II TR POT, Vespasian laureate
head r.
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in fields, palm tree, male captive on
l., stands l. looking back, mourning Jewess sits on r. to r. on cuirass,
arms around both figures.
RRR
Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG P M TR P, Vespasian lau-
reate head r.
Rev: VICTORIA AVGVSTI, S C in fields, palm tree, Victory on l.
stands r., l. foot on helmet, and inscribes shield on tree OB CIV
SERV (or variation).
RRR
a. Laureate head to l.
6527
Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG P M T P P P COS III,
Rev: DEVICTA IVDAEA, S C in fields, palm tree, Victory on l.,
stands r. and inscribes SPQR on shield on tree, on r. mourning
Jewess sits on r. to r.
RRR
a. Laureate bust to r. with drapery on l. shoulder.
b. Rev. S C in exergue.
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, male captive on l.,
stands r., mourning Jewess sits on r. to r. on cuirass, arms around
both figures.
RR
Rev: VICTORIA AVGVSTI, S C in fields, palm tree, Victory on l.
stands r., l. foot on helmet, and inscribes shield on tree OB CIV
SERV (or variation).
R
a. Laureate, draped bust of Vespasian to r.
b. Obv. legend starts high r.
c. As no. 6529a, but laureate, draped bust of Vespasian to r.
Judaea and Rome 395
71 ce
6530
Obv: IMP CAE[S] VESPASIAN AVG PM TR P P P COS III,
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, male captive
on l., stands facing r., on r. mourning Jewess sits to r. on cui-
rass, arms around both figures.
S
a. Vespasian laureate head l.
b. IVDEA CAPTA S C is reverse legend.
c. CAPTA IVDAEA S C is reverse legend.
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, male captive
on l., looking back, on r. mourning Jewess sits to r. on cuirass,
RR
a. S C in fields.
6532
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, mourning Jewess sits
mourning Jewess sits on l. to l. on cuirass, male captive stands on r.
facing l., arms around both figures.
R
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, mourning Jewess
sits on l., to l. on cuirass, male captive on r. faces r., looking back,
RR
sits (sometimes on cuirass) r. on r., to l. of palm Vespasian stands r.
in military dress with spear and parazonium, l. foot on helmet.
C
a. IVDEA CAPTA S C.
b. Laureate head of Vespasian to l.
c. One obv. die of this type reads COS II, probably an engraver’s
error.
Rev: VICTORIA AVG, S C in fields, Victory stands to l. of palm tree
facing r., l. foot on helmet, inscribing OB CIV SER (or variant) on
shield on tree.
RR
a. Laureate head of Vespasian l.
Vespasian laureate head l.
Rev: VICTORIA AVG, S C in fields, palm tree, Victory on l. stands r.,
foot on helmet, inscribing OB CIV SER (or variant) on shield set
on tree.
RRR
Judaea and Rome 397
Rev: VICTORIA AVGVSTI, S C in exergue, Victory stands to l. of
palm tree facing r., l. foot on helmet, inscribing OB CIV SER (or
variant) on shield.
RR
a. S C in fields.
c. AVGVSTI VICTORIA S C.
d. AVGVSTI VICTORIA S C and laureate head of Vespasian l.
Rev: VICTORIA AVGVSTI, S C in exergue, palm tree, mourning
Jewess sits on r. to r., Victory stands on l. to r., with l. foot on hel-
met, inscribing OB CIV SER (or variant) on shield set on tree.

C
a. Vespasian laureate head r. drapery on l. shoulder.
b. Vespasian laureate head l.
c. S C in fields.
d. Mourning Jewess sits to l. of palm facing toward Victory, S C in
exergue.
e. As d, Vespasian laureate head l.
Obv: IMP CAES VESPAS AVG P M TR P P P COS III, Vespasian
laureate head r.
stands facing r., mourning Jewess sits on r. to r. on cuirass, arms
around both figures.
C
a. Helmet hangs from spear behind male captive.
Obv: IMP CAES VESPAS AVG P M TR P P P COS III, Vespasian
laureate head r.
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, male captive on l.
looking back, mourning Jewess sits on r. to r. on cuirass.
RR
Obv: IMP CAES VESPAS AVG P M TR P P P COS III, Ves-
pasian laureate head r.
sits to r., on r., to l. of palm Vespasian stands r. in military dress
with spear and parazonium, l. foot on helmet.
RR
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, male captive on r.
stands l., hands tied, to l. of palm Vespasian stands r. in military
dress with spear and parazonium, l. foot on helmet.
RR
6543
Rev: S C in exergue, Vespasian stands l., r. foot on prow, holding Vic-
tory and vertical spear, before him Jew kneels r., holding out hands
and Jewess advances r. with extended r. arm holding branch,
palm tree on far l.
RR
palm tree facing r., l. foot on helmet, inscribing OB CIV SER (or
variant) on shield.
RR
Judaea and Rome 399
Rev: VICTORIA AVGVSTI, S C in exergue, palm tree, mourning
Jewess sits on r. to r., behind tree Victory stands with l. foot on
helmet, inscribing OB CIV SER (or variant) on shield set on
tree.
RR
72–73 ce
Obv: IMP CAES VESPAS AVG P M TR P P P COS IIII, Ves-
around.
RRR
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, male captive on r.
stands l., hands tied, to l. of palm Vespasian stands r. in military
RRR
Rev: S C in exergue, Titus in military dress, cloak flies behind him, his
horse rearing as he attacks prostrate Jew, who lies l., armed with
sword and shield.
R
See note at no. 6554.
Rev: S C in exergue, Vespasian stands l., r. foot on prow, holding Vic-
tory and vertical spear, before him Jew kneels r., holding out
hands and Jewess advances r. with extended r. arm holding
branch, palm tree on far l.
RR
Rev: S C in exergue, Vespasian stands in triumphal quadriga to r., holds
branch in r. hand and scepter in l., on side of cart is Victory to r.
holding wreath.
RR
Rev: VICTORIA AVGVSTI, S C in fields, Victory stands to l. of palm
tree facing r., l. foot on helmet, inscribing VIC AVG on shield.
RR
Obv: T CAES VESPAS IMP PON TR POT COS II, Titus lau-
reate head r.
Rev: VICTORIA AVGVSTI, S C in fields, Victory stands to l. of
palm tree facing r., l. foot on helmet, inscribing VIC AVG on
shield.
S
6553
Obv: T CAES VESPASIAN IMP PON TR POT COS II, Titus
laureate head r.
sits on r. to r., to l. of palm Vespasian stands r. in military dress with
spear and parazonium, l. foot on helmet.
R
Obv: T CAES VESPASIAN IMP PON TR POT COS II, lau-
reate head of Titus to r.
sword and shield.
R
a. S C in fields.
Judaea and Rome 401
It seems probable (although Mattingly describes the horse as “prancing,” no equestrian

would describe this pose as anything other than “rearing”) that the reverse motif on this
coin, as well as nos. 6548, 6560, 6565, and 6569, refers to the following passage in
Josephus ( JW V: 2). Certainly Titus would have wanted to perpetuate this tale:
“So long as he rode straight along the high road leading direct to the wall, no one
appeared outside the gates, but when he diverged from the route and led his troop of
horse in an oblique line towards the tower Psephinus, the Jews suddenly dashed out in
immense numbers at a spot called ‘the Women’s towers,’ through the gate facing Helena’s
monuments, broke through the cavalry, and placing themselves in front of those who
were still galloping along the road, prevented them from joining their comrades who
had left it, thus cutting off Titus with a handful of men. For him to proceed was impos-
sible, because the ground outside the ramparts was all cut up by trenches for gardening
purposes and intersected by cross walls and numerous fences, while to rejoin his own men
was, he saw, impractical owing to the intervening masses of the enemy and the retire-
ment of his comrades on the highway, most of whom, unaware of the prince’s peril and
believing that he too had turned simultaneously, were in full retreat. Perceiving that
his safety depended solely on his personal prowess, he turned his horse’s head and shout-
ing to his companions to follow dashed into the enemy’s midst, struggling to cut his way
through to his own party. Then, more than ever, might the reflection arise that the haz-
ards of war and the perils of princes are under God’s care, for, of all that hail of arrows
discharged at Titus, who wore neither helmet nor cuirass—for he had gone forward, as I
said not to fight, but to reconnoiter—not one touched his person, but, as if his assailants
purposely missed their mark, all whizzed harmless by. He, meanwhile, with his sword
constantly dispersing those on his flank and prostrating multitudes who withstood him
to the face, rode his horse over the fallen foes. At Caesar’s intrepidity the Jews shouted
and cheered each other on against him, but wherever he turned his horse there was flight
and a general stampede. His comrades in danger closed up to him, riddled in rear and
flank, for each man’s one hope of escape lay in pushing through with Titus before he was
cut off. Two, in fact, further behind, thus fell: one with his horse and was surrounded
and speared, the other who dismounted was killed and his steed led off to the city, with
the remainder Titus safely reached the camp. The Jews thus successful in their first onset
were elated with inconsiderate hopes, and this transient turn of fortune afforded them
high confidence as to the future.”
laureate head r.
Rev: S C in exergue, Titus stands in triumphal quadriga to r., holds
holding wreath.
R
laureate head r.
Rev: VICTORIA AVGVSTI, S C in fields, Victory stands to l. of palm
tree facing r., l. foot on helmet, inscribing VIC AVG on shield.
R
Obv: T CAESAR VESPASIAN IMP PON TR POT COS II,
Titus laureate head r.
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, mourning Jew
stands on r., facing l., on l. of palm Vespasian stands r. in military
RR
holding wreath.
RR
shield.
RR
a. S C in fields.
Obv: T CAESAR VESPASIAN IMP III PON TR POT II COS II,
sword and shield.
RR
Judaea and Rome 403
holding wreath.
RR

a. Titus laureate bust wearing cuirass and aegis to r., on side of cart is
figure of Titus, standing, putting hand on head of Jewish captive
who kneels toward him.
shield.
RRR
Titus laureate bust wearing cuirass and aegis to r.
Rev: S C in exergue, Titus stands l. r. foot on prow, holding Victory on
globe and vertical spear, before him Jew kneels r., holding out
hands and Jewess advances r. with extended r. arm holding
RR
Obv: T CAESAR VESPASIAN IMP IIII PON TR POT II COS II,
sits on r. to r., to l. of palm Titus stands r. in military dress with
RR
sword and shield.
RR
holding wreath.
RR
Titus laureate, draped head r.
Rev: S C in exergue, Vespasian stands l. r. foot on prow, holding Victory
on globe and vertical spear, before him Jew kneels r., holding
out hands and Jewess advances r. with extended r. arm holding
RR
Obv: T CAESAR VESPASIAN IMP IIII PON TR POT III COS II,
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, mourning Jew
stands on r., facing l., on l. of palm Titus stands r. in military dress
RR
sword and shield.
RR
palm tree facing r., l. foot on helmet, inscribing shield on tree.
RR
a. VICTORIA AVGVSTA.
Judaea and Rome 405
Obv: IMP CAES VESP AVG P M T P P P COS IIII CENS,
Vespasian head r.
holding wreath.
RR
Obv: T CAES VESP IMP PON TR POT COS II CENS, Titus laure-
ate head r.
holding wreath.
RR
Mint of Lyon
Sestertii
71 ce
Obv: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG PM TR P P P COS III, Vesp-
sian head r., globe below r., sometimes missing.
R
a. Vespasian laureate head l.
72 ce
Obv: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M TR P P P COS IIII,
Vespasian head r., globe below r. sometimes missing.
R
77–78 ce
Obv: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG PM TR P P P COS VIII,
Vespasian head r., globe below r., sometimes missing.
RR
Obv: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG PM TR P P P COS VIII,
Vespasian laureate head r., globe below r., sometimes missing.
stands facing r., on r. mourning Jewess sits to r. on cuirass, arms
around.
RRR
a. Male captive on l. stands facing l.
Obv: T CAES IMP AVG F PON TR P COS VI CENSOR, Titus
laureate head r., globe below r., sometimes missing.
stands facing, mourning Jewess sits on r. to r. on cuirass, arms
R
Obv: T CAES IMP AVG F PON TR P COS VI CENSOR, Titus
laureate head r., globe below r., sometimes missing.
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, male captive on
l., looking back, mourning Jewess sits on r. to r., cuirass, arms
R
Mint of Rome
Dupondii and ases
71 ce
6579. AE dupondius.
reate head r., with globe.
Rev: IVD CAPT in exergue, S C in fields, mourning Jewess, hands
bound behind back, sits r. on r. of palm tree.
RR
Judaea and Rome 407
6580. AE dupondius or as.

reate bust with aegis to r.
Rev: VICTORIA AVG, S C in exergue, draped Victory strides l. places
shield with both hands on trophy l., at foot of trophy is mourning
Jewess seated l.
RRR
6581. AE as.
Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG COS III, Vespasian lau-
reate head l.
seated on r. to r. on cuirass, surrounded by arms.
RRR
6582. AE dupondius.
Obv: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG COS III, Vespasian radiate head r.
seated on r. to r. on cuirass, surrounded by arms.
RR
6583. AE dupondius.
Obv: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG COS III, Vespasian radiate head r.
Rev: VICTORIA AVG, S C in fields, draped Victory strides l. places
shield with both hands on trophy l., at foot of trophy is mourning
Jewess seated l.
RR
6584a
6584. AE as.
Obv: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG COS III, Vespasian laureate head r.
seated on r. to r. on cuirass, head on her hand, two shields on r.
R
a. IVDEA CAPTA S C.
c. IVDEA CAPTA, S C in fields, Jewess seated on l. to l.
6585. AE as.
Rev: IVDEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, trophy, mourning Jewess sits on
cuirass on r. to r., on cuirass, hands bound behind back, surrounded
by arms.
R
6586. AE as.
Rev: VICTORIA AVG, S C in exergue, draped Victory strides l. places
shield with both hands on trophy, at foot of trophy is mourning
Jewess seated l.
RR
a. Laureate head of Vespasian to l.
b. VICTOR AVGVSTI S C.
6587. AE as.
Rev: VICTORIA AVG, S C in exergue, draped Victory stands r. placing
shield with both hands on trophy, at foot of trophy is mourning
Jewess seated r.
RR
72 ce
6588. AE as.
Obv: T CAES VESPASIAN IMP PON TR POT COS II, Vespasian
laureate head r.
seated on r. to r. on cuirass.
R
6589. AE as.
Obv: CAESAR AVG F DOMITIANVS COS DES II, Domitian lau-
reate head r.
branch in r. hand and scepter in l.
RR
a. CAESAR AVG F DOMITIANVS COS II is obv. legend.
Judaea and Rome 409
73 ce
6590. AE as.
Obv: IMP CAES VESP AVG PM T P COS IIII CENS, Vespasian
laureate head r.
branch in r. hand and scepter in l.
R
6591. AE as.
ate head r.
seated on r. to r. on cuirass.
RRR
6592. AE as.
ate head r.
Rev: S C in exergue, Vespasian stands in triumphal quadriga to r.
R
Mint of Lyon
77–78 ce
6593. AE as.
Obv: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG COS VIII PP, Vespasian laure-
ate head r.
seated on r. to r., arms around on l. of tree.
S
6594
6594. AE as.
Obv: T CAES IMP AVG F TR P COS VI CENSOR, Titus laureate
head r.
seated on r. to r., arms to l. of tree.
S
a. Arms to l. of tree and r. of Jewess.

70 ce
6595. AE as.
Obv: IMP•CAESAR•VESPASIANVS•AVG, Vespasian laureate head r.
(sometimes without dots in legend).
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, S C in fields, mourning Jewess sits on r. to r.
of trophy.
RR
Mint of Rome
Small Bronze Denominations
71 ce
6596. AE quadrans.
Obv: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG, palm tree.
Rev: PON M TR P P P COS III, S C in fields, vexillum.
R
a. IMP VESPASIAN AVG.
6597. AE quadrans.
Obv: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG, palm tree.
Rev: PON M TR P P P COS III, S C in fields, priestly implements.
R
a. IMP VESPASIAN AVG.
6598. AE quadrans.
Obv: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG, trophy.
Rev: PON M TR P P P COS III, S C in fields, vexillum.
R
6599. AE quadrans.
Obv: IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG, trophy.
Rev: PON M TR P P P COS III, S C in fields, crossed spears with
shield.
R
6600. AE quadrans.
Obv: IMP VESPASIAN AVG, palm tree.
Rev: P M TR P P P COS III, S C in fields, caduceus.
RRR
Judaea and Rome 411
6601. AE quadrans.
Rev: P M TR P P P COS III, S C in fields, vexillum.
R
a. IMP CAES VES AVG.
6602. AE quadrans.
Obv: IMP VESPASIAN AVG, trophy.
Rev: P M TR P P P COS III, S C in fields, vexillum.
R
72–73 ce
6603. AE quadrans.
Rev: P M TR P P P COS IIII, S C in fields, vexillum.
R
a. P M T P P P COS IIII.
6604. AE quadrans.
Obv: IMP VESPASIAN AVG, trophy.
Rev: P M TR P P P COS IIII, S C in fields, vexillum.
RR
Mint of Asia Minor (Ephesus?)

Non-standard Roman denominations
77–78 ce
6605. AE medium denomination, 24–25 mm.

Obv: T CAESAR IMPER PONT, Titus laureate head r.
Rev: TR POT COS VI CENSOR, S C in exergue, Titus (or the Genius
of the Roman people) wearing toga (possibly naked to waist),
stands front holding scepter, his r. hand upon trophy at l., Jewish
captive, hands bound, sits l. below, looking back.
RRR
6606. AE small denomination, 18–20 mm.

Obv: T CAESAR IMPEP (sic) PONT, Titus laureate head r.
Rev: S C in fields, palm tree, mourning Jewess seated on r. to r. on cui-
rass, arms to l.
RR
a. T CAESAR IMP PONT.
Provincial mint: Koinon of Bithynia

6607.AE as, 25–27 mm. M. Maecius Rufus, proconsul of Bithynia under
Vespasian.
Obv: AYTOKPA TITOΣ KAIΣAP ΣEBAΣ YIOΣ (Emperor Titus Caesar,
son of Augustus), Titus laureate head r.
Rev: EΠI M MAIKIOY POYΦOY ANΘYΠATOY (in the proconsulship
of M. Maecus Rufus), palm tree, on l. cuirass, two spears, and hel-
met, on r. two spears and shield.
RR
This provincial Roman coin as well as no. 6608, attributed to the Koinon of Bithynia,
are clearly related to the Jewish War. RPC notes that this coin has “a significance beyond
Bithynia: the palm tree with obverse of Titus is a clear allusion to Titus’ participation
in the defeat of Judaea....”71
6608. AE as, 25–27 mm. M. Salvidenus Asprenas, proconsul of Bithynia

under Vespasian.
Obv: AYTOKPA TITOΣ KAIΣAP ΣEBAΣ YIOΣ (Emperor Titus Cae-
sar, son of Augustus), Titus laureate head r.
Rev: EΠI M ΣAΛOYIΔHNOY AΣΠPHNA ANΘYΠATOY (in the pro-
consulship of M. Saluidenus Asprenas), palm tree, on l. cuirass, two
spears, and helmet, on r. two spears and shield.
RR
a. Obverse countermark MHTB.
Titus, 79–81 ce
Mint of Rome
Gold aurei
79 ce
6609. AU aureus.
Obv: IMP TITVS CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M (outward), Titus
laureate head r.
Rev: TR P VIIII IMP XIIII COS VII, male Jewish captive kneels r.,
hands bound behind, trophy above.
RRR
a. TR P VIIII IMP XIIII COS VII P P.
b. TR P VIIII IMP XV COS VII P P.
Judaea and Rome 413
80 ce
6610. AU aureus.
Obv: IMP TITVS CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M, Titus laureate head r.
Rev: TR P IX IMP XV COS VIII P P, trophy flanked by seated cap-
tives, hands tied behind backs, female on l., male on r.
RR
a. Laureate head of Titus to l.
80–81 ce, Vespasian deified
6611. AU aureus.
Obv: DIVVS AVGVSTVS VESPASIANVS (outward), Vespasian lau-
reate head r.
Rev: EX S C in exergue, quadriga l., with temple upon or behind cart,
flanked by two wreath-bearing Victories.
RR
6612. AU aureus.
reate head r.
Rev: EX S C across fields, draped Victory strides l. with both hands
placing shield on a trophy, mourning Jewess sits l. below.
RR
Mint of Rome
Silver denarii
79 ce
6613. AR denarius.
Obv: IMP T CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG, Titus laureate head r.
Rev: TR POT VIII COS VII, male Jewish captive kneels r., hands
bound behind, trophy above.
R
6614. AR denarius.
laureate head r.
Rev: TR P VIIII IMP XIIII COS VII P P, male Jewish captive kneels
r., hands bound behind, trophy above.
R
a. Titus laureate head l.
b. TR P VIIII IMP XV COS VII P P.
c. As no. 6614b, but laureate head of Titus l.
d. TR P VIIII IMP XV COS VII.
6615. AR denarius.
Rev: TR P IX IMP XV COS VIII P P, trophy flanked by seated cap-
tives, male’s hands bound behind back, female on l., male on r.
S
b. Similar but male on l., female on r.
c. As no. 6615b, but laureate head of Titus l.
6616. AR denarius.
reate head r.
Rev: EX S C in exergue, quadriga l., with temple upon or behind cart,
flanked by two wreath-bearing Victories.
S
a. DIVVS VESPASIANVS AVGVSTVS, quadriga to r.
6617. AR denarius.
Obv: DIVVS AVGVSTVS VESPASIANVS (outward), Vespasian
laureate head r.
S
6618. AR denarius.
laureate head l.
RRR
Eastern Mint (Thrace?)

Sestertii
79 ce
Obv: IMP T CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M TR P P P COS VII (out-
ward), Titus laureate head r.
stands facing r., mourning Jewess sits on r. to r. on arms.
RRR
Judaea and Rome 415
80 ce
Obv: IMP T CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M TR P P P COS VIII
(outward), Titus laureate head r.
RR
a. Rev. IVD CAP SC across fields, palm tree on l. mourning Jewess
sits to l. on pile of arms, on r. of tree mourning Jew with hands
bound stands r. looks back over shoulder, arms on ground.
Obv: IMP T CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M TR P P P COS VIII
(outward), Titus laureate head r.
holding wreath.
RRR
6622a
Mint of Rome
80–81 ce
Obv: IMP T CAES VESP AVG P M TR P P P COS VIII, Titus laure-
ate head r.
Rev: IVD CAP across fields, S C in exergue, palm tree, mourning Jew-
ess sits on r. to r. on pile of arms, on l. of tree mourning Jew with
hands bound stands l., arms on ground.
RR
b. S C in fields.
c. Laureate head of Titus to l., S C in fields.
d. IVDAEA CAPTA around, S C in exergue.
ate head l.
Rev: IVD CAP across fields, S C in exergue, palm tree, on l. mourning
Jewess sits to l. on pile of arms, on r. of tree mourning Jew with
hands bound stands r. looks back over shoulder, arms on ground.
S
a. Jewess sits upon a shield, tree trunk is wider, different style.
ate head r.
Rev: IVD CAP across fields, S C in exergue, palm tree, on l. mourning
hands bound stands r., arms on ground.
RR
b. S C in fields.
c. Titus laureate head l., S C in fields.
d. CAES DIVI AVG VESP F DOMITIAN COS..., Domitian lau-
reate head r., apparently a mule.
Obv: Flavian amphitheater (Colosseum) seen from three-quarter aerial
view showing both facade as well as inside of building, the Meta
Sudans on l. and building with portico on r. The facade of the
building shows four tiers, the lowest tier with five empty arches,
the second tier with six arches, each arch contains a statue and
in the central arch is a facing Victory quadriga, the third tier
with seven arches containing statues and in the central arch is
a palm tree flanked by a standing emperor (or Victory) on l. and
a Jew or Jewess on r., the fourth tier has seven compartments filled
with globes and squares. The interior shows rows of seats and box-
es, and, notably the royal box in the center of the crowd.
Rev: IMP T CAES VESP AVG P M TR P P P COS VIII, S C in ex-
ergue, Titus seated left on curule chair holding branch and scroll,
arms (and booty?) scattered.
RR
a. Meta Sudans on r. and building with portico on l.
b. As no. 6625a but S C in obverse fields.
Not all obverse dies depict identical statues in building facade.

Judaea and Rome 417
Obv: DIVVS AVGVSTVS VESPASIAN PATER PAT (outward),
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, male captive on
l., stands facing r., on r. mourning Jewess sits to r. on cuirass, head
in hand, arms surround both figures.
RRR

80–81 ce
Obv: IMP T CAES DIVI VESP F AVG P M TR P P P COS VIII,
Rev: IVD CAP across fields, S C in fields, palm tree, on l. mourning
hands bound stands r., arms on ground.
RR
a. Mourning Jew stands on r. of tree, looks back over shoulder.
b. IVDAEA CAPTA around, S C in exergue, mourning Jew
stands l. on l. looking back, Jewess sits r. on r., arms on
ground.
Obv: IMP T CAES DIVI VESP F AVG P M TR P P P COS VIII,
Rev: IVDAEA CAPTA, S C in exergue, palm tree, on r. mourning Jew-
ess sits to r. on cuirass, to l. of palm Titus stands r. in military dress
RR

AE semis
6629. AE semis.
6629a
Obv: IMP T CAESAR DIVI VESPAS F AVG, Titus laureate head r.
Rev: IVD CAP and S C across fields, palm tree, mourning Jewess sits
on l. to l., yoke to r. of tree.
R
a. IMP T CAESAR DIVI VESPASI AVG.
Domitian, 81–96 ce
81–82 after death of Titus
Mint of Rome
Obv: Flavian amphitheater (Colosseum) seen from three-quarter aerial
view showing both facade as well as inside of building, the Meta
Sudans on l. and building with portico on r. The facade of the
building shows four tiers, the lowest tier with five empty arches,
the second tier with six arches, each arch contains a statue and in
the central arch is a facing Victory quadriga, the third tier with
seven arches containing statues and in the central arch is a palm
tree flanked by a standing emperor (or Victory) on l. and a Jew or
Jewess on r., the fourth tier has seven compartments filled with
globes and squares. The interior shows rows of seats and boxes,
and, notably the royal box in the center of the crowd.
Rev: DIVO AVG T DIVI VESP F VESPASIAN, S C in exergue,
Titus seated l. on curule chair holding branch and scroll, arms
(and booty?) scattered.
RR
Not all obverse dies depict identical statues in building facade.
Unknown Mint
6631. AR (fourrée) denarius.

Obv: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM PM TR P XIII, Domitian
laureate head r.
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, mourning Jewess sits of trophy on r. to r.
One known
Restored Coins of Trajan

“Restored” coins are re-issues of previous coins whose designs were no lon-
ger in use, together with the name and titles of the emperor and the word
RESTITVIT (or REST). Some commemorative types were first issued
under the Flavians, but the most significant series was struck under Trajan.
In 107 ce, Trajan recalled large numbers of worn coins. “The withdrawal of
masses of familiar money from circulation suggested that some permanent
memorial of the old coin should be associated with the mint of Trajan.”
Thus, “Roman history, from its earliest times, is envisaged as a harmonious
whole,” according to Mattingly.72
This strategy was a clever way for Trajan to connect his own reign
with the glorious monuments and victories of his predecessors. In this way,
Judaea and Rome 419
Trajan may have been the first emperor to recognize coins, a product of the
Sacra Moneta, as a way of recalling history.
Vespasian Restored
6632. AU aureus.
Rev: IMP CAES TRAIAN AVG GER DAC P P REST, male Jewish
captive kneels l., hands bound behind, trophy above.
RRR
a. Captive kneels r.
Titus Restored
6633. AU aureus.
Rev: IMP CAES TRAIAN AVG GER DAC P P REST, trophy.
RRR
Nerva’s Fiscus Judaicus, 96–98 ce

Domitian, cruel and vindictive, continued to collect the Jewish Tax his
father had imposed upon all Jews in the Roman Empire. The tax was two
drachms, equivalent to half a sheqel. Vespasian had reasoned that after his
army destroyed the Jerusalem Temple, the Jews could enrich his coffers
instead of supporting their own Temple, as prescribed in Exodus 30:13.
In addition to the war booty that supported various building projects, now
the annual payments could be put toward repair of the recently fire-rav-
aged temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.
Domitian ordered his tax collectors to work with a vengeance never
imagined by his father and brother. Two categories of Jews were targeted:
“those who without publicly acknowledging that faith yet lived a Jewish
life” and “those who concealed their origin and did not pay the tribute
levied upon their people.”73 In pursuing their targets, the collectors often
employed insult and abuse (calumnia). To collect the tax from a Jew, they
first had to determine whether the man was indeed a Jew. The fastest way
of doing this was to see if he had been circumcised. Thus, the tax collec-
tors frequently demanded humiliating exposure of the genitals, usually in
public places or official meetings, but also at family gatherings or other
embarrassing times.
According to Suetonius: “More than any other, the Fiscus Judaicus
was administered very severely; and to it were brought, or reported, those
who either had lived the life of a Jew unprofessed, or concealing their
origin, had not paid the tax imposed upon the people. I remember that it
was of interest to me during my youth when a ninety-year-old man was
brought before the procurator and a very crowded court to see whether
he was circumcised.”74
When Domitian was assassinated on September 18, 96 ce, Nerva suc-
ceeded him. Nerva instituted an extensive series of popular changes, one of
which was the abolition of the insulting method of collecting the Jewish
tax. The tax itself was not revoked, only the degrading method of collecting
it. To proclaim his benevolence, Nerva ordered a coin to be issued.
Another aspect of the Jewish Tax, according to Marius Heemstra, was
that it allowed the Romans to make “a separation between mainstream
Judaism and an important group of Jewish Christians, on the basis of re-
definition of those who were supposed to pay the Jewish tax to Fiscus Ju-
daicus. This was a legal distinction that was initiated by the Roman state
authorities.”75 Because of this, Heemstra suggests, that the “parting of the
ways” between Christian and Jewish communities was set in place by the
tax courts established for the Jewish Tax.
The Fiscus Judaicus apparently remained in effect until the reign of
Julian the Apostate, 361–363 ce. In a letter to the Jews, Julian writes, “In
times past, by far the most burdensome thing in the yoke of your slav-
ery has been the fact that you were subjected to unauthorized ordinances
and had to contribute an untold amount of money to the accounts of the
treasury. Of this I used to see many instances with my own eyes, and I
have learned more, by finding the records which are preserved against you.
Moreover, when a tax was about to be levied on you again I prevented it,
and compelled the impiety of such obloquy to cease here; and I threw into
the fire the records against you that were stored in my desks; so that it is
no longer possible for anyone to aim at you such a reproach of impiety.”76
Another Theory on This Coin

When interpreting the meaning of Nerva’s sestertius, we must bear in mind
that it is a Roman coin, not a Jewish coin. It represents the Roman view-
point, exclusively. On the best spirited of occasions Romans could cel-
ebrate the provinces (for example, Hadrian’s travel series), but political cor-
rectness was not in Rome’s dialogue, and she was never apologetic toward
provincial subjects.
Despite his alleged gentleness, Nerva was emperor by way of a coup
against Domitian, who was sorely missed by the legions. Nerva’s life was
in constant danger, and he went to great effort to placate the army. Thus,
he would not have offended the legions by apologizing to a conquered
people—especially one that in recent memory had revolted at great cost to
the Roman army, and to Roman pride.
Instead, we must find a more direct explanation for this type. In all
likelihood it celebrates Vespasian’s requirement of 71/72 ce that the an-
Judaea and Rome 421
nual didrachm Temple Tax, the Fiscus Judaicus, be paid to Rome rather than
to the Jewish Temple. This tax was extended to every Jew, male and female,
from the age of three, and even to slaves of Jewish households. The pro-
ceeds were earmarked for the rebuilding of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus
Maximus Capitolinus in Rome, which had been destroyed in the last days
of the Roman Civil War of 68–69 ce.
Thus, FISCI IVDAICI CALVMNIA SVBLATA (“the insult of the
Jewish Tax has been removed”) would refer to Vespasian’s removal of the
insult (to Rome) that prior to 71/72 the Jewish Temple Tax had been col-
lected by Jews for their own use. Romans considered themselves the only
legitimate taxing authority within the empire.
In summary, the idea that this coin represents a Roman apology, or a
Roman acknowledgement of its own callous behavior, must be abandoned.
Those are modern notions that we cannot retroactively apply to the Ro-
mans. Had Nerva been a Jew, and this sestertius a Jewish coin, we would be
right to consider otherwise, but Nerva was very much an old-fashioned,
noble Roman who would not have used Roman coinage to make an apol-
ogy to a conquered people. (This note by David Vagi.)
Nerva, 96–98 ce
Mint of Rome
6634
Obv: IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P COS II P P, Nerva laureate
head r.
Rev: FISCI IVDAICI CALVMNIA SVBLATA (the insult of the Jew-
ish Tax has been removed), S C in fields, large palm tree with two
bunches of dates. Struck 96 ce.
R
a. IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P COS II DESIGN III P P,

struck 96 ce.
b. IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P COS III P P, struck 97 ce.
c. IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P II COS III P P, struck
98 ce, palm tree with wide trunk.
Hadrian and Judaea, 117–138 ce

Hadrian traveled across the entire Roman empire during his reign. In 130
ce, he traveled from Arabia to Egypt by way of Judaea. On these journeys,
the emperor secured borders and established necessary government offices.
Hadrian issued coins to commemorate his visits to different provinces,
including Egypt, Macedonia, and Spain, as well as Judaea.
Hadrian’s Judaea Coins c. 130 ce

Mint of Rome
6635a 6637
Obv: HADRIANVS AVG COS III P P, Hadrian laureate head r.
Rev: ADVENTVI AVG IVDAEAE, S C in exergue, Hadrian, togate,
stands r., raising r. hand, facing Judaea, who holds object (cup?) in
l. hand, a bull alongside the altar, child stands l. in front of Judaea
holding palm, a second child stands l. behind her also holding a
palm.
RR
a. Hadrian bare draped bust r.
b. Similar rev. with a third child in front of Judaea, no bull.
c. Obv. as no. 6635a, rev. with third child.
d. On rev. children stand on either side of altar.
e. Obv. as a, children stand on either side of altar.
f. As no. 6635a but SC is in rev. fields.
Obv: HADRIANVS AVG COS III P P. Hadrian bare head r.
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, S C in fields, Hadrian, togate, stands r. rais-
ing r. hand, raising the kneeling Judaea, who holds a patera over
altar, a sacrificial bull stands beside it, two children standing in the
center hold palm branches and greet Hadrian, a third child stands
behind Judaea.
RRR
Judaea and Rome 423
Obv: HADRIANVS AVG COS III P P. Hadrian bare head r.
Rev: IVDAEA in exergue, S C in fields, Hadrian, togate, stands r. rais-
ing r. hand, facing Judaea, who holds a patera over altar, a sacrificial
bull stand beside it, two children standing in the center hold palm
branches and greet Hadrian, a third child stands behind Judaea.
RR
6638. AE as.
Obv: HADRIANVS AVG COS III P P. Hadrian laureate bust r.
Rev: ADVENTVI AVG IVDAEAE, S C in exergue, Hadrian, togate,
stands r., raising r. hand, facing Judaea, who holds object (cup?) in
l. hand, bull alongside altar, child stands l. in front of Judaea hold-
ing palm, a second child stands l. behind her also holding a palm.
RRR
a. Similar reverse with a third child in front of Judaea, no bull.
b. Bare head of Hadrian l.
Roman Legionary Countermarks

Five Roman legions and one Roman cohort (a principal part of a legion)
played important roles in the military activity in ancient Israel, mostly dur-
ing the Jewish War and the Bar Kokhba War, but also at other times in
the first century ce (as previously discussed regarding countermarks on the
coins of the prefects and procurators).
There has been much discussion about why people countermarked
coins in ancient times. Both civil and military countermarking took place,
and the countermarks of the Roman Legions apply to the latter. In Greek
Imperial Countermarks, Christopher Howgego says, “Countermarking took
place in military contexts in many parts of the Roman Empire.”
He observes that, “Legionary countermarks are usually found on worn
coins. It is likely that their primary purpose was to make such coins accept-
able to the troops as pay or change. Since each group of legionary counter-
marks (in the East at least) is found on one size of coin only, they may have
guaranteed a specific value also. The evidence of finds does not suggest that
the countermarks turned the coins into tokens for use by the legions only.
The countermarks could be applied either at a legion’s permanent camp or
on campaign, and probably by detachments as well as legions. A study of
the brick stamps of the Legio X Fretensis by Dan Barag shows the icono-
graphic tradition to which the countermarks belonged.”77
It is possible that countermarking coins was necessary for the legion-
ary soldiers more as a psychological tool than a fiscal one. After being
drilled and “psyched” into hating their enemies, the legionnaires may have
been unable to adapt to local coinage without it being stamped with their
own insignias. The very visible circulation of countermarked coins could
also have a devastating psychological effect on the people living in the ter-
ritory occupied by the legionary force.
The Roman forces active in ancient Israel were the Cohors II Italica
and the Legiones V Macedonica (also known as the V Scythica), VI Fer-
rata, X Fretensis, XII Fulminata, and XV Apollinaris. The countermarks of
the Second Cohort were discussed in Chapter 8 (p. 284). Josephus men-
tions the five legions—V, VI, X, XII, XV—by numbers only, without their
names. For the most part we have been able to fill in the legionary names
from contemporary numismatic and epigraphic evidence.
Legio V Macedonica
(also known as Legio V Scythica)
Not much is known about the origins of the Fifth Legion, usually called
Macedonica. The geographer Strabo cited settlement of its veterans at
Berytus by Agrippa in 15 bce. The legion may have fought at Philippi, or
perhaps it simply garrisoned in Macedonia before moving into Moesia.
Josephus mentions the Fifth Legion’s activity in Judaea during the
Jewish War. Nero appointed Vespasian to lead Roman troops to crush the
Jewish Revolt. He gathered his forces at Antioch near the end of 66 ce
and marched with two legions to Akko-Ptolemais, where he met Titus,
who had been in Alexandria. When Titus reached Akko-Ptolemais, Jose-
phus reports, “[T]here finding his father, together with the two legions, the
Fifth and the Tenth, which were the most eminent legions of all, he joined
them to that Fifteenth legion which he had brought....”78
The Fifth and the Tenth Legions with the Fifteenth, fought together
at Jotapata, which the Romans conquered in June/July 67 after a 48-day
siege. Before Jotapata fell, Sextus Cerealis Vettulenus, commander of the
Fifth, took a force of 600 cavalry and 3,000 infantry to Mt. Gerizim where
they massacred more than 11,000 rebellious Samaritans. Next, Vespasian
besieged Gamla with the Fifth, Tenth, and Fifteenth legions. During the
siege, the Fifth suffered major losses. After the fall of Gamla, in October
of 67, Vespasian led the Fifth and Tenth to winter quarters in Caesarea. In
the spring of 68, Vespasian moved the Fifth to Nicopolis-Emmaus, where
it apparently stayed until the siege of Jerusalem in 70.
Advancing against Jerusalem, the legions built siege ramps “after
seventeen days of continuous toil.” One ramp, “facing the Antonia was
thrown up by the Fifth Legion across the pool called Struthion....” The
Fifth besieged the Antonia and took it in a surprise attack in July of 70. In
71 ce, the Fifth Legion moved from Alexandria to Moesia.
The Fifth Legion is generally identified as Macedonica because of
three inscribed tombstones of its soldiers found at Nicopolis-Emmaus
late in the nineteenth century. However, Barag and Qedar presented four
coins countermarked by the Fifth Legion in Judaea during the Jewish War.
Judaea and Rome 425
Surprisingly, the inscription on the coins, LVS, points to the name Legio
V Scythica. They write, “The countermark LVS belongs ...to the Legio V
Scythica and was punched on bronze coins at Caesarea between the late
summer of 68 ce and the legion’s departure for Alexandria with Titus late
in 70 ce or early in 71 ce, en route back to its quarters at Oescus in Moesia.
How can the discrepancy be resolved between the countermarks of the Le-
gio V Scythica and other evidence that the Vth Legion, fighting in Judaea
during the Jewish War, was the Legio V Macedonica?”79
Barag and Qedar note that the three soldiers of the Fifth, whose tomb-
stones have been found “were soldiers in active service, and not veterans,
and were buried at Emmaus between the spring of 68 ce and summer of
70 ce.” They further explain, “In the summer of 68 ce, or somewhat later,
bronze coins were countermarked at Caesarea for use in the camp of the
5th legion at Emmaus as L(egio) V S(cythia). A possible solution for this
apparent discrepancy may be found in the history of the legion before the
Jewish War. The Legio V Macedonica had its quarters, with the Legio IIII
Scythica, in the part of Macedonia that was eventually transferred to Moe-
sia. In 33/4 ce, the former legion is mentioned, together with the latter, in
an inscription set up during the construction of a road in Moesia Inferior,
and during the principate of Claudius, it is referred to, together with Legio
IIII Scythica, in an inscription of its legatus L. Martius Macer.”80
Barag and Qedar also refer to a fragmentary inscription from Peltvi-
num, a city of the Vestinians on the Via Claudia Nova, Italy, “LEG• V•
Scythica• IN • AR....” They suggest that the last two letters may be com-
pleted to read AR(menia), since the Fifth fought in the Armenian war
under Corbulo’s command.
“The fragment from Peltvinum and the countermark from Caesarea
constitute the only evidence that the Legio V Macedonica was referred to
as the Legio V Scythica in 62 ce (or earlier) and in 68–70 ce, respectively.
The parallel and contemporary use of the name Macedonica on the epi-
taphs at Emmaus and Scythica on the countermark used at Caesarea is dif-
ficult to explain. Was the name Scythica an official name, introduced after
the name Macedonica was in use and prevailed? The inscription fragment
from Peltvinum and the countermark from the Jewish War show that the
occasional inconsistency in the names of legions continued to the end of
the Julio-Claudian period,” according to Barag and Qedar.81
Legio VI Ferrata
The Sixth Roman Legion, known as the “iron legion” (ferrata) was prob-
ably one of Mark Antony’s original legions at the battle of Philippi in 42
bce, but at the time had not yet acquired its nickname.
The Sixth Legion was stationed in northern Syria as early at 4 bce. By
19 ce, it had moved to Laodicea, south of Antioch. Early in the second part
of the first century, the Sixth took part in the successful Armenian campaign.
When Cestius Gallus, governor of Syria, advanced on Jerusalem at the be-

ginning of the Jewish War, his principal force was the Twelfth Legion, but a
detachment of the Sixth Legion and its legate accompanied them.
The Twelfth Legion was badly defeated while retreating from Jeru-
salem and the legate of the Sixth Legion was killed. Thereafter, the Sixth
Legion was moved to Italy to take part in the battle for the throne against
Vitellius before it was moved back to Syria.
Josephus reports Titus’s advance on the city that led to the destruction
of Jerusalem this way: “He led the three legions which under his father
had previously laid Judaea waste (V, X, and XV), and the Twelfth, which
under Cestius had once been defeated. This legion, generally renowned for
its valor and now remembering what it had suffered, advanced the more
eagerly to seek revenge. Of these, he ordered the Fifth to join him via the
Emmaus route, and the Tenth to ascend by way of Jericho, while he him-
self set out with the others, being further attended by the greatly increased
contingents from the allied kings and a considerable body of auxiliaries
from Syria. The four legions from which Vespasian had selected men to go
with Mucianus to Italy were brought up to strength with the troops sup-
plied by Titus; he had with him two thousand picked men from the armies
in Alexandria and three thousand guards from the Euphrates.”82
After the Jewish War, the Sixth Legion was moved to Samosata on the
Euphrates. Later, in 106 ce, the Sixth Legion was sent by Trajan to convert
Nabataea from a client kingdom into the Roman Province of Arabia. Once
this victory was accomplished, the Sixth Legion was stationed at Bostra.
Later, the Sixth Legion helped build the major Roman highway connect-
ing Damascus with the Gulf of Aqaba in the south and in 115 ce, the
Sixth joined other Roman forces for Trajan’s campaign in Parthia.
The Sixth Legion countermark most frequently seen is LVIF, which
occurs on heavily worn coins of about 20 mm in diameter. The VI coun-
termark is also known.
Legio X Fretensis
The Tenth Legion probably acquired its name, Fretensis, from the Fretum
Siculum, the straits where the legion fought successfully in the Sicilian
War against Sextus Pompey. From at least 6 ce, the troops of the Tenth
Legion were stationed in northern Syria at Cyrrhus north of Antioch. In
18 ce at the Tenth Legion’s camp, Tacitus reports on a confrontation be-
tween Germanicus and Piso. Thereafter, Germanicus suddenly died, likely
from poisoning, and possibly on the orders of the jealous Tiberius. Piso
was accused of the deed and took his own life in Rome rather than stand
trial.
Still stationed in northern Syria, the Tenth took part in Corbulo’s
successful Armenian campaign of 57–58 ce. From there, the legion was
Judaea and Rome 427
moved to Cilicia in southeastern Turkey, but was moved back to Syria in

63 ce.
The Tenth Legion, then commanded by Marcus Ulpius Traianus (fa-
ther of the future Emperor Trajan), formed part of the forces that Vespa-
sian led to Akko and against other northern portions of ancient Israel in
his campaign of 66 ce. The legion participated in the siege and capture of
Tarichaeae and Gamla and advanced on Jerusalem via the Jordan River
valley, taking Jericho and destroying Qumran. The Tenth also made up a
part of the force that destroyed Jerusalem under Titus in 70 ce. During
the siege, it was stationed on the Mount of Olives overlooking the city.
Three years later, the same unit besieged and destroyed the zealot fortress
of Masada.
Soon the Tenth Legion became the official, permanent unit of the Ro-
man Province of Judaea. After the Bar Kokhba War, the province was re-
named Syria-Palaestina and the legion was garrisoned in Aelia Capitolina
(formerly Jerusalem). The Tenth remained in Jerusalem until Diocletian,
at the end of the third century, moved the Tenth south to the port of Eilat
to help safeguard the sea access to the East from the developing power of
the Arabs.
Some years ago, archaeologists discovered remains of ancient buildings
that used roof tiles marked with insignias of the Tenth Legion at Ramat
Rachel, a Kibbutz on the outskirts of Jerusalem. In the early 1990s, a major
Tenth Legion site was discovered during the excavation for Jerusalem’s
International Convention Center. Today a good part of that site, including
a portion of the Tenth Legion’s pottery kiln to manufacture ceramic tiles
and water conduit pipes, is preserved and on display in the lower level of
the International Convention Center.
Insignias of the Tenth Legion were the boar, the galley, the dolphin,
and Neptune as well as various abbreviations of its name (LX, XF, LEX,
LXF, XFR). These abbreviations can be found on ceramic tiles produced
by the Tenth Legion in the aforementioned kiln-factory. A stone lamppost
near the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem’s Old City bears a Latin inscription refer-
ring to the Tenth Legion as LEXFR (Fig. 11.1). Many coins are counter-
marked with the Tenth Legion’s various insignias, among them city coins,
especially from Sebaste, Ascalon, and Sidon, and some local Judaea Capta
issues.
Barag concludes that the coins countermarked by the Tenth Legion
date from about 68–96 ce, or possibly 132 ce at the latest.83
Legio XII Fulminata

The Twelfth Legion was one of the legions of Augustus. It possibly existed
at the time of Julius Caesar and may have been in Mark Antony’s army
in the East. The Twelfth was in North Africa in 30 bce and in Syria in 14
and 23 ce. The legion was also part of the army in 62 ce during the Roman
campaign in Armenia.
By 66 ce, the Twelfth Legion, “renowned for its valor,” according to
Josephus, had returned to Syria, and Cestius Gallus moved the Twelfth
into Judaea to capture Jerusalem. However, Gallus and the Twelfth, with a
detachment from the Sixth, turned back from Jerusalem and were soundly
defeated by an army of Jews between Jerusalem and Antipatris.
The Twelfth Legion was one of the legions that helped capture and
destroy Jerusalem in 70 ce. But the legion did not participate in the sieges
of Machaerus and Masada because it was transferred back to Syria and
stationed at Miletus on the Euphrates. Titus reportedly wanted to send
the Twelfth away as quickly as possible because of its ignominious defeat
at the beginning of the First Revolt.
The Twelfth was also part of Trajan’s army that defeated the Parthians
and may have accompanied Trajan as far as the Persian Gulf.
Countermarks of the Twelfth Legion occur most frequently on coins
of Antioch with the large S C reverse design.
Legio XV Apollinaris
Augustus formed the Fifteenth Legion while he was still known as Octa-
vian. It was named after his protecting god, Apollo.
After the death of Augustus, while stationed in Carnuntum just east of
Vienna, Austria, the Fifteenth Legion joined the Ninth (Hispana) and the
Eighth (Augusta) in a rebellion for more pay and shorter service. Tacitus
reports that Drusus was finally able to extinguish this rebellion with the
help of a lunar eclipse and heavy storms.
The Fifteenth was part of Corbulo’s successful Armenian campaign in
63 ce and was shortly thereafter moved to Egypt where it ended a local
rebellion of Jews in Alexandria, who had attacked the Greek population
after an incident in the local amphitheater. Josephus reports that when
Tiberius Alexander, the apostate Jew who was prefect of Egypt, “realized
that nothing less than a major calamity would quell the rebels, he let loose
among them the two Roman legions [XV Apollinaris and XXII Deiote-
riana] stationed in the city, together with two thousand soldiers who hap-
pened to have come from Libya, to complete the ruin of the Jews. He gave
them leave not merely to kill them but to plunder their property and burn
down their houses.”84
Once Vespasian was ordered by Nero to crush the Jewish revolt in
Judaea, Titus was dispatched to Alexandria to bring the Fifteenth Legion
to Ptolemais to join the Fifth and Tenth. The Fifteenth Legion took part
in battles for Gamara near Ptolemais and then the siege of Jotapata in
Galilee, in which Josephus commanded the defending Jewish army. Titus
and a small detachment of the Fifteenth made a surprise night assault on
Judaea and Rome 429
11.1. Column in Old City Jerusalem near

Jaffa Gate that may have been related to
legionary headquarters. The inscription
reads: “Marcus Iunius Maximus…Legate
of the Tenth Legion of the Sea Straits.”
(Author’s photo.)
Jotapata after a 48-day siege, and took the defenders by surprise. The city
was captured and Josephus surrendered, thus ending his career as a Jewish
patriot and beginning his new career as the most important contempora-
neous historian of Jewish history.
The Fifteenth was next sent to Nysa-Scythopolis to reorganize itself,
while the other two legions were sent to Caesarea. In September, Vespa-
sian united all three legions at Nysa and attacked Tarichaeae on the Sea
of Galilee. The Jews who were defending their city climbed aboard their
boats, but Vespasian had his troops construct rafts from which the legions
fought a sustained sea battle resulting in an important victory for the Ro-
mans. Many believe that Vespasian’s VICTORIA NAVALIS coins were
struck to commemorate this bloody battle.
In late September, the legions attacked Gamla, in the Golan above
the Sea of Galilee. It was a tenacious battle, and when Gamla’s wall was
breached, the Fifteenth poured into the city. The Jews, however, stood on
the rooftops and pelted the soldiers with projectiles. The Fifteenth fought
its way up the heights of the city in a bitter battle, and Vespasian was
nearly killed or captured. Ultimately, Gamla was destroyed and the legions
marched to Jerusalem. Today, the ruins at Gamla are preserved along with
many of the Roman siege stones.
At Jerusalem, the Fifteenth built an important siege tower, destroyed
by the Jews and rebuilt. The Romans used the tower and its battering ram
to breach Jerusalem’s walls.
When Jerusalem was destroyed, the Fifteenth was moved to Caesarea,
then to Egypt, then back to Carnuntum. In 115 ce, the Fifteenth was per-
manently moved back to the Middle East, where it was stationed at Satala
in northeastern Turkey.
Countermarks of the Fifteenth Legion are hard to find. The coin pub-
lished here (no. 6649) is the first example ever published of a Fifteenth
Legion countermark struck on a coin of the Jewish War, although other
LXV countermarks are known to occur on coins of Neapolis and Arados.
COINS WITH LEGIONARY COUNTERMARKS

6639.
AE 22 mm very worn coin of Nero from Caesarea, Samaria.
Obv: LVS (Fifth Legion Scythica) and KAI (for Caesarea) rectangular
countermarks.
R
a. As above, obv. rectangular countermark is LVS (the S is retro-
grade), rev. bust in oval countermark.
b. As above, obv. rectangular countermark is LVS, X in square coun-
termark for the Tenth Legion.
c. As above, obv. rectangular countermark is LVS, XF in square coun-
termark for the Tenth Legion.
6640. AE 25 mm worn bronze.

Obv: LVIF (Sixth Legion Ferrata) in rectangular countermark.
R
a. As above, with male countermark right in rectangle and Athena
right countermark in rectangle.
6641
6641. AE 25 mm worn bronze, probably of Domitian from Caesarea, Samaria.

Obv: Rectangular countermark, L.X.F. (Tenth Legion Fretensis) above
boar advancing r. and dolphin in same countermark and just below
boar, second rectangular countermark of a galley to r., rev. bust in
oval countermark.
R
a. Another example, rev. bust to r. in rectangular countermark, struck
upon a 20–22 mm. coin, probably no. 6472–6475 types.
b. As above, without galley countermark, rev. LXF in rectangular
countermark.
Judaea and Rome 431
6642. AE 13–14 mm coin of Ascalon, Judaea.

Obv: Head of Tyche with turreted crown r. Countermark L•X within
incuse rectangle.
Rev: Galley r.
S
6643. AE 13–14 mm coin of Ascalon, Judaea.

Obv: Head of Tyche with turreted crown r. Countermark XF with-
in incuse rectangle.
Rev: Galley r. inscription obliterated.
S
6644. AE 20–22 mm worn, probably nos. 6472–6474.

Obv: Bust in an oval countermark.
Rev: Galley in a rectangular countermark.
S
6645. AE 22–23 mm coin of Domitian from Sebaste.

Rev: LXF in rectangular countermark, second countermark of head in
oval, possibly Trajan.
S
a. Similar, but only LXF countermark on obv.
6646. AE of Claudius, type as no. 6295.

Obv: XF in rectangular countermark.
S
a. XF countermark on a coin of Dora, Phoenicia.
b. XF countermark on a Titus Judaea Capta no. 6473.
6647
6647. Various 22–28 mm bronzes of Antioch and Commagene.
XF in rectangular countermark on coin of Vespasian struck at Comma-
gene.
S
6648. AE 28 mm worn coin, probably of Antioch.

Obv: Five countermarks, two are XII, one is a thunderbolt, one is a bust
l., and one may be a standing figure.
RR
a. XIIF countermark on a 26 mm. coin of Hadrian struck at Caesarea
in Cappadocia.
6649. AE 19 mm coin of Jewish War, fourth year (no. 6398).

Obv: XV in rectangular countermark.
Unique
At first glance, the countermark appears to read XVI. However, close examination shows
that what looks like an “I” is really the side of the rectangle enclosing the countermark.
Furthermore, countermarks of a Sixteenth Legion are not known to exist.
CHAPTER TWELVE
New Testament Coins

Coins of Jesus and His World
C
oins of his time can help us to better reconstruct the world in which
Jesus lived as well as the man himself. First, one must consider two
important variables, namely the time and place that Jesus was born.
Volumes could be (and have been) written about these topics. British
historian Michael Grant writes in his book JESUS: An Historian’s View of
the Gospels, “The belief that he was born in ce 1 came into existence in the
sixth century ce when a monk from South Russia living in Italy, Dionysius
Exiguus, made a mathematical miscalculation. His birth-date should be
reassigned to 6 or 5 or 4 bce, though some prefer 11 or 7.”1
About the place of Jesus’s birth, Grant says, “There is also a notorious
difficulty about determining Jesus’ birthplace. For whereas Matthew and
Luke name it as Bethlehem, which the Christian world has accepted, the
Gospel of John takes a different view…(that) Jesus came from Galilee.
The same Gospel also indicates that his place of origin in that country was
Nazareth. Mark seems to imply agreement....”2
Jesus was well aware of the importance of money, whether coins or
other forms of currency. During his life, bronze coins of various denomi-
nations were manufactured in the Galilee, Judea, and Samaria, and various
silver coins also circulated in these areas, although none were manufac-
tured there. Bronze coins were widely used, but silver coins were less com-
mon and were used in larger transactions as well as in paying the annual
Temple dues. Since Jesus traveled widely in these lands, he was familiar
with the use of money in both large and small transactions.
Rev. Rogers points out that Jesus often drew lessons from the “com-
mon use and existence of money. For [God] it is part of human life and
human intercourse and therefore it is the concern of God. For the numis-
matist his study accordingly acquires an importance and a sanction, which
dignify it as nothing else can.”3
“It is only natural,” Rogers writes, “that many, beyond the somewhat
narrow circle of numismatists, should want to know as accurately as pos-
sible what this money is; should want to possess it, should want at least to
have it so described as to be able to visualize it for themselves.”
433
Rogers’s comments remain true in spite of nearly a century of ad-

ditional research: “Unhappily there is very little trustworthy account of
New Testament monies. Wholesale criticism may seem impertinent, but
it does remain true that many first-rate commentaries of the Bible, and
Dictionaries of the Bible, are woefully misinformed in their account of
New Testament money.”4
The Poor Widow’s Mites

We know very little about the poor widow’s mites, made famous by the
story in Mark 12:41–44:
And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast
money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And
there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites [λεπτόν],
which make a farthing [κοδράντης]. And he called unto him his dis-
ciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow
hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For
all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in
all that she had....
The story is more succinct in Luke 21:1–4:
And he looked up and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the trea-
sury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two
mites. And he said…
The term “mite” first appears in the books of Mark and Luke in the
initial edition of Tyndale’s New Testament, published in 1525, where it was
probably intended as a shortened version of the word “minute” and not as
the name of a denomination. As Fr. Spijkerman has noted, the word lepton
“implies very small coins…even we may say...the smallest coin being in
circulation in Palestine at the time concerned.”5
It is not surprising that scholars who did early translations of the Bible
to English tended to “reinterpret the ancient coin denominations of the
Greek, Latin, and Hebrew scriptural sources in terms of contemporary
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century English money,”6 according to Oliver
Hoover. He adds that neither the original Greek text of the New Testa-
ment nor the Latin Vulgate, mention the “mite.” Instead, the Greek or
Latin words refer to either lepta or minuta, respectively.
The word “mite” was most widely spread via the King James version
of the Bible, printed in 1611, after translations by 47 scholars that lasted
nearly seven years. “Not only would this translation become one of the
most popular English versions of the Bible ever published, but the artistry
New Testament Coins 435
of its language ensured that it would also become one of the greatest single
influences on the development of English literature well into the twentieth
century,” Hoover explains.
The translators wished their work to “speak like itself, as in the lan-
guage of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.” For
this reason, the King James Bible and some earlier English translations are
of “some interest to numismatists, given their tendency to reinterpret the
ancient coin denominations of the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew scriptural
sources in terms of contemporary sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
English money. Thus, in a small way, the King James Version serves as
a document for the circulating coinage of early modern Great Britain,”
Hoover writes.
However, there was no mite coin known in British coinage of this pe-
riod. “In fact, the mite (meaning “small cut piece” in Old Dutch) was only
created as a circulating coin of Flanders in the fourteenth century. Initially,
the mite was a small billon coin...but by the sixteenth century it had be-
come copper,” Hoover notes.
One might guess, therefore, that this denomination was imported and
used in Britain at the time, but “there is little evidence to support this
possibility,” Hoover says. Even though the Dutch mite did not circulate in
Britain, and no British mites existed, the mite was mentioned in sixteenth-
century arithmetic books as a fraction of a farthing, varying from one-third
to one-sixteenth.
It seems quite “likely that the mite has entered into the King James
Version…as a result of a translational quandary created by the original....”
Hoover says.
In these early versions, Mark gives the value of two lepta as a kodrantes
or quadrans. However, Hoover pinpoints the crunch: “[While] any Latin
grammarian would have known that a quadrans was a bronze coin worth
one-fourth of a Roman as, making its English translation as farthing (one-
fourth of a penny) almost unavoidable. Unfortunately, in the English coin-
age system there were no denominations smaller than a farthing, creating
the problem of how to deal with Mark’s lepta/minuta.”
Since there was no British parallel for any coin smaller than a farthing,
there is a good chance that the arithmetic term mite was brought into play.
Hoover also speculates, however, that possibly William Tyndale’s pre-King
James translation might “have been a little influenced by the contempo-
rary Flemish monetary system when he chose his words. After all, Tyndale
is known to have had good Flemish connections, and he composed and
printed his translation of the New Testament while in the nearby Ger-
man cities of Hamburg, Cologne, and Worms. In 1534, Antwerp became
his home and a base for shipping his contraband translations into Tudor
England, until he was finally arrested and executed for heresy in 1536.
Thus, Tyndale is likely to have been conversant with the Flemish currency
system, in which there were twenty-four mites to the penning.”
12.1. Nineteenth-century etching: “And Jesus sat over against the treasury ... And
there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing,”
(Mark 12:41–44).
It is logical that people who are interested in the stories of the Bible
would want to know more about these coins and exactly which coins could
be associated with the stories.
Madden, in 1864, wrote, “The mite…was the smallest coin current in
Palestine in the time of our Lord.”
In 1914, Rogers wrote that “it is natural to conclude that the coins
being cast into the treasury were strictly Jewish coins…. [T]he choice of
strictly Jewish copper is accordingly limited to the coins of the Hasmo-
nean or the Herodian families….[A]nd with some degree of certainty it
may be said that the popular coins for this purpose were the small copper
of Alexander Jannaeus and his successors....”
Whatever its origin, the poor widow’s mite has become one of the
most frequently referenced and the most popular ancient biblical coin
(Fig. 12.1).
Here are two things we know about the widow’s mite story, as related
by both Mark and Luke:
It is certainly a story about charity and goodwill, rather than a story
about money. The poor widow gave all she had to the Jewish Temple in
12.2. Fourteen various dies and strikes of the many styles of small prutot of Jannaeus
(no. 6195) or successors, which have come to be known as mites. (Author’s photos.)
Jerusalem, while, relatively speaking, many rich people gave tiny portions
of their wealth.
The amount of money the widow threw into the Temple treasury
was two coins of the smallest size being used in Jerusalem at that time.
There is no doubt that the small prutah (nos. 6191, 6195) or half-prutah
(nos. 6170, 6173, 6183, 6208–6210) coins of the Hasmonean kings and
Herod the Great fit that description. The most-common coin among them
is the small prutah of Jannaeus and possibly his successors (Fig. 12.2).
The massive issue of these tiny bronze pieces in this poor land filled a
market need. These coins were first struck around 78 bce under Jannaeus,
and likely continued through the reigns of his successors up to the time of
Herod I. (See p. 181).
At one point, the Talmud suggests that during the first century, the
sheqel was made up of 256 prutot and thus 512 half-prutot or lepta.7 Else-
where the Talmud indicates that through the first century ce there were
768 prutot to the silver sheqel8 and these small coins may have been con-
sidered lepta. Thus, in any interpretation, the prutah was very small change
indeed. (Imagine the tiny value if there were 1,000 cents to the dollar or
the pound!) In those days, a few oil lamps and wicks cost only a prutah, as
did one pomegranate.
Even though these coins were struck in the first century bce, prutot
continued to circulate well into the first century when Jesus lived, and as
long as through the fourth century as well. Archaeological excavations in
Israel have illustrated this.9 When I worked as numismatist at the Joint
Sepphoris excavation in 1985, we found the small prutot of Jannaeus in
the same areas as fourth-century Roman bronze coins. These coins were
useful pieces of small change at a time and place where small change was
not easy to find.10 (Many late Roman and Byzantine small bronze coins
were chopped in halves and quarters to accommodate the market need.)11
Another aspect of the story of the poor widow’s mite remains relevant
today. Many people of great means contribute little to charitable causes,
while less wealthy individuals contribute a great deal relative to their abil-
ity. This is a topic fit for everyone to ponder.
Sheqels of Tyre
The sheqels and half-sheqels of Tyre (also called tetradrachms and didrachms)
were first issued as autonomous silver coins of the city after it was freed
from Seleucid domination in 126/5 bce. The sheqels were patterned after
the Seleucid coins with an eagle on the reverse, but the inscription no lon-
ger included the name of a king and was replaced with the name and titles
of the city: “of Tyre the holy and city of refuge.” The chief god of Tyre,
Herakles-Melqarth, took the place of the king’s bust. A date, according to
Tyre’s era beginning in 126/5 bce, appears along with various monograms
of uncertain meaning.
Tyrian sheqels and half-sheqels were prescribed as the coins of choice
for payments to the Jerusalem Temple, including the half-sheqel tribute
that every Jewish male over the age of twenty was obliged to pay (Exodus
30:11–16; Mishnah Shekalim 2, 4), individual contributions and vows,
as well as the redemption-price of the first-born and the purchase of sac-
rificial offerings.
The coins of Tyre were so commonly used in Judea in the first cen-
tury that the Tosefta, another compilation of oral law from the time of the
Mishnah, says that “Silver, wherever mentioned in the Pentateuch, is Tyr-
ian silver. What is Tyrian silver? It is a Jerusalemite” (Tosefta Ketubbot
12,14).12
A frequently asked question is why the Jews felt comfortable using
Tyre coinage that depicted the graven image of a pagan god to make their
annual payment to the Temple. The reason for this is, as the Mishnah
makes clear, that valid money is not subject to being unclean, and is only
susceptible to uncleanliness when it is used for another purpose such as
jewelry or a weight (Kelim 12,7). Since a viable coin cannot be defiled, the
only relevance is its value and purity, not its design.
Brooks Levy, a leading scholar of Tyre sheqels, has examined the ques-
tion of when the Jerusalem Temple tax began: “It is agreed that the passage
in Exodus is a late feature of the book, and in any case the tax there was not
to be annual, but levied on the occasion of a national census. Not until the
time of Nehemiah, that is, in the later fifth century, is it first described as a
yearly levy. There, the sum to be given is not a half but a third-sheqel, which
may reflect the currency system of the Persian Empire, in whose domain the
newly built temple then lay (Nehemiah 10:32). However, many scholars
believe that the regular collection of an annual tax dates only from the time
of the Maccabees—from the late second or even the late first century bce.
It has been argued that only then was there a large and stable enough Ju-
dean state to make such an effort possible.”13
However, Levy suggests that the collection of the annual tax began
earlier rather than later: “It seems clear that it wasn’t the inhabitants of
Judea but Diaspora Jews who were the main contributors and some Dias-
pora communities—certainly those of Babylonia and Egypt—went back
very far. Josephus and Philo attest to the importance of the evidently well-
established tax-bearing embassies that came from these areas in their day,
the first century ce.”14
Tyre, as a mother city to a widespread group of colonies, also received
annual offerings. This method of tribute was certainly visible to the
Jews as well as the Samaritans, Tyre’s closer neighbors. Levy cites two
inscriptions from the island of Delos,15 as well as a passage in Josephus,16
which indicate, “Samaritan Diasporas in Egypt and on Delos were
sending offerings to Jerusalem’s rival temple on Mt. Gerizim possibly as
far back as the early second century bce. The Delian inscriptions speak
of the Samaritan offerings as aparkhai—literally ‘first fruits,’ but in fact
money is doubtless meant.”
As a parallel, Levy points out that the Jewish-Egyptian historian Philo
specifically refers to the Jewish half-sheqel offerings as aparkhai. He also
refers to the distant Jewish communities as “colonies,” apoikiai, although
these communities were not political colonies as they were in the case of
Tyre. Levy believes that “this could reflect a Tyrian model—for both Sa-
maritan and Jewish practice. An early beginning of annual offerings would
explain why Tyre’s autonomous coinage so closely imitates the Seleucid
issues that immediately preceded it. These, like the Tyrians, are commonly
found in Judea, and could have served for the Temple tax, as the only silver
currency readily available to Jews.”
Once Rome took over the area that contained Jerusalem, there was
quite a different aspect to the Jewish Temple tax, Levy suggests. This was
Rome’s attempt to block the export of funds to Jerusalem from Jewish
inhabitants of the outlying Greek communities in the Roman Empire.
Levy cites seven documents, one in Cicero (Pro Flacco) and six in Josephus
(Ant. xvi: 172–73) concerning this topic. In Cicero’s day, Rome apparently
halted exports from Italy. But later, according to the documents Josephus
offers us, Roman officials, responding to Jewish complaints, ordered the
Greek communities of Asia Minor to allow the export of these moneys,
thus respecting the ancestral customs of the Jews.17
Why did official Rome change its mind on this matter? Levy attri-
butes this to “an abiding Roman respect for alien religious customs, es-
pecially when provably ancient. However, it was an equally high Roman
priority to reward active loyalty. In Rome’s Civil Wars, Jewish troops in
the East helped Caesar against Pompey. Later Herod the Great, after the
defeat of Mark Antony, switched his support to Augustus, and received

the latter’s trust and friendship until almost the end of Herod’s long reign.”
Indeed, Levy notes, “Augustus’s own final pronouncement on the sub-
ject even defines those who take such money from its collection point in
synagogues as temple robbers, an accusation that carried very heavy penal-
ties. This general picture is confirmed by Philo (De specialibus legibus 1,77),
who attests that it was Augustus who authorized Jews everywhere to send
their aparkhai to Jerusalem.”18
The Romans changed their tune once again after the destruction of
the Temple in 70 ce, when Josephus reports that Titus reproached the
defeated Jews. “We permitted you to exact tribute for God and to col-
lect offerings, without either admonishing or hindering those who brought
them—only that you might grow richer at our expense and make prepara-
tions with our own wealth to attack us.”19
From this background, Levy draws two interesting conclusions. First,
Rome sanctioned the annual half-sheqel tax for the Jerusalem Temple, and
potentially much greater free-will offerings, “making the privilege a much
more generous one than most modern scholars have supposed. In fact, the
permissions recorded in Josephus’s documents never use the word ‘tax’…
but only the broader term ‘sacred money.’”
Her second conclusion, farther reaching for the Jewish community
in the ancient world, is that Titus referred to this sacred money as “our
wealth,” and this shows that ultimately Rome controlled the money supply.
After the Jewish War, the half-sheqel Jewish tax was continued, but now it
was paid to Rome.
The minting place of the Tyre sheqels has been a subject of discussion
since Meshorer’s revolutionary concept, published in 1982, that Herod
the Great and the authorities at the Jerusalem Temple feared a cessation
of minting in Tyre and transferred this issue to a mint in Jerusalem in
around 19/18 bce. At this time, Meshorer observed, the letters KAP,
shortened to KP after the first few years, appeared on virtually all of the
Tyre sheqels, where various initials or monograms had appeared on earlier
coins. He suggested the letters KP abbreviated Kratos Romaion (power of
the Romans).
One of Meshorer’s principal arguments was based on the decline in
style of Tyre sheqels of the later type. He believed this degradation was due
to the lack of skill of Jewish mint masters, not to mention their disinterest
in the pagan designs that they treated with disdain. Meshorer referred to
these later Tyre sheqels as barbaric and clunky and suggested their small-
er, thicker shape hinted they were direct predecessors to the thick sheqels
struck by the Jews during the Jewish War.20
Levy, on the other hand, offers evidence that these stylistically crude
coins, often difficult to read, were not struck at the end of the series but
earlier.21 She also believes that “it is unlikely that the Roman government
would have countenanced the permanent transfer of a prestigious allied
city’s coinage to the capital of Herod’s Judea. Within the coin series itself
there is no sign of a stylistic break at the proposed moment of transfer, nor
of consistent and gradual later deterioration. Since it seems that users of
the sheqel became increasingly limited to those who paid the Temple tax, a
concentration of find-spots in Judea should not surprise us; but in fact, the
largest single find of sheqels—the Usfiye hoard of over 4,000 pieces, closing
in 53/4 ce—was buried much closer to Tyre than Jerusalem. Finally, the
sheqel of Israel differs in fabric from its predecessors at least as much as it
resembles it.”22
The Usfiye hoard was named after the Druze village in which it was
found, around five miles southeast of Haifa. The coins in the hoard ranged
from 38 bce to 54 ce, and in addition to the Tyre sheqels and half-sheqels,
there were 157 Augustan and three Tiberian denarii. Much of the group
found its way into the markets, but the Israel Antiquities Authority has
the largest component, around 700 coins, along with records of much of
the rest of the group.
In 1963, at a Jerusalem symposium convened to celebrate the discov-
ery of the Usfiye hoard, Israeli numismatist Gerhard Cohn observed that
some 15% of the Tyre sheqels and half-sheqels were of the crude and dif-
ficult to date variety. “We don’t know what to make of these. Normally, at
the end of a certain period there is a deterioration,” Cohn said. Leo Kad-
man (who died during the opening ceremony of this symposium) and later
Meshorer agreed with this chronology, placing the “crude” pieces after the
hoard’s dated issues.
Yet Cohn made another relevant observation—that the Usfiye hoard
contained no datable coins from the years 23 through 29 ce. Levy focuses
on this issue and notes, “[T]here were (with one exception) no Tyrians
between 20/21 and 34/35 in the Jerusalem hoards reported by Ariel. The
excavations at Gamla, in an otherwise quite full year-by-year represen-
tation of later Tyrians…lack issues from 21 through 34.” Other smaller
hoards confirm these observations. Thus, Levy concludes that either the
Tyrian mint was producing very little and very poor work from 21–33, or
wasn’t working at all.23
This suggests that Kadman’s, Cohn’s, and later Meshorer’s ideas about
the late issue of all the crude Tyre sheqels can no longer be taken for granted.
It must be decided where such pieces belong: in the 20s, at the end of the
series, or both. Levy thinks it probable that close comparison of undatable
pieces with datable will show that many of the undatable coins actually
belong in the 20s. These observations of the chronology, especially that the
“crude” pieces did not appear at the end of the series, weigh in favor of the
production of these coins having remained at Tyre throughout the series.
Levy notes that thought must be given to the techniques by which such
pieces were produced. Some examples seem to come from more or less bru-
tally reworked authentic dies—or possibly from crudely touched-up dies
made by moldings from earlier coins. On some it seems that recutting was
chiefly, though not exclusively, applied to the reverses. This bias suggests that
the aim of re-cutting was not so much legibility as sharpness in the “legible”
areas that would allow the coins to be assessed at full value.
Levy observes, “[T]he ancient term used to describe a sharp coin was
a tactile one that might also be used, say, for the feel of a cat’s tongue:
asper in Latin, aspros in Greek. The few known applications of this term to
coinage are clustered between about 50 and 150 ce [for example] in a text
associated with Nero, who was said to demand his tax money in sharp coin,
nummus asper (Suetonius, Nero, 44:2).” In the Talmud, the rabbis suggest
that if a person redeems a worn tetradrachm in change for prutot, he must
estimate the coin at its worn (intrinsic) value, but if he uses the coin to pay
the Second Temple tithe, he can give the coin the value as if it is unworn.24
This statement shows that there was significant attention paid to worn
silver coins. Although the late Tyre sheqels were crude, if they were not
worn and were made of good silver they may have been acceptable for the
Temple tax where a Roman denarius or a tetradrachm of Roman Antioch
would not be accepted. This is another sign of how seriously the Mosaic
prescription was taken.
The definition of “good silver” is a key point here for fineness, not
degree of wear alone, determined the value of a coin. It is well known
that Ptolemaic and Seleucid coinage, as well as Roman Imperial coinage
from Augustus forward, became increasingly debased. Thus it is highly sig-
nificant, Levy says, that as other civic issues of the region petered out or
grew baser, Tyre alone annually struck silver more than 90% fine until the
outbreak of the Jewish War. “When Josephus tells us that the Tyrian tet-
radrachm of his day is worth four Attic drachmas (BJ 2:592), he is referring
not to its weight (well below traditional Attic) but to the amount of silver
it contains. It is significant that the only other coin of which he says this
is the legendary ‘holy sheqel’ of Exodus 30 (Ant. 3:195).”25 This passage
confirms Mishnaic statements that only Tyrian silver could be used for the
Temple tax.
Discussion of the Tyre sheqels and half-sheqels of various styles will con-
tinue for many years to come. Still to be fully explained is the enigmatic
KP monogram. Whether the “late series” of the sheqels and half-sheqels of
Tyre were actually minted in Tyre or Jerusalem becomes slightly less rel-
evant when one recognizes that the coins in this series struck after about
20 bce were almost certainly issued, at least in part, to help the Jews sat-
isfy their needs to pay dues to the Jerusalem Temple in appropriate coinage.
This approach is supported by a number of monograms and control marks
from the Tyre sheqels struck 27, 25, 20, 19, and 17 bce. can be translated to
the letters HPΔ. The letters HΣ are used in the years 19 and 18 bce, and a
symbol that may represent the Phoenician H (het) is used from 14–11 bce.
Levy says, “None of these marks appear anywhere else in the series. All could
stand for the name Herod (Herodes).”26 Thus, Herod I may have specifically
ordered silver coins from the Tyre mint for commerce in Jerusalem.
The minting of the Tyre sheqels was halted with the onset of the Jewish
War in 65/66 ce, although there are occasional reports of coins that are
said to be dated as late as 69/70. Since many of the later Tyre sheqels are
extremely crude and difficult to decipher, any dates after the beginning of
the Jewish War are problematic.
The 30 Pieces of Silver

Then one of the 12, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
and said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto
you? And they covenanted with him for 30 pieces of silver (Matthew
26:14–15).
It is logical to assume that the “30 pieces of silver” paid to Judas were Tyre
sheqels, since these coins were the most commonly used and accepted large
silver coins in Judea at the time.
Michael Grant concludes that payment was made to Judas for his
deed, even if the amount may not have been exactly 30 pieces of silver.
“Although the report that his fee was 30 pieces of silver is dubious because,
like so much else in this part of the Gospels, it is an echo of the scriptures,
it is probable enough that Judas was paid for what he did.”
Here are some mentions of the same sum in earlier books of the Bible:
If the ox gore a bondman or a bondwoman, he shall give unto their mas-

ter thirty sheqels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned (Exodus 21:32).
And I said unto them: “If ye think good, give me my hire; and if not,
forbear.” So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver. And the
Lord said unto me: “Cast it into the treasury, the goodly price that I was
prized at of them.” And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them
into the treasury, in the house of the Lord (Zechariah 11:12, 13).
Requirements to use Tyre sheqels and half-sheqels in the Jerusalem

Temple indirectly led to Jesus’s disgust at the moneychangers in the
Temple court. When Jewish pilgrims came to Jerusalem from around
the ancient world they carried money of their own nations, and had to
exchange currency.
The moneychangers set up in an area close to the Temple. In call-
ing out for business—their form of advertising—these merchants often
shouted their exchange rates. Jesus found this commercialism crass and of-
fensive so near the Temple, so he threw over the tables of these merchants.
12.3. Rembrandt’s Money Changers at the Temple.
The Coin in the Fish’s Mouth

As a practicing and observant Jew, Jesus was aware of his annual obligation
to the Temple. This is nicely illustrated in the parable of the coin in the
fish’s mouth.
Each year, Jewish officials requested the annual Temple contribution
at the beginning of the month of Adar, preceding Passover. On the fif-
teenth day of Adar, tables of the moneychangers (Fig. 12.3) were set up
throughout the country to receive these contributions. After ten days, the
moneychangers ceased their local collections and resumed operations at
the Jerusalem Temple.27
Virtually all Jews, including those who had expressed reservations
about the current state of the Temple, sent their contributions. Matthew
17:24–27 tells how Jesus and his disciples were solicited and gave their
contribution to the collectors of the Temple tribute:
And when they had come to Capernaum, those who collected the two-
drachm tax came to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the two-
drachm tax?” He said, “ Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus
spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do
the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from
strangers?” And upon his saying, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him,
“Consequently the sons are exempt. But, lest we give them offense, go to
the sea, and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and
when you open its mouth you will find a stater [στατῆρα]28 Take that
and give it to them for you and Me.”
It seems clear from Matthew’s report that the coin in the fish’s mouth
was a sheqel of Tyre since it was supposed to pay the annual half-sheqel
Temple tribute for both Jesus and for Peter the fisherman, although the
kolbon (p. 12) is not mentioned.
Sheqels of Tyre
All with border of dots on both sides.
Tyre sheqel weight standard 14 g.
Era begins 126/5 bce.
Axis is ↑.
Early Style
6650
6650. AR sheqel.
Obv: Laureate head of Melqart r., wears lion skin knotted around neck.
Rev: TYPOY IEPAΣ KAI AΣYΛOY (of Tyre the holy and inviolable),
eagle standing l. with r. foot on prow of ship, palm branch over r.
shoulder, date and club are in field to l., a Phoenician letter bet-
ween eagle’s legs, in r. field are letters or monogram. The date range
from 126/5 bce to 20/19 bce. (photo LZ = year 7 = 120/119 bce.)
C
a. ZN = 57 = 69/68 bce.
6651. AR half-sheqel.
Obv: Melqart as on no. 6650.
Rev: Eagle as on no. 6650, date EM = 45 = 82/81 bce.
S
a. AN = 51 = 76/75 bce.
KP Issues
6652
6652. AR sheqel.
Obv: Melqart as on no. 6650, but of a generally cruder fabric and style.
Rev: Eagle as on no. 6650, but of a generally cruder style, plus the Greek
letters KP to the r. of the eagle. The dates range from 19/18 bce
to 65/66 ce, and possibly a few years later. (photo PM = 140 =
14/15 ce.)
C
a. PΛς = 146 = 20/21 ce.
b. PΞΗ = 168 = 42/43 ce.
6653. AR half-sheqel.
Obv: Same as no. 6650.
Rev: Same as no. 6650, date PKΓ = 123 = 4/3 bce.
S
a. PΛB = 132 = 6/7 ce.
b. PΟΑ = 171 = 45/46 ce.
The Tribute Penny

Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we
not give? But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt
ye me? Bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And
He saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they
said unto Him, Caesar’s. And Jesus, answering, said unto them, Render
to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are
God’s (Mark 12:14–17).
In this story, Jesus was probably referring to a coin that was not local—a
silver coin with an image of Caesar, either Augustus or Tiberius. Most nu-
mismatists suggest it was a drachm or denarius, the former a Greek and the
latter a Roman denomination (Fig. 12.4). In either case, this coin repre-
sents one-quarter of a tetradrachm or sheqel. Augustus reigned from 27–14
bce. Tiberius reigned from 14–37 ce.
Thus, at the death of Augustus in 14 bce, Jesus was a young man of
about 18. This means that during most of his ministry, Tiberius was the
emperor, while Augustus was the emperor of Jesus’s childhood.
12.4. Nineteenth-century etching: “Whose is this image and superscription? Render

to Caesar the things that are Caesar’ s...” (Mark 12:14–17)
The PONTIF MAXIM denarius represents more than 98% of the

known denarii struck under Tiberius. The other two reverse types are quite
rare and were used on coins by Tiberius for the first two years of his reign.
After that, Tiberius employed only one type until his death in 37 ce. This
most common type carries a portrait of the emperor on the obverse, along
with the inscription TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS (Tiberius,
Caesar Augustus, Son of the Divine Augustus), hence his “image and su-
perscription.” The reverse of these coins shows a seated female figure, with
the inscription PONTIF MAXIM, or high priest, another of the emper-
or’s titles and later a title of the Bishop of Rome.
With information available to them, nineteenth-century scholars of
biblical coins such as the Reverends Rogers and Madden, both tentatively
identified the Tiberius denarius as the most likely to have been the “Trib-
ute penny.” This choice was always made with plenty of caveats. Through-
out the twentieth and into the twenty-first century, this opinion remains
the story most often repeated. However, archaeologists have a very differ-
ent view. Mark Chancey, for example, notes that the most common silver
coin in ancient Judea at the time was the Tyrian sheqel. Tiberius denarii are
rarely found in excavations or the markets in Israel, and there is no reason
to believe they were common in ancient times.29
Danny Syon of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), points out that
the IAA vaults have only four denarii of Tiberius, one of which came from
the ‘Isfiya hoard, which dated to the 60s ce and originated in Phoenicia.
The other three denarii are of unknown provenance. “So while not factually
impossible in rich Jerusalem, the chances that Jesus saw a denar of Tiberi-
us, or even a provincial tetradrachm are slim,” says Syon, a leading author-
ity on coins of Roman Galilee.30 He mentions the provincial tetradrachms
specifically because of another theory that the coin shown to Jesus was an
Antioch tetradrachm of Tiberius with the head of Tiberius on one side and
the head of the deified Augustus on the other. “Considering that there is
not a single provincial tetradrachm in the records of the IAA before the
reign of Nero,” that is a rather unlikely possibility, he says.
Syon suggests two possibilities for the wording in the gospel, first that
it was written “with a Roman audience in mind, an audience that recog-
nized the denar, but not the tetradrachm and its fractions, which was the
silver coin the people in Jesus’ Judea knew. It is also possible that the writ-
er, writing in the post-70 ce period—when dinars were already common
enough—assumed that dinars had circulated under Tiberius as well....”
Syon, an expert in the coins of Roman Galilee, notes, “If the point
was showing Jesus an imperial portrait, then in statistical probability at
least, he was shown a bronze coin with an imperial portrait of Augustus or
Tiberius which stood in as a proxy for the tax coin, which was the Tyrian
tetradrachm/sheqel. We are left with a numismatic dilemma that apparently
cannot be solved by hard evidence alone; it seems that economic, linguistic,
and religious speculation will continue to lead the discussion.”31
We do not know more. For those who want to show off a silver coin
that was similar to the “Tribute penny” of Mark, either an Augustus or
Tiberius denarius or a provincial drachm would qualify, as would bronze
portrait coins struck at Antioch.
In the 1611 edition of the King James Bible, the word for denarius
was translated to the Anglo-Saxon British penny, the standard silver de-
nomination of the time. The British have used the initial “d” (referring to
denarius) as an abbreviation for penny or pence for hundreds of years.
The Greek equivalent to the silver denarius was the drachm, which was
the same size and value in the Roman period. Drachms are also found in
markets and excavations in the area of ancient Judea and the Galilee. Here
are some other references to the denarius/drachm denomination.
Matthew 18:28. “But the same servant went out, and found one
of his fellow servants, which owed him a hundred pence: and
he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat saying, Pay
me that thou owest.”
Matthew 20:2, 9, 10, 13. This is the parable of the laborers in
the vineyard: “And when he had agreed with the laborers for
a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.”
Mark 6:37. “He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to
eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred
pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?”
Mark 14:4-5. Judas asks about the value of the alabaster box of
spikenard that the woman broke over Jesus’s feet at Bethany:
“Why was this waste of the ointment made? For it might
have been sold for more than three hundred pence....” (See
also John 12:5.)
Luke 10:35. In the parable of the good Samaritan: “He took
out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him,
Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when

I come again, I will repay thee.”
Luke 15:8–9. This is the parable of the woman sweeping her
house for the lost piece of silver.
Revelation 6:6. “A measure of wheat for a penny, and three
measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil
and the wine.”
The Tribute Penny
6654.
AR denarius. Lugdunum mint.
Obv: CAESAR AVGVSTVS DIVI F PATER PATRIAE, Augustus
laureate head r.
Rev: AVGVSTI F COS DESIG PRINC IVVENT, C • L • CAESA-
RES • in exergue, Caius and Lucius Caesars standing facing, two
shields and two spears between them; above, on l., lituus r.,
and on r., simpulum l.
C
6655. AE as. Antioch mint.

Obv: PM TRP IMP AVGVSTI, Augustus laureate head r.
Rev: Large S C within laurel wreath.
C
6656
6656.
AR denarius. Lugdunum mint.
Obv: TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS, Tiberius laureate head r.
Rev: PONTIF MAXIM, female figure (Livia?) sits on a plain chair r.,
she holds olive branch in her l. hand and long scepter in her r.
C
6657. AE as. Antioch mint.

Obv: TI CAESAR AVG TR POT XXXIII, Tiberius laureate head r.
Rev: Large S C within laurel wreath.
C
Farthing
The farthing is another denomination mentioned in the King James ver-
sion; of course, it was a common English denomination starting in the
seventeenth century. The Greek words translated as farthing were assarion
(Matthew 10:29; Luke 12:6) and quadrans (Matthew 5:26; Mark
12:42). This denomination may have been a quadrans, although some have
suggested this coin was equivalent to the Roman as. Bronze coins of these
denominations struck at Antioch were in abundance, and commonly cir-
culated in the Holy Land.
Matthew 5:26. “Till thou has paid the uttermost farthing.”
Matthew 10:29. “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?”
Luke 12:6. “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings?”
The Travels of Paul of Tarsus

The apostle Paul was most responsible for helping to create a worldwide
Church. He was a native of Tarsus, a Roman town with an established
Jewish community. Paul was a traditional Jew, a follower of the famous
Rabbi Gamaliel. His given name was Saul. In his early life, Saul joined in
the persecution of the Jewish-Christians. In fact, he received letters from
the high priest to introduce him to the synagogues of various groups in
Damascus so he could visit them and preach his basic form of Judaism.
Saul set out for Damascus, on the road to which he experienced the
revelation that revolutionized Christianity. Now called Paul, the former
persecutor of Jewish-Christians traveled everywhere preaching the Gospel
of Jesus and encouraging conversion (Fig. 12.8). Paul also widely dissemi-
nated a change in Christianity. Until that time, it was a basic concept that
the only true believers in Jesus Christ were individuals who were Jews in
the first place. Even Jesus espoused this:
These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the
Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5–6).
Paul, however, stressed the concept that a Gentile did not need to
become a Jew in order to follow Jesus, leading to the famous agreement of
Jerusalem, which eventually led to the complete break between the Chris-
tian Church and the Jewish Temple.
Some scholars suggest Paul was a dealer in woven goods and this ac-
tivity explains the wide scope of his travels and missionary activities. Be-
low, we list the places visited by Paul during his four major journeys. Most
of these cities issued coins in ancient times, and collectors are often fond of
assembling sets of coins from the cities of Paul’s four journeys:
Paul’s First Journey (Acts 13:1–14:28)

Antioch, Seleucis-Pierea Antioch, Pisidia
Salamis, Cyprus Iconium, Lycaonia
Paphos, Cyprus Lystra, Lycaonia
Perga, Pamphylia Derbe, Lycaonia
Paul’s Second Journey (Acts 15:36–18:22)

Antioch, Syria Thessalonica, Macedonia
Tarsus, Cilicia Beroea, Macedonia
Derbe, Lycaonia Athens, Attica
Lystra, Lycaonia Corinth, Corinthia
Iconium, Lycaonia Ephesus, Ionia
Antioch, Pisidia Paphos, Cyprus
Troas Caesarea, Samaria
Neapolis, Macedonia Jerusalem, Judea
Philippi, Macedonia
Paul’s Third Journey (Acts 18:23–21:16)

Antioch, Seleucis-Pierea Rhodes
Iconium, Lycaonia Paphos, Cyprus
Ephesus, Ionia Tyre, Phoenicia
Thessalonica, Macedonia Ptolemais, Phoenicia
Corinth, Corinthia Caesarea, Samaria
Philippi, Macedonia Jerusalem, Judea
Miletus, Ionia
Paul’s Voyage to Rome (Acts 15:36–18:22)

Caesarea, Samaria Syracuse, Sicily
Sidon, Phoenicia Rhegium, Bruttium
Myra, Lycia Puteoli, Italy
Crete Rome, Italy
Malta
Seven Churches of Asia Minor

The book of Revelation is named for John of Patmos’s vision of Jesus (Fig.
12.7) and his resulting commission to write about what he saw and heard.
John received his vision on the tiny Aegean island of Patmos, where he found
himself “on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” This
phrase probably means that John had been exiled because he was a Chris-
tian. Exile was one of Rome’s most lenient punishments, used especially for
notable or wealthy people. John sees the revelation on the “Lord’s day.”
At first, John hears a loud voice behind him; it commands him to write
his visions in a book addressed to the seven churches of Asia Minor. The
cities of the seven churches represent an interesting and historic series for
collectors, and readers who wish to pursue these coins should refer to Ro-
man Provincial Coinage, which offers a complete listing of the types.
Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephe-
sus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and
to Philadelphia and to Laodicea (Revelation 1:11).
In response to the voice, John turns around and sees seven golden lamp
stands. These lamps are reminiscent of the seven-branched menorah that
stood in the Jerusalem Temple. In the midst of the lamp stands, John saw
“one like a son of man who had hair like white wool, eyes like flames, feet
burnished like polished bronze, and a voice like the sound of rushing wa-
ters. He held seven stars in his right hand, a sharp sword came from his
mouth, his face shown like the sun in full strength.”
John collapses, paralyzed by fear. However, the figure urges John not
to be afraid and identifies himself as Jesus. Each of the seven letters to the
churches is introduced by a different visual or verbal attribute from John’s
vision of the description of Jesus.
Each of the seven letters is really a prophetic message conveyed by
Jesus through John. However, the specific reason these seven churches
were chosen is not known. There were certainly other important Christian
churches in Asia Minor at this time. It is very possible that Paul estab-
lished many, or even all, of these churches, although many of the seven
cities are not specifically listed in any of his three journeys or his journey
to Rome. After Jerusalem fell to Rome in 70 ce, this area became one of
the most important geographic centers of Christianity. There were already
many Jews in Asia Minor in the Hellenistic period. Ironically, the earlier
Seleucids liked to hire Jews and settle them there as mercenaries. Perhaps
these seven churches were singled out because of specific problems or op-
portunities. Each one of these churches was within 100 miles of Ephesus
in the Roman province of Asia, and may have been part of a preaching
circuit for itinerant Christian teachers and prophets.
12.5. Remains of the Roman Library of Celsus at Ephesus, Ionia, now Turkey. Ephe-
sus and the Ephesians are mentioned more than 20 times in the New Testament.
Ephesus was perhaps the most important city in Asia Minor. John’s letter commends
the Church of Ephesus for persevering amid persecution by the Romans and for
ostracizing evil men and false apostles. (Author’s photo.)
Seven Churches of Asia Minor (Fig. 12.6)

Ephesus, Ionia (Fig. 12.5) Sardis, Lydia
Smyrna, Ionia Philadelphia, Lydia
Pergamum, Mysia Laodicia, Phrygia
Thyatira, Lydia
12.6. Map of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor, all of them are in modern day
Turkey.
12.7. St. John on the Island of Patmos, 1625 engraving by Jacques Callot (1592–
1635).
12.8. Paul preaches at Athens during his Second Journey (Acts 15:36–18:22), eigh-
teenth-century steel engraving.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Related Issues
Old Testament Quote on a Coin of Mazaeus
A
stater struck in Tarsus in Cilicia in the mid-fourth century bce,
around the time the Samarian and Yehud coins were struck, carries
a descriptive geographic phrase that was used in two books of the
Old Testament, codified at about the time the coin was issued. The phrase
appearing on the coin is in Aramaic, both the official language of the Per-
sian Empire at the time and the colloquial language in ancient Israel.
The obverse of this stater depicts Baal of Tarsus (also called Ba’altars)
seated, his name in Aramaic, which appears on other Cilician coins. But
the reverse motif and legend are unique. The image is two lines of turreted
city walls with a lion killing a bull above and the Aramaic inscription:
Mazaeus who is over Beyond the River and Cilicia. Abar Nahara was the
official name of the administrative district that encompassed the land be-
tween the Euphrates and the Mediterranean and went far enough south to
include Jerusalem. Since the phrase “Beyond the River” is used seven times
in Ezra and twice in Nehemiah, we recognize it as an important territory
at the time. Both Nehemiah and Mazaeus (Mazdai) were Persian court of-
ficials, so they used similar phraseology for administrative and geographic
regions. Their usage is preserved in the Bible.
The books of Ezra and Nehemiah were mainly memoirs of the two in-
dividuals. The Book of Nehemiah could have been first composed a year or
two after his arrival in Jerusalem in 445 bce. The Book of Ezra was prob-
ably composed at about the same time. In later editions around 400 bce,
unknown editors probably combined the memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah,
often juxtaposing the lives of these two leaders of the restoration of Jewish
Temple worship in Jerusalem after the Persian exile.
In the days of Nehemiah, Darius and then Artaxerxes were the “Great
Kings” of Persia whose power extended Beyond the River. Mazaeus was
governor, or satrap, of the land Beyond the River around 350 bce. Govern-
ing from Tarsus, which had become the administrative capital, Mazaeus
455
thus exclaimed on his silver coins that he was now the man in charge of
Beyond the River.
The lion attacking the bull (of Tarsus) appears on several other coins
of Tarsus and similar motifs (lion attacking stag or another animal) ap-
pear with frequency on other ancient coins. The symbolism, other than
as a symbol of Tarsus, is not clear. A number of Cilician coins, including
coins of Tarsus, were copied by the Samarians in the fourth century bce.
Meshorer and Qedar note that “at least fifteen different coins have Cilician
prototypes.”1
These similarities underline the close relationship between ancient Ju-
dah, Samaria, and Cilicia. In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, we learn
that it was these same Samarians, led by Sanballat, who were the major
opponents to the restoration of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple. An ab-
breviation of the name “Sanballat,” probably referring to an heir of Nehe-
miah’s Sanballat, appears on several Samarian coins contemporary with
Mazaeus.
Other aspects of this coin bind the entire region together. One obvious
feature is the use of Aramaic. Another, more intriguing symbol is the ear
of grain and bunch of grapes held in the outstretched hand of the Baal of
Tarsus. It reminds us of the Jewish blessing on wine and bread as a prelude
to a meal. From the coin images, we can appreciate that grain/bread and
grapes/wine have been used to represent the solid and liquid sustenance
from the earth in the Near East for millennia.
Mildenberg noted that the inscription on this coin “means that
[Mazaeus] was at that time ruling the huge satrapy of Transeuphratia
[Beyond the River], named first, as well as Cilicia, he became the first and
only Persian grandee who kept his original satrapy and was additionally
nominated to rule another, more important and larger territory. From the
suppression of the Phoenician revolt, in c. 345 bce till at least the eve of
Alexander’s conquest in 334, Mazaeus was, in fact, the victor of the greater
part of the Levant.”2
Mazaeus, Satrap of Cilicia c. 361–328 bce
6658. Tarsus mint, AR stater, 11 g.

Obv: È{¡lcN (Ba’altarz), Baal seated to the l.
Rev: ®l≈Δ |{ÓÈ{N cl cî ÈîeÈm (Mazaeus who is over Beyond the River
and Cilicia) above two lines of turreted city walls with lion killing
bull above.
R
Related Issues 457
Ituraean Kingdom of the North

The Ituraeans were a nomadic Arab tribe from the Arabian Peninsula
who lived in Lebanon during the final two centuries bce. The Ituraeans
are mentioned several times in the Old and New Testaments, as well as
by Josephus.3
The location of Ituraea was northeast of the Sea of Galilee, covering
the western slope of Mt. Hermon northward to the area of the southern
Beqa’a Valley, although its boundaries are not precisely known. In the sec-
ond century bce, the Ituraeans dominated Lebanon’s Beqa’a region, and
the Romans saw them as skilled, dangerous marauders.4
Ituraea, now often referred to as Chalkis in Seleucis and Pieria, was
the territory occupied by the tribe descended from Jetur, son of Ishmael
(Genesis 25:13–16). In the first book of Chronicles, the Ituraean tribe is
described as the enemy of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (1 Chronicles
5:9–10). The area also was governed at various times by Herod I, Agrippa
I, Agrippa II, Herod of Chalcis, and Aristobulus of Chalcis.
In the New Testament there is only a single mention of Ituraeans,
regarding the territories governed by Philip, Herod I’s third son:
“Now in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pi-
late being governor of Judea and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his
brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the reign of Trachonitis…” (Luke
3:1).
Schürer points out, “At the time of the Jewish king, Aristobulus I, the
kingdom of the Ituraeans seems to have included Galilee as well. In any
event, the Ituraeans at that time shared a common frontier with the Jews,
and formed part of a state constituted very similar to theirs.”5
Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, ruled the land as tetrarch and high priest
from about 85–40 bce. “About bce 85, from fear of him, the Damascenes
called in the aid of Aretas, king of the Arabians. About bce 78, Aristobu-
lus [II], son of queen Alexandra, made a journey to Damascus, avowedly
with the object of protecting it against Ptolemy. When Pompey arrived,
Ptolemy purchased immunity from him by the payment of a thousand tal-
ents. Pompey, however, destroyed the fortified places in the Lebanon and
undoubtedly also curtailed the territory of Ptolemy in a way similar to that
in which he dealt with the Jewish territory.”6
After Aristobulus II was killed by the Romans, Ptolemy sheltered
Aristobulus’s two sons. Ptolemy’s son Philippion married Alexandra, one
of Aristobulus II’s daughters, but Ptolemy was jealous and wanted his
daughter-in-law for himself. So, he murdered his son and married her.7
Three known Ituraean dynastic rulers struck coins.8 Each one called
himself “Tetrarch and High Priest” and thus seems to copy coins of Jan-
naeus, who also styled himself both “King” and “High Priest” on coins
struck only a few years before the first Ituraean coins. The first Ituraean
ruler who issued coins was Ptolemy, son of Mennaus (c. 85–40 bce).
Ptolemy was followed by his son Lysanias, who, Josephus reports,9 as-
cended to the throne in 40 bce. (Coincidentally this event occurred the
same year Herod I was appointed by the Romans as King of Judea.)
Lysanias was called “king of the Ituraeans” by Dio Cassius10 and reigned
between about 40 and 36 bce. He fell victim to Roman intrigue, lost his
tetrarchy, and was executed by order of Mark Antony, who gave his for-
mer territory to Cleopatra as a gift.
Cleopatra ruled over Ituraea until she died. During her last year, she
issued a series of three coins dated according to both her reign in Egypt
and her rule over Ituraea, with an inscription that stated “Year 21 which
is also year 6.” Zenodorus, the son of Lysanias, leased some of his father’s
territory from Cleopatra. After Cleopatra committed suicide, Zenodorus
leased the southern portions of his father’s tetrarchy and also leased the
southern portions of Ituraea from the Romans. Zenodorus ruled until
about 23 bce, when Augustus deposed him and turned his territories, in-
cluding Gaulanitis, Batanaea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis, over to Herod
the Great. The Ituraean territories were ruled by the Herodian dynasty for
the next three generations. Herod’s son Philip built his capital in this area,
at Caesarea Panias.
In 37, ce Caligula gave Agrippa I the former tetrarchies of Philip,
which Agrippa I ruled until his death in 44 ce.
According to Agrippa I’s request in 41 ce, Claudius gave Chalcis as
well as a royal title to his brother Herod. When Herod of Chalcis died in
48 ce, his kingdom was given to Agrippa II, later to become a king, as a
tetrarchy. Agrippa II was forced to give up the tetrarchy of Chalcis in 53
ce, but in exchange, Claudius gave him the territories Philip had previ-
ously governed. In 57 ce, the territory that had been forfeited by Agrippa
II was given to his cousin Aristobulus, son of Herod of Chalcis.
The Ituraean coins were dated according to the Seleucid era, and struck
over a period of just less than 50 years, between 73 and 25 bce.
Kindler suggests that the Ituraeans probably worshipped various Arab/
Nabatean gods, thus on the coins Pallas Athena syncretistically represents
the Nabataean goddess Allath, consort of DuShara. He also describes the
two male figures in military dress as a pair of Arab gods such as Azizu and
Monimus, Aziz and Arsu, Sa’ad and Ash’ar, Ash’ar and Avgal, or Ma’anu
and Sha’aru.11
Related Issues 459
Rulers of Ituraea and Chalcis12

Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, 85–40 bce
Lysanias, son of Ptolemy, 40–34 bce
Zenodorus, before 23–20 bce (initially under Cleopatra)
Herod the Great, 20–4 bce
Philip, 4 bce–34 ce
Lysanias (Abilene), see Luke 3:1, although this source may be an ana-
chronistic reference to the earlier Lysanias.
Herod Agrippa I (Batanaea, Abilene, and other areas), 37–44 ce
Soemus (Ituraea), 38–49 ce
Herod of Chalcis (Chalcis), 41–48 ce
Herod Agrippa II (Chalcis), 48–53 ce; (Batanaea, Abilene, and other
areas), 53–94/95 ce.
Aristobulus of Chalcidice (Chalcis?), 57–92 ce
Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus (c. 85–40 bce)

6659. AE 20 mm.
Obv: Zeus head r.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMA TETPAPX on sides, APXIE (Ptolemy the tetrarch
and high priest) below two Arab god figures in military dress,
standing to front and leaning on long spears, legend on both sides
from r., and below, all surrounded by a wreath.
S
6660. AE 20 mm.
Obv: Zeus laureate head r.
Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY TETPAPXOY APX (of Ptolemy, the tetrarch and
high priest) in three lines below eagle, wings spread, flies r., hold-
ing wreath in beak, monogram between tail and wing.
S
Obverse is often countermarked with head in oval.
Lysanias son of Ptolemy (c. 40–36 bce)

6661. AE 20 mm.
Obv: ΠTO monogram, Lysanias diademed head r.
Rev: ΛΣYANIOY TETPAPXOY KAI APXIEPEΩΣ (of Lysanias, the
tetrarch and high priest), Athena Nikephora, representing Allath,
standing to front, her head turned l., wearing Corinthian hel-
met, holding spear in l. hand, shield below, monogram ΦΛ in
r. field.
S
Obverse is often countermarked with monogram.
Cleopatra VII (32/31 bce)
6662
6662. AE 20 mm.
Obv: BACIΛICCHC KΛEOΠATRAC (of Queen Cleopatra), Cleopatra
bust r.
Rev: ETOYC KA TOY KAI ζΘEAC NEWTEPAC (year 21 and 6 of the
New Goddess), bare head Mark Antony to r.
S
6663. AE 17 mm.
Obv: BACIΛICCHC KΛEOΠATRAC, Cleopatra bust r.
Rev: ETOYC KA TOY KAI ζΘEAC NEWTEPAC; Nike advances r.
holding palm and wreath, all within wreath.
S
6664. AE 16 mm.
Obv: BACIΛICCHC KΛEOΠATRAC, Cleopatra bust r.
Rev: ETOYC KA TOY KAI ζΘEAC NEWTEPAC, Athena advances l.
holding shield and spear.
S
Zenodorus, son of Lysanias (c. 31–23 bce)
6665. AE 20 mm.
Obv: NE L BΠΣ (SE 282 = 32/31 bce), Octavian bare head r.
Rev: ZHNOΔOPOY TETPAPXOY KAI APXIEPEΩΣ (of Zenodoros,
the Tetrarch and High Priest), bare head of Zenodorus to l.
S
Obverse is sometimes countermarked with a monogram.
6666. AE 20 mm.
Obv: L ZΠ NE KAI (SE 287 = 27/26 bce of Caesar), Augustus bare head r.
Rev: ZHNOΔOPOY TETPAPXOY KAI APXIEPEΩΣ, bare head of
Zenodorus to l.
S
Obverse is sometimes countermarked with a monogram.
Related Issues 461
Table 13.1. Roman Governors of Syria21

† Named on Roman Republican coins.
‡ Imitative tetradrachms of Philip with dates but no name.
Dates Name Coins

65–62 bce M. Aemilius Scaurus † (RRC 422/1a–b)
L. Marcius L.f, Q.n. † (RRC 293/1 [early?], 425/1
61–60 bce
Philippus [governor’s son]
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
59–58 bce † (RRC 393/1a, 439/1)
Marcellinus
‡Antioch AR (RPC 4124), Nysa
57–55 bce Aulus Gabinius
Scythopolis (RPC 4826), Marisa22
† (RRC 430/1 [governor’s son],
54–53 bce M. Licinius Crassus ‡ (RPC 4125), (RPC 4827)
† (RRC 500/1 500/3 500/5, 505/2),

53–51 bce C. Cassius Longinus
‡ (RPC 4126, 4130–4131)
51–50 bce M. Calpurnius Bibulus –––
50/49 bce (Fabricius) Veiento –––
Q. Caecilius Metellus
49–48 bce † (RRC 459/1, 460–461)
Pius Scipio Nasica
47–46 bce Sex. Iulius Caesar ‡ (RPC 4127)
46–44 bce Q. Caecilius Bassus ‡ (RPC 4828)
45 bce C. Antistius Vetus –––
44 bce L. Staius Murcus † (RRC 510/1) ‡ (RPC 4129)
44–43 bce Q. Marcius Crispus ‡ (RPC 4130)
44–42 bce C. Cassius Longinus ‡ (RPC I 4130, 4131)
41–40 bce L. Decidius Saxa ‡ (RPC 4132)
‡ (RPC 4133), Cilicia (RPC 5409–
39–38 bce P. Ventidius Bassus
5410), Nysa (RPC 4128)
‡ (RPC 4134), Zacynthus (RPC
38–37 bce C. Sosius
1291)
35 bce L. Munatius Plancus † (RRC 475/1–2)
34/33–33/ “Fleet coinage” of Antony (RPC
L. Calpurnius Bibulus
32 bce 4088, 4090, 4092)
30 bce Q. Didius ‡ (RPC 4136)
M. Valerius Messalla
29 bce ‡ (RPC 4137)
Corvinus
M. Tullius Cicero (son ‡ (RPC 4138, 4139, 4140), Magnesia
28–25 bce
of the famous Cicero) (RPC 2448)
Dates Name Coins

c. 25–23 bce Varro ‡ (RPC 4142)
Roman Imperial (all honorific, is-
23–13 bce M. Vipsanius Agrippa
sued by others), ‡ (RPC 4142–4149)
c.13–c.10 bce M. Titius –––
c.10–8/7 bce C. Sentius Saturninus –––
Antioch (RPC 4242, 4245, 4252) and
7–c. 4 bce P. Quinctilius Varus
Berytus (RPC 4535)
c.4–1 bce L. Calpurnius Piso –––
4–6 ce L. Volusius Saturninus Antioch (RPC 4262)
6 –7 ce P. Sulpicius Quirinius –––
Q. Caecilius Metellus Antioch (RPC 4268–4271), Berytus
11(?)–17 ce
Creticus Silanus (RPC 4540–4542)
17–19 ce Cn. Calpurnius Piso –––
19–21 (23?) ce Cn. Sentius Saturninus –––
23(?)–32 ce L. Aelius Lamia –––
32–33 ce L. Pomponius Flaccus Antioch (RPC 4274–4275)
35–39 ce L. Vitellius –––
39–42 ce P. Petronius Antioch (RPC 4276)
42–44 ce C. Vibius Marsus –––
44–c.51 ce C. Cassius Longinus Antioch (RPC 4278)
C. Ummidius Durmius Antioch (RPC 4284–4287, 4290–
51–60 ce
Quadratus 4291)
60–63 ce Cn. Domitius Corbulo –––
63–67 ce C. Cestius Gallus Antioch (RPC 4296, 4303, 4304)
67–69 ce C. Licinius Mucianus Antioch (RPC 4313, 4316)
Italics = issued no coins.
Roman Governors of Syria

Pompey created the Roman province of Syria in 64/63 bce. From this
time forward there was a series of Roman governors of the province of
Syria, which also included the ancient Holy Land (Table 13.1). Begin-
ning in 27 bce, his governors were Imperial Legates who had praetorian
rank. In 135 ce, after Bar Kokhba was defeated, the Province of Syria
was merged with Roman Judaea to form Syria Palaestina. In 193 ce the
region was divided again into Syria Coele and Syria Phoenicia.
Related Issues 463
Some of these governors are linked directly to the ancient Holy Land.
One of the earliest is Aulus Gabinius, proconsul to Syria from 57–55 bce.
Gabinius refounded a number of Greek cities that the Hasmoneans had
destroyed or captured. These cities dated their coins from the so-called
Pompeian era and include Dora, Pella, Abila, Canatha, Philadelphia,
and Gadara, which was named for Pompey as “Pompeian Gadara.” Nysa
Scythopolis not only bore his name (Gabinis-Nysa), but also placed his
portrait on its coins. The city of Marisa also struck coins that are dated to
this period.13
Gabinius oversaw a financial reorganization in Syria, and, according
to Roman Provincial Coinage I, he was likely responsible for issuing the
posthumous revival of the coins of the Seleucid king Philip Philadelphus
in a crude style using debased silver. These coins were needed to finance
Roman military campaigns in Parthia and Judea, among other reasons.
The earliest and largest issue of these tetradrachms has a monogram of
Gabinius’s name (no. 6667).14
Various parts of the Judean kingdom were part of the province of Syria
at different times. Borders were changed at the time of the division of
Herod’s kingdom among his three sons, and later, the heirs of these sons.
Some of the territories remained with Herod’s successors until the death
of his grandson, Agrippa II, in 96 ce. From 6–66 ce, Roman prefects and
procurators, subordinate to the governors of the Province of Syria, gov-
erned Judea. The Syrian governors also oversaw several cities within the
territory of Judea, such as Gaza, Gadara, and Hippos, which were not ruled
by the Judean officials.
Three Roman governors of Syria played a significant role during the
years leading up to and including the Jewish War against Rome. All three
of them struck coins with their names, with a portrait of the emperor un-
der whom they served. Most of the information we have about these three
governors comes to us via Josephus, although coins and lapidary inscrip-
tions provide us with additional evidence of their tenure. The governors are
Caius Ummidius Quadratus, c. 51–60 ce, Caius Cestius Gallus, c. 63–67
ce, and Caius Licinius Mucianus, governor during the war, 67–69 ce.
Caius Ummidius Quadratus was deeply involved in a conflict between
Jews and Samaritans. It began when a Galilean pilgrim, on his way to
celebrate Passover in Jerusalem, was murdered while passing through Sa-
maritan territory. Antagonism grew between the Samaritans and the Jews.
Leaders of both sides took their grievances to the procurator, Cumanus,
but he was unable to solve the problem and dismissed them without re-
solving the issues.
Thus, the leaders of both camps brought their arguments before Qua-
dratus in Tyre. The Jewish delegation, which included High Priest Jona-
than ben Ananias, claimed that the Samaritans bribed Cumanus to ignore
the murder of the pilgrims passing through their territory. The Samaritans
accused Jewish bands of taking the law into their own hands and sacking
Samaritan villages.
Josephus narrates, “Quadratus deferred judgement saying that he

would announce his decision when he had reached Judea and had gained a
more accurate understanding of the case....Not long afterwards Quadratus
reached Samaria where…[h]e then crucified those of the Samaritans and
of the Jews, who he had learned had taken part in the rebellion and whom
Cumanus had taken prisoner. From there he came to Lydda,” where he
held another hearing and put more Samaritans and Jews to death.15
Not yet finished, Quadratus sent a group of Samaritan and Jewish
dignitaries, including Ananias the High Priest, to appear before Claudius
and account for their actions. When Claudius “heard the case through,
and, on discovering that the Samaritans were the first to move in stirring
up trouble, he ordered those of them who had come before him to be put
to death, condemned Cumanus to exile, and order Celer the tribune [to
Judea] to be taken to Jerusalem, where he was to be dragged around the
whole city in a public spectacle and then put to death,” Josephus reports.16
Nero appointed Caius Cestius Gallus governor of Syria around 63 ce.
During a Passover visit to Jerusalem in 64, the Jews “implored him to have
compassion on the calamities of the nation, and loudly denounced Florus
as the ruin of the country.” Gallus promised to act, but in the end, he did
nothing. Florus believed that “war with the [ Jewish] nation [was] his only
hope of covering up his own enormities. For, if the peace were kept, he
expected to have the Jews accusing him before Caesar; whereas, could he
bring about their revolt…in order…to produce an outbreak of the nation,
he daily added to their sufferings.”17
While Gallus was in Judea, he took a census, possibly to acquaint him-
self with the strength and number of the Jews. When the revolt began to
spread, both Florus and the Jews appealed to Gallus. Even though his
report blamed Florus, Gallus nevertheless marched from Antioch with the
Twelfth Legion to quell the Judean uprising in 66. The troops marched to
Jerusalem. On the way they burned a town called Cabul, near Akko, cap-
tured other villages, and defeated rebels in Galilee. When Roman soldiers
reached Mt. Scopus, they besieged the Temple Mount. Then, apparently
without reason, Gallus withdrew. This decision was so inexplicable that
Josephus invoked God’s will to account for it: “I suppose, because of those
miscreants, [the zealots], had already turned away even from His sanctuary
and ordained that day should not see the end of the war.”18
Gallus’s retreat turned into a rout. The Jews aggressively attacked
the Romans, who quickly fled. They pursued the Romans “as far as An-
tipatris, and then, failing to overtake the Romans, turned and carried
off the machines, plundered the corpses, collected the booty which had
been left on the route, and, with songs of triumph, retraced their steps to
the capital.”19 Gallus’s defeat led to Vespasian’s appointment by Nero as
commander of the Roman army. In the wake of their success, the Jews
established a rebel government.
Related Issues 465
Caius Licinius Mucianus was the next governor of Syria appointed by

Nero. He was somewhat sympathetic to the Jewish community at Antioch
and supported certain privileges for them. Along with other generals in
the east, Mucianus was a major supporter of Vespasian and he was soon
dispatched to Italy “with a substantial force of cavalry and infantry”20 to
secure Rome against the supporters of Vitellius. Troops of Vitellius’s forces
were defeated by Mucianus who, near the end of 69 entered Rome and
prepared the city for Vespasian’s triumphant arrival in 70 ce.
Aulus Gabinius, 57–55 bce
6667.
AR posthumous tetradrachm of Philip Philadelphus.
Obv: Philip Philadelphus diademed head r.
Rev: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΦIΛIΠΠOY EΠIΦANOYΣ ΦIΛAΔEΛΦOY (Of
King Philip the Present [God] and Brother-loving), Zeus seated l.
holding Nike and scepter, monogram of Gabinius AYΓB below l.
C
6668.
AE 19–20 mm. Nysa Scythopolis.
Obv: Gabinius laureate head r.
Rev: ΓAB NY (of Gabinian Nysa), in l. field, LI (year 10 = 54 bce) in r.
field, Λ in exergue, Dionysos stands l., wears short chiton.
S
Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus, c. 11–17 ce
6669.
Seleucis and Pieria. Antioch. Pseudo-autonomous issue. Augustus,
27 bce–14 ce. AE 18 mm.
Obv: Jupiter laureate head r.
Rev: EΠI ΣIΛANOY ANTIOXEΩN (Under Silanus, of the Antiochenes),
ram running r., looking back, star above, ΔM (year 44 of the Actian
Era = 13/14 ce) below.
C
6670.
Seleucis and Pieria. Antioch. Tiberius. 14–37 ce. AE 26–28 mm.
Obv: ΣEBAΣTOΣ ΣEBAΣTOY KAIΣAP (The Emperor Caesar, son of the
Emperor [i.e. Tiberius son of Augustus]), Tiberius bare head r.
Rev: A EΠI ΣIΛANOV ANTIOXEΩN ЄM ([Year] one, under Silanus, of
the Antiochenes [year] 45), in six lines within wreath. (RY 1 and
Actian Year 45 = 14/15 ce).
C
L. Pomponius Flaccus, 32–33 ce
6671.
Seleucis and Pieria. Antioch. Tiberius. 14–37 ce. AE 24 mm.
Obv: TIBEPIOΣ KAIΣAP ΣEBAΣTOΣ (Tiberius Caesar, the Emperor),
Tiberius bare head r.
Rev: EΠI ΦΛAKKOV ANTIOXEΩN BΠ (Under Flaccus, of the Antio-
chenes, [year] 82), in four lines, all within wreath. (Year 82 of the
Caesarean Era = 33/34 ce).
R
P. Petronius, 39–42 ce
6672.
Seleucis and Pieria. Antioch. Claudius. 41–54 ce. AE 24 mm.
Obv: IMP.TI.CLAVD.CAE AV.GER, Claudius laureate head r.
Rev: EΠI ΠETONIΩY ANTIOXEΩN Ϙ (Under Petronius, of the Antio-
chenes, [year] 90), within wreath. (Year 90 of the Caesarean Era =
41/42 ce).
R
C. Cassius Longinus, 44–c. 51 ce
6673.
Seleucis and Pieria. Antioch. Tiberius. 41–54 ce. AE 23 mm.
Obv: IM.T[…]VG.GER, Claudius laureate head r.
Rev: ΕΠΙ ΚΑΣΣΙΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΕΤ ϘϚ (Under Cassius, of the
Antiochenes, year 96), within wreath. (Year 96 of the Caesarean
Era = 47/48 ce).
RR
C. Ummidius Quadratus, 51–60 ce
6674.
Seleucis and Pieria. Antioch. 55/56 ce. AE 29 mm.
Obv: ANTIOXEΩN (Of the Antiochenes), turreted, veiled, draped bust of
the city goddess r.
Rev: EΠI KOYΔPATOY ET ΔP (Under Quadratus, year 104), ram
runs r., looking back, crescent and star above.
S
C. Cestius Gallus, 63–67 ce
6675.
Obv: IM NER CLAV CAESAR, Nero laureate head r., lituus in front.
Rev: ΕΠΙ ΚΕΣΤΙΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΕΤ ΔΙΡ (Under Cestius, of the
Antiochenes, year 114), within a wreath of eight leaves.
S
Related Issues 467
C. Licinius Mucianus, 67–69 ce
6676.
Obv: IM SER SVL GALBA CAE, laureate head of Galba r.
Rev: EΠI MOYKIANOY ANTIOXEΩN ET ZIP (Under Mucianus, of
the Antiochenes, year 117), within a wreath of eight leaves.
S
a. Similar coin under Otho.
Jewish Royal Family of Adiabene

Adiabene was a small kingdom on the east bank of the Tigris River, where
the Assyrian Empire once stood. Today the area is part of northern Iraq.
In Adiabene, the royal family voluntarily converted to Judaism early in
the first century. Just a few years earlier, Philo, the Jewish Alexandrian
philosopher, was introducing the concepts of Judaism to a wide audience
of cultivated heathens among the Greeks. Adiabene’s King Monobaz
(Monobazus) I married his sister, who became Queen Helena. Monobaz I
had multiple wives and children. Izates and his older brother Monobaz II23
were the two children who came from Monobaz and Helena.24
Josephus says it was clear that all of Monobaz’ s “favor was concentrat-
ed on Izates as if he were an only child.”25 This bias led to a lot of sibling
jealousy. To protect Izates from his royal half-brothers, he was sent to the
court of Abennerig, king of nearby Charax-Spasini on the Persian Gulf,
where he quickly won good favor. Before long, Izates was wed to King
Abennerig’s daughter, Samacha, who had recently converted to Judaism
after learning about the religion from a Jewish merchant named Ananias,
who traded at her father’s court. Izates met the merchant, and also became
interested in the Jewish religion that was centered in Jerusalem. In about
18 ce, Izates proclaimed his adherence to Judaism.
Unbeknownst to Izates, at the same time, back home in Adiabene,
his mother Helena also was converted to Judaism by a Jewish merchant
named Hananiah. Other aristocrats of Adiabene were Zoroastrians, al-
though Izates older brother Monobaz II became Jewish.
King Monobaz I Bazaios (c. 5 bce–30 ce) had never converted, al-
though it can be safely assumed he was sympathetic to the Jewish reli-
gion because of his sister-wife and son, as well as other of his wives who
may have been Jewish. When Monobaz I died in 36 ce, he was succeeded
by Izates II (30–55 ce). In his absence, Monobaz II received the royal
ring and diadem while his mother “exhorted him to administer the king-
dom until his brother’s arrival. The latter, on hearing of his father’s death,
quickly arrived and succeeded his brother Monobazus [II], who made
way for him.”26
Izates, although he identified as Jewish, wanted to fully embrace his

religion, so he directed his physician to circumcise him in spite of contrar-
ian advice from both his tutor and his Jewish-convert mother. The mother
especially feared that his subjects “would not tolerate the rule of a Jew over
them,”27 according to Josephus.
Soon Helena realized that “peace prevailed in the kingdom and that
her son was prosperous and the object of admiration in all men’s eyes.”28
And Helena had “a desire to go to the city of Jerusalem and to worship at
the Temple of God.”29 In around 43 ce, Helena and her son Izates visited
Jerusalem, where she became increasingly enchanted with the Jewish reli-
gion. South of the Temple mount, two Israeli archaeologists30 discovered
a massive residence with “frescoes in various solid colors similar to those
found in Herod’s northern palace on Masada, and…private immersion
pools all indicate that this structure was in fact a palatial residence.”31This
was likely Helena’s palace, according to Notley and Garcia, who identified
the likely location “between the Ophel (the area immediately south of the
Temple Mount) and the City of David (or Lower City) immediately south
of the Ophel” (Fig. 13.3).32
Among other gifts, Helena contributed a golden candelabrum that was
hung above the Temple gate (Mishna, Yoma 3.10), and is likely depicted
above the Temple on Bar Kokhba sela’im (see p. 339). When a famine in
48 ce caused mass starvation in Jerusalem, Helena donated shiploads of
wheat she brought, at great expense, from Alexandria and Cyprus. Izates
and apparently later Monobaz II joined in the contributions. The generos-
ity and gifts from Helena and Izates to the Palestinian Jews clearly im-
pressed them. “That these efforts were an unqualified success is indicated
by numerous Talmudic stories about both converts, as well as Monobaz II,
Izates heir,” Neusner observes.33
Helena survived Izates, who died at age 55 after 24 years on the throne.
Izates was succeeded by his brother Monobaz II, who had previously made
way for his late brother. Helena died not long after her first son. Monobaz
II sent the bones of Helena and Izates “to Jerusalem with instructions that
they should be buried in the three pyramids that his mother had erected at
a distance of three furlongs from the city of Jerusalem.”34
Neither the tomb of Helena nor of Izates have been found, but in
1863, the French archaeologist Felicien de Saulcy discovered a limestone
sarcophagus containing pieces of a gold-embroidered shroud. Aramaic in-
scriptions on the sarcophagus refers to Tsadan (or Tsadah) the queen. Be-
cause de Saulcy believed this was the tomb of a Judahite queen, he “unwit-
tingly perpetuated the misnomer Tomb of the Kings,” according to Not-
ley and Garcia.35 Her identity remains a mystery and “nowhere is Tsadan
recorded as Helena’s name. It is possible that the sarcophagus may have
belonged to another queen in the Adiabene family, perhaps an unknown
wife of either Izates or Monobaz.”36
Related Issues 469
13.1. 1897 tourist photo of the Tomb of the Kings, the burial place of the family of
Queen Helena of Adiabene (see p. 494).
Josephus promises to further narrate the life of King Monobaz II, but
“such an account is not to be found in Josephus’ extant works, unless per-
haps Josephus has in mind the brief mention of the participation of the
family of Monobaz in the revolt in 66.”37
The tomb with three pyramids that Helena built in Jerusalem was
likely intended for Helena and both of her sons. Helena’s tomb is an excit-
ing spot for visitors to East Jerusalem, where it is known as the “Tomb of
the Kings.” The tomb is about a 15-minute walk from the Damascus Gate
(Fig. 13.1).
Monobaz I, King of Adiabene until c. 30 ce
6677
6677. AE 18 mm, struck 26/27 ce.
Obv: BAΣIΛΕΩΣ MONOBAZOY, Monobaz bust r., wearing tiara.
Rev: H ΛT (SE 338 = 26 ce) within a wreath, ear of grain.
RRR
Noah’s Ark
The following four coins were struck quite a bit later than other coins in
this volume. They are relevant as they are the only ancient coins I know
that depict stories from the Old Testament.
The coins with Noah’s Ark were struck in Apameia, Phrygia (modern
Turkey). Apameia Kibotos was in the shadow of Mt. Ararat, also called the
hill of Celaenae, where legend states (and some archaeologists and histori-
ans) believe that Noah’s Ark came to rest. These coins show that this belief
has existed for more than 1,700 years.
Noah’s Ark is likely depicted as a chest on these coins because the
Hebrew word teva can be translated as either “box” or “coffer.” Teva also
means “vessel” or “ark.” In the Hebrew Bible, the word teva is used to
describe Noah’s ark as well as the “basket” of bulrushes in which Miriam
placed Moses. In the Septuagint, teva is translated into the Greek kibotos,
which means “box” as well as “ark.”
Perhaps it was because of its proximity to the legendary final resting
place of the Ark that Apameia’s nickname was “city of the chest” in the an-
cient world. One of the town’s main industries was building packing crates
for shipping goods via the many trade routes that radiated from Apameia
in every direction.
The Noah’s Ark coin depicts two scenes on the same coin. This is also
apparently a unique situation on ancient coinage. These coins were struck
under Septimius Severus, Macrinus, and Philip Sr.
Noah’s Ark
6678. Macrinus, 217–218 ce. AE 35 mm.

Obv: M OP CA CEOY MAKPEINOC CEBA, Macrinus laureate bust
r. wearing paludamentum and cuirass.
Rev: APAMEWN in exergue, chest or ark, inscribed NΩE, with open
lid, floating on waves; within it, the upper parts of Noah and his
wife, both draped, facing front with heads l., upon the Ark
stands a dove, with another dove flying toward the ark carrying
an olive branch; on the ground l. of the chest stand Noah and
his wife facing l., each with their r. hands raised, the woman
wears a long chiton, peplos, and veil, the man wears a short chiton.
RRR
6679. Philip Sr., 244–249 ce. AE 35 mm.

Obv: AYT K IOYΛ ΦIΛIΠΠOC AVΓ, Philip Sr. laureate bust r. wear-
ing paludamentum and cuirass.
Rev: EΠM AYP AΛEΞANΔPOY Bl, APXI AΠAMEΩN, same as
no. 6678.
RRR
Related Issues 471
13.2. Mosaic of the Binding of Isaac, c. sixth century ce, at the Beit Alpha synagogue.
Binding of Isaac
The second Old Testament story featured on an ancient coin is the bind-
ing of Isaac (Genesis 22). This story, according to Meshorer, “became a
symbol of devotion and submission to God’s will on the one hand and of
the sacrifice of the innocent on the other.” This scene is popular in Jewish
and Christian art and also in Islamic tradition throughout history, and it
appears, among other places, on mosaics in ancient churches and synagogues
(Fig. 13.2), in illuminated manuscripts, and on amulets.38
Both coins show the binding of Isaac, including the substitution of a
ram as a replacement sacrifice.39 Gitler and Mairat have a forthcoming ar-
ticle that describes the second coin, which they discovered, and tentatively
identifies the figures as noted below.40
Binding of Isaac
6680. Phillip I and II. 247–249 ce. AE 27–28 mm.

Obv: IIMM CC P FILIPPIS AVGG (their royal names), Philip I and
II jugate busts r., both draped and laureate.
Rev: COL NEAPOL NEO CORO, figure on l. stands r. with hand
raised (servant), another figure stands l. looking back and hold-
ing sword or knife in r. hand (Abraham), and a kneeling figure
(Isaac) with l. hand, a fourth figure on r. (Angel) advances l. and
raises r. hand, a ram stands at his side; Mt. Gerizim with Temple
and shrines in top center field.
RRR
6681. Phillip I and II. 247–249 ce. AE 27–28 mm.

Obv: Similar to no. 6680.
Rev: COL NEAPOL NEO CORO, figure on l. stands r. with hand
raised (servant), next to him another figure stands r. looking
back and holding a knife in r. hand (Abraham) and holding
a ram with l. hand, behind small altar figure stands l. (Isaac)
with r. hand raised, another figure stands on far r. faces l. and
raises r. hand (servant); Mt. Gerizim with Temple and shrines
in top center field.
RRR
13.3. The Adiabene palaces stood near the Temple Mount as shown in the scale
model of ancient Jerusalem at the Israel Museum. (Israel Museum Photo)
Endnotes
Chapter 1: Collecting Biblical Coins
1. Josephus BJ, V: 550–52.
2. Madden 1864.
3. Rogers 1914: 67.
4. Hendin 2001. This lamp hoard was not from a controlled excavation but was
convincing to archaeologists and numismatists who examined it.
5. All five of the silver coins had identical patina, and all of the Bar Kokhba bronze
coins also had identical patina. The patina on the bronze coins matched exactly
a small bit of green encrustation on the aureus of Domitian. A piece of bronze
encrustation was found adhering to the inside bottom of the lamp and exactly
matched the encrustation on the bronze coins.
6. Mark Antony denarii were relatively rare in ancient Israel but have been
found in other hoards from this period, usually in worn condition. There are
four specimens at Kh. Bad Issah, and nine out of a total of eleven Roman
Republican denarii belonging to this category were found at the Murabba’at
hoard (Milik and Seyrig 1958: 23.)
7. Thanks to Gabriela Bijovsky, curator of the coin department at the Israel
Antiquities Authority, for this observation. cf. Bijovsky 2013. Also, Mildenberg
1984: 56, hoard 19, published the “Beit Mirsim” hoard found in 1973/4. This
hoard contained “At least 100 Bar Kokhba silver coins and some bronzes
together with Roman issues: 1 aureus of Vespasian, about 100 denarii from
Vespasian to Trajan including 1 Julia Titi, 30 Hadrianic denarii, 150 Syrian
tetradrachms and a few tridrachms....” This “hoard” however, was not recovered at
one time or in its entirety, to anyone’s knowledge, and therefore its composition
is not conclusive.
8. Zissu and Hendin 2012.
9. Ibid.: 222.
10. ArtScroll translation Baba Metzia, 25b notes.
11. A dupondius of Nero is 28–30 mm, whereas an Antioch tetradrachm of Nero
is usually a bit smaller, at 24–26 mm.
12. Dayan 1978: 111.
13. Abu Ali told me this story at least twice, each time in Arabic (he spoke
little English, I speak little Arabic) through mutual friends who acted as
interpreters. However, when I wrote about this in a magazine after Abu Ali’s
death, my friend the legendary Jerusalem attorney and numismatist Arnold
Spaer wrote to say that he had been the attorney for Abu Ali for many years,
and Abu Ali was absolutely not one of the finders of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
After receiving Mr. Spaer’s letter, I double checked with my two interpreters,
473
and both confirmed that they translated this story to me from Abu Ali
himself, and both said that he had also told them this story at other times. I
do not know why Mr. Spaer denied this on behalf of the deceased Abu Ali,
but I include the story here because, as Moshe Dayan has noted (ibid.), Abu
Ali was not one to tell tall tales.
14. Interestingly, trapeza is the word for “bank” in Greece today. Thus, the
connection of the tables of the moneychangers is perpetuated to this day.
15. Sperber 2007: 435–36.
16. Syon 2015: 33.
17. Danby 1933: 53, note 1. This “transaction fee” was the moneychanger’s
commission, no doubt inclusive of an element for the franchise charged by the
Temple authorities to the moneychanger for trading in the Temple precincts.
18. Sperber 1974: 101–6.
19. Jacobson 2017: 69.
20. Bower, Hendin, and Burt 2016: 95–110.
21. Mildenberg 1984.
22. It is possible that some expert die engravers were itinerant and went from
place to place as their services were needed.
23. Barag 2000–2002b: 153–56.
24. C. Lorber. Personal communications, 2009.
25. For example, see van Alfen 2000, 2004/2005; and Davies 1992.
26. e.g., Hill 1914: 255, no. 37; 273, no. 41.
27. Robinson complained that “the field archaeologist and numismatist did not
pay much attention to [crude and irregular] coins in the past” (1931: 97).
28. P. V. Hill 1950.
29. Kadman 1960: 113.
30. Mildenberg 1984: 22.
31. Hendin et al. AJN, 2011.
32. Thanks to Donald T. Ariel, head of the coin department of the Israel Antiquities
Authority, who kindly made these coins available during a visit to the IAA
office in Jerusalem in May 2011.
33. Kindler 2003: 64–65.
34. Meshorer 1989a: 102–14.
35. In comparison, the amount of counterfeit United States currency is estimated
to be less than $3 per $10,000 (0.03%), with less than $3 per $100,000
(0.003%) difficult to detect ( Judson and Porter 2010).
36. Kadman 1960.
37. The Museum Ha’aretz is now the Kadman Numismatic Pavilion of the Eretz
Israel Museum.
38. Kadman 1960: 112, note 17.
39. Meshorer 1967.
40. Meshorer II 1982.
41. Ibid.: 184.
42. Fontanille 2010.
43. Mildenberg 1984: 22–24.
44. Meshorer 2001: 80.
45. Robinson 1931: 173.
46. Ibid. 197.
Endnotes 475
47. Ibid. 108.

48. van Alfen 2005a: 343.
49. Syon 1992–93.
50. Barag 2000–2002 and Farhi 2003–06.
51. BJ IV, 9, 3–8.
52. Deutsch 2009.
53. Ibid.
55. Barag 2000–2002.
56. Hauptman et al. 1992.
57. Epstein et al. 2010.
58. Rulau and Bowers 2001.
59. Yeoman 2010.
60. e.g., Mishnah Kiddushin, 1:1.
61. Jacobson, personal communication, April 2020.
62. Although Jacobson argues this is actually a half-chalkous denomination.
Jacobson 2017.
63. SC 2008, II: 41.
64. Sperber 1974: 104.
65. In context (Mark 12:42) lepton seems to be a coin rather than a denomination,
which usage modern students have applied to the term. Although the word is
used in the New Testament, it is never mentioned in the Talmud.
66. Kindler 1967: 186.
67. Klimowsky 1963: 68–69.
68. Hendin 2010b.
69. Meshorer 2001: 30 was specifically discussing the Jannaeus anchor/star-in-
diadem coin (TJC-K, GBC 6195). From our data, however, it is clear that the
same range existed for every issue that we have studied.
70. Meshorer 2001: 71, wrote, “The decisive factors in determining the
denominations in a series of coins are their relative weights and designs that
appear on them.” Here he refers specifically to the four coins in the Herodian
dated series. While the weights of these denominations certainly overlap, one
may be absolutely certain which coin is being dealt with because the motifs
are quite different.
71. Flan strips were cast in chalkstone molds (Meshorer 2001: 50–51). The space
for each flan was drilled, but the controls for measuring the exact depth of the
drilling were not accurate and some coins are more than double the thickness
of others, with a resultant increase in weight.
72. As Lorber suggested (personal communication, 2009), the lack of weight
control for bronze coins is one of our major clues that they were fiduciary
currency.
73. Hill 1914: xcv.
74. Bower et al. 2013: 287–98.
75. If indeed no coins were issued in Judea between the death of Jannaeus and the
rule of Mattathias Antigonus (40–37 bce), there would have been a gap of
36 years without coins being struck by Jewish rulers, which seems like a very
long period.
76. b.Kiddushin 12a; cf. Tos. BB 5.11–12; j.Kiddushin 1.1, 58d; b.Baba Metziah
55a. 1 silver denarius = 24 issarim, and the prutah “of which the sages speak” is
1/8th of an Italian issar (assarion in Greek = Roman as), i.e., the prutah = 1/8
x 1/24 = 1/192 denarius (zuz).
77. Bijovsky 2000–2002: 202.
78. Seaford 2004: 145 notes, “The result is the paradox that even coinage of
unadulterated silver (let alone bronze) may tend to become in effect fiduciary
coinage: although the silver contributes to confidence, it is not envisaged as a
commodity. And so, whereas we frequently hear of metal artefacts being melted
down to make coins, we do not hear of Greek coins being melted down by
Greeks to create bullion or artefacts.”
79. van Alfen 2005a.
80. Hendin 2007–8 for a discussion of these matters regarding Hasmonean
coinage.
81. Mørkholm, Grierson, and Westermark 1991: 6.
82. Ibid.
83. I Maccabees 16: 6 for the grant, discussed further in RPC I, Meshorer 2001
and Hendin 2010.
84. BT Baba Metziah 55a states that “with regard to one who robs from another
an item that has the value of one peruta and took an oath to him that he
robbed nothing, when he repents and seeks to return the stolen item he must
take it and follow its owner even to Media.” Baba Metziah 55b: “This serves
to include misuse of consecrated property less than the value of one peruta in
the halakha of restitution to the Temple treasury. The Gemara infers: To the
Temple treasury, yes, one must return that which he took; but to an ordinary
person [hedyot], no, one need not pay restitution for theft of less than one
peruta”.
85. Meshorer 2001: 176. Judean coins of various types have been discovered in
excavations as distant as Antioch, Dura Europos, Athens, and Cyprus. This
does not mean that the coins were used in the local markets, only that they
were in the possession of individuals at that time and place.
86. Baba Metziah 46a: “[T]hese coins that are in his house and those coins that he
took from the money changer are protetot, small perutot that are unminted, and
the legal status of both these coins and those coins is that of a commodity.”
87. Since the Herodian coinage, like the Hasmonean coinage before it, was both
fiduciary and intended for local circulation, this is credible. An earlier, possibly
relevant parallel from a fourth-century bce inscription from Olbia proclaims
that only Olbian coinage may be used within the polis and sets exchange rates
for various foreign coinages (Dittenberger 1915: 218).
88. Discussion in this paragraph is based on conversations with Catharine Lorber.
89. Meshorer 2001: 33.
90. Seaford 2004: 144.
Chapter 2: Balance Weights to Coinage

1. Today we think of cattle as cows. However, the classic definition of cattle also
included all domestic quadrupeds, including sheep, goats, horses, mules, asses,
and swine.
2. Petruso 1981: 44.
3. Qedar 2001: 23.
Endnotes 477
4. Powell 1992: 899.

5. Scott 1959: 32.
6. Petruso 1992: 18.
7. Heltzer 1996: 33.
8. Parise 1989: 27.
9. Powell 1979: 88.
10. Scott 1959: 32–33.
11. Kokhavi 1969: 40.
12. Biran and Gophna 1970: 151–69.
13. Qedar 2001: 23.
14. Powell 1992: 906.
15. Ibid.
16. Meshorer 1978: 31.
17. cf. Gittin and Golani 2001: 43; Gitler and Tal 2006: 11; van Alfen 2005: 21.
18. Powell 1979: 8.
19. Yeivin 1990: 43–57.
20. Avi-1975: 374.
21. Dever 2001: 50.
22. Meshorer 1961: 185.
23. Stern 1982: 215.
24. Ibid.
25. Mays 1988: 574.
26. Kletter 2001: 8.
27. Dayton 1974: 44.
28. Hafford 2005: 367.
29. Dayton 1974: 43.
30. Pulak 1996: 17.
31. Powell 1979: 83.
32. Leemans 1950: 14.
33. Pulak 1996: 281.
34. Hafford 2005: 347.
35. Kletter 1998: 49, 51.
36. Ibid.: 101.
37. Meshorer 1978: 131–33.
38. Kletter 1998: 37.
39. Ibid.: 119.
39. Vainstub 2016: 65–75.
41. Scott 1985: 198.
42. Petrie 1926: 13–17.
43. Kletter 1998: 127.
44. Ibid.: 101.
45. Hendin 2007a.
Chapter 3: Persian Period: Philistia

1. Hill 1914: lxxxiii.
2. Gitler and Tal 2006: 35.
3. Tsafrir 2008.
4. Eshel and Zissu 2019: 7.

5. Mildenberg 1992: 33–40.
7. Ibid.: 14.
8. Ibid.
10. Ibid. 39.
11. Tal 2007: 17–28.
12. Hendin 2007a: 91, 184–89 for photos and descriptions of a similar, extensive
group of bronze weights, many with Phoenician letters.
13. Tal 2007: 25.
14. Nevo 2001: 31.
15. Stern 1982: 217.
16. Tal 2007: 25.
17. Ibid.: 26.
18. Rappaport 1970: 75–76.
20. Friedman 1987.
21. Yoav Farhi, personal communication, August 2020.
23. Gitler and Tal 2009: 21–38.
24. Gitler, Tal, and van Alfen 2007: 47.
25. Yoav Farhi, personal communication, August 2020.
26. Tal 2007: 18–19.
27. Gitler and Tal 2006: 312–13.
28. Meshorer and Qedar 1991: 67 also reported on coins of Samaria during the
same period; both silver coins and fourrée coins were struck from the same pair
of dies.
Chapter 4: The Persian Period: Samaria and

Judea
1. Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 19.
3. Miller and Hayes 1986: 336–38.
4. Magen 2008.
5. Gitler, Lorber, and Fontanille 2021.
7. On the names of the Samarian and Judahite governors during the Persian
period, a useful and important reference is: www.academia.edu/9821086/
Again_on_Samarian_Governors_and_Coins_in_the_Persian_Period._A_
Rejoinder_to_Edward_Lipi%C5%84ski_and_Micha%C5%82_Marciak.
8. Shen et al. 2004: 248–60.
9. Quoted in Johnson 1987: 85.
Endnotes 479
10. Roth 1954: 58–59.

11. Barag 1966: 6–12.
12. Gitler and Tal 2006: 11, regarding double darics; single daric, personal
communication with Y. Meshorer.
13. Meshorer 1982 I: 31–33.
14. Ronen (2007), published an additional twenty previously unrecorded
Samaritan coins.
15. Gitler and Tal 2019.
17. Ibid.: 9–10; Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 15.
18. Ibid.: 20.
19. Ibid.: 25.
20. Ibid.: 31.
22. Gitler and Tal 2019: 32–33.
24. Ibid.: 22.
25. Ibid.: 23.
26. Spaer 1986–87: pl. 2: 1–2.
27. Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 23–24.
28. \Ant. XI: 302.
30. Gitler and Tal 2019.
31. Sukenik 1934: 178–82.
32. Mildenberg 1979: 183–96.
33. Ibid.
34. Meshorer 2001.
35. Meshorer 1982: 13.
36. Spaer 1977: 200–203.
37. Barag 1993, in which he makes this same suggestion.
38. Meshorer 1982 I: 115; Meshorer 2001: 197.
39. Meshorer 1967: 116.
40. Mildenberg 1994–99: 15–16.
41. Meshorer 2001: 8.
42. Ibid.: 13.
43. Ronen 1998: 122–23.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.: 124.
46. Hendin 2007a: 80–86 for a further discussion.
47. Ronen 2003–06: 29 says the exception that proves this rule is a single known
example of a base-metal Yehud coin with no traces of silver-plating at all, so it
may indeed have even been a trial strike.
48. Hoover 2007a: 155.
49. Ronen 2003–6: 30.
50. Gitler and Lorber 2006: 1–41.
51. Ronen 1998: 124.
52. Ariel 2002; Gitler and Lorber 2006: 6.
53. Tal 2007: 26.
55. Fontanille and Lorber 2008.

57. Porter, Christensen, and Schiermacker-Hansen 2004.
58. Hendin 2007a: 144.
60. Barag 1994–99b: 29.
61. Ibid.: 37.
62. Gerson 2001: 119.
63. Ibid.
64. Barag 1986–87: 20.
65. Fontanille 2008.
66. Hendin 2007b: 42 ff.
67. Dating for the Yehud series is according to Gitler, Lorber, and Fontanille 2021.
68. This person is not the governor of Judea in the late fifth century bce, named
Bagohi, whose name is mentioned in the Elephantine papyri.
69. Barag 1993: 264.
71. Gerson 2001: 100.
72. Ronen 2010: 39–45.
73. Josephus Against Apion I: 186–87 (22).
Chapter 5: Ptolemaic and Seleucid Coins

1. Ant. XI: 321.
2. Ibid.: 328.
3. Ibid. XI: 329–39.
4. Yoma 69a.
5. Discussed in Duyrat 2016: 28–29. Lemaire’s convincing research was published
in 1976, but only in French, thus had a limited audience.
6. Primary source of this story is the Letter of Aristeas translated and reported in
Ant. XII: 55–60. Scholars today believe that only the Pentateuch was translated
during the reign of Ptolemy II, and the rest of the Old Testament was translated
later.
7. Barag 1994–99: 27–38.
8. Josephus Against Apion II: 48.
9. Ant. XII: 130–31.
10. Ibid.: 140.
11. Jacobson 2019 for concise summary of the relationship between the Seleucids
and the Jews at this time.
12. Jacobson 2019: 36–37. He also raided the Esagila temple of Marduk in
Babylon.
13. II Maccabees 4: 9–10.
14. II Maccabees 4: 15–16.
15. I Maccabees 1: 15.
16. Ant. XII: 385.
17. Jacobson 2019: 36.
18. I Maccabees chapters 37–40; also see Daniel 12: 11.
19. Jacobson 2019: 45–47.
Endnotes 481
20. Ariel 2019.

21. Hoover 2007b: 77–88.
Chapter 6: Hasmonean Coins

1. Modern students of the Jews of ancient Judea must not make anachronistic
assumptions. The Jewish religion during the Second Temple Period had the
same basic tenants as today, but it was 2,000 years ago. As Harrari has noted,
“If King David were to show up in an ultra-Orthodox synagogue in present-
day Jerusalem, he would be utterly bewildered to find people dressed in East
European clothes, speaking in a German dialect (Yiddish) and having endless
arguments about the meaning of a Babylonian text (the Talmud).” Harrari
2014: 193.
2. Alternatively, these Hellenizing Jews may have been a minority, since to
coerce the Jews to his way of thinking, “Day after day [Antiochos IV] tortured
distinguished citizens and publicly flaunted the spectacle of a captured city,
until his criminal excesses provoked the victims to reprisals.” BJ I, 2:35.
3. “Hasmonean,” is another name for the family of Judah Maccabee, used in
Josephus (Ant. 12: 263), the Mishnah (Mid. 1:6), and the Talmud (Shab. 21b),
but is never mentioned in the Book of Maccabees. Josephus says the name
derives from the great-grandfather of the patriarch Mattathias of Modiin,
Asamonaios.
4. Blackwell 1991: Ch. 2. The Essene movement and many of the Dead Sea
Scrolls are related to the belief that the Hasmoneans had unlawfully usurped
the position of high priest from the Zadokites.
5. II Maccabees 7. For a complete discussion of this story and other tales, see
Nadich 1983: 66 ff., esp. 8o, note 9.
6. Hoover 2003: 33.
7. SC 2002 and 2004: nos. 831–834. The establishment of the mint of Antiochus
VII at Jerusalem followed his siege (c. 134–132 bce) and the surrender of
Hyrcanus I; see Schürer 1973: 202–5.
8. Houghton 1983: nos. 818–819.
9. Ariel 2019. Both the prutah and half-prutah denominations of Antiochus VII
have beveled edges, as do the subsequent Hasmonean issues of the Jerusalem
mint. While Kushnir-Stein 2000–2002: 78–83 discusses the coins with the
beveled edges, she does not mention this specific issue, although by following
her argument, one can conclude that this particular type was struck in
Jerusalem.
10. Jacobson 2014a.
11. Hoover 2003: 29.
12. Madden 1864: 37–51; Hill 1914: 184–87; Reifenberg 1947. Madden attrib-
uted both silver sheqels and bronze coins to Simon. Hill and Reifenberg, who
expressed doubt about the bronze coins, nevertheless attributed them to
Simon.
13. Sellers 1933: 89–90. Simon`s fortress was excavated at Beit Zur, and not
one of the bronze coins now known to be from the Jewish War was found
there, whereas large numbers of Seleucid coins from the second half of the
second century bce were unearthed. In contrast, the excavations at Masada
yielded 106 bronze coins from “Year Four” in contexts of the Jewish War. See
Meshorer 1989a: 73, 79, 118f., nos. 3492–3594.
14. Reifenberg 1947, and a summary by Kindler 1974.
15. Sperber 1965.
16. Meshorer 1967.
17. Coksun’s 2018 article represents an extreme outlier view. Cf. Hendin 2020.
18. Barag, personal communications and quoted in Hendin 1996: 66–67.
19. Thanks to the kind cooperation of Daphne Tsoren and the Institute of
Archaeology, Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem.
20. Kanael 1963: 44.
21. Naveh 1987: 119.
22. Meshorer 1982 I: 51.
23. VanderKam and Flint 2002: 151.
24. Meshorer 2001: 40.
25. Barkay et al. 2002. Barkay’s group excavated the cave. The unknown object was
later identified as a silver scroll by Ya’akov Meshorer of The Israel Museum
and read and transcribed by Ada Yardeni of Hebrew University.
26. Hendin et al. 2011: 35–54.
27. Dies were engraved in mirror image so the final coins appeared in normal
form.
28. Meshorer 1967: 49.
29. Meshorer 2001: 41; Kiddushin 66, 1.
30. Josephus: AJ: XIII, 408.
31. Newell 1937.
32. Madden 1864; Reifenberg 1947; Romanoff 1944; Kindler 1974; Kanael 1950–
51: 17–175; Kanael 1963: 38–62; Barag and Qedar 1980; Meshorer 1982 I:
2001.
33. Kindler 1974: 10.
34. Meshorer 1982 I: 61.
35. Romanoff 1944: 9.
36. Kanael 1963: 43.
37. While these coins were apparently struck under authority of the Persian
Sovereign, via his satraps, the fact that Hebrew, Aramaic, and Samarian
inscriptions occur on many of them indicates that the local authorities were
certainly involved in their design and issue.
38. Roth 2007: 491–94.
39. Meshorer (1982 I), discusses the silver coins in circulation during the
Hasmonean period. The principal coin was the sheqel of Tyre, although
Seleucid, Ptolemaic, and rarely Roman Republican coins were used as well.
Barag explained that even though all of these coins carried graven images of
heathen gods or rulers, the Judeans seemed to accept these coins as part of the
way the world worked. While the Jews used these coins, they were not their
own. It is known that the annual half-sheqel tribute for each Jewish male for
the Jerusalem Temple, was payable only in Tyrian silver. Each Tyre silver coin
of this time carried a portrait of the Phoenician god Melquart. We also note
that coins are not subject to the regular rules of uncleanliness, according to the
Talmud. Today, modern Israel has graven images on most banknotes but not
on coins.
40. Meshorer 2001: 64.
Endnotes 483
41. Ariel 2019.

42. Ibid.; also Jacobson 2013.
43. Also see Jacobson 2014a.
44. Hendin and Huth 2020.
45. Jacobson 2013.
46. Noy 2012: 31–42.
47. Hendin 2007–8: 76.
48. Jacobson 2013: 43.
49. Noy 2012: 41.
50. Ibid.: 33.
51. Ibid.: 41.
52. Meshorer 1982 I: 64, citing Talmud, Yoma, 72, 2.
53. Noy 2012: 39.
54. Ibid.: 37–38.
55. English pl. cornucopias. Latin pl. cornucopae.
56. Barag and Qedar 1980: 17.
57. Romanoff 1944: 26.
58. Meshorer 1982 I: 67.
59. Avigad 1980: 170.
60. This may be a reference to blossoming of agricultural treasure from the earth.
61. Noy 2012: 39; Jacobson 2013: 48 further points out that the “fruits of victory”
metaphor can be found in I Maccabees 14: 8–13.
62. Meshorer 1976: 285.
63. Barthélemy 1756: 60.
64. Eckhel 1794: 474.
65. Cavedoni 1850: 22, no. 21.
66. Madden 1864: 54.
67. TJC: 33–34.
68. Romanoff 1944.
69. de Saulcy 1874: 93, 97–98.
70. Romanoff 1944: 52, note 239, with a number of citations from ancient sources.
71. The ivory pomegranate inscribed “[Belonging] to the Temple of [Yahwe]
consecrated to the priests” in paleo-Hebrew script was purchased by the
Israel Museum in the 1980s. In 2005 a committee of the Israel Antiquities
Authority and the Israel Museum found the pomegranate to be ancient, but
the inscription to be a forgery. However, in 2008, Prof. Yitzhak Roman, former
academic director of Hebrew University’s scanning electron microscope (SEM)
examined the pomegranate under SEM and concluded that the inscription
was genuine and original to the pomegranate. The matter is yet unresolved.
72. Jacobson and Hendin 2021 for a full discussion of the poppy/pomegranate
issue.
73. Klimowsky 1974: 34.
74. Meshorer 2001: 203, 209.
75. Jacobson 2013: 49.
76. Ibid.: 50.
77. Ibid.: 52.
78. The lily (shoshanah in Hebrew) as a Jewish symbol is extensively discussed by
Romanoff 1944: 45–51 and Meshorer 2001: 8–10, 34–35.
79. Hoover 2003: 29–39.
80. Romanoff 1944: 50.

81. Ariel 1990.
82. Jacobson 2013: 25.
83. Ibid.: 21.
84. Hirschfeld and Ariel 2005: 66-89.
85. Jacobson 2000.
86. Jacobson 2013.
87. Ariel and Fontanille 2011: 111.
88. Meshorer 1982 I: 60.
89. BJ I: 68.
90. Graetz 1927 II: 1.
91. BJ I: 57–60.
92. Ant. XIII: 262–266.
93. BJ I, II: 8.
94. The inscriptions are truncated, abbreviated, and written on many coins, but
these are the basic inscriptions.
95. Rappaport 1976: 184.
96. Ariel 2019.
97. Sperber 1965: 85–86.
98. Kanael 1963: 34.
99. Ariel 2019.
100. BJ XXI: 273, 269.
101. Madden 1864: 57.
102. Barag and Qedar 1980: 18.
103. Hoover 1994: 41–57.
104. Meshorer 1982.
105. Kanael 1963: 44.
106. Stein 1943: 19–21.
107. Houghton and Lorber 2002 I: xxi–xxiii.
108. Ariel 2019.
109. Graetz 1927 II: 36.
110. BJ I: 77–84
111. Hendin 2010a. Hasmonean Coin Chronologies: 25–29.
112. E. Eshel, H. Eshel, and Yardeni 1992.
113. McLean 1982: 158.
114. Avigad 1975: 101–11.
115. Madden 1864: 66, 4.
116. Reifenberg 1947: 41, 14.
117. Kanael 1963: 34.
118. Ibid.
119. Hendin and Shachar 2009: 87–96.
120. Shachar 2004: 5–33.
121. Hendin and Shachar 2008: 94.
122. Hirschfeld and Ariel 2005.
123. Ibid.
124. Ibid.
125. H. Eshel and Zissu 2003: 91–96.
126. de Saulcy 1871: 235–55, note esp. 243 f., mentioning a specimen from
Jerusalem in his own collection.
Endnotes 485
127. Meshorer 1967: 56.

128. Kindler 1974: 14.
129. I have examined at least portions of three true hoards of these lead pieces;
two contained at least 50 pieces, and one may have been smaller. All three
groups may have originated in Jordan, and each group could be seen to be
a true hoard by their uniform patination, albeit slightly different in each
situation. These hoards suggest that the lead pieces were indeed tokens
and as such were at some point collected and maintained separately from
circulating coinage.
130. Farhi 2013: 138.
131. Barag 2011.
132. Bijovsky, personal communication.
133. Bower et al. 2013.
134. BJ I: XII, 10.
135. BJ I: 272.
136. Meshorer 1982 I: 89.
137. Bachmann 1972–73: 82–90.
138. No single coin of this type with anywhere near a complete inscription in
either Greek or Hebrew has been found. Fontanille (Menorah Coin Project)
created composite photos showing that the obverse die for the showbread
table is far larger than the die for the menorah side.
139. Meshorer 2001: 55, citing BT Avodah. Zarah. 40, 1.
140. The symbols on Hasmonean coinage reflect the attitude in the public
domains to figurative art. In private life, matters were, at times, different. The
monumental tomb of Jason, about 1.8 km west of Hasmonean Jerusalem
(in the modern quarter of Rehavia) displays different attitudes to figurative
art. The tomb dates from the period of Hyrcanus I to early in the reign of
Herod I. On the western wall of its portico is an image of a naval battle with
warriors on three ships and on its northern wall a painting of a reclining
stag. Into the plaster of the eastern wall are scratched five seven-branched
menorahs in a space of 0.70 x 0.61 m. For this tomb, see Rahmani 1967;
Avigad 1967; Benoit 1967. The tomb belonged, apparently, to an estate of
a wealthy priestly family. This note is courtesy of D. Barag. Also see Barag
2010.
141. Meshorer 1982 I: 94.
142. Barag, personal communication, 2008.
143. CNG 78, Lot: 931,14 May 2008.
144. Barag, personal communication, 2008.
145. Ibid.
146. Barag, 1988–89: 40–48.
147. de Saulcy 1874.
148. Barag 1988–89: 47–48.
149. Ibid.
Chapter 7: Herodian Coins

1. Strabo Geog. 16.2.34.
2. Richardson 1996: 55.
3. Sifre Zuta, cited by Richardson 1996: 55.

5. BJ I: 244.
6. Ant. XIV: 158. He says Herod was 15 years old; however, others point to
probable calculation errors and suggest that Herod was probably closer to age
31 at this time, as discussed in Netzer 2006: 5.
7. Ant. XIV: 160.
8. They included Amyntas, king of Galatia; Archelaus, king of Cappadocia; and
Polemo, king of Pontus.
9. Polygamy was not common but still allowed by Jewish law in Herod’s time. Cf.
Ant. XVII: 14.
10. Ant. XVI: 230; XVII: 44 45.
11. Macrobius Saturnalia 2.4.11.
12. Netzer died from injuries from an accidental fall at Herodium in 2010 near the
very spot where he had identified Herod’s tomb.
13. Netzer 2006: 243.
14. Netzer, personal communications, 2009.
15. Broshi 2001: 188–89.
16. BJ I: 427.
17. Ibid.: 417–25.
18. Ibid.: 428.
19. M. Stern 1975: 261.
20. Ant. XVIII: 130.
21. Ant. XVI: 156–57.
23. Ant. XVII: 25.
24. Ibid. XVI: 27–60.
25. Ibid.: 63.
26. Perseus, translated in Walsh 1882: 480.
27. Grant 1977: 71.
28. Tabor 2006: 66.
29. BJ I: 650.
30. Jacobson, personal communication, February 28, 2020.
31. BJ I: 660.
32. Matthew 2: 1.
33. Grant 1977: 71.
34. Richardson 1996; Kokkinos 1998; Roller 1998; Netzer 2001.
35. Ant. XVI: 149.
36. Levy, B. personal communications, Jacobson 2014a: 147.
37. Jacobson 2014a: 148.
39. Jacobson 2014a: 150.
40. Ariel 2006: 62.
41. Meshorer 2001: 168.
42. Ariel 2006: 62.
43. Harl 1996: 56.
44. Ant. XV: 368–371.
45. BJ I: 415.
46. Ariel 2006: 74.
Endnotes 487
47. Ant. XV: 423.

48. Jacobson, personal communication, May 2020.
49. Ariel 2006: 76.
50. Ariel and Fontanille 2011.
52. Ariel 2000–2002.
54. Ant. XVII: 151.
55. Ariel and Fontanille 2011: 92–98.
56. Kanael 1963: 290.
57. Krupp and Qedar 1981: 18.
58. Ariel and Fontanille 2011: 124–25.
59. Fontanille, personal communications.
60. Hendin 2010b.
61. Jacobson 2014a: 141–42.
62. Meshorer 2001: 62.
63. Ibid.: 62–63.
65. Ariel 2011b: 16–23.
66. Meyshan 1968: 10.
67. Ariel 2000–2002: 123.
68. Ibid.: 121–22.
69. Ibid.: 119.
70. Ibid.: 118.
71. Ibid.: 122.
72. Ibid.: 118.
73. Ibid.: 122.
74. Ibid.: 122.
75. Ibid.: 123.
76. Reifenberg 1927.
77. Hendin, Lundstrom, White, and Bower 2011: 97.
78. Ibid.: 102.
79. Jacobson 1986 suggests this pileus was based on the theoxenia ceremony, a feast
held in honor of deities, and in particular the Dioscuri.
80. Hendin 1990–91: 32–33; Jacobson 2007a suggests that this design is a Dioscuri
pileus.
82. Avigad 1980: 70.
83. Jacobson 2014b.
84. Babylonian Talmud, Menahot 28b; ‘Abodah Zara 43a; Rosh Hashanah 21 a, b.
85. Romanoff 1944: 19.
86. See Jacobson 2014a for other interpretations.
87. Meshorer 1979: 158–61.
88. Ariel and Fontanille 2011 for die totals of Herod I.
89. Bijovsky, personal communication.
90. BJ II: 10–15.
91. Ant. XVII: 224–28. After their father’s death, Archelaus and Antipas sailed to
Rome hoping to win favor from Augustus. Antipas had been “encouraged by
[his mother] Salome’s promises to believe that he would rule, and considered
that he would be taking over the government with greater right than Archelaus
because he had been designated as king in Herod’s earlier will, which he held
to be more binding than the one written later.”
92. Ant. XVII: 317–20.
93. BJ II: 3.
94. Hendin 2010b for average weights unless noted.
95. Ant. XVIII: 27.
96. E. M. Meyers, personal communication, December 17, 2003. Also Meyers
2002: 110–20 and Meyers 1999: 127–40.
97. Avi–Yonah 1950: 168.
98. M. Stern 1975: 132.
99. Mark 6: 22–25.
100. BJ II: 181–83.
101. Meshorer 2001: 84.
102. I feel comfortable with the attribution of this coin but present here an
alternate, albeit less–likely scenario. Upon first discovering this coin, my
impression was that it was a coin of Herod Antipas, based mainly on the
“tetrarch” inscription. However, because of the style of its manufacture,
I considered other possibilities. None of the coin types of Herod Antipas
struck at Tiberias were struck in the style of a Jewish prutah, that is, upon a
cast flan with beveled edges, and chopped from a strip. This insight led me, on
technical grounds, to consider the possibility that this was a coin of Herod I,
struck in his fourth year as tetrarch, approximately 37/36 bce.
I re–evaluated this idea on reading Donald Ariel’s 2002 article regarding
the chronology of the coins of Herod I, in which he specifically notes the
apparent chronology and form of the letter “omega” in the later coins of
Herod I and the earlier coins of Archelaus.
From an historical perspective, it is also not likely that this coin is of
Herod I. Josephus (BJ 243–44) places Herod’s appointment by Antony as
tetrarch after the latter’s meeting with Cleopatra, i.e., toward the end of 41
bce. Kushnir-Stein notes that the appointment of Herod and his brother
Phasael as tetrarchs “can mean one of two things: they were given the title,
but remained subordinate to Hyrcanus II or they were made independent
rulers with their own territories over which Hyrcanus II had no jurisdiction.
The last possibility seems very remote. Antony had seemingly no reasons
to punish Hyrcanus, and Josephus does not say anything about Hyrcanus
ceasing to be the head of the Jewish state. If neither Herod nor his brother
were made genuinely independent rulers, they would not have been in a
position to mint their own coins.”
Finally, I note that if the Δ on the obverse refers to the “fourth year,” by
this time Herod would have already become king, and would have issued
royal coinage dated to his third year as tetrarch.
103. Hendin 2003–6.
104. It is, of course, possible that more specimens of this coin will be discovered.
However, considering that until now the coin is unique, one must recognize
its great rarity and at least consider the possibility that it was a trial coinage
and not a full issue.
106. Meshorer 2001: 81.
107. Kushnir-Stein 2000–2002. This article contains relevant discussions of the
Endnotes 489
manufacture and style of this type of coinage in ancient Judea during this
period.
108. Hendin 2003–6.
109. Individual grains of wheat or barley appear scattered around the cornucopias
on some of the Hasmonean issues.
110. Kogon and Fontanille 2018 for average weights and die totals for Herod
Antipas.
111. Unlike his brothers Archelaus and Antipas, the name “Herod” was not used
on Philip’s coins.
112. M. Stern 1975: 135.
113. Ant. XVIII: 107.
114. Ibid.: 28.
115. Herod I issued a small coin depicting an eagle (Meshorer 2001: 244, no. 66.;
GBC: 242, no. 1190), and it is possible, if not likely, that he did not consider
this design a graven image (Ariel and Fontanille 2011: 115–19).
116. Hendin 1987: 69; Ciecieląg 1997: 67.
117. Meshorer 2001: 85.
118. No. 6250 was possibly patterned after a coin of Zenodorus struck in 32/31
bce (RPC I: 663, no. 4775) [or 26/25 bce (Herman 2006: 71, no. 17.1)] at
Chalcis ad Libanum with his bust on one side and the bust of Augustus on
the other side.
119. Although Agrippa II’s bust only appears on a coin of his father Agrippa I
(Meshorer 2001: 231, no. 119), and not on his own coins.
120. Hendin and Fontanille 2016.
121. Madden 1864: 102.
122. Only 41 of these coins are identifiable as to the date.
123. This coin is the Bank of Israel specimen, shown as Meshorer 2001: 229, no.
102. The reverse die of this coin is clearly the same die as Meshorer 2001: 229,
no. 105, dated year 33. It is unclear whether the coin was first struck as a coin
of the year 30 and was later re–engraved adding the letter Γ, or whether the
die was originally cut as a year 33 die. On this particular specimen, however,
the area of the die where the Γ later appears may have been filled with grease
or other dirt when the coin was struck.
124. Thunderbolts on the obverse appear on Tiberius’s coins showing the deified
Augustus in Colonia Romula (RPC I: 80, no. 73; SNG Cop. 421), Emertia
(RPC I: 85, nos. 121–122), both in Spain, and in Panormus in Sicily (RPC
I: 172, no. 644). A reverse thunderbolt appears on a coin of Olbia in Cilicia
(RPC I: 565, no. 3731). Geographically closer but chronologically more
distant, is a recently described silver drachm from Nabataea (4.52 g), from
Obodas’ tenth year (21/20 bce) with an obverse depicting a bearded head
of Zeus with a thunderbolt beneath his neck (Barkay 2015–16: 437, fig. 9).
125. RIC I [rev.]: 99, no. 83.
126. RIC I [rev.]: 90–91.
127. Cooray 2015: 2.
128. Suet. Tib. 69. Suetonius (Suet. Aug. 97.2) also relates a story about lightning
from the time of Augustus linked to his death and divinity, “[T]he first
letter of his name was melted from the inscription on one of his statues by
a flash of lightning; this was interpreted to mean that he would live only
a hundred days from that time, the number indicated by the letter C, and
that he would be numbered with the gods, since aesar (that is, the part of the
name Caesar which was left) is the word for god in the Etruscan tongue.”
129. Plin. HN II: LVI.
130. Average weights from RPC unless noted.
131. Jacobson 2007a.
132. Strickert 2002.
133. Schwartz 1990: 40.
134. BJ I: 555.
135. Schwartz 1990: 171–72.
136. BJ II: 218–19.
137. Ant. XIX: 330–33.
138. Deuteronomy 17: 15.
139. Babylonian Talmud. Sotah 41a.
140. Acts 12: 1–19.
141. Ant. XIX: 338.
142. Ibid.: 339.
143. Ibid.: 341–342.
144. Schwartz 1990: 175.
145. Ant. 346–61.
146. Acts 12: 19–23.
147. Lönnqvist 1997.
148. Kushnir-Stein 2000–2002 and Hendin 2010b.
149. Epstein et al. 2010: 390.
150. Agrippa I average weights from RPC unless noted.
151. Two coins listed in TJC.
152. Burnett 1987: 35–36.
153. Suet. Claud. 25.5.
154. Burnett 2011–14.
155. Kovacs 2008: 337–50.
156. Ant. XXI: 5.
157. Ibid.XX: 158.
158. BJ VII: 226.
159. Tacitus Ann. 13.7, fine anni, or during 54 ce.
160. Kokkinos 1998: 311.
161. Ibid.: 312.
162. Kovacs, personal communications 2010.
163. Jacobson 2019: 137.
164. Talmud Gittin 56: 1.
165. Jacobson 2019: 144.
166. Ibid.: 16.
167. Ant. XIX: 362.
168. Ibid. XX: 9.
169. Jacobson 2019.
170. Kushnir-Stein 2002.
171. Burnett, personal communication, 2020.
172. Hill 1914: xcix.
173. Meshorer 2001: 107.
Endnotes 491
174. Kokkinos 1998: 398.

175. Kushnir–Stein 2002: 127.
176. Ibid.: 128.
177. Ibid.
178. Ibid.
179. Ibid.
180. Hendin 2009.
181. Burnett 2011: 124.
182. Kushnir-Stein, personal communication, 2012.
183. Burnett, personal communications, 2019.
184. Maltiel-Gerstenfeld 1980: 26.
185. Burnett 2011: 122.
186. Ibid.: 123.
187. Jacobson 2019.
188. Hendin 2009.
189. Carradice and Cowell 1987.
190. Hendin 2009.
191. Meshorer 2001: 103.
192. Josephus The Life, 38, where we also learn that when Tiberias was transferred
to Agrippa II, Sepphoris was designated capital of Roman Galilee.
193. Meshorer 2001: 105.
194. Ibid.: 104–5.
195. BJ II: 511.
196. BJ III: 30.
197. Meshorer 1982 II: 76.
198. Hendin 2007c: 123–30.
199. BJ II: 399–402.
200. Jacobson 2019: 196.
201. Hendin 2007c: 123–30, where the matter of these references to the Roman
victory over the Jews, and the coins commemorating it, are discussed.
202. Average weights for Agrippa II coins are from RPC unless otherwise noted.
203. Meshorer 1982 II: 91.
204. Burnett 2011: 123 suggests this image is a portrait of Julia, daughter of Titus.
205. RPC II: 309.
Chapter 8: The Roman Governors of Judaea

1. BJ II: 117–18.
2. Kushnir-Stein 2007: 3.
3. Ibid.: 4.
4. Meshorer 2001: 168.
5. Kanael 1963.
6. BJ II: 117–118.
7. Ant. XVIII: 30.
8. Ibid.: 31.
9. Ibid.: 177.
10. Sifre Numbers 131.
11. Matthew 27: 2.
12. Philo, Embassy to Gaius: 299–303.

13. Ant. XVIII: 59.
14. Meshorer 1982 II: 179.
15. Banks 1955: 97.
16. Meshorer 1982 II: 179.
17. BJ II: 227.
18. Tacitus Hist. V: 10.
19. Ant. XX: 163.
20. Ibid.: 182.
21. BJ II: 277–79.
22. In 1962, in Jews, God, and History, Max Dimont estimated 17 talents to be
worth $350,000. The 2020 inflation adjustment puts the amount at $3 million.)
23. BJ II: 313–14.
24. Ibid.: 409.
25. Meshorer 2001: 174.
26. Lönnqvist 1992–93.
27. Ibid.: 63.
Chapter 9: The Jewish War

1. BJ I: 1.
2. Goodman 1987: 12.
3. BJ II: 293–94.
4. Ibid.: 403–5. Most historians suggest that Agrippa’s speech was mainly the
words of Josephus. Goodman, however, notes “whether Agrippa’s invention
of Josephus’, the speech encapsulates perfectly both the cultural variety of the
Roman world and the firm imprint upon all of it imposed by Rome” (Goodman
2007: 65).
5. Goodman 1987: 154.
6. BJ II: 409.
7. Goodman 1987: 154.
8. BJ II: 543–50.
9. BJ II: 554–55.
10. Rappaport 2003, for the most nuanced source of information about John of
Gischala.
11. BJ II: 560–63.
12. Tacitus Hist. 5: 12.
13. Ibid.: 13.
14. BJ VI: 297–98.
15. Tacitus Hist. 5:13.
16. Ibid. 2000.
17.Rappaport, among others, points out that this number must be a great
exaggeration. “It is simply an incredible number in antiquity considering the
means for supplying provisions. Assembling 1,000,000 people in one place
(with the exception of Rome and Alexandria) would mean starving them to
death. The estimated number of Jews in Israel at that time was about one
to two million and most of the people survived the revolt. Tacitus (Histories
V: 13) mentioned 600,000 assembled in Jerusalem when Titus arrived there,
Endnotes 493
but this also is an exaggerated number, he may have been influenced by the
Exodus story” (personal communication, June 1, 2009).
18. BJ VI: 420–22.
19. Ibid. VII: 148–52.
20. Three sheqels dated to the fifth year were found in the excavations at Masada.
From this discovery, we can deduce that some Jews escaped from Jerusalem to
Masada near the end of the war.
21. Smallwood 1981: 349.
22. Roth 1962: 40.
23. Rappaport 2007: 103.
24. Roth 1962: 39.
25. Ibid.: 34.
26. Ibid.: 33.
27. Rappaport 2007: 104.
28. Goodman 2007: 14–15.
29. Deutsch 2017: 54.
30. Ibid. 89.
31. Ibid. 52.
32. Goldstein and Fontanille 2006: 17–19.
33. Meshorer 2001: 72–78.
34. Rappaport 2007: 107.
35. Ibid.: 109.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.: 111.
38. Ibid.: 112.
39. Goldstein and Fontanille 2006: 23.
40. Rappaport 2007: 113–14.
41. Meshorer 1975: 101, 84. A parallel exists in ancient Nabataean coinage with a
bronze coin inscribed “half silver.”
42. Newell 1913: 544.
43. BJ V: 424–28.
44. Ibid. VI: 196–97.
45. Ibid.: 206–13.
46. Ibid. V: 445–46.
47. BJ VI: 281.
48. Bijovsky 2019.
49. The sentiment of a “longing for Zion” was already articulated in Psalm 137. The
modern word Zionism, according to the Encyclopedia Judaica, “first appeared
at the end of the 19th century, denoting the movement whose goal was the
return of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel.” But, the word Zion itself is ancient,
referring most often to the city of Jerusalem or the people of Judaea. Some
2,000 years ago there was a Zionism very similar to the “modern” Zionism.
Nowhere is this concept more clearly shown than on the Zionist slogans of
the coins minted during the Jewish wars of the first and second centuries ce.
50. Roth 1962: 43.
51. Goldstein and Fontanille 2006: 21.
52. Romanoff 1944: 22–23.
53. Deutsch 2017: 27.
54. Romanoff 1944: 16–17.
55. Meshorer 1982 II: 112.

56. Ibid.
57. Romanoff 1944: 31.
58. Klimowsky 1974: 80.
59. Goldstein and Fontanille 2006.
60. Deutsch 2017 for die statistics for the Jewish War.
61. Hill 1914: cii–ciii.
62. Ibid.: cii.
63. BMC 1914: 271, 20.
64. Kreindler 1986–87.
65. The British Museum Research Laboratory, RL File No. 5415, 29 August 1986.
66. For an extensive discussion on these coins, see Syon 1992–93 and 2007, and
Farhi 2003–6.
67. Farhi, personal communication, August 2020.
68. Meshorer 2001: 244.
69. Farhi 2003–6: 69–76.
70. Arbel 2007: 273.
71. Gihon 1987; Syon and Yavor 2001.
Chapter 10: The Bar Kokhba Revolt

1. Midrash Rabbah Lamentations 2.2, 4.
2. Eshel and Zissu 2019: 13–14.
3. Oppenheimer 2016: 69.
4. Midrash Rabbah Lamentations 2.2–4.
5. Ibid.
6. Jerome Against Rufinus 3.31.
7. Dio Cassius, Roman History 69.12.3.
8. Eshel and Zissu 2019: 48–49.
9. Dio Cassius, Roman History 69.12.1–14.3.
10. Ibid.
11. Meshorer 1982 II: 134. Information on the additional three coins are from
data supplied by Donald T. Ariel of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
12. Barag 1980: 30–33.
13. Bijovsky 2004: 248–51.
14. Amit and Bijovsky 2007: 133–36; see also Kloner and Zissu 2003.
16. Yadin 1971: 27.
17. Ibid.: 15.
18. Ibid.: 124.
19. The Bar Kokhba Revolt: A Guide to the Israel Museum, 36.
20. Zerubavel 2003: 296.
21. Hendin 2015.
22. Meshorer 1982 II: 137.
23. Ibid.: 115.
25. Yadin 1971: 176.
26. Meshorer 2001: 139. The author has made personal observations of differences
greater than 300%.
Endnotes 495
27. Kiddushin 12a.

28. Meshorer 2001: 122–23, 155.
29. Netzer et al. 2013 for complete publication of Herodium.
29a. Porat et al. 2017: 337.
30. Spijkerman 1972.
31. Porat et al. 2009–10.
32. Farhi, personal communication, August 2020.
33. Mildenberg 1984–85: 32–36. Mildenberg describes the object within the
Temple as “a low chest on two feet. The chest itself, which entirely lacks three-
dimensionality, was meant to be without lid, as the upper border is rendered
by a single concave line and not by the convex double line which is the way the
chest on the tetradrachms is depicted.”
34. Barag 1986: 222. Further discussion of Bar Kokhba’s second mint can be found
in Kindler 1984:172–79 (Hebrew), in which he describes a mobile mint of Bar
Kokhba found at Horbat Eqed in the Jerusalem Shefla.
35. Papyrus Yadin 46.8–12; Yadin et al. 2002: 66.
36. Zissu et al. 2009–10.
37. Zissu and Hendin 2012.
38. Hendin 2000–2002.
39. Meshorer 2001: 162–63. “Only the coins hidden by their owners during the
war and not removed from the hiding place, either because the owners were
killed or taken captive, sold as slaves, and sent to foreign countries, did not
undergo the process of invalidation or being fashioned into jewelry.”
40. Kaufman 2000–2002; 2007–8.
41. Hendin 2006: 111–16.
42. Mildenberg 1984: 203–16, nos. 61–84.
43. Ibid.: 87.
44. Ibid.
45. Meshorer 2001: 152–53.
46. Mishnah Yoma 3.10.
47. V. Ber. 26a.
48. Mishnah Middoth 3.8.
49. Romanoff 1944: 40.
50. Reifenberg 1947: 30–32.
51. Barag 1986: 217–22.
52. Meshorer op. cit. 2001, p. 154.
53. Romanoff 1944: 40.
54. Ibid.: 41–42.
55. B. Talmud Yoma 54a, Menachot 98b.
56. Goldstein 2010.
58. H. Eshel 2007–8: 126.
59. Barag 1986: 221.
60. Y. Adler 2007–8: 135.
61. M. Sukkah 4: 5, 6.
62. Leonard 1993.
63. Barag called our attention to a significant number of examples in a private
collection in Jerusalem. In Meshorer 2001, he shows nos. 348, 306) a similar
Abu Jara, and Leo Mildenberg (1984, no. “N”) illustrates an example. (Middle-
and small-sized bronze Bar Kokhba coins were also cut for small change, see
no. 6462d for a Bar Kokhba silver coin cut in ancient times.
64. Dio Cassius, Roman History 69: 12.1–14.3.
65. C. Gordon 1971. Much of this book has been discredited.
66. Eshel et al. 2010.
67. Ibid.: 92.
68. Ibid.: 92–93.
69. Ibid.: 96–97.
Chapter 11: Judaea and Rome

1. BJ I: 126.
2. Ibid.: 128.
3. Ibid.: 134–43.
4. Ibid.: 142.
5. Ant. XIV: 4.
6. The coin exists in two similar varieties Cr. 442.1a and 442.1b, the latter without
the name of REX ARETAS but otherwise nearly identical.
7. Hart 1952: 177.
8. Hendin 2010a: 404.
9. Hart 1952: 177.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ant. XV: 394.
13. Midot 3.8.
14. The others are wheat, barley, fig, pomegranate, olive (oil), and date (honey).
15. Feldman 1996: 541.
16. Plutarch 4.6.
17. Tac. Hist. 5.5.
18. Ant. XIV: 331.
19. Ibid.: 365–69.
20. Ibid.: 445–47.
21. Ariel and Fontanille note that this payment was one key piece of evidence
pointing to Herod’s great personal wealth, even before he became king (2011:
14).
22. Josephus Ant. XIV: 488.
23. The triumph is recorded with the date in the Fasti Triumphales Capitolini (CIL
I2: 50). C. SOSIVS.C.F.T.N.PROCOS.EX IVDAEA.AN.DCCXIX III.
NONAS. SEPTEMBR. It is also recorded in the Tab. Triumph. Barberiniana
CIL I2: 76.
24. Gardner 1885: 91.
25. Ibid.: 102.
26. Ibid.: 103.
27. Hart 1952: 177.
28. Crawford 1974: 468.1.
29. Crawford 1974: 452.4.
30. Grueber 1970: 509.
31. Hart 1952 remains the best on this subject.
32. Ibid.: 175.
Endnotes 497
33. Charlesworth 1937: 8.

34. Mattingly 1965: ccxxv.
35. Ibid.: ccxxvii.
36. Hart 1952: 191.
37. Ibid.
38. Avigad 1980: 127. Avigad discusses his team’s emotional discovery in 1970
when they found ruins of a house burnt during the 70 ce destruction. “For the
first time in the history of excavations in the city, vivid and clear archaeological
evidence of the burning of the city had come to light…. Something amazing
occurred in the hearts of all who witnessed the progress of excavations here.
The burning of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem—fateful events
in the history of the Jewish People—suddenly took on a new and horrible
significance. Persons who had previously regarded this catastrophe as stirring
but abstract and remote, having occurred two millennia ago, were so visibly
moved by the sight that they occasionally would beg permission to take a
fistful of soil or a bit of charred wood….”
39. Vagi 1999: 213.
40. Numismatica Ars Classica Auction, 16 May 2013, lot 32.
41. Gambash, Gitler, and Cotton 2013.
42. Cited in Hendin 2017.
43. Although I do not eliminate these coins as being related to the victory over
Judaea, those responsible for the coinage were not shy about very specific
legends or depictions of objects and scenes related to Judaea, so I am including
only types specific to the conflict.
44. Also issued with an obverse portrait of Vespasian, the proud father, who left his
son in charge of finishing the victory in Judaea.
45. Numismatica Ars Classica, Auction 51, 5 March 2009, lot 234.
46. Although the relief on these coins may not seem at first glance unusual, the
lowest point of the coin is inside the colosseum, and the highest point is the
center of the facade of the building. This is quite a differential even for a large
Roman bronze, and results in the frequent flat strikes and heavy wear at the
highest point.
47. Alföldy 1995: 195–226.
48. Feldman 2001.
49. Suetonius 1957: 283.
50. Feldman 2001.
51. BJ VII: 148.
52. Elkins 2006: 215.
53. Ibid.: 218. “Even the imperial depiction on the reverse is unusual in showing a
seated figure rather than a bust.”
54. Ibid.: 218.
55. Elkins 2004: 153.
56. Elkins 2006: 219.
57. Although it is not clear that every die is identical in these respects.
58. Madden 1864 and Reifenberg 1947 were among the early scholars who
described these coins in this way.
59. Weisbrem 1962.
60. Carradice 1982–83.
61. Hendin 2007c.
62. Josephus Ant. VII: 152.

63. Suetonius 1957: 296–97.
64. Jones 1993: 144–49. Domitian’s greatest Germanic battles were against the
Chatti, a “war” that was “solved” by diplomacy only in the mid-80s, and the
tribe later sided with Saturninus during his rebellion in 89. RPC II: xiii notes
that Domitian did not issue his first GERMANIA CAPTA coin until 85
CE and the title GERMANICVS first appears on Roman issues only in
July or August 83 ce. Carradice 1982–83 shows that on the Judaean issues,
GERMANICVS was not used prior to 84 ce.
65. Meshorer et al. 2013 I: 189, no. 2.
66. Ibid.: no. 3.
67. Meshorer 2001: 192–93.
68. Malamed 2005: 172. In modern science it is also generally assumed that the
simplest explanation is the best; this is known as Occam’s Razor.
69. Hendin 2007c: 129.
70. RPC 2007: 46. “This group of aurei has a distinctive style, with elongated
portraits, outward facing legends and heavily pelleted borders, which can be
linked to a group of Syrian tetradrachms (RPC II, 1963-9). Stylistic links with
the provincial ‘Judaea Capta’ coinage and other evidence points to a Judaean
origin for these coins.”
71. RPC II: 97.
72. Mattingly 1966b: lxxxix–xc.
73. Suetonius, Domitian 12.2.
74. Ibid.: 12.
75. Heemstra 2010: 2.
76. Julian Letter 51 (https://en.wikisource.org/Letters_of_Julian/Letter51).
77. Howgego 1985: 16.
78. BJ III: 65–66.
79. Barag and Qedar 1994–99.
80. Ibid.
81. Ibid.
82. BJ V: 41–43.
83. Barag 1967.
84. BJ II: 494.
Chapter 12: New Testament Coins

1. Grant 1977: 71.
2. Ibid.: 72.
3. Rogers 1914: 67.
4. Ibid.: 68.
5. Spijkerman 1956: 297.
6. Hoover 2006: 13.
7. The Talmud (b. Qidd. 12) states that the prutah is the eighth part of an Italian
issar. An issar corresponds to the Roman as. One as equaled two semisses and
each semis was made of two quadrantes. Therefore, one quadrans would have
been equal to two prutot. Thus, according to the Talmud, one Roman denarius
or Greek drachm equaled 64 quadrantes, 128 prutahs, or 256 lepta.
Endnotes 499
8. Baba Bathra 166b; 192 prutahs equal one zuz or quarter sheqel. The smallest
possible version of the prutah is probably used in this calculation to ensure that
in any financial transactions that involved the Temple, the value of the prutah
was at the lowest rate possible vis-à-vis an actual silver equivalent in order not
to deprive the Temple of its proper due.
9. For some of the available excavation data related to this topic, see Ariel 2002:
281–305; Bijovsky 2000: 155–89.
10. Hasmonean coins circulated in the ancient holy land through the fifth century
ce, so there is every reason to believe these coins were used during the lifetime
of Jesus. cf. Bijovsky 2000–2002: 202.
11. Leonard 1993: 363–70.
12. In recent excavations by Shukrun and Reich in the main drainage channel
of Jerusalem from the Second Temple, a Tyre half-sheqel dated 22 ce was
discovered. The coin and its use in ancient times is discussed at www.
antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25andsubj_id=240
andid=1353andmodule_id=#as.
13. Levy 2005a: 5.
14. Josephus, Ant. 18: 312–13; Philo, De specialibus legibus 1: 76–78, and Legatio
ad Gaium: 311.
15. Levy 2005.
16. Ant. XIII: 62–73.
17. Levy 2005a: 5–6.
18. Ibid.: 8.
19. BJ VI: 335.
20. Meshorer 1982 II: 9.
21. Levy 2005b: 885–89.
22. Ibid.: 885. For a more complete discussion of Meshorer’s arguments, see Levy
1993: 267–74.
23. Levy 2005b: 887.
24. Baba Metzia 59b.
25. Levy 2005a: 18–19.
26. Cited in Ariel 2006: 102–3.
27. Moed, Shekalim, 1.3.
28. Stater is a Greek silver coin denomination that in general predates the sheqel or
tetradrachm, however; in many areas of the Greek world, the words stater and
sheqel may have been used interchangeably.
29. Chancy 2005: 175.
30. Syon 2015: 214.
31. Ibid.: 214–15.
Chapter 13: Related Issues

2. Mildenberg 1990–91: 11.
3. Schürer 1973: 561–73, summarizes the history of Chalcis, Ituraea, and Abilene.
4. Myers 2010.
5. Schürer 1973: 564.
6. Ibid.
7. Ant. XIV: 126.
8. Herman 2006.
9. Ant. XIV: 13:3.
10. Dio Cassius XLIX: 32.
11. Kindler 1993.
12. Schürer 1973: 564–73 for the chronology of these rulers and the complex and
partly obscure history of Ituraea.
13. Meshorer, Bijovsky, and Fischer-Bossert 2013: 181.
14. RPC I: 606–12 for discussion.
15. Ant. XX: 128–32.
16. Josephus AJ XX: 136.
17. BJ II: 280–83.
18. Ibid.: 539.
19. Ibid.: 554–55.
20. Ibid. IV: 632.
21. Dabrowa 1998 for dates and names.
22. Gitler and Kushnir-Stein 2004.
23. Josephus Ant. XX: 15–96 and later commentary in Mishna Yoma 3 are the
essential sources about the Jewish royal family of Adiabene.
24. Marciak 2014 is the current standard reference for this family.
25. Ant. XX: 20.
26. Ibid.: 33.
27. Ibid.: 39.
28. Ibid.: 49.
29. Ibid.
30. Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2011.
31. Notley and Garcia 2014: 37–39.
32. Ibid.
33. Neusner 1964: 62. Neusner notes that the accuracy of the stories is not an
issue here: “What is relevant is that the people believed them, which proves
that the Adiabenians succeeded in impressing Palestinian Jews, particularly
Pharisees, by their piety and benevolence.”
34. Ant. XX: 95 and BJ V: 55,147.
35. Notley and Garcia 2014: 34.
36. Ibid.
37. Ant. XX: 51, note 6.
38. Meshorer 2000: 40.
39. Ibid.
40. Gitler and Mairat. Forthcoming.
Bibliography 501
Abbreviations
AE bronze or any copper alloy
AR silver
AU gold
cm centemeters
g grams
l. left
mm millimeters
Obv. obverse
Pb lead
r. right
Rev. reverse
v variety (when occurring after a catalog number)
Ant. Antiquities of the Jews (Flavius Josephus)

AJC Meshorer 1982 (Ancient Jewish Coinage I and II)
BJ Bellicum Judaicum (The Jewish War by Flavius Josephus)
BMC British Museum Catalog of Greek Coins (Hill 1910, 1914)
BMCRE British Museum Catalog of Coins of the Roman Empire (Mattingly
1965, 1966)
G&T Gitler and Tal 2006 (The Coinage pf Philistia of theFifth and Fourth
Centuries BC)
GBC Hendin 2010 (Guide to Biblical Coins, 5th ed.)
GLF Gitler, Lorber, and Fontanille 2021. Yehud Coinage: A Study and Die
Classification of the Provincial Silver Coinage of Judah
Lorber 2018. Coins of the Ptolemaic Empire
M Mildenberg 1984 (The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War)
MCP Menorah Coin Project (www.menorahcoinproject.com)
RIC Roman Imperial Coinage (Burnett et. al. 1992, 1999)
RPC Roman Provincial Coinage (Carradice and Buttrey 2007, Mattingly
and Sydenham 1968, and RPC online [rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/])
Sam. Samarian Coinage (Meshorer and Qedar 1999)
SC Seleucid Coinage (Houghton et. al. 2002, 2008)
Sofaer The Abraham and Marian Sofaeer Collection at the American Numismatic
Society and the Israel Museum (Meshorer et. al. 2013)
TJC A Treasury of Jewish Coins (Meshorer 2001)
501
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Danby, H.
1933 The Mishnah, Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Ex-
planatory Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dio Cassius
1925 Roman History Books 61–70 (Loeb Classical Library 176). Trans. Earnest
Cary. London-Cambridge.
Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible

1990 New American Standard Bible. Chattanooga: AMG Publishers.
Holy Scriptures
1945 Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text. Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society of America.
Josephus
1930–1965 Ant.: Josephus Jewish Antiquities (Loeb Classical Library 242, 326,
365, 410, 433, 489 and 490). Transl. H.St.J. Thackeray (Books I–III), H.
St. J. Thackeray and R. Marcus (Books IV–VI), H. St. J. Thackeray and
R. Marcus (Books V–VIII), R. Marcus (Books IX–XIII), R. Marcus and
A. Wikgren (Books XIV–XVII) and L. H. Feldman (Books XVIII–XX).
London.
1927–1928 BJ: Josephus The Jewish War (Loeb Classical Library 203, 303, and
487). Transl. H. St. J. Thackeray. London (bound in three volumes in
1997).
1926 Vita: Josephus Josephus in Nine Volumes. I. The Life. Against Apion, pp. 2–
159 (Loeb Classical Library 186). Transl. H. St. J. Thackeray. London.
See also Thackeray and Whiston entries.
Jones, B. (trans. and commentary)

1993 Suetonius: The Emperor Domitian. London: Bristol Classical Press.
—and R. Milns (trans. and commentary)

2003 Suetonius: The Flavian Emperors. London: Bristol Classical Press.
Julian, Emperor, The Works of
1923 Wilmer Cave Wright (edit. and trans.). Loeb Classical Library 3. Letter
51 (Epistle 25).
King James Version of The Holy Bible.

New York: American Bible Society.
Bibliography 503
Maccabees, First and Second Books

1973 Commentary by John R. Bartlett. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
The Soncino Talmud

1995 CD ROM. Davka Corp.
St. Jerome
1965 Hritzu, J. N. (trans.), ‘The Apology Against the Books of Rufinus’ in
Saint Jerome; Dogmatic and Polemical Works. In The Fathers of the Church,
Vol. 53. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press.
Suetonius
1957 The Twelve Caesars. Translated by Robert Graves. Baltimore: Penguin.
1993 The Emperor Domitian. Translated by B. Jones. London-New York: Bristol
Classical Press.
2002 The Flavian Emperors. Translated by B. Jones and R. Milns. London:
Bristol Classical Press.
Tacitus.
1964 The Histories. Translated by Kenneth Wellesley. Baltimore: Penguin
Books.
Thackeray, H. St. J.
1928 Works of Josephus. Oxford: Loeb Editions.
Walsh, R.
1882 Works of the British Poets. XLIV. Satires 5: 480. London: Bradford.
Whiston, William.
1899 The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. Chicago: Thompson-Thomas.
Bartlett, John.
1973 The First and Second Books of The Maccabees; The Cambridge Bible
Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Secondary Sources
Adler, A.
1976 Notes on the Beginning of Ancient Jewish Coinage. Judaica Post 4, 6:
416–420.
Adler, Y.
2007–08 Temple Willow-Branch Ritual Depicted on Bar Kokhba Denarius. Israel
Numismatic Journal 16: 131–135.
Alföldy, G.
1995 Eine Bauinschrift aus dem Colosseum. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 109: 195–226.
Amit, D. and G. Bijovsky.

2007 A Numismatic Update on the Northwestern Border of the Territory
Controlled by Bar Kokhba Rebels. Israel Numismatic Research 2: 133–
136.
Applebaum, S.
1976 Prolegomena to the Study of the Second Jewish Revolt (A.D. 132–135).
Oxford, British Archaeological Reports (Supp. Series 7).
Arbel, Y.
2007 The Gamla Coin: A New Perspective on the Circumstances and Date of
its Minting. In D. Miano and S. Malena (eds.) Milk and Honey, Essays on
Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at
the University of California. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns: 257–275.
Ariel, D. T.
1990 Excavations at the City of David Directed by Yigael Shiloh 2, Imported
Stamped Handles, Coins, Worked Bone and Ivory and Glass Qedem 30.
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology.
2000–2 The Jerusalem Mint of Herod the Great: A Relative Chronology. Israel
2002 The Coins from the Surveys and Excavations of Caves in the Northern
Judaean Desert. Atiqot 41 (2): 281–304.
2003 Flan Molds from the Temple Mount Excavations. In E. Mazar (ed.) The
Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin
Mazar. Final Report. Volume II. The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods
(Qedem monograph series 43). Jerusalem: Hebrew University Institute
of Archaeology: 115–119.
2006 A Numismatic Approach to the Reign of Herod the Great. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation under Alla Kushnir-Stein, Tel Aviv University.
Bibliography 505
2011 Identifying the Mints, Minters and Meanings of the First Jewish Revolt
Coins. In M. Popović (ed.) The Jewish Revolt against Rome: Interdisciplin-
ary Perspectives (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 154).
Leiden: Brill: 373–397.
2011a A First Century ce Mint South of Jerusalem? Numismatic Evidence.
In D. Amit, G. Stiebel, and O. Peleg-Barkat (eds.), New Studies in the
Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region, Collected Papers Volume V, 16–23.
Jerusalem.
2012 Judean Perspective of Ancient Mints and Minting Technology. Israel
Numismatic Research 7: 43–80.
2019 A Second Seleucid Coin Attributed to Jerusalem. Israel Numismatic Re-
search 14:41–72.
2021 John Hyrcanus I’s First Autonomous Coins. In A. M. Berlin and P. J.
Kosmin (eds.) The Middle Maccabees: From the Death of Judas through the
Reign of John Hyrcanus (ca. 160–104 B.C.E.). New Archaeological and
Historical Perspectives (Archaeology and Biblical Studies Series).
— and J-P Fontanille.

2011 The Coins of Herod: A Modern Analysis and Die Classification. Early Christian-
ity monograph series. Leiden: Brill.
Avigad, N.
1967 Aramaic Inscriptions in the Tomb of Jason. Israel Exploration Journal 17,
2: 101–111.
1975 A Bulla of Jonathan the High Priest. Israel Exploration Journal 25, 1:
8–12.
1980 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Avi-Yonah, M.
1950 The Foundation of Tiberias. Israel Exploration Journal 1: 168.
1975 (ed.) Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vols.
1–4. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Bachmann, H-G.
1972–73 The Metrological Composition of the Hasmonean Coins. Museum
Ha’aretz, 15–16: 82–90.
Banks, F. A.
1955 Coins of Bible Days. New York: Macmillan 1955.
Barag, D.
1966 The Effects of the Tennes Rebellion on Palestine. Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 183: 6–12.
1967 The Countermarks of the Legio Decima Fretensis. In Proceedings of

the International Numismatic Convention ( Jerusalem, 26–31 December,
1963): 9–11, 117–125. Jerusalem: Schocken.
1967a Brick-Stamp Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis. Bonner Jahrbücher
167: 244–267.
1978 The Palestinian ‘Judaea Capta’ Coins of Vespasian and Titus and the
Era on the Coins of Agrippa II Minted Under the Flavians. Numismatic
Chronicle: 14–23.
1980 A Note on the Geographical Distribution of Bar Kokhba Coins. Israel
1986 New Evidence for the Identification of the Showbread Table on Coins
of the Bar Kokhba War. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of
Numismatics, London: 217–222.
1986–7 A Silver Coin of Yohanan the High Priest and the Coinage of Judea in
the Fourth Century bce. Israel Numismatic Journal 9: 4.
1988–9 The Islamic Candlestick Coins of Jerusalem. Israel Numismatic Journal
10: 40.
1992–3 New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus I. Israel Numis-
matic Journal 12: 1–13.
1993 Bagoas and the Coinage of Judea. Proceedings of the XIth International
Numismatic Congress, Brussels, September 8th–13th 1991, Louvain–la–
Neuve: 261–265.
1994–9 The Coinage of Yehud and the Ptolemies. Israel Numismatic Journal 13:
27–38.
2000–2a Mint of Antiochus IV in Jerusalem. Israel Numismatic Journal 14: 59–77.
2000–2b The Two Mints of the Bar Kokhba War. Israel Numismatic Journal 14:
153–156.
2010. The Tomb of Jason reconsidered. In Weiss, Z., Irshai, O., and J. Magness,
(eds.) Follow the Wise, Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of
Lee I. Levine. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 145–161.
2011 Alexander Jannaeus Priest and King. In Go Out and Study the Land
( Judges 18:2), Archaeological Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of
Hanan Eshel. Supplement Series of the Journal for the Study of Judaism
in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period ( JSJS), 148: 1–5. Leiden:
Brill.
— and Qedar.
1980 The Beginning of Hasmonean Coinage. Israel Numis. Journal 4: 8–21.
1994–9 A Countermark of the Legio Quinta Scythica from the Jewish War. Israel
Barkay, G. et al.
2003 The Challenges of Ketef Hinnom: Using Advanced Technologies to Re-
cover the Earliest Biblical Texts and their Context. Near Eastern Archae-
ology 66, 4: 162–171.
Bibliography 507
Barkay, R.
2015-6 Nabataean Queens as Reflected on Coins. Israel Numismatic Journal 19:
13-32.
Barthelemy, J. J.
1756 Dissertation sur deux medailles Samaritains d’Antigonus roi de Judée
(Report dated 21 March 1749), Mémoires de Littérature, tirés des Registres
de l’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 24:49-66.
Bellinger, Alfred R.
1940 The Syrian Tetradrachms of Caracalla and Macrinus. New York: American
Numismatic Society.
Ben-Ami, D. and Y. Tchekhanovets.

2011 Has the Adiabene Royal Family ‘Palace’ Been found in the City of David?
in K. Galor and G. Avni (eds.) Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Ar-
chaeological Research in the Holy City. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Benoit, P.
1967 LÌnscription grecque du tombeau de Jason. Israel Exploration Journal 17,
2: 112f.
Bijovsky, G.
2000 The Coins from Horbat Zalit. ‘Atiqot 39: 155–189.
2000–2 The Currency of the Fifth Century ce in Palestine: Some Reflections in
Light of the Numismatic Evidence. Israel Numismatic Journal 14: 196–
210.
2004 The Coins from Khirbet Badd ‘Isa—Qiryat Sefer. Isolated Coins and
Two Hoards Dated to the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In Y. Magen, D. T. Ariel,
G. Bijovsky, Y. Tzionit, and O. Sirkis (eds.) The Land of Benjamin ( Judea-
Samaria Publications 3). Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology, Civil
Administration of Judea and Samaria, 2004, 243–300.
2009 A Burning Testimony: Two Bronze Hoards from the Time of the First
Jewish Revolt. Israel Numismatic Research 4: 73–82.
2013 Kh. Bad-Issah: Coins and Two Bar-Kokhba Hoards from Kh. Bad Issah
(Qiriat Sefer). In Y. Magen (ed.) Excavations at Kh. Bad-Issah and Qua-
landia. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Biran, A. and R. Gophna.

1970 An Iron Age Burial Cave at Tel Halif. Israel Exploration Journal 20: 151–
169.
Blackwell, B.
1991 Jesus and the Judaism of His Time. Cambridge: Polity.
Bower, N. W., D. B. Hendin, C. C. Lundstrom, M. S. Epstein, A. T. Keller, A. R.

Wagner, and Z. R. White.
2013 ‘Biblical’ bronze coins: new insights into their timing and attribution us-
ing copper and lead isotopes. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 5:
287–298.
—and D. B. Hendin and S. E. Burt.

2016 A Thermomechanical Study of Judean Prutot Minting Methods. Israel
Numismatic Research 11, 95–110.
Brauer, G.
1970 Judaea Weeping. New York: Crowell.
Burnett, A.
1987 The Coinage of Agrippa I of Judaea and a New Coin of Herod of Chalcis,
in H. Huvelin et al. (eds.) Me´langes de numismatique offerts a` ... Pierre
Bastien. Wetteren, Belgium: Cultura Pres: 25–38.
2011 Wife, sister, or daughter? Israel Numismatic Research 6: 121–25.
2011–4 The Coinage of Agrippa I. Israel Numismatic Journal 18: 69–106.
Burnett, A., M. Amandry, and P. Ripolles.

1992 Roman Provincial Coinage, Vol. I, Parts I and II. London: British Museum
Press.
1998 Roman Provincial Coinage, Supp. I. London: British Museum Press.
—and M. Amandry and I. Carradice.

1999 Roman Provincial Coinage, Vol. II, Parts I and II. London: British Museum
Press.
Broshi, M.
2001 Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls. London: Sheffield Academic Press.
Campbell, W.
1933 Greek and Roman plated Coins. ANSNNM 57. New York: American Nu-
mismatic Society.
Carradice, I.
1982–3 Coinage in Judaea in the Flavian Period, ad 70–96. Israel Numismatic
Journal 6–7: 14–21.
—and T. Buttrey.
2007 The Roman Imperial Coinage, Volume II, Part 1, Second Fully Revised
Edition. London: Spink.
Bibliography 509
—and M. Cowell.
1987 The Minting of Roman Imperial Bronze Coins for Circulation in the
East: Vespasian to Trajan. The Numismatic Chronicle 147: 26–50.
Cavedoni, C.
1850 Numismatica biblica, o sia Dichiarazione delle monete antiche memorate nelle
sante Scritture. Modena: Eredi Soliani.
Cayon, J. R.
1984 Los Sestercios Imperio Romano, Vol. II. Cayon.
Charlesworth, M. P.
1937 The Virtues of a Roman Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of Be-
lief. Raleigh Lecture on History. British Academy.
Chase, W. T. and T. O. Ziebold.

1978 Ternary Representations of Ancient Chinese Bronze Compositions. In
G. Carter (ed.) Archaeological chemistry II. Advances in Chemistry 171,
293–302. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.
Chancy, M. C.
2005 Greco Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ciecielag, J.
1997 Some Remarks on the Coinage of Herod Philip. Notae Numismaticae-
Zapizski Numizmatyczne 2: 66–82.
Cohen, H.
1880–90 Médailles Impériales, I–VIII, 2nd ed., Paris: Rollin & Feuardent.
Cooray, V.
2015 An Introduction to Lightning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Coskun, A.
2018 Neue Überlegungen Zur Chronologie und Historischen Einordnumg
der Hasmonäischen MünzprAgungen – Zugleich Eina Verspätete Wür-
digung der ‘Häresie’ Ya’akov Meshorer. Revue Belge de Numismatique 164:
285–321.
Crawford, M.
1974 Roman Republican Coinage. Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Dabrowa, E.
1998 The Governors of Roman Syria from Augustus to Septimius Severus. Bonn:
R. Habelt.
Davies, J. A.
1992 Barbarous radiate hoards: The interpretation of coin deposits in late
third-century Roman Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11: 211–224.
Dayan, M.
1978 Living with the Bible. New York: William Morrow.
Dayton, J.
1974 Money in the Near East Before Coinage. Berytus 23: 41–52.
Deutsch, R.
1986–7 A Portrait Coin of Agrippa II Reconsidered. Israel Numismatic Journal 9:
36–37.
1992–3 A Unique Prutah from the First Year of the Jewish War Against Rome.
Israel Numismatic Journal 12: 71–72.
2009 The Jewish Coinage During the First Revolt Against Rome, 66–73 ce. Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
2017 Jewish Coinage During the First Revolt Against Rome 66–73 ce. Archaeo-
logical Center.
Dever, W.
2001 The Silver Trail: Response to the Papers of Ephriam Stern and Seymour
Gitin. In M. Balmuth (ed.) Hacksilber to Coinage: New Insights into the
Monetary History of the Near and Greece. New York: American Numis-
matic Society: 49–52.
Dittenberger, W,
1915 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecorum, 3rd edition, Leipzig: S. Hirzel.
Duncan-Jones, R.
1994. Money and Government in the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Duyrat, F.
2016 Wealth and Warfare: The Archaeology of Money in Ancient Syria. New York:
American Numismatic Society.
Eckhel, J.
1794 Doctrina numorum veterum, Pars I: De numis urbium, populorum, regum,
Volumen III: Reliquam Asiam Minorem, et regiones deinceps in ortum sitas.
Vienna: Sumptibus Joseph Camesina.
Bibliography 511
Elkins, N.
2004 Locating the Imperial Box in the Flavian Amphitheater: The Numis-
matic Evidence. Numismatic Chronicle 164: 147–157.
2006 The Flavian Colosseum Sestertii: Currency or Largess? Numismatic
Chronicle 166: 211–221.
Encyclopedia Judaica
1971–2 Jerusalem: Keter.
Epstein, M. S., D. B. Hendin, L. L. Yu, and N. W. Bower.

2010 Chemical Attribution of Corroded Coins Using X-ray Fluorescence and
Lead Isotope Ratios: A Case Study from First Century Judaea. Applied
Spectroscopy 64.
Eshel, E., H. Eshel, and A. Yardeni.

1992 A Qumran Composition Containing Part of Ps. 154 and a Prayer for the
Welfare of King Jonathan and His Kingdom. Israel Exploration Journal
42: 199–229.
Eshel, H.
2006 The Bar Kochba Revolt, 132–135. In S. T. Katz (ed.) The Cambridge His-
tory of Judaism. Vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
2007–8 On Harps and Lyres: A Note on the Bronze Coinage of the Bar Kokhba
Administration. Israel Numismatic Journal 16: 118–130.
—and B. Zissu.
2003 A Note on the Rabbinic Phrase: ‘Cast them into the Dead Sea.’ In Y.
Eshel (ed.) Judea and Samaria Research Studies 12: 91–96 (Hebrew); XII–
XIII (English Summary).
2019 The Bar Kokhba Revolt, the Archaeological Evidence. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak
Ben-Zvi.
—and B. Zissu and G. Barkay.

2010 Sixteen Bar Kokhba Coins from Roman Sites in Europe. Israel Numis-
matic Journal 17.
Farhi, Y.
2003–06 The Bronze Coins Minted at Gamla Reconsidered. Israel Numismatic
Journal 15: 59–67.
2013 Note on Two Types of Lead Currency from Late Roman/Early Byzan-
tine Palestine (Fifth Century ce). Israel Numismatic Research 8: 135–141.
Feldman, L. H.
1996 Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
2001 Financing the Colosseum. Biblical Archaeology Review 27: 22 f.
Fontanille, J-P.
2008 Extreme Deterioration and Damage on Yehud Coin Dies. Israel Numis-
matic Research 3:29–43.
2010 The Barbarous Coins of Judea. Israel Numismatic Research 5: 109–122.
—and F. Gosline.
2001 The Coins of Pontius Pilate. Warren Center, Pa.: Shangra La.
—and C. Lorber.
2008 Silver Yehud Coins with Greek or Pseudo-Greek Inscriptions. Israel Nu-
mismatic Research 3: 51–64.
Friedman, T.
1987 When Dogs Become an Archeologist’s Best Find. The New York Times,
August 14, 1987.
Gambash, G., H. Gitler, and H. M. Cotton.

2013 IUDAEA RECEPTA. Israel Numismatic Research 8: 89–104.
Gardner, P. (NEW AUTHOR ENTRY)

1885 The History of Zacynthus. Numismatic Chronicle, 3rd Series, V: 81-107.
Gerson, S.
2001 Fractional Coins of Judea and Samaria in the Fourth Century bce. Near
Eastern Archaeology 64, 3: 106–121.
Gihon, M.
1987 The Golan and the Battle for Gamla. Ariel 50–51: 79.
Gitin, S. and A. Golani.

2001 The Tel Miqne-Ekron Silver Hoards: The Assyrian and Phoenician
Connections. In M. Balmuth (ed.) Hacksilber to Coinage: New Insights
into the Monetary History of the Near East and Greece, 27–48. New York:
Gitler, H. and O. Tal.

2006 The Coinage of Philistia of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries bce: A Study of the
Earliest Coins of Palestine. New York: Amphora.
2009 More Evidnce on the Collective Mint of Philistia. Israel Numismatic Re-
search 4: 21–38.
Bibliography 513
2019 Test Cuts on Philistian Rb‘ Sheqels / Quarters: A Case Study. Israel Nu-
mismatic Research 14: 3–24.
2019 The Nabulus 1968 Hoard: A Study of Monetary Circulation in the Late
Fourth and Early Third centuries bce Southern Levant. New York: Ameri-
can Numismatic Society.
—and A. Kushnir-Stein.
2004 A New Date on Coins of Marisa in Idumaea and its Historical Implica-
tions. Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 83: 4, 6.
—and C. Lorber.
2006 A New Chronology for the Ptolemaic Coins of Judah. American Journal
of Numismatics 18: 1–41.
2008 A New Chronology for the Yehizkiyah coins of Judah. Schweizerische
Numismatische Rundschau 87: 61–82.
—and J. Mairat.
Forthcoming. Freedom and persecutions at Neapolis in Samaria, 244–253 ce.
—and O. Tal and P. van Alfen.

2007 Silver Dome-shaped Coins from Persian-Period Southern Palestine. Is-
rael Numismatic Research 2: 47–62.
—and C. Lorber and J-P Fontanille.

2021 The Yehud Coinage: A Study and Die Classification of the Provincial Silver
Coinage of Judah. Jerusalem: Israel Numismatic Society.
Goldstein, I.
2010 Bar Kokhba Sela—The Design Schemes. The Celator 24, 4.
—and J-P Fontanille.

2006 A New Study of the Coins of the First Jewish Revolt Against Rome,
66–70 ce. American Numismatic Assn. Journal 1, 2: 9–32.
Goodenough, E. R.
1953–68 Jewish Symbols in the Graeco-Roman Periods, Vols. 1–12. New York: Pan-
theon.
Goodman, M.
1987 The Ruling Class of Judaea, The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome
A.D. 66–70. Cambridge University Press.
2007 Rome and Jerusalem, The Clash of Ancient Civilizations. New York: Ran-
dom House.
Gordon, C.
1971 Before Columbus: Links Between the Old World and Ancient America. New
York: Crown Books.
Graetz, H.
1927 History of the Jews, Vols. 1–6. New York: G. Dobsevage.
Grant, M.
1971 Herod the Great. New York: American Heritage Press.
1973 The Jews in the Roman World. New York: Scribner’s.
1974 The Army of the Caesars. New York: Scribner’s.
1977 Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels. New York: Scribner’s.
Grayzel, S.
1948 A History of the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Gruber, H. A.
1970 Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum. London: British Mu-
seum.
Hafford, W. B.
2005 Mesopotamian Mesuration Balance Pan Weights from Nippur.
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 48, 3: 345–387.
Harl, K. W.
1996 Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 BC to AD 700. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Harrari, Y. N.
2014 Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. New York: HarperCollins.
Hart, H. St. J.
1952 Judaea and Rome: The Official Commentary. Journal of Theological Stud-
ies: 172–198.
Hauptmann A., E. F. Begemann, E. Heitkemper, E. Pernicka, and S. Schmitt-

Strecker
1992 Early copper produced at Feinan, Wadi Araba, Jordan: The composition
of ores and copper. Archaeomaterials 6: 1–33.
Heemstra, M.
2010 The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Heltzer, M.
1996 The ‘Unification’ of Weights and Measure Systems in Foreign Trade in
the Eastern Mediterranean (1500–700 bce). Michmanim 9: 31–38.
Bibliography 515
Hendin, D. B.
1976 Guide to Ancient Jewish Coins. New York: Attic Books.
1979 A New Way to Look at the Thick Silver Shekels. The Numismatic Review
II, 2: 1–2.
1980 Plated Coins of Bar Kokhba. Israel Numismatic Journal 4: 34–37.
1981 Clashed Die Errors in Bar Kokhba Coins. Israel Numismatic Journal 5:
44–45.
1987 Guide to Biblical Coins 2nd ed. New York: Amphora.
1990–1 New Discovery on a Coin of Herod I. Israel Numismatic Journal 11: 32.
1994–99 Four New Jewish Lead Coins or Tokens. Israel Numismatic Journal 13:
63–65.
1996 Guide to Biblical Coins 3rd ed. New York: Amphora.
2001 Guide to Biblical Coins 4th ed. New York: Amphora.
2003–06 A New Coin Type of Herod Antipas. Israel Numismatic Journal 15: 56–
61.
2005 Not Kosher, Forgeries of Ancient Jewish and Biblical Coins. New York: Am-
phora
2006 A Bronze Test Strike from the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Israel Numismatic
Research 1: 111–116.
2007a Ancient Scale Weights and Pre-Coinage Currency of the Near East. New
York: Amphora.
2007b Further Discussions on an Interesting Yehud Type. The Celator 21, 10: 42 f.
2007c Echoes of ‘Judaea Capta’: The Nature of Domitian’s Coinage of Judea
and Vicinity. Israel Numismatic Research 2: 123–130.
2007–8a Numismatic Expressions of Hasmonean Sovereignty. Israel Numismatic
Journal 16: 76–91.
2007–8b A Rare Judaea Capta Type of Asia Minor. Israel Numismatic Journal 16:
109–111.
2009 A New Medallion of Agrippa II. Israel Numismatic Research 4: 57–61.
2010 Guide to Biblical Coins 5th ed. New York: Amphora.
2010a The Metrology of Judaean Small Bronze Coins. American Journal of Nu-
mismatics Second Series 21: 105–121.
2010b Hasmonean Coin Chronologies: Two Notes. Israel Numismatic Journal
17: 34–38.
2015 On the Identity of Eleazar the Priest. Israel Numismatic Journal, Barag
Memorial Volume 18.
2017 Israel Numismatic Report: Important Finds, Altruistic Reporting, and the
Law. The Ancient Near East Today, ASOR Vol. V, No. 5.
2020 Hasmonean Coins: Review, Update, and Comments. Israel Numismatic
Research 2022. In press.
—and J-P Fontanille.

2016 Thunderbolt and Laurel on a Herod Philip Coin. Israel Numismatic Re-
search: 111–118.
—and M. Huth.
2020 Early Nabataean Coinage until the Monetary System of Malichus I. In
Touraj Daryaee and Judith A. Lerner with Virginie Rey (eds.) Dinars
and Dirhams: Festschrift in Honor of Michael L. Bates. The University of
California Irvine: Jordan Center for Persian Studies.
—and C. Lundstrom, Z. White, and N. Bower.

2011 “Preliminary Sequencing of Herod I’s Undated Coins Based on Alloy
Changes over Time,” Israel Numismatic Research 6: 93–103.
—and I. Shachar
2008 The Identity of YNTN on Hasmonean Overstruck Coins and the Chro-
nology of the Alexander Jannaeus Types. Israel Numismatic Research 3:
87–94.
Herman, D.
2006 “The Coins of the Itureans.” Israel Numismatic Research, 1: 51–72.
Horbury, W.
2014 Jewish War under Trajan and Hadrian. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hill, G. F.
1910 Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia. London: British Museum.
1914 Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Palestine (Galilee, Samaria, and Judaea).
London: British Museum.
1922 Catalog of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia. London:
British Museum.
Hill, P. V.
1950 Barbarous imitations of fourth-century Roman coins. NC6 10: 233–270.
Hirschfeld, A. and D. T. Ariel.

2005 A Coin Assemblage from the Reign of Alexander Jannaeus Found on
the Shore of the Dead Sea. Israel Exploration Journal 55: 66–89.
Hoehner, H. W.
1972 Herod Antipas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoover, O.
1994 Striking a Pose: Seleucid Types and Machtpolitik on the Coins of John
Hyrcanus I. The Picus 3: 40–57.
2003 The Seleucid Coinage of John Hyrcanus I: The Transformation of a Dy-
nastic Symbol in Hellenistic Judaea. American Journal of Numismatics,
Second Series 15: 29–39.
Bibliography 517
2006 The Authorized Version: Money and Meaning in the King James Bible.
American Numismatic Society Magazine 5: 2.
2007a Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection of Arthur Houghton, Part
II. Ancient Coins in North American Collections, New York: American
Numismatic Society.
2007b Seleucid Coinage of Demetrias by the Sea. Israel Numismatic Research 2:
77–88.
Houghton, A.
1983 Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection of Arthur Houghton, An-
cient Coins in North American Collections. New York: American Nu-
mismatic Society.
—and A. Spaer.
1998 The Arnold Spaer Collection of Seleucid Coins, SNG Israel. London: I. Vecchi.
—and C. Lorber.
2002 Seleucid Coins, a Comprehensive Catalog, Part I, Vols I & II. New York:
American Numismatic Society and Classical Numismatic Group.
—and C. Lorber and O. Hoover.

2008 Seleucid Coins, A Comprehensive Catalog, Part II, Vols. I & II. New York:
American Numismatic Society and Classical Numismatic Group.
Howgego, C. J.
1985 Greek Imperial Countermarks. London: Royal Numismatic Society.
Israel Numismatic Society.

1954 Recent Studies and Discoveries on Ancient Jewish and Syrian Coins. Jerusa-
lem: Israel Numismatic Society.
1958 The Dating and Meaning of Ancient Jewish Coins and Symbols. Jerusalem:
Israel Numismatic Society.
1967 Patterns of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity.
Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem,
27–31 December 1963. Jerusalem: Schocken.
Jacobson, D. M.
1981 The Cross on the Coins of King Herod. Israel Numismatic Journal 5: 17–18.
1986 A New Interpretation of the Reverse of Herod’s Largest Coin. American
Numismatic Society Museum Notes 31, 145-65 & Pl. 32, 1986.
2000 The Anchor on the Coins of Judaea. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeo-
logical Society 2000, Volume 18: 73–81.
2001 When Palestine meant Israel? Biblical Archaeology Review 27.3 May/
June.
2007a Military Helmet or Dioscuri Motif on Herod the Great’s Largest Coin.
Israel Numismatic Research 2: 93–101.
2007b The Jerusalem Temple of Herod the Great. In N. Kokkinos (ed.) The
World of the Herods: Proceedings of an International Conference held at the
British Museum, pp. 145–76. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
2013 Military Symbols on the Coins of John Hyrcanus I. Strata: Bulletin of the
Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 31: 25–38.
2014a Herodian Bronze and Tyrian Silver Coinage. Zeitschrift des Deutschen
Palastina-Vereins 130: 138–154.
2014b Herod the Great’s royal monogram, Israel Numismatic Research 9: 95–
101.
2015a Antioch and Jerusalem. London: Spink and Son.
2015b Herod the Great, Augustus Caesar and Herod’s ‘Year 3’ coins, Strata: Bul-
letin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 33: 89–118.
2017 On the Chalkous of the Later Seleucids and of Agrippa II, Israel Numis-
matic Research 12: 65–70.
2019 Agrippa II: The Last of the Herods. London/New York: Routledge.
—and D. Hendin.
2021 Pomegranate or Poppy: What Lies Between the Cornucopias on Has-
monean Coins? Near Eastern Archaeology. Fortchoming.
Jeselsohn, D.
1974 A New Coin Type with Hebrew Inscription. Israel Exploration Journal
24: 77–78.
Johnson, P.
1987 A History of the Jews. New York: Harper & Row.
Jones, A. H. M.
1938 The Herods of Judaea. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Judson, R. and R. Porter.

2010 Estimating the volume of counterfeit U.S. currency in circulation worldwide:
Data and extrapolation. Policy Discussion Paper 12. Chicago: Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Kadman, L.
1960 The Coins of the Jewish War. (Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium 3).
Jerusalem: Schocken.
1961 The Coins of Akko Ptolemais. (Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium 4).
Jerusalem: Schocken.
Kanael, B.
1950–1 The Beginning of Maccabean Coinage. Israel Exploration Journal 1: 170–75.
Bibliography 519
1952 The Greek Letters and Monograms on the Coins of Jehohanan the High
Priest. Israel Exploration Journal 11: 190–194.
1963 Ancient Jewish Coins and their Historical Importance. Biblical Archaeol-
ogy 26: 38 ff.
Kaufman, J. C.
1995 Unrecorded Hasmonean Coins from the J. Ch. Kaufman Collection. Jerusa-
lem: Israel Numismatic Society.
2000–2 Additions to Leo Mildenberg’s Corpus of The Coinage of the Bar Kokh-
ba War. Israel Numismatic Journal 14: 129–152.
2004 Unrecorded Hasmonean Coins from the J. Ch. Kaufman Collection, Part II.
Jerusalem: Israel Numismatic Society.
2007–08 Additions to the Corpus of Leo Mildenberg’s Coinage of the Bar Kokhba
War. Israel Numismatic Journal 16: 136–139.
Kindler, A.
1967 The Monetary Pattern and Function of the Jewish Coins. Proceedings
of the International Numismatic Convention 1963. Jerusalem: Schocken:
180–203.
1974 Coins of the Land of Israel. Jerusalem: Ketter.
1984 Mobile Mint of Bar Kokhba. In The Bar Kokhba Revolt, New Approaches,
A. Oppenheimber, U. Rappaport, eds. Yad Ben-Zvi: Jerusalem: 172–79.
1993 On the Coins of the Ituraeans. Proceedings of the XIth International Nu-
mismatic Congress, Brussels: 283-88.
2003–06 A hoard of quadrantes (prutot) of the Jewish War (66–70 ce) from Kh-
irbet Zeita. Israel Numismatic Journal 15: 64–65.
Kletter, R.
1998 Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press.
2001 Weights and Weighing, in Eretz Israel in Antiquity. In Measuring and
Weighing in Ancient Times. Haifa: Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum.
Klimowsky, E. W.
1963 Danka and prutah: the prutah. Israel Numismatic Journal 1, 4: 68–69.
1974 On Ancient Palestinian and Other Coins, Their Symbolism and Metrology.
Tel Aviv: Israel Numismatic Society.
Kloner, A. and B. Zissu.

2003 Hiding Complexes in Judaea: An Archaeological and Geographical Up-
date on the Area of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. In P. Schäfer (ed.) The Bar
Kokhba War Reconsidered, 181–216.
Kogon, A. J. and J-P Fontanille.

2018 The Coinage of Herod Antipas: a study and die classification of the earliest
coins of Galilee. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Kokhavi, M.
1969 Quadmoniot II, 2: 40 (Hebrew).
Kokkinos, N.
1998 The Herodian Dynasty. Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse. Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press.
Kovacs, F. L.
2008 Tigranes IV, V, and VI: New Attributions. American Journal of Numis-
matics 20: 337–350.
Kreindler, H.
1986–87 The Application of SEM for Authentication of Year Five Shekels of
The Jewish War. Israel Numismatic Journal 9: 38–45.
Krupp, M.
2007–8 A Metallurgical Examination of Hasmonean Coins. Israel Numismatic
Journal 16: 57–75.
Krupp N. and S. Qedar.

1981 The Cross on the Coins of King Herod. Israel Numismatic Journal 5: 17–
18.
Kushnir-Stein, A.
1999 Review of Kokkinos, N. The Herodian Dynasty. Scripta Classica Israelica
18: 195.
2002 The Coinage of Agrippa II. Scripta Classica Israelica 21: 123–131.
2000–2 Some Observations on Palestinian Coins with a Beveled Edge. Israel
Leemans, W. F.
1950 The Old-Babylonian Merchant; His Business and His Social Position, Vol. 3
Studia et Documenta ad lura Orientis Antiqua Perinentia. Leiden: Brill.
Lemaire, A.
1976 Le monnayage de Tyr et celui dit d’Akko dans la deuxième moitié du IVe
siècle av. J.-C. Revue Numismatique 6e série, v. XVIII, pp. 11–24.
Leonard, R.
1993 Cut Bronze Coins in the Ancient Near East. International Congress of
Numismatics (11th, 1991, Brussels) Actes. Louvain-la-Neuve: 1, 363–370.
Levy, B.
1993 Tyrian Sheqels and the First Jewish War. Proceedings of the 11th Interna-
tional Numismatic Congress (Brussels 1991): 267–274.
Bibliography 521
2005a Holy Sheqels and the Currency of Jerusalem’s Temple Tax. Third Leo
Mildenberg lecture at Harvard University, April 15, 2005 (unpublished).
2005b Later Tyrian Sheqels: Dating the ‘Crude’ Issues, Reading the Controls. In:
XIII Congreso Internacional de Numismatica 1: 885–890.
Lichtenberger, A.
2019 Die Münzprägung Herodes des Großen: romanisiert oder selbstreferen-
tiell. In T. G. Schattner and D. Vieweger, D. Wigg-Wolf (eds.) Kontinu-
ität und Diskontinuität, Prozesse der Romanisierung. Fallstudien zwischen
Iberischer Halbinsel und Vorderem Orient, Menschen-Kulturen-Traditionen.
Studien aus den Forschungsclustern des Deutschen Archäologischen In-
stituts 15: 141–155.
Lönnqvist, K.
1992–3 New Vistas on the Countermarked Coins of the Roman Prefects of Ju-
daea. Israel Numismatic Journal 12: 56–60.
1997 A Re-Attribution of the King Herod Agrippa I ‘Year 6’ Issue. Liber An-
nus 47: 429–440.
2002 Pontius Pilate—Aqueduct Builder? —Recent Findings and New Sug-
gestions. Klio 82: 459–475.
Lorber, C.
2018 Coins of the Ptolemaic Empire, Part I: Ptolemy I through Ptolemy IV
(2 vols.). New York: American Numismatic Society.
Madden, F. W.
1864 History of Jewish Coinage and of Money in the Old and New Testament.
London: Quaritch.
1881 The Coins of the Jews. London: Quaritch.
1903 The Coins of the Jews. London: Quartich.
Magen, Y.
1986 A Fortified Town of the Hellenistic Period on Mount Gerizim. Qadmo-
niot 19, 1986: 91–101 (Hebrew) and Qadmoniot 23, 1990: 70–96 with
discussion on coins pp. 74 f., 87, 90 (Hebrew).
2008 Gerizim, Mount. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in
the Holy Land 5, 1742–48. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Magie, D. (trans.)
1979 Scriptores Historiae Augustae: Hadrian 14.2, in The Scriptores Historiae Au-
gustae, 3 vols. 1: 42–45. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
McLean, M.
1982 The Use and Development of Palaeo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman
Periods. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.
Malamed, E. Z.
2005 Aramaic/Hebrew/English Dictionary of the Babylonian Talmud. Jerusalem.
Maltiel-Gerstenfeld, J.
1980 A Portrait Coin of Berenice Sister of Agrippa II? Israel Numismatic
Journal 4: 25–26.
1982 260 Years of Ancient Jewish Coins. Tel Aviv: Kol.
1987 New Catalog of Ancient Jewish Coins. Tel Aviv: Minerva.
Marciak, M.
2014 Izates, Helena, and Monobazos of Adiabene: A Study on Literary Traditions
and History. Philippika 66. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Mattingly, H.
1965 Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, Vol. I. London: British
Museum.
1966a Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, Vol. II. London: British
Museum.
1966b Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, Vol. III. London: British
Museum.
—and E. Sydenham.
1968 The Roman Imperial Coinage, Vol. II. London: Spink and Son.
Matsson, G. O.
1999 The Gods, Goddesses, and Heroes of the Ancient Coins of Bible Lands. Stock-
holm: Mälartyrckeriet AB.
Mays, J. L., general editor.

1988 Harper’s Bible Commentary. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Meshorer, Y.
1961 An Attic Archaic Coin from Jerusalem. Atiqot 3 (English Series): 185.
1966 A New Type of YHD Coin. Israel Exploration Journal, 16: 217–219.
1967 Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period. Tel Aviv: Am Hassefer & Ma-
sada Publishers.
1970 Production of Coins in the Ancient World. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.
1974 Coins of the Ancient World. Minneapolis: Lerner.
1975 Nabataean Coins. QEDEM 3, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeol-
ogy. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
1976 The Double Cornucopiae as a Jewish Symbol. Judaica Post 4: 282–286.
1976a The En Gedi Hoard. In Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of
Numismatics, New York-Washington September 1973. Paris: IAPN.
1978 Early Means of Payment and the First Coinage. Ariel 45–46: 127–143.
Bibliography 523
1979 On the Nature of the Symbols on the Coins of Herod the Great. Fest-
schrift Reuben R. Hecht, Jerusalem: 158–161.
1982 Ancient Jewish Coinage I and II. New York: Amphora.
1983 Coins Reveal. New York: The Jewish Museum.
1985 City Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.
1989a The Coins of Masada. In Masada, I, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–
1966: Final Reports. Jerusalem.
1989b The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.
1990–1 Ancient Jewish Coinage Addendum I. Israel Numismatic Journal 11: 1.
1997 A Treasury of Jewish Coins (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi
Press.
2000 TestiMoney. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum.
2001 A Treasury of Jewish Coins (English). Jerusalem and New York: Amphora.
—and S. Qedar.
1991 The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century bce. Jerusalem: Numismatic
Fine Arts International, Inc.
1999 Samarian Coinage. Jerusalem: The Israel Numismatic Society.
—and Gabriela Bijovsky and Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert.

2013 Coins of the Holy Land the Abraham and Marian Sofaer Collection at the
American Numismatic Society and the Israel Museum I and II. New York:
Meyers, C. et al.
2000 Women in Scripture. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Meyers, E. M.
1999 Sepphoris on the Eve of the Great Revolt (65–67 ce): Archaeology and
Josephus. In E. M. Meyers (ed.) Galilee Through the Centuries: Confluence
of Cultures, 127–140. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
2002 Sepphoris City of Peace. In A. M. Berlin and J. A. Overman (eds.) The
First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, 110–120. London:
Routledge.
Meyshan, J.
1968 Essays in Jewish Numismatics. Jerusalem: Israel Numismatic Society.
Mildenberg, L.
1949 The Eleazar Coins of the Bar Kokhba Rebellion. Historica Judaica 11:
77–108.
1979 Yehud: A Preliminary Study of the Provincial Coinage of Judaea. In Es-
says in Honor of Margaret Thompson, Wettern: 183–196.
1984 The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War. Salzburg: Verlag Sauerlander.
1984–5 A Bar Kokhba Didrachm. Israel Numismatic Journal 8: 32–36.
1990–1 Notes on the Coin Issues of Mazday. Israel Numismatic Journal 11: 9–23.
1992 The Philisto-Arabian Coins—A Preview. Preliminary Studies of the
Local Coinage in the Fifth Persian Satrapy. Part 3, Studia Phoenicia 9,
Numismatique et Historie Économique Phéniciennes et Puniques, Lou-
vain-la-Neuve, pp. 33–40.
1994-9 A Note on the Persian Great King Wearing the Jagged Crown. Israel
Milik, J. and H. Seyrig.

1958  Trésor monétaire de Murabb’at. Revue numismatique 6.1: 11–26.
Miller, M. and J. H. Hayes.

1986 A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Mindlin, V. and G. Cornfeld.

1962 The Epic of the Maccabees. New York: Macmillan.
Mørkholm, O.
1981 Some Coins of Ptolemy V from Palestine. Israel Numsimatic Journal
5–11.
—and P. Grierson and U. Westermark.

1991 Early Hellenistic coinage: From the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of
Apamea (336–188 BC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers, E. A.
2010 The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East: Reassessing the Sources. Society for
New Testament Studies, Monograph Series 147. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nadich, J.
1983 Jewish Legends of the Second Commonwealth. Philadelphia: Jewish Publi-
cation Society.
Naveh, J.
1968 Dated Coins of Alexander Jannaeus. Israel Exploration Journal 18: 20 f.
1987 Early History of the Alphabet. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.
Neusner, J.
1964 The Conversion of Adiabene to Judaism: A New Perspective. Journal of
Biblical Literature 83.1: 60–66.
Nevo, Y.
2001 Ottoman Weight Units and the Transition to the Metric System in
Eretz Israel. In Measuring and Weighing in Ancient Times, 31–34. Haifa:
Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum.
Bibliography 525
Newell, E. T.
1913 The Oldest Known ‘Siege-Pieces.’ Numismatist 26: 543.
1937 Royal Greek Portrait Coins. Racine, WI: Whitman.
Nercessian, Y. T.
1995 Armenian Coins and their Values. Los Angeles: Armenian Numismatic
Society.
Netzer, E.
2004 The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great. Jerusalem: Israel Ex-
ploration Society
2006 The Architecture of Herod the Great Builder. Grand Rapids: Baker.
2013 Herodium : final reports of the 1972-2010 excavations directed by Ehud
Netzer / Roi Porat, Rachel Chachy, and Yakov Kalman with contributions by
N. Ahipaz [and twenty one others]. Jerusalem.
Neusner, J.
1970 A Life of Yohanan Ben Zakkai Ca. 1–80 ce. Leiden: Brill.
Notley, S. R. and J. P. Garcia.

2014 Queen Helena’s Jerusalem Palace—in a Parking Lot. Biblical Archaeology
Review May/June: 28–68.
Noy, I.
2012 The Victory Wreath of Hyrcanus I. Israel Numismatic Research 7: 31–42.
Numismatica Ars Classica

2009 Auction 51, 5 March: lot 234.
Oppenheimer, A.
2016 The Ban of Circumcision as a Cause of the Revolt: A Reconsideration.
In M. Mor (ed.) The Second Jewish Revolt: The Bar Kokhba War, 132–136
ce, 55–70. Ledien: Brill.
Parise, N. F.
1989 The Mina of Ugarit, the Mina of Karkemish, the Mina of Khatti. In C.
Zaccagnini (ed.) Production and Consumption in the Ancient Near East,
333: 41. Budapest.
Parker, H. M. D.
1928 The Roman Legions. New York: Dorset Press (1992 reprint).
Perlman, Moshe.
1973 The Maccabees. New York: Macmillan.
Petrie, W. M. F.
1926 Ancient Weights and Measures. London: British School of Archaeology in
Egypt.
Petroso, K. M.
1981 Early Weights and Weighing in Egypt and the Indus Valley. Bulletin of
the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston 79: 144.
1992 Ayia Irini: The Balance Weights. Keos VII, Results of the Excavations Car-
ried out by the University of Cincinnati under the Auspices of the Amer-
ican School of Classical Studies at Athens. Mainz: Von Zabern Verlag.
Pfann, S.
2006 Dated bronze coinage of the Sabbatical Years of Release and the First
Jewish city coin. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 24: 101–
113.
Porat, R., E. Netzer, Y. Kalman, and R. Chachy.

2009–10 Bar Kokhba Coins from Herodium (Hebrew University Expedition).
Israel Numismatic Journal 17: 98–105.
Rorat, R., Y. Kalman, R. Cachy, and B. Zissu.

2017 Underground Herodium: Guerrilla Warfare during the Bar Kokhba War
(132–136 ce) under Herod’s Royal Palace Fortress. Cappadocia Hypogea
2017: 337–348.
Porter, R. F., S. Christensen, and P. Schiermacker-Hansen.

2004 Field Guide to Birds of the Middle East. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Powell, M. A.
1979 Ancient Mesopotamian Weight Metrology: Methods, Problems and
Perspectives. In M.A. Powell et.al. (eds.) Studies in Honor of J.B. Jones,
71–201. Kevelaer.: Butzon & Bercke.
1992 Weights and Measures. In David N. Freedman (ed.) Anchor Bible Dic-
tionary 6: 898–908. New York: Doubleday.
Price, M. J.
1968 Early Greek Bronze Coinage. In C. M. Kraay and G. K. Jenkins (eds.)
Essays in Greek Coinage presented to Stanley Robinson, 90–104. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
1975 Coins and the Bible. London: V. C. Vecchi & Sons.
1979 The Function of Early Greek Bronze Coinage. Instituto Italiano di Nu-
mismatica Annali, Supplemento al. v. 25: 351–358.
1991 The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. I &
II. Zurich/London.
Bibliography 527
—and B. Trell.
1977 Coins and Their Cities. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Pulak, C.
1987 A Late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Uluburun: Preliminary Analysis (1984–
1985 Excavation Campaigns). Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Texas A & M
University.
1996 Analysis of the Weight Assemblages from the Late Bronze Age Shipwrecks at
Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya, Turkey. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Texas A & M University.
Qedar, S.
1986–7 Two Lead Weights of Herod Antipas and Agrippa II and the Early His-
tory of Tiberias. Israel Numismatic Journal 9: 29–35.
2001 Weights of Eretz Israel in the Roman-Byzantine Period. In Measuring
and Weighing in Ancient Times, 23–27. Haifa: Hecht Museum.
Rabello, A. M.
1995 The Ban on Circumcision as a Cause of Bar Kokhba’s Rebellion. Israel
Law Review 29: 176–214.
Rahmani, L. Y.
1971 Silver Coins of the Fourth Century BC from Tel Gamma. Israel Explora-
tion Journal 21: 158 f.
1967 Jason’s Tomb. Israel Exploration Journal 17.2: 61–100.
Rappaport, U.
1970 Gaza and Ascalon in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Relation to
their Coins. Israel Exploration Journal 20: 75–80.
1976 The Emergence of Hasmonean Coinage. AJS Review-the Journal of The
Association for Jewish Studies 1.
2003 John of Gischala, From the Mountains of Galilee To the Walls of Jerusalem.
https://www.academia.edu/1015245/John of Gischala From Galilee to
Jerusalem.
2007 Who Minted the Jewish War’s Coins? Israel Numismatic Research 2: 103–
116.
Reifenberg, A.
1927 Über die metallurgische Zusammensetzung judischer Munzen. Zeitschrift
des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins 50: 175–178.
1947 Ancient Jewish Coins. Jerusalem.
Robinson, A. E.
1931 False and Imitation Roman Coins. The Journal of the Antiquarian Associa-
tion of the British Isles ii: 97–112, 171–184.
1932 False and Imitation Roman Coins. The Journal of the Antiquarian Associa-
tion of the British Isles iii: 3–28.
Richardson, P.
1996 Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans. Columbia, SC: Univer-
sity of South Carolina Press.
Rogers, E. A.
1914 Handy Guide to Jewish Coins. London: Spink & Son.
Roller, D. W.
1998 The Building Program of Herod the Great. Oakland: University of Califor-
nia Press.
Romanoff, P.
1944 Jewish Symbols on Ancient Jewish Coins. 1971 reprint. New York: Ameri-
can Israel Numismatic Assn.
Ronen, Y.
1996 The Enigma of the Shekel Weights of the Judean Kingdom. Biblical Ar-
chaeologist 59, 2: 122–125.
1998 The Weight Standards of the Judean Coinage in the Late Persian and
Early Ptolemaic Period. Near Eastern Archaeology 61, 2: 122–126.
2003–6 Some Observations on the Coinage of Yehud. Israel Numismatic Journal
15: 28–31.
2007 Twenty Unrecorded Samarian Coins. Israel Numismatic Research 2: 29–
34.
2010 On the Chronology of the Yehud Falcon Coins. Israel Numismatic Re-
search 4: 39–45.
Roth, C.
1954 History of the Jews. (Reprint 1961) New York: Schocken.
1962 Historical Implications of the Jewish Coinage of the First Revolt. Israel
Exploration Journal 12,1: 33–46.
2007 Art. Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Vol. 2: 491–494.
Rulau, R. and Q. D. Bowers.

2001 The standard catalog of Hard Times tokens 1832–1844: The most complete
catalog ever assembled of the coin substitutes, merchant counterstamps and sa-
tirical scrip of the Jacksonian period. 9th ed. Iola: Krause Publications.
de Saulcy, L. F. J. C.
1871 Catalogue raisonné de monnaies judaiques recueillies à Jérusalem en No-
vembre. Numismatic Chronicle 11: 235–255.
Bibliography 529
1874 Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, description des monnaies autonomes et im-

periales de la Palestine et de L’Arabie Petree. Paris: J. Rothschild.
Schalit, A. (ed.)
1972 The Hellenestic Age: World History of the Jewish People Vol. 6. New Bruns-
wick: Rutgers University Press.
Schauer, Y.
2010. Mint remains from the Citadel of Jerusalem. Israel Numismatic Research
5: 99–107.
Schürer, E.
1890 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135).
Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
1973 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135),
Vol. 1, G. Vermes and F. Millar (eds.). Edinburgh: T & T Clarke, 561–73.
1987 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC–AD 135).
Revised and edited by G. Vermes and F. Millar: Edinburgh: T & T Clark.
Schwartz, D. R.
1990 Agrippa I, The Last King of Judaea. Tübingen,: J. C. B. Mohr.
Scott, R. B. Y.
1959 Weights and Measures of the Bible. Biblical Archaeologist 22: 22–40.
Seaford, R.
2004 Money and the Early Greek Mind: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sellers, O. R.
1933 The Citadel of Beth Zur. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Shachar, I.
2004 The Historical and Numismatic Significance of Alexander Jannaeus’
Later Coinage as Found in Archaeological Excavations. Palestine Explo-
ration Quarterly 136: 5–33.
Shaham, Haim.
2020 Yehudah Aristobulus Die Study Reveals Hasmonean Mint Chronology.
Israel Numismatic Research 15: 61–88.
Shen S. et.al.
2004 Reconstruction of Patrilineages and Matrilineages of Samaritans and
Other Israeli Populations From Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial
DNA Sequence Variation. Human Mutation 24: 248–260.
Smallwood, M.
1981 The Jews Under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political
Relations. Leiden: Brill.
Spaer, A.
1977 Some More ‘Yehud’ Coins. Israel Exploration Journal 27, 4: 200–203.
1986–7 Jaddua the High Priest? Israel Numismatic Journal 9: 1–3.
Sperber, D.
1965 A Note on Hasmonean Coin-Legends: Heber and Rosh Heber. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 97: 85–93.
1974 Roman Palestine 200–400 Money & Prices. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Univer-
sity Press.
2007 Money Changers. In Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik (eds.) Ency-
clopedia Judaica, Vol. 14, 2nd ed., 435-436. Detroit: Macmillan Reference.
Spijkerman, A.
1956 Coins Mentioned in the New Testament. Liber Annus: 279–298.
1972 Herodion, Catalogo Delle Monete. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press.
Stein, H. J.
1943 Hitherto Unexplained Symbols on the Coins of John Hyrcanus. Numis-
matic Review Sept.: 19–21.
Stern, E.
1982 Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 BC.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Stern, M.
1975 The Herodian Dynasty and the Province of Judea at the End of the Pe-
riod of the Second Temple. In M. Avi Yonah (ed.) World History of Jew-
ish People VII, The Herodian Period. New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press.
Strickert, F.
2002 The First Woman to be Portrayed on a Jewish Coin: Julia Sebaste. Jour-
nal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods
XXXIII, 1: 65–91. Leiden: Brill.
Sukenik, E. L.
1934 Paralipomena Palestinensia. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 14:
178–184.
1935 More About the Oldest Coins of Judaea. Journal of the Palestine Oriental
Society, 15: 341–343.
Bibliography 531
Superior Galleries
1991–2 The Abraham Bromberg Collection of Jewish Coins Part I (1991) and Part II
(1992). Beverly Hills: Superior Galleries.
Svornos, J. N.
1904 Ta Nomismata tou Kratous ton Ptolemaion (Ptolemaic Coinage). Athens.
Sydenham, E. A.
1952 The Coinage of the Roman Republic. London: Spink and Son.
Syon, D.
1992–3 Coins from Gamla—Interim Report. Israel Numismatic Journal 12: 34–55.
2007 Yet Again on the Bronze Coins Minted at Gamla. Israel Numismatic Re-
search 2: 117–122.
2015 Small Change in Hellenistic–Roman Galilee, The Evidence from Numismatic
Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction. Jerusalem: Israel Numis-
matic Society.
—and Z. Yavor.
2001 Gamla Old and New. Qadmoniot 121: 2–33.
Tabor, J.
2006 The Jesus Dynasty. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Tal, O.
2007 Coin Denominations and Weight Standards in Fourth Century bce Pal-
estine. Israel Numismatic Research 2: 17–28.
Troxell, H. A.
1983 Arsinoe’s Non Era. American Numismatic Society. Museum Notes 28: 35–70.
Tsafrir, Y.
2008 Boundaries and Geographical Limits. In Thesaurus inscriptionum Rae-
ticarum: 9–19.
Vagi, David.
1999 Coinage and History of the Roman Empire, Vols. 1 and 2. Sydney: Coin
World.
van Alfen, Peter.

2000 The ‘owls’ from the 1973 Iraq hoard. American Journal of Numismatics 12:
9–58.
2004–05 Two unpublished hoards and other ‘Owls’ from Egypt. American Journal
of Numismatics 14: 59–71.
2005 Herodotus’ ‘Aryandic’ Silver and Bullion Use in Persian–Period Egypt.

American Journal of Numismatics 16–17: 7–46.
2005a Problems in ancient imitative and counterfeit coinage. In Z. Archibald,
J. Davies, and V. Gabrielsen (eds.) Making, Moving and Managing: the
New World of Ancient Economics, 323–31 BC, 322–354. London: Oxbow
Books.
Vainstub, D.
2016 The Canaanean Letters S and T and the Origin of the Shekel Symbol.
In Eretz–Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographic Studies, Joseph
Naveh Volume. Jerusalem: 55–65 (Hebrew), English summary: 117.
VanderKamm, J. C. and P. Flint.

2002 The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. San Francisco: Harper.
Weisbrem, M.
1962 Do the Coins of Domitian Minted in Palestine Belong to the ‘Judaea
Capta’ Series? Israel Numismatic Bulletin I: 6–7.
Yadin, Y.
1971 Bar–Kokhba, New York: Random House.
—and J. C. Greenfield, A. Yardeni, and B. A. Levine (eds.).

2002 The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters, Hebrew,
Aramaic and Nabatean–Aramaic Papyri. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration So-
ciety/Shrine of the Book.
Yeoman, R. S.
2010 The official Redbook: Guide book of United States coins. 63rd ed. Atlanta:
Whitman Publishing.
Yeivin, Z.
1990 Notes of the Weight System at Alalakh VII. Or. 48, 1979: 472–475.
Zar, J.
1996. Biostatistical analysis. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Zeitlin, I.
1988 Jesus and the Judaism of His Time. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
Zerubavel, Y.
2003 Bar Kokhba’s Image in Modern Israeli Culture. In P. Schäfer (ed.) The
Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered, 279–297.
Bibliography 533
Zissu, B., H. Eshel, B. Langford, and A. Frumkin.

2009–10 Coins from the Bar Kokhba Revolt Hidden in Me‘arat Ha–Te’omim
(Mugharet Umm et Tuemin), Western Jerusalem Hills. Israel Numismatic
Journal 17: 113–147.
—and D. Hendin.
2012 Further Remarks on Coins in Circulation during the Bar Kokhba War.
Te’omim Cave and Horvat ‘Ethri Hoards. In David M. Jacobson and
Nikos Kokkinos (eds.) Judaea and Rome in Coins 65 bce–135 ce. London:
Spink and Son.
Concordance 535
GBC 6 GBC 5 GBC 4 GBC 2 TJC AJC Other

6001 1001 — — — — G&T II,1D
6002 1002 — — — — G&T II,2D
6003 1003 — — — — G&T II,9O
6004 1004 — — — — G&T III,1T
6005 1005 — — — — G&T III,20D
6006 1006 — — — — G&T III,18D
6007 1007 — — — — G&T III,11O
6008 1008 — — — — G&T V,5T
6009 1010 — — — — G&T VI,16D
6010 1011 421 — — — G&T V,25D
6011 1012 422v — — — G&T VI,2D
6012 1013 423v — — — G&T VI,7O
6013 1014 424 — — — G&T V,21O
6014 1015 425 — — — G&T V,10O
6015 1016 — — — — G&T XV,1T
6016 1017 — — — — G&T XIV,35D
6017 1018 435 — — — G&T,XVII,1D
6018 1019 — — — — G&T XVIII,6D
6019 1020 — — — — G&T XVIII,8D
6020 1021 — — — — G&T XIX,20D
6021 1022 — — — — G&T XIX,21O
6022 1023 — — — — G&T XII,13O
6023 1024 — — — — G&T XIV,22O
6024 1025 — — — — Gitler et al. 2007: 55
6024a 1026 — — — — Gitler et al. 2007: 56
6025 1037 — — — — Sam. 87
6026 1038 — — — — Sam. 90
6027 1035 — — — — Sam. 77
6028 1036 — — — — Sam. 80
6029 — — — — — Sam. 83
6030 — — — — — Sam. 76
6031 — — — — — Sam. 100
6032 1039 — — — — Sam. 96
6033 1027 446 — — — Sam. 13
6034 1028 — — — — Sam. 16
6035 1029 — — — — Sam. 28
6036 1030 445 — — — Sam. 38

6037 1031 431 — — — Sam. 39
6038 1032 — — — — Sam. 41
6039 1033 — — — — Sam. 52
6040 1034 — — — — Sam. 61
6041 1040 — — — — Sam. 129
6042 1041 — — — — Sam. 130
6043 1042 — — — — Sam. 141
6044 1043 — — — — Sam. 159
6045 1044 — — — — Sam. 216
6046 1045 434 4 1 1 GLF 1
6047 1046 — — — — GLF 2
6048 1047 436 — — — Sofaer 1
6048a 1048 — — — — G&T XI,3D
6049 1049 — — — — GLF 3
6050 — — — — — GLF 4
6051 1050 426v 1a 6a 2 GLF 5
6052 1051 — — 5 3 GLF 7
6053 1052 — — 10 — GLF 5v
6053a 1053 — — 10a 5 GLF 5v
6053b 1054 — — 11 — GLF 5v
6054 1055 — — 12 2a GLF 5v
6055 1056 — — 13 — GLF 10
6056 1057 426v 2 6 4 GLF 9
6057 1058 — — — — GLF 11
6058 1059 429 1 16 GLF 16
6059 1060 427 1a 15 — GLF 14
6060 1061 428 — 18 — GLF 13
6061 1062 — — 19 — GLF 12
6062 1063 — — — — GLF 15
6063 1064 — — 26 — GLF 17
6064 1065 433 3a 24 12 GLF 19 (hd l.)
6065 1066 — — 25 13 GLF 19 (hd r.)
6066 1067 — — — — GLF 21
6067 1067a — — — — GLF 22
6068 1068 — — 25a 12a GLF 20 (as blank obv.)
6069 1069 430 3 22 10 GLF 24
6070 1070 — — 22e — GLF 28
Concordance 537

6071 1071 432 — 20 — GLF 25
6072 1072 — — 21 10 GLF 26
6073 1073 — 5 14 11 GLF 29
6074 1074 — — 28 — GLF 30
6075 1075 440 — 27 17sa GLF 31
6076 1076 — — — — GLF 33
6077 1077 — — 30 — GLF 34
6078 1078 437 — 29 14 GLF 35
6079 1079 — — — — GLF 36
6080 1080 — — — — GLF 37v (head l.)
6081 1087 438 5 32 16 GLF 37 (head r.)
6082 1088 — — — — GLF 38
6083 1081 439 — 33 15 GLF 39 (rev. head r.)
6084 1082 439 5a 34 GLF 39 (rev. head l.)
6085 1083 — — 35 — GLF 41
6086 1084 438a — 31 184,1 GLF 42
6087 1085 438b — 31a 184,2 GLF 43
6088 1086 — — — — GLF 44
6089 — — — — — cf. Lorber 652
6090 1093 404 — — — Lorber 647
6091 — — — — — Lorber B336
6092 1095 404a — — Lorber 862
6093 — — — — — Lorber 857
6094 — — — — — Lorber 929
6095 — — — — — Lorber 930
6096 — — — — — Lorber 1350
6097 — — — — — Lorber 940
6098 1096 407 — — — Lorber 1091
6099 — — — — — Lorber 683
6100 1097 408 — — — Lorber 821b
6101 — — — — — Lorber 883
6102 1100 — — — — Lorber 658
6103 1099 — — — — Lorber 659
6104 — — — — — Lorber 870
6105 — — — — — Lorber 671
6106 1101 411 — — — Lorber B472
6107 — — — — — Lorber 939

6108 1102 472 — — — Svoronos 1291
6109 — — — — — Lorber 1075
6110 1103 — — — — SC I 1096
6111 — — — — — SC II 1331
6112 — — — — — SC II 1332
6113 — — — — — SC II 1472
6114 1104 — — — — SC II 1476
6115 — — — — — SC II 1477
6116 1106 — — — — SC II 1478.1
6117 1107 — — — — SC II 1479, 1482
6118 1105 413 — — — SC II 1484.2
6119 1108 — — — — SC II 1581
6120 — — — — — SC II 1582
6121 — — — — — SC II 1583
6122 1109 — — — — SC II 1678
6123 1110 — — — — SC II 1679
6124 — — — — — SC II 1840
6125 — — — — — SC II 1841
6126 — — — — — SC II 1842
6127 — — — — — SC II 2022
6128 — — — — — SC II 2025
6129 1111 — — — — SC II 2046–47
6130 — — — — — SC II 2118
6131 1112 — — — — SC II 2116
6132 — — — — — SC II 2201
6133 — — — — — SC II 2203–4
6134 — — — — — SC II 2270
6135 1113 — — — — SC II 2271
6136 SC II 2272
6137 SC II 2274
6138 1114 — — — — SC II 2335–6
6139 — — — — — SC II 2337
6140 1115 — — — — SC II 2390.5
6141 — — — — — SC II 2391
6142 1117 416 — — — SC II 1495
6143 — — — — — SC II 1496
6144 — — — — — SC II 1847
6145 — — — — — SC II 1848
Concordance 539

6146 — — — — — SC II 1849
6147 1118 — — — — SC II 2026
6148 — — — — — SC II 1096
6149 1119 — — — — SC II 2048
6150 — — — — — SC II 2124
6151 — — — — — SC II 2253–4
6152 1121 — — — — SC II 2276
6153 — — — — — SC II 2277
6154 1122 417 — — — SC II 2339
6155 1123 — — — — SC II 2395
6156 1124 — — — — SC II 1936
6157 1125 — — — — SC II 1852
6158 — — — — — SC II 1853
6159 1126 — — — — SC II1975
6160 — — — — — SC II 1850
6161 — — — — — SC II 1851
6162 1127 418 — — — SC II 2028
6163 1128 — — — — SC II 2125
6164 1130 — — — — SC II 2394
6165 1131 451 6 p. 30 160:1-3 SC II 2123
6166 — — — — — SC II 2122
6167 1136 462 29 H R Sofaer 147
6168 1137 459-60 26–27 I 1-17 S Sofaer 148
6169 — — — I 18-63 S Sofaer 165
6170 1138 461 28 J T Sofaer 190–191
6171 1132 454 22 A M Sofaer 6–29
6172 1133 455-56 23 B N Sofaer 30–64
6173 1134 458 25 C O Sofaer 65–67
6174 1135 453 21 D P Sofaer 68–80
6175 1139 464 30 E L Sofaer 89–114
6176 1140 463 30 G Q Sofaer 81–88
6177 1141 — 20 F K Sofaer 124–143
6178 1142 466 33 V Jc Sofaer 210–213
6179 1143 465 32 U Ja-b Sofaer 192–209
6180 1144 474 15 Q F Sofaer 314–354
6181 1145 473 14 P E Sofaer 274–313
6182 1146 475 16 R G Sofaer 355–369
6183 1147 468 8 O B Sofaer 220

6184 1148 467 7 N A Sofaer 214–219
6185 1149 478 17 T I Sofaer 405–417
6186 1159 479 18 S H Sofaer 370–400
6187 1160 479a S 39 Hc3 Sofaer 401–402
6188 1161 480 19 S42-4 Hd Sofaer 403
6189 1150 469 10 K Ca Sofaer 221–233
6190 1151 470 11 K 17 Cb Sofaer 234–237
6191 1152 471 12 L Cd Sofaer 238–251
6192 1155 476 9 M D Sofaer 270–273
6193 1157 — — — — Hendin 1994-9: pl.8,4
6194 — — — — —
6195 1153 472 13 L5 Ce Sofaer 251–266
6196 1154 477 — L 17 Cf1 Sofaer 267
6197 1162 481 34 36 U Sofaer 418–425
6198 1163 482 35 37 V Sofaer 426–433
6199 1164 483 36 40 Y Sofaer 438–445
6200 1165 — — 39 X Sofaer 437
6201 1166 — 37 38a,b W 1-3 Sofaer 434–435
6202 1167 484 — 38c W4 Sofaer 436
6203 1168 485 38 41 Z Sofaer 446
6204 1169 486 39 44 1 RPC I 4901
6205 1170 487 40 45 2 RPC I 4902
6206 1171 488 41 46 3 RPC I 4903
6207 1172 489 42 47 4 RPC I 4904
6208 1173 498 51 60 18 Sofaer 41
6209 1175 499v — 62 — Sofaer 48–49
6210 1174,1176 — — — — Sofaer 42–45
6211 1178 490 43 48 7 RPC I 4905
6211a 1178a 490a — 49 8 Sofaer 18–19
6212 1180 — — 51 10 RPC I 4906
6212a 1179 — — 53 12 Sofaer 21
6213 1181 — — — — Sofaer 25
6214 1183 492 45 54 13 Sofaer 24
6214a 1182 — — — — Sofaer 22
6215 1184 493-4 — 54a — Sofaer 26
6216 1185 495 48 55 14 RPC I 4907
6217 1186 496 49 56 15 Sofaer 52
6218 1187 497 — 58 16 Sofaer 27
Concordance 541

6219 1188 500 54 59 17 RPC I 4910
6220 1189 — — 59n 17l Sofaer 86
6221 1190 501 56 66 23 RPC I 4909
6222 1191 502 57 65 22 RPC I 4908
6223 1192 508 58 67 1b RPC I 4912
6224 1193 507 59 69c 2b RPC I 4913
6225 1194 503 61 70 3 RPC I 4914
6226 1195 504 62 71 4 RPC I 4915
6227 1196 505 63 73 6 RPC I 4917
6228 1197 506 60 72 5 RPC I 4916
6229 1198 — — — — Hendin 2003–6: 56–61
6230 1199 509 64 75 1 RPC I 4918
6231 1200 510 65 76 2 RPC I 4919
6232 1201 511 — 77 3 RPC I 4920
6233 1202 — — 78 4 RPC I 4921
6234 1203 512 — 79 5 RPC I 4922
6235 1204 513 — 80 6 RPC I 4923
6236 1205 514 — 81 7 RPC I 4924
6237 1206 515 — 82 8 RPC I 4925
6238 1207 516 66a 83 9 RPC I 4926
6239 1208 517 66 84 10 RPC I 4927
6240 1209 518 — 85 11 RPC I 4928
6241 1210 519 67 86 12 RPC I 4929
6242 1211 520 — 87 13 RPC I 4930
6243 1212 521 — 88 14 RPC I 4931
6244 1213 522 — 89 15 RPC I 4932
6245 1214 523 — 90 16 RPC I 4933
6246 1215 524 68 91 17 RPC I 4934
6247 1216 525 68a 92 18 RPC I 4935
6248 1217 526 — 93 19 RPC I 4936
6249 1218 527 — 94 — RPC I 4937
6250 1219 528 70a 95 1 RPC I 4938
6251 1220 529 — 96 2 RPC I 4939
6252 1221 531 71 97 3 RPC I 4940
6253 1222 532 — 98 4 RPC I 4941
6254 1223 533 — 99 5 RPC I 4942
6255 1224 534 72a 101 7 RPC I 4943
6256 1225 535 — 102 8 RPC I 4945a

6257 1226 536 — 103 9 RPC I 4945
6258 1227 — — — — unpublished
6259 1228 537 — 104,105 10,10a RPC I 4947, 4946
6260 1229 530 70 100 6 RPC I 4951
6261 1230 538 — 106 11 RPC I 4948
6262 1231 540 71b 107 278,1 RPC I 4949
6263 1232 541 71a 108 12 RPC I 4950
6264 1233 542 72 109 14 RPC I 4952
6265 1234 543 — 110 — RPC I 4949
6266 1235 544 — 111 13 RPC I 4953
6267 1236 545 — 112 — RPC I 4973
6268 1237 546 73 113 1 RPC I 4974
6269 1238 547 — 114 — RPC I 4975
6270 1240 549 74 116 2 RPC I 4976
6271 1241 550 — 117 3 RPC I 4977
6272 1242 551 — 118 7 RPC I 4978
6273 1243 552 79 119 4 RPC I 4979
6274 1244 553 75 120 11 RPC I 4981
6275 1245 544 76 121 8 RPC I 4983
6276 1246 555 76b 122 6 RPC I 4985
6277 1247 556 81 123 — RPC I 4987
6278 1248 557 76a 124 5a RPC I 4982
6279 1249 558 — 125 10 RPC I 4984
6280 1250 559 — 126 9 RPC I 4986
6281 1251 560 — 361 — RPC I 4777
6282 1252 561 77 362 1 RPC I 4778
6283 1253 562 — 363 2 RPC I 4779
6284 1254 563 — 364 3 RPC I 4780
6285 1257 — — — — RPC I 3839
6286 1257a — — — — RPC I 3840
6287 1258 566 — 367 6 RPC II 1692
6288 — — — — — RPC II 1692a
6289 1259 567 — 350 — RPC I 4842
6290 1260 568 — 351 — RPC I 4843
6291 1261 569 — 352 — RPC I 4844
6292 1262 570 — 355 — RPC I 4847
6293 1263 571 — 356 — RPC I 4848
6294 1264 572 — 357 — RPC I 4858
Concordance 543

6295 1265 573 — 358 — RPC I 4859
6296 1266 574 — 347 S.III, 5 RPC I 4851
6297 1267 575 — 348 S.III, 6 RPC I 4852
6298 1268 576 — 349 S.III, 7 RPC I 4853
6299 1269 577 — 353 — RPC I 4845
6300 1270 578 — 354 — RPC I 4846
6301 1271 579 — 359 — RPC I 4860
6302 1272 580 — 360 — RPC I 4861
6303 1273 581 — 129 1 RPC I 4988
6304 1274 582 80 130 2 RPC I 4989
6305 1275 583 — 131 3 RPC I 4990
6306 1278 584 82 132 5 RPC I 4991
6307 1279 585 83 133 6 RPC I 4992
6308 1276 586 — 127 8 RPC I 4849
6309 1277 587 — 128 9 RPC I 4850
6310 1280 588 — 134 — RPC II 2242
6311 1281 — — — — Hendin 2009: 57–61
6312 1282 610 — 158 30 RPC II 2274
6313 1283 611 — 159 31 Sofaer 227
6314 1284 — — 160 32 RPC II 2276
6314a 1284a 612 — 160a 32 RPC II 2277
6315 1285 617 — 165 37a RPC II 2279
6316 1286 621 — 168 41 RPC II 2284
6317 1287 618 — 167 39 RPC II 2282
6318 1288 619 84 166 38 RPC II 2283
6319 1289 620 — 169 — RPC II 2285
6320 1290 622 93 170 42 RPC II 2286
6321 1291 623 94 171 43 RPC II 2287
6322 1292 624 — 172 44 RPC II 2288
6323 1293 625 — 173 45 RPC II 2290
6324 1294 627 — 175 48 RPC II 2292
6325 — — — — — CNG 362, 308
6326 1295 628 — 176 49 RPC II 2293
6327 1297 630 97 178 52 RPC II 2295
6328 1298 631 — 179 53 RPC II 2296
6329 1299 632 — 180 54 RPC II 2297
6330 1300 634 99 182 56 RPC II 1299
6331 1301 589a — 135 7 RPC II 2244

6332 1302 590 — 137 9 RPC II 2246
6333 1303 591 — 138 10 RPC II 2248
6334 1304 592 87 139 11 RPC II 2250
6335 1305 593 — 140 12 RPC II 2252
6336 1306 594 — 141 13 RPC II 2253
6337 1307 595 — 142 14 RPC II 2254
6338 1308 596 — 143 15 RPC II 2255
6339 1309 — — 144 16 RPC II 2256
6340 1310 597 85 145 17 RPC II 2257
6341 1311 598 — 146 18 RPC II 2258
6342 1312 599 88 148 20 RPC II 2260
6343 1313 600 — 147 19 RPC II 2259
6344 1314 601 88a 149 21 RPC II 2261
6345 1315 602 89 150 22 RPC II 2262
6346 1316 603 90 151 23 RPC II 2263
6347 1317 604 — 152 24 RPC II 2264
6348 1320 607 91 156 28 RPC II 2267
6349 1322 609 92 157 29 RPC II 2268
6350 1327 624 — 174 47 RPC II 2289
6351 1318 605 — 153 25 RPC II 2265
6352 1319 606 — 154 26 RPC II 2266
6353 1323 613 — 161 33 RPC II 2269
6354 1324 614 — 162 34 RPC II 2270
6355 1325 615 96 163 35 RPC II 2271
6356 1326 616 95 164 36 RPC II 2272
6357 1328 635 100 311 1 RPC I 4954
6358 1329 636 101 313 3 RPC I 4955
6359 1330 637 102 314 4 RPC I 4956
6360 1331 638 103 315 5 RPC I 4957
6361 1332 639 104 316 6 RPC I 4958
6362 1333 640 105 317 8 RPC I 4959
6363 1334 641 106 320 10 RPC I 4960
6364 1335 642 107 321 12 RPC I 4961
6365 1336 643 108 326 16 RPC I 4953
6366 1337 644 109 325 15 RPC I 4952
6367 1338 645 110 327 17 RPC I 4964
6368 1339 646 111 328 18 RPC I 4965
6369 1340 647 112 329 19 RPC I 4966
Concordance 545

6370 1341 648 113 331 21 RPC I 4967
6371 1342 649 114 333 23 RPC I 4968
6372 1343 650 115 334 24 RPC I 4969
6373 1344 — — 337 26 Sofaer 57
6374 1345 — — 339 28
6375 1346 — — 338 27 Sofaer 58
6376 1347 651 116 342 32 RPC I 4970
6377 1348 652 117 340 29 RPC I 4971
6378 1349 — — 343 —
6379 1350 — — 344 —
6380 1351 653 118 345 35 RPC I 4972
6381 1352 654 — 183 1
6382 1353 655 — 184 2
6383 1354 655a 119 187 3
6384 1355 656 120 188 6
6385 1356 657 120a 186 7
6386 1357 658 — 192 — Deutsch 1992-3: 71–72
6387 1358 659 121 193 8 Sofaer 5–8
6388 1359 660 122 195 10 Sofaer 9–10
6389 1360 661 123 196 12 Sofaer 11–28
6390 1361 662 124 202 18 Sofaer 29
6391 1362 663 125 203 19 Sofaer 30
6392 1363 664 126 204 20 Sofaer 31–35
6393 1364 665 127 207 23 Sofaer 36–37
6394 1365 666 128 209 25 Sofaer 38
6395 1366 667 — 210 26
6396 1367 668 129 211 27 Sofaer 39–40
6397 1368 669 130 213 29 Sofaer 41–43
6398 1369 670 131 214 30 Sofaer 44–52
6399 1370 671 132 215 31
6399b 1370a 671a — 215a 31a
6400 1371 672 — 216 —
6401 1372 673 — 217 32
6402 1373 674 133 218 1 Mild 1–5
6403 1374 675 — 219 2 Mild 1–2
6404 1375 676 135 221 4 Mild 12–18
6405 1376 677 136 220b 3 Mild 1–11
6406 1377 680 139 223 6 Mild 20–26

6406a 1377a 680a — 223h 6h Mild 161
6407 1378 678 137 222 5 Mild 34, 38–46
6407a 1378a — — 222e 5d Mild 35–37
6407c 1378b 678a 137a 222d 5c Mild 162
6408 1379 679 138 257 40 Mild 47
6408a 1379a 679a — 258 — Mild 164–168
6409 1380 681 140 224 7 Mild 147–150
6410 1381 682 141 227 10 Mild 151
6411 1382 683 142 237 20 Mild 10
6412 1383 684 143 236 19 Mild 9
6413 1384 685 144 235 17 Mild 3–8
6414 1385 686 145 229 12 Mild 6–9
6415 1386 687 — 230 12a Mild 10–12
6416 1387 688 144 230a 13a Mild 13–26
6417 1388 689 146 233 16a Mild 27–45
6418 1389 690 151 238 21 Mild 12–13
6419 1390 691 149 245 28 Mild 17, 29
6420 1391 692 148 250 33 Mild 16,21,22,28,30–36
6421 1392 693 147 243 26 Mild 18,19,20,23–26
6422 1393 694 153 240 23 Mild 43, 44
6423 1394 695 154 248 31 Mild 38,40-42,48–50
6424 1395 696 155 253 36a Mild 37,39,45,46
6425 1396 697 152 242 25 Mild 47
6426 — — — — — Mild 53
6426a — — — — — —
6427 1398 — — 246a — Mild 52
6427a 1400 — — 246a 29a Mild 55
6428 1399 700 — 252 35 Mild 54
6429 1401 701 — 246 29 Mild 59, 60
6430 1402 — — 244 27 Mild 56
6431 1403 703 150 241a 24 Mild 57, 58
6432 1404 704 156 255 38 Mild 16–18
6433 1405 705 157 256 39 Mild 19
6434 1406 707 158 263 46 Mild 27,28
6435 1407 706 159 296 50 Mild 29,30
6436 1408 708 160 260a 43 Mild 48–93
6437 1409 709 — 265 48 Mild 152
6438 1410 710 161 266 49 Mild 153–154
Concordance 547

6439 1411 711 162 267 51 Mild 46-49,51–57,
59, 60, 62–87
6439a 1411a 711a — 268 52 Mild 101–104
6440 1412 712 — 270 54 Mild 50, 58, 61
6441 1413 — 163 269 53 Mild 89–96
6441a 1413a — — — — Mild 91
6441b 1414 — — — — Mild 88
6442 1415 714 — 271 — Mild —
6443 1416 715 — 279c 62b Mild 61–66
6444 1417 716 165 276b 59b Mild 67, 68
6445 1418 717 — 283b 66b Mild 72–83
6446 1419 718 — 272 55 Mild 69–71, 84
6447 1420 719 166 279a 62a Mild 91–93, 162–163
6448 1421 720 — 276a 59a Mild 90
6449 1422 721 — 283a 66a Mild 85–87,89,104–
107,109-111
6450 1423 722 — 284a 67a Mild 88, 108
6451 1424 723 167 272a 55a Mild 94–101
6452 1425 724 — 279 62 Mild 115, 122, 136
6453 1426 725 — 276 59 Mild 123-125, 129
6454 1427 726 164 283 66 Mild 113,116,121,126
133–135,138
6455 1428 727 164a 284 67 Mild 128, 132
6456 1429 728 — 272c 55c Mild 112,114,117–
20,127,130,137,139–
140
6457 1430 729 169 281 64 Mild 145–151,168–
171,190
6458 1431 730 171 277 60 Mild 152–
154,162,166–
167,187,198–200
6459 1432 731 — — — Not in Mild.
6460 1433 732 170 285 68 Mild 156–
158,161,163, 189–
192, 194–195,197
6461 1434 733 — 286 69 Mild 155, 164, 188
6462 1435 734 172 274 57a Mild 159–160,172–
186, 193,196,201–
220
6463 1436 735 174 297 77 Mild 31–33
6464 1437 736 173 291 74 Mild 94–146

6465 1438 737 175 300 79 Mild 155
6466 1439 738 176 301 80 Mild 156, 157
6467 1440 739 177 302b 81a Mild 158–160
6468 1441 740 — — — Syd. 913
6469 1442 — 178 — — Syd. 912
6470 1443 741 179 — — Syd. 932
6471 1444 741a — — — RPC I 1291
6472 1445 742 180 380 1 RPC II 2310
6473 1446 743 181 381 2 RPC II 2311
6474 1447 744 182 382 3 RPC II 2312
6475 1448 — — 383 4
6476 1449 745 183 384 5 RPC II 2313
6477 1450 — — 386 1 RPC II 2300
6478 1451 753 191 387 2 RPC II 2301
6479 1452 752 190 388 3 RPC II 2302
6480 1453 754 — 389 4 RPC II 2303
6481 1454 748 187 391 6 RPC II 2304
6482 1455 749 188 392 7 RPC II 2305
6483 1456 750 186 393 8 RPC II 2306
6484 1457 — — — — RPC II 2025
6485 1458 746 184 394 9 RPC II 2307
6486 1459 747 185 395 10 RPC II 2308
6487 1460 751 189 390 5 RPC II 2309
6488 1461 755 — — —
6489 1462 756 — — — RIC 142
6490 1463 757 — — — RIC 176
6491 — — — — — —
6492 1464 758 197 — — RIC 1
6493 1465 760 189 — — RIC 3
6494 1466 762 206 — — RIC 363
6495 1467 764 — — — RIC 364
6496 1468 — — — — RIC 368
6497 1469 — — — — RIC 370
6498 1470 766 — — — RIC 1067
6499 1471 — — — — RIC 1075
6500 1472 — — — — RIC 1115
6501 1473 — — — — RIC 1117
6502 1474 — — — — RIC 1119
Concordance 549

6503 1475 768 — — — RIC 1127
6504 1476 769 — — — RIC 1179
6505 1477 — — — — RIC 1315
6506 1478 — — — — RIC 1535
6506a 1478a — — — — RIC 1536
6507 — — — — —
6508 — — — — — RIC 1550
6509 1479 759 198 — — RIC 2
6510 1480 761 — — — RIC 4
6511 1481 — — — — RIC 49
6512 1482 — 206 — — RIC 369
6513 1483 789 214 — — RIC 371
6513a RIC 531
6514 1484 — — — — RIC 688
6514a 1484a — — — — RIC 697
6515 1485 767 211 — — RIC 1068
6515a 1485a — — — — RIC 1069
6516 1486 — 213 — — RIC 1076
6517 1487 — 199 — — RIC 1118
6518 1488 770 200 — — RIC 1120
6519 1489 — — — — RIC 1316
6520 1490 — — — — RIC 1558
6521 1491 — — — — RIC 1559
6522 1492 — — — — RIC 1562
6523 1493 — — — — RIC 1563
6524 1494 — — — — RIC 14
6525 1495 — — — — RIC 51
6526 1496 — — — — RIC 57
6526a 1496a — — — — RIC 58
6527 1497 776 — — — RIC 68
6527a 1497a — — — — RIC 69
6527b 1497b — — — —
6528 1498 — — — — RIC 81
6529 1499 — — — — RIC 127
6529a 1499a — — — — RIC 128
6529b 1499b — — — — RIC 129
6529c 1499c — — — — RIC 130
6530 1500 — 201 — — RIC 159

6530a 1500a — — — — RIC 160
6530b 1500b — — — — RIC 161
6530c 1500c — — — — RIC 162
6531 1501 — — — — RIC 163
6531a 1501a — — — — RIC 164
6532 1502 774 202 — — RIC 165
6533 1503 — — — — RIC 166
6534 1504 — 203 — — RIC 167
6534a 1504a — — — — RIC 168
6534b 1504b — — — — RIC 169
6534c 1504c — — — — error? Cos II
6535 1505 — — — — RIC 213
6535a 1505a — — — — RIC 214
6536 1506 — — — — RIC 215
6537 1507 — — — — RIC 216
6537a 1507a — — — — RIC 217
6537b 1507b — — — — RIC 218
6537c 1507c — — — — RIC 219
6537d 1507d — — — — RIC 220
6538 1508 — — — — RIC 221
6538a 1508a — — — — RIC 222
6538b 1508b — — — — RIC 223
6538c 1508c — — — — RIC 224
6538d 1508d — — — — RIC 225
6538e 1508e — — — — RIC 336
6539 1509 — — — — RIC 233
6540 1510 — — — — RIC 234
6541 1511 — — — — RIC 235
6542 1512 — — — — RIC 236
6543 1513 — — — — RIC 249
6544 1514 — — — — RIC 255
6545 1515 — — — — RIC 256
6546 1516 — — — — RIC 375
6547 1517 — 209 — — RIC 376
6548 1518 — — — — RIC 386
6549 1519 — — — — RIC 387
6550 1520 — — — — RIC 388
6551 1521 — — — — RIC 389
Concordance 551

6552 1522 — 216a — — RIC 412
6553 1523 — — — — RIC 422
6554 1524 — — — — RIC 429
6554a 1524a — — — — RIC 430
6555 1525 790 214a — — RIC 431
6556 1526 793 — — — RIC 433
6557 1527 — — — — RIC 457
6558 1528 — — — — RIC 462
6559 1529 — — — — RIC 463
6559a 1529a — — — — RIC 464
6560 1530 — — — — RIC 474
6561 1531 — — — — RIC 475
6561a 1531a — — — — RIC 476
6562 1532 — — — — RIC 479a Supp.
6563 1533 791 — — — RIC 477
6564 1534 — — — — RIC 495
6565 1535 — — — — RIC 497
6566 1536 — — — — RIC 498
6567 1537 — — — — RIC 499
6568 1538 — — — — RIC 562
6569 1539 791a — — — RIC 564
6570 1540 — — — — RIC 565
6570a 1540a — — — — RIC 566
6571 1541 — — — — RIC 577
6572 1542 — — — — RIC 611
6573 1543 775 203 — — RIC 1134
6573a 1543a — — — —
6574 1544 773 208 — — RIC 1181
6575 1545 — — — — RIC 1204
6576 1546 — — — — RIC 1205
6576a — — — — —
6577 1547 — — — — RIC 1245
6578 1548 — — — — RIC 1246
6579 1549 — — — — RIC 59
6580 1550 — — — — RIC 65
6581 1551 — — — — RIC 134
6582 1552 — — — — RIC 271
6583 1553 — — — — RIC 283

6584 1554 — — — — RIC 303
6584a 1554a — — — — RIC 304
6584b 1554b — — — — RIC 305
6584c 1554c — — — — RIC 306
6584d 1554d — — — — RIC 307
6585 1555 — — — — RIC 308
6586 1556 — — — — RIC 328
6586a 1556a — — — — RIC 329
6586b 1556b 783 — — — RIC 332
6587 1557 — — — — RIC 330
6588 1558 — — — — RIC 445
6589 1559 — — — — RIC 490
6589a 1559a — — — — RIC 673
6590 — — — — — RIC 595
6591 1560 794 217 — — RIC 626
6592 — — — — — RIC 635
6593 1561 781 — — — RIC 1233
6594 1562 — — — — RIC 1268
6595 1563 — — — — RIC 1332
6596 1564 — — — — RIC 340
6596a 1564a — — — — RIC 341
6597 1565 — — — — RIC 342
6597a 1565a — — — — RIC 343
6598 1566 — — — — RIC 344
6599 1567 — — — — RIC 345
6600 1568 — — — — RIC 350
6601 1569 — — — — RIC 351
6601a 1569a — — — — RIC 352
6602 1570 — — — — RIC 353
6603 1571 784 — — — RIC 408
6603a 1571a — — — — RIC 409
6604 1572 — — — — RIC 410
6605 1573 — — — — RIC 1514
6606 1574 — — — — RIC 1515
6606a 1574a 795a — — — RIC 1516
6607 1575 794a — — — RPC II 604
6608 1576 — — — — RPC II 612
6609 1578 — — — — RIC 11 (T)
Concordance 553

6609a 1578a — — — — RIC 29 (T)
6609b 1578b 785 — — — RIC 48 (T)
6610 1579 — — — — RIC 100 (T)
6610a 1579a — — — — RIC 101 (T)
6611 1580 — — — — RIC 360 (T)
6612 1581 — — — — RIC 363 (T)
6613 1582 — — — — RIC 1 (T)
6614 1583 — — — — RIC 30 (T)
6614a 1583a — — — — RIC 31 (T)
6614b 1583b — — — — RIC 49 (T)
6614c 1583c — — — — RIC 50 (T)
6614d 1583d — — — — RIC 12 (T)
6615 1584 788 215 — — RIC 102 (T)
6615a 1584a — — — — RIC 103 (T)
6615b 1584b — — — — RIC 104 (T)
6615c 1584c — — — — RIC 105 (T)
6616 1585 789a — — — RIC 361 (T)
6616a 1585a — — — — RIC 362 (T)
6617 1586 772a 212 — — RIC 364 (T)
6618 1587 — — — — RIC 368 (T)
6619 1588 — — — — RIC 57 (T)
6620 1589 — — — — RIC 133 (T)
6621 1590 — — — — RIC 135a Supp. (T)
6622 1591 — — — — RIC 145 (T)
6622a 1591a — — — — RIC 146 (T)
6622b 1591b — — — — RIC 147 (T)
6622c 1591c — — — — RIC 148 (T)
6622d 1591d — — — — NAC 40,331
6623 1592 792 216 — — RIC 149 (T)
6624 1593 — — — — RIC 150 (T)
6624a — — — — — RIC 151 (T)
6624b — — — — — RIC 152 (T)
6624c — — — — — RIC 153 (T)
6625 1594 — — — — RIC 184 (T)
6625a 1594a — — — — RIC 185 (T)
6625b 1594b — — — — RIC 186 (T)
6626 1595 — — — — RIC 369 (T)
6627 1596 — — — — RIC 500 (T)

6627a 1596a — — — —
6627b 1596b — — — — ex. Hendin coll.
6628 1597 — — — — RIC 502
6629 1598 — — — — RIC 504
6629a 1598a 795 — — — Helios I, 447
6630 1599 — — — — RIC 131
6631 1600 796 — — — Abramowitz 12/8/93,
135
6632 1601 — — — — 826
6632a 1601a — — — — 827
6633 1602 — — — — RIC (old) II, 831
6633a 1602a — — — — RIC (old) II, 832
6634 1603 — — — — BMCRE 88
6634a 1603a — — — — BMCRE 98
6634b 1603b 797 219 — — BMCRE 105
6634c 1603c — — — —
6635 1604 798 — — — RIC 890 obv c
6635a 1604a — 220 — — RIC 890 obv f
6635b 1604b — — — — RIC 893
6635c 1604c — — — — RIC 893 obv f
6635d 1604d — — — — RIC 894 obv c
6635e 1604e — — — — RIC 894 obv f
6636 — — — — — Cayon 1984: 459a
6637 1605 799 221 — — RIC 853
6638 1606 800 — — — RIC 891
6638a — — — — — RIC 891v
6638b — — — — — RIC 891v
6639 1607 800a — — —
6640 1608 801 — — —
6641 1609 802 192 — —
6642 1610 803 193 — —
6643 1611 804 194v — —
6644 1612 805 195 — —
6645 1613 806a — — —
6646 1614 — 196 — —
6647 1615 — — — —
6648 1616 807a — — —
6649 1617 807b — — —
Concordance 555

6650 1618 917 305 — — BMC Phoenicia 60
6651 1619 918 306 — —
6652 1620 919 307 — — BMC Phoenicia 198
6653 1621 920 308 — — BMC Phoenicia 195
6656 1622 916 304 — — BMCRE 34
6654 — — — — — RIC I 210
6655 — — — — — RPC 4264
6656 1622 916 304 — — RIC I 30
6657 — — — — — RPC 4272
6658 — — — — — BMC Cilicia 350
6659 — — — — — INR I–1
6660 — — — — — INR I–7
6661 — — — — — RPC 4770
6662 — — — — — RPC 4771
6663 — — — — — RPC 4772
6664 — — — — — RPC 4773
6665 — — — — — RPC 4774
6666 — — — — — RPC 4775
6667 — 933 — — — RPC 4725
6668 — — — — — Barkay 5
6669 — — — — — RPC 4269
6670 — — — — — RPC 4270
6671 — — — — — RPC 4274
6672 — — — — — RPC 4276
6673 — — — — — RPC 4278
6674 — 934 — — — RPC 4287
6675 — 935 — — — RPC 4303
6676 — 936 — — — RPC 4313
6677 — 937 — — —
6678 — 921 — — —
6679 — 922 — — — BMC Phyrgia 182
6680 — — — — — Sofaer 182
6681 — — — — —
Note about Concordance:

Abbreviations are listed in Bibliography.
Please note that GBC 6 numbers are coin types and not necessarily specific dies.
Thus there may be multiple matches in, for example, Mildenberg or TJC.
AJC I and II, Mildenberg, and Sofaer are not numbered consecutively but ac-
cording to section entries. In AJC, each ruler starts numbering anew. In the case of
Mildenberg, large silver, small silver, and bronze have their own numbering. To save
space in this concordance, we have listed AJC, Mildenberg, and Sofaer numbers,
which should be read with common sense regarding the location of the numbers. In
case of possible confusion, more specific numbers have been provided.
Regarding other multiple volume references, the reader should apply common
sense and if the reference is to RIC and the coin is one of Hadrian, it is obviously in
the volume containing the coins of Hadrian.
557
Appendix A
Alphabets and
Numeric Equivalents
Greek Hebrew
Letter Form Num. Coin
Letter Form Num.
Form
Alpha A 1
Aleph ‫א‬ WAa 1
Beta B 2
Bet ‫ב‬ B 2
Gamma Γ 3
Gimmel ‫ג‬ G 3
Delta Δ 4
Epsilon E 5
Dalet ‫ד‬ 8 4
Digamma ς 6 He ‫ה‬ hH 5
Zeta Ζ 7 Vav ‫ו‬ iVe 6
Eta Η 8 Zayin ‫ז‬ Z 7
Theta Θ 9 Chet ‫ח‬ C 8
Iota Ι 10 Tet ‫ט‬ — 9
Kappa Κ 20 Yod ‫י‬ y Y 10
Lamda Λ 30
Kaph ‫כך‬ r 20
Mu Μ 40
Lamed ‫ל‬ L 30
Nu Ν 50
Xi Ξ 60
Mem ‫מם‬ Mm 40
Omicron Ο 70 Nun ‫נן‬ J 50

Pi Π 80 Samekh ‫ס‬ — 60
Rho Ρ 100 Ayin ‫ע‬ O 70
Sigma Σ 200 Pe ‫פף‬ — 80
Tau Τ 300
Tsadik ‫צ‬ x 90
Upsilon Υ 400
Koph ‫ק‬ Q 100
Phi Φ 500
Resh ‫ר‬ R 200
Chi Χ 600
Psi Ψ 700 Shin ‫ש‬ s S 300
Omega Ω 800 Tav ‫ת‬ T 400

Appendix B
Metrological Chart for Jewish Bronze Coins
Name Sample Size Avg. Wt. Range

Antiochus VII 162 2.47 +/- .03 1.62–3.41
Yehohanan 599 1.92 +/- .01 1.12–3.06
Yehonatan 520 1.81 +/- .02 0.96–3.57
Yonatan 432 2.00 +/- .02 0.85–3.27
Jannaeus GBC6-6184/85 344 2.15 +/- .02 1.04–3.50
Jannaeus GBC6-6189 523 1.71 +/- .03 0.64–3.85
Jannaeus GBC6-6191 200 1.20 +/- .02 0.61–1.79
Jannaeus GBC6-6192 196 4.10 +/-.07 2.36–7.96
Jannaeus GBC6-6195 1251 0.81 +/-.01 0.20–1.70
M. Antigonus GBC6-6197 171 14 +/- .09 11.67–17.64
M. Antigonus GBC6-6198 106 7.19 +/- .07 4.47–8.79
M. Antigonus GBC6-6199 144 1.68 +/- .02 1.18–2.34
Herod GBC6-6204 354 6.93 +/- .07 2.75–11.46
Herod GBC6-6205 130 4.45 +/-.07 2.91–6.52
Herod GBC6-6206 76 3.12 +/- .08 1.7–5.34
Herod GBC6-6207 73 2.50 +/- .05 1.55–3.62
Herod GBC6-6211 194 2.94 +/- .05 1.30–4.6
Herod GBC6-6212 153 1.48 +/- .03 0.78–2.6
Herod GBC6-6209 298 0.94 +/- .01 0.49–1.78
Herod GBC6-6219 480 1.42 +/- .01 0.81–2.11
Herod GBC6-6221 278 0.86 +/- .01 0.41–1.42
Archelaus GBC6-6223 76 1.16 +/- .03 0.59–1.99
Archelaus GBC6-6224 64 1.28 +/- .04 0.83–2.52
Archelaus GBC6-6228 391 1.19 +/- .01 0.44–2.1
Archelaus GBC6-622 317 2.06 +/- .02 0.70–3.37
Procur pre Agr. I 759 1.90 +/- .01 0.83–2.85
Agrippa I GBC6-6274 428 2.33 +/- .02 1.13–3.40
Procur post Agr.I 476 2.27 +/- .02 1.15–3.66
First Rev. GBC6-6170/75 1,257 2.51 +/- .02 0.93–4.24
Calculations according to standard formulas, using the Maths Calculator at

easycalculation.com/statistics/standard-deviation.php.
The average standard deviation is calculated by dividing the standard
deviation by the square root of the number of specimens in a particular
sample.
559
Appendix C
Index of Latin Legends
A VITELLIVS GERM IMP AVG PM TR P 6489, 6490
A VITELLIVS GERMAN IMP TR P 6488
ADVENTVI AVG IVDAEAE 6635, 6638
AVG VES PF DOMITIAN 6624d
AVGVSTI VICTORIA 6537c, 6537d
BACCHIVS IVDAEVS 6470
C HVP SAE COS PREIVE 6468
C SOSIVS IMP 6471
CAES AVG GERMANICVS 6484
CAESAR AVG F DOMITIANVS COS DES II 6589
CAESAR AVG F DOMITIANVS COS II 6589a
CAPTA IVDAEA 6530c
DE IVDAEIS 6500, 6504
DEVICTA IVDAEA 6527
DIVO AVG T DIVI VESP F VESPASIAN 6630
DIVOS T AVG 6478
DIVOS VESPASIANVS 6477
DIVVS AVGVSTVS VESPASIAN PATER PAT 6626
DIVVS AVGVSTVS VESPASIANVS 6611, 6612, 6616, 6617, 6616a
DOMITIANVS CAES AVG GERMANICVS 6482
EX SC 6611, 6612, 6613, 6616, 6617, 6618
FISCI IVDAICI CALVMNIA SVBLATA 6634
HADRIANVS AVG COS III P P 6635, 6636, 6637, 6638
IMP CAES AVG VESPAS COS II TR POT 6524, 6525
IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM PM TR P XI 6485
IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM PM TR P XIII 6631
IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM TR P XII 6486
IMP CAES TRAIAN AVG GER DAC P P REST 6632, 6633
IMP CAES VES AVG 6601a
IMP CAES VESP AVG COS IIII 6520
IMP CAES VESP AVG P M 6511
IMP CAES VESP AVG P M T P P P COS IIII CENS 6571
IMP CAES VESP AVG PM COS IIII 6494, 6495, 6521
IMP CAES VESP AVG PM T P COS IIII CENS 6590
IMP CAES VESPAS AVG P M TR P P P COS III 6539, 6540, 6541,
6542, 6543, 6544, 6545
IMP CAES VESPAS AVG P M TR P P P COS IIII 6546, 6547, 6548,
6549, 6550, 6551
IMP CAES VESPAS AVG PM TR P IIII P P COS IIII 6504
IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG 6596, 6597, 6598, 6599
IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG COS III 6582, 6583, 6584, 6585, 6586,
6587
IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG COS VIII PP 6593
IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M TR P P P COS IIII 6574
561
IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG PM TR P P P COS III 6530

IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG PM TR P P P COS III 6531, 6532,
6533, 6534, 6535, 6536, 6537, 6538, 6573
IMP CAES VESPASIAN AVG PM TR P P P COS VIII 6575, 6576
IMP CAESAR 6514
IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG 6491, 6492, 6493, 6498, 6509,
6510, 6515, 6632
IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG COS III 6581
IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG P M T P P P COS III 6527, 6528,
6529
IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG P M TR P 6526, 6579, 6580
IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG TR P 6500, 6501, 6502, 6503,
6517, 6518
IMP DOMIT AVG GERM 6487
IMP DOMITIAN CAES AVG GERMANICVS 6481
IMP DOMITIANVS 6484
IMP DOMITIANVS CAESAR DIVI F AVG 6477, 6478, 6479, 6480
IMP DOMITIANVS CAESAR GERMANICVS 6483
IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P COS II DESIGN III P P 6634a
IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P COS II P P 6634
IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P COS III P P 6634b
IMP NERVA CAES AVG P M TR P II COS III P P 6634c
IMP T CAES DIVI VESP F AVG P M TR P P P COS VIII 6627, 6628
IMP T CAES VESP AVG P M TR P P P COS VIII 6622, 6623, 6624,
6625
IMP T CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M TR P P P COS VII 6619
IMP T CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M TR P P P COS VIII 6620, 6621
IMP T CAESAR DIVI VESPAS F AVG 6629
IMP T CAESAR DIVI VESPASI AVG 6629a
IMP T CAESAR VESPASIANVS 6506, 6507
IMP T CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG 6613
IMP TITVS CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M 6609, 6610, 6614, 6615,
6618, 6633
IMP VESP 6514
IMP VESPAS AVG PM TR PPP COS IIII 6508
IMP VESPASIAN AVG 6596a, 6600, 6601, 6602, 6603, 6604
IMP XXI COS XVI CENS P P P 6485
IMP XXIII COS XVI CENS P P P 6486
IMP•CAESAR•VESPASIANVS•AVG 6505, 6519, 6595
IVD CAP 6620a, 6622, 6623, 6624, 6627, 6629
IVD CAPT 6579
IVDAEA 6488, 6492, 6493, 6501, 6505, 6509, 6510, 6517, 6519, 6595,
6631, 6636, 6637
IVDAEA CAPTA 6294, 6525, 6528, 6530, 6531, 6532, 6533, 6534, 6539,
6540, 6541, 6542, 6546, 6547, 6553, 6557, 6564, 6568, 6573, 6574,
6575, 6576, 6577, 6578, 6581, 6582, 6584, 6588, 6591, 6593, 6619,
6620, 6622d, 6626, 6627b, 6628
Appendix C 563
IVDAEA DEVICTA 6502, 6506, 6518

IVDAEA RECEPTA 6491
IVDEA CAPTA 6530a, 6534a, 6584a, 6584c, 6585
M SCAVR AED CVR 6468, 6469
P HVPSAEVS AED CVR 6468
P M TR P P P COS III 6600, 6601, 6602
P M TR P P P COS IIII 6603, 6604
PAX AVGVST 6507
PLAVTIVS AED CVR S C 6470
PON M TR P P P COS III 6596, 6597, 6598, 6599
REX ARETAS 6468
T CAES IMP AVG F PON TR P COS VI CENSOR 6577, 6578
T CAES IMP AVG F TR P COS VI CENSOR 6594
T CAES IMP VESP PON TR POT 6496, 6497, 6512, 6513, 6522, 6523
T CAES IMP VESP PON TR POT CENS 6513a
T CAES VESP IMP PON TR POT COS II CENS 6572, 6591, 6592
T CAES VESPAS IMP PON TR POT COS II 6552
T CAES VESPASIAN IMP PON TR POT COS II 6553, 6554, 6555,
6556, 6588
T CAESAR 6514a
T CAESAR IMP PONT 6606a
T CAESAR IMP VESPASIANVS 6499, 6516
T CAESAR IMPEP (sic) PONT 6606
T CAESAR IMPER PONT 6605
T CAESAR VESPASIAN IMP III PON TR POT II COS II 6560,
6561, 6562, 6563
T CAESAR VESPASIAN IMP IIII PON TR POT II COS II 6564,
6565, 6566, 6567
T CAESAR VESPASIAN IMP IIII PON TR POT III COS II 6568,
6569, 6570
T CAESAR VESPASIAN IMP PON TR POT COS II 6557, 6558, 6559
TR P IX IMP XV COS VIII P P 6610, 6615
TR P VIIII IMP XIIII COS VII 6609
TR P VIIII IMP XIIII COS VII P P 6609a, 6614
TR P VIIII IMP XV COS VII 6614c
TR P VIIII IMP XV COS VII P P 6609b, 6614b
TR POT COS VI CENSOR 6605
TR POT VIII COS VII 6499, 6516, 6613
TR POT X COS VIIII 6498, 6515
TRIVMP AVG 6503
VICTOR AVG 6487
VICTOR AVGVSTI 6490, 6586b
VICTORIA AVG 6479, 6535, 6536, 6580, 6583, 6586, 6587
VICTORIA AVGVSTA 6570
VICTORIA AVGVSTI 6489, 6526, 6529, 6537, 6538, 6544, 6545, 6551,
6552, 6556, 6559, 6562, 6570
Index
A Amulet, 98, 149, 152, 186, 471

Abila, 249, 463 Ananias, 279, 294–296, 463, 464
Abimelech, 39 Anatolia, 40
Abnu, 43 Anchor, 18, 27, 28, 139, 140, 155–156, 161,
Abraham, 39, 43–44, 47 170–172, 176–180, 182, 183, 201–203,
Abrasive, 43 206, 211, 214–217, 241, 257, 271
Achaemenid, 95 Annius Rufus, 277–278
Actium, 202, 370 Antiochus III, 112, 114, 119
Adora, 158 Antiochus IV, 119–123, 128–129, 135,
Aegean, 452 138, 143, 235
Aegina, 45 Antiochus V, 123
Aelia Capitolina, 326, 427 Antiochus VII, 27, 29, 88, 125, 129, 132,
Aemilius, 461 139, 140, 144, 148, 153–156, 158, 161,
Afghanistan, 111 169, 170. 300
Agora, 49 Antiochus VIII, 126–128, 131
Agoranomoi(os), 49 Antiochus IX, 150, 152–153, 184
Agrippa I, 16, 19, 95, 150, 196, 198, 219, Antipater, 160, 181–183, 193–194, 196,
220, 226, 228, 233, 234, 235–237, 238, 365, 369
239, 240–242, 245, 248, 249, 250, 251, Antipatris, 428
276, 278, 281, 285, 289, 290, 307, 320, Antonia, 224, 292, 323, 332, 463
457–458, 459 Antonius Felix, 249, 276–277, 281, 282
Agrippa II, 150, 220, 225–226, 237, 238, Aparkhai, 439–440
239, 241–242, 247–257, 260, 262–263, Aphlaston (aphlustre), 27, 122, 129, 140,
268, 274, 276, 282, 283, 293, 294, 295, 156, 161, 201, 211, 215, 217
297, 375, 380, 381, 457–458, 459, 463 Apocrypha, 1–2
Agrippina, 268, 293–294, 329–330 Apollo, 121–123, 132, 370, 428
Ahzai, 95 Apollonius, 137
Ake, see Akko Apostle(s), 2, 234, 450
Akkadian, 40, 42, 43, 47, 51 Aqueduct, 197
Akko, 138, 140, 142–143, 159, 161, 465 Arabic, 4, 188, 343
Akra, 121, 153 Arad, 45, 50, 64
Alalakh, 40, 42 Arados, 57, 78, 90, 430
Albinus, 282 Aramaic, 6, 15, 18, 28, 62, 64, 73, 77,
Alcimus, 138 84, 91, 94, 100, 102, 109, 137, 141,
Alexander (III) the Great, 6, 62, 75, 77, 79, 142–143, 170–171, 173–173, 174, 179,
93, 111–112, 143, 456 180, 183, 323, 324, 325–326, 329, 455,
Alexandra, 143, 160, 166, 171, 174, 181, 456, 468
457 Archelaus, see Herod Archelaus
Alexandria(n), 1, 111, 113–114, 121, 295, Aretas III, 181, 366
297, 372, 424, 425, 426, 428, 467, 468 Aristeas, 378
Amarna, 61, 63 Aristobulus of Chalcis, 257, 262–263,
Amos, 48 273–275, 277
Amphitheater, 236, 332, 377, 378, 416, Aristobulus, 141, 143, 158, 160, 161, 166,
418, 428 167, 169, 171, 181–182, 183, 194, 196,
Amphora, 17, 155, 283, 287, 313–314, 225, 226, 232–233, 242–244, 246,
317–319, 332, 343, 345, 347–348, 355 365–366, 369, 457–458, 459
565
Armenia(n), 143, 235, 242, 243, 246, Berenice, 225, 233, 235, 242, 244, 248, 249,
425–426, 428 253, 270, 283, 293–294, 297, 375
Arsinöe, 93, 109, 114–117 Berenike, 93, 109
Artaxerxes, 455 Beroea, 451
Ascalon, see Ashqelon Berytus, 197, 234, 235, 244, 424, 462
Ashdod, 55, 62, 63–66 Bes, 70, 80, 83
Ashqelon, 4, 55, 57, 59, 61–63, 72, 113, Bethany, 448
121, 128, 161, 169, 197, 331, 427, 431 Bethsaida, 226
Ashtoret, 63 Bithynia, 143, 412
Asia Minor, 4, 56, 111, 439, 452–453 Boar, 427, 430
Askelon, see Ashqelon Boaz, 154, 334
Asklepios, 63 Booths, 309
Assarion, 450 Booty, 186, 295, 302, 364, 367, 377–378,
Assyrian(s), 74–76 416, 418, 419, 464
Astarte, 63 Bore(r), 149, 170, 463
Astrology, 156, 228 Bostra, 361, 426
Athenian, 4, 5, 57, 61, 64, 65, 78, 79, 80, 81, Brockage, 21, 104, 162, 164, 178, 179, 183,
82, 86, 87, 88, 90, 100, 121 239, 286, 289–292, 362
Athens, 40, 67, 87, 233, 288, 489, 495 Bruttium, 451
Augur, 280 Byblos, 57, 90, 197
Augusteum, 229–232 Byzantine, 63, 174–175, 438
Augustus, 194, 196–198, 215, 218, 225–
227, 229, 230, 233, 237–241, 245–246, C
253, 260, 262–263, 264–265, 272, Caduceus, 150, 201, 203, 210, 214, 216,
277–278, 283, 377, 412, 427–428, 440, 217, 261, 273, 287, 384, 410
442, 446, 447–448, 449, 458, 460, 465 Caesarea Maritima, 131, 197, 214, 225,
Auranitis, 215, 226, 458 236, 237, 249, 251, 275–276, 376, 379,
380, 381
B Caesarea Philippi, 225–226, 251
Babylonia, 69, 100, 477 Caesonia, 237, 239
Babylonian(s), 1, 50, 59, 60, 76, 93, 142, Caiphas, 279
143, 185, 209 Caligula, 33, 219, 220, 233, 234, 237, 238,
Bacchius, 366–367 239, 277, 458
Bagoas (Bagohi), 95, 99, 498 Canaan, 61, 330, 435
Balances, 41, 44, 48 Canaanite, 42, 52, 63
Balustrade, 341 Canatha, 463
Banker(s), 13 Candelabra, 338
Bar Giora, 25, 296, 308 Candelabrum, 185, 366, 468
Bar Kokhba, 3, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30, 33, Canopy, 236–237, 239
35, 37, 55, 95, 142, 152, 214, 220, 311, Capernaum, 251, 444
326–337, 339–343, 344, 345–346, 347, Cappadocia, 143, 432
351, 358, 423, 427, 463 Celators, 152–153
Barbaric (barbarous), 22–26, 440 Census, 278, 438, 464
Batanaea, 215, 226, 458 Chalcidice, 243
Bedouin(s), 9–11 Chalcis, 147, 202, 225, 226, 235, 237,
Beirut, 249 241–243, 245, 248–249, 251, 276,
Beit Shean, 138, 158–159 457–459
Beitar, 334, 343, 346 Chalkstone, 18–19
Beqa, 41, 50–53 Chandelier, 339
Index 567
Chanukah, 135, 137 Cyrrhus, 426

Chazaka, 381 Cyrus, 76–77
Cherubs (Cherubim), 145 Cyzicus, 45
Chimera, 91–92
Chios, 45 D
Chorazin, 145 Daliyeh, 45, 73, 75, 84
Christian(s), 187, 189, 247, 279, 325, 329, Damascus, 197, 295, 365, 426, 450, 457,
381, 420, 433, 450, 452, 470 468
Christianity, 19, 209, 231, 265, 488, 491 Damnatio, 255
Cilicia, 87, 99, 105, 288, 465, 489 Daric(s), 1, 77–78
Cilician(s), 79, 455–456 Darius, 73, 75, 77, 85, 111, 455
Circumcision, 326 Deben, 52, 54
Citadel, 121 Decadrachm, 81
Citron, see Etrog Deity, 80, 82–83, 99, 121, 159, 199, 251
Claudia, 259, 346 Delos, 439
Claudius, 233, 234, 237, 240–243, Demetrias, 121
245–246, 249, 251, 253, 257, 258, 259, Deuteronomy, 48, 145, 234
261, 275, 277, 281–282, 290–291, 345, Devaluation, 182
425, 431, 458, 464, 446 Devalued, 29, 333
Cleopatra Thea, 126 Diadochi, 112
Cleopatra, 126–127, 130, 196, 225, 458, Diaspora(s), 196, 198, 209, 301, 302, 308,
460 325, 439
Coele Syria, 242, 462 Die makers, 26, 188
Commandment(s), 101, 122, 127, Diocletian, 427
173–174, 180 Dionysius, 199, 433
Conservation, 3, 33–34 Dioscuri, 207–208
Conservators, 34 Domitian, 3, 252, 253, 254, 256, 262,
Conserved, 32 264–267, 269–274, 311, 325, 334,
Coponius, 243, 247, 313–315, 324 372, 375, 377, 379–384, 408, 416, 418,
Corbulo, 425, 426, 428, 462 419–420, 430, 432
Corinth, 45, 451 Donativum, 201
Corinthia, 451 Dora, 139, 431, 463
Corinthian, 99, 459 Drusilla, 237–239, 249, 276, 281
Cornucopia(s), 114–118, 123, 124, 126, Drusus, 282, 428
131, 132, 146, 148–154, 156, 160, 162, Druze, 441
163–165, 167, 168, 170, 172, 175–178, Duck, 91–93, 106–107
180, 184, 189, 190, 191, 201, 203, 206, Dura Europos, 145
214–217, 223, 238–239, 254, 257–259,
261, 263, 264–266, 268, 269–273,
286–287 E
Costobar, 233 Ear of grain, 149, 153, 285–286, 456, 469
Counterfeit(s), 11, 24–25 Ebla, 40, 42
Countermark(s), 284–285, 423–424, 425, Economy, 42, 59, 79–80, 89, 175, 227, 322
428, 430, 432 Edom, 57, 59, 64, 91
Covenant, 43, 145, 340 Edomite(s), 60, 64–65, 88, 99
Crusade(r), 63 Egyptian, 37, 42, 51, 52, 54, 71, 79–80, 93,
Cybele, 369 114, 120, 196, 439
Cypros, 194, 197, 237–239 Eilat, 427
Cyprus, 25, 45, 77, 158, 194, 207, 325, 451, Ekron, 55, 62
468 Elephant(s), 114, 122
Emisa, 249 Gamla, 21, 25, 255, 323, 424, 427, 441
Emmaus, 137, 424–426 Gaza, 55, 56, 57, 60–64, 79, 87, 88, 90, 96,
Ephah, 48 99, 104, 111, 113, 114, 121, 138, 182,
Ephesus, 152, 451–453 331, 363, 463
Ephron, 44, 47 Gelidonia, 40
Epigraphic(al), 59, 80, 95, 142, 167, 173, Genesis, 39, 43, 44, 47, 60, 64
201, 203, 285, 424 Genetic, 76, 248
Epigraphy, 169, 173, 189, 345, 386, 396 Genitals, 419
Equestrian(s), 276, 278, 282, 401 Gerahs, 50–51, 65, 89
Eshtemo, 44 Gerizim, 75, 79, 112, 121, 158, 174, 180,
Essene(s), 159 281, 424, 439, 471–472
Ethnarch(y), 182, 215, 216, 217, 225 Germanicus, 224, 238, 240, 241, 246, 252,
Ethnic, 55, 59, 61, 64, 249 259, 267, 271, 272, 426
Etrog(s), 309–310, 321, 338, 342, 347, 351, Gerot, 15, 51
352, 357, 358 Gessius Florus, 255, 277, 282–283, 293,
Europe, 4, 6–7, 27, 59, 345–346 294, 464
Europos, 145 Giora, 25, 296, 308
Eusebius, 329, 381 Gischala, 296
Eutychus, 233 Gladiators, 235, 293
Exiguus, 199, 433 Golan, 323, 429
Exile(d)(s), 76, 77, 142, 184, 284, 308, 325, Governor(s), 57, 61, 73, 75, 79, 84, 85, 95,
452, 455, 464 105, 112, 158, 182, 183, 193–194, 200,
Exodus, 41, 43, 47, 50, 51, 144, 145, 310, 225, 235, 255, 275–278, 279, 281–282,
325, 340, 419, 438, 442 284, 295, 313, 325, 345, 372, 374, 426,
Ezechias, 104 455, 457, 461–465
Ezekiel, 17, 53, 99 Graffiti, 6, 186
Grapes, 17, 128, 149, 190, 214, 216, 217,
F 287, 332, 337–338, 345, 347, 349–350,
Farthing(s), 2, 434, 435, 450 353–354, 357, 361–364, 367, 456
Feline, 92, 100 Greece, 45, 56, 94, 111, 152, 374
Felix, 249, 276, 277, 281–283 Greeks, 166, 169, 227, 247, 367, 467
Festus, 277, 282 Guvrin, 158
Fiduciary, 31
Flavians, 255, 380, 418 H
Flemish, 435 Hacksilber, 44–45, 57
Forgery(ies), 22, 23, 24, 26, 36, 37, 38, 80, Hadrian, 366–367, 370, 376, 383, 458,
90, 187–188, 322, 344, 373–374, 387 460–461, 470, 513
Fourrée(s), 22, 80, 90, 336, 362, 373, 374, Haifa, 441
385, 388, 390, 418 Hannanyah, 84
Harp(s), 3, 79, 85, 332, 341–342
G Hasmonean, 2, 3, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
Gabinius, 182, 194, 365, 461, 463, 465 30, 76, 95, 96, 121, 135, 137, 139–144,
Gadara, 182, 463 146–150, 151, 153–156, 158, 162, 166,
Gaius Sosius, 184, 194, 369–370, 461 171, 172–173, 175, 178, 179, 180, 182,
Galba, 296, 372 184–185, 193–194, 196, 200, 203, 205,
Galilean, 219, 296, 463 206, 209, 220, 226, 232, 235, 236, 242,
Galley(s), 82, 206, 215, 216, 217–218, 270, 248, 254, 282, 284, 334, 365, 369, 370,
350, 384, 427, 430, 431 436, 437, 463
Gallus, 295, 426, 428, 462–464 Hathor, 68, 152
Index 569
Hebron, 4, 11, 59, 87, 296, 327 Idol(s), 137, 312

Helena, 338–340, 467–468 Idolatry, 137
Hellenic, 135 Idum(a)ea(n)(s), 158, 181, 183, 193, 215,
Hellenism, 137, 146 296, 365
Hellenization, 169 Idumaean, 296, 365
Hellenized, 120, 169 II Samuel, 47, 62
Hellenizers, 120, 138 India, 39, 111, 143
Herakles (Hercules), 82, 328, 438 Ingot(s), 40–46, 56
Herod Antipas, 95, 219, 220–221, 242, Invalidate(d), 3, 335, 343
253, 262, 310, 311 Iraq, 75, 467
Herod Archelaus, 20, 150, 156, 214, 216, Irenopolis, 261
220, 275, 278, 284 Iscariot, 443
Herod I, 26, 32, 143, 146, 148, 150, 156, Ishmael, 279, 282
158, 160, 182, 199, 203, 206, 207, 208, Islamic, 4, 187–188, 470
210, 214, 219, 225, 226, 232, 233, 242, Israel Antiquity Authority (IAA), 7–8,
243, 254, 284, 274, 293, 301, 310, 342, 307, 447–448
365, 367, 369, 437, 442, 457–458 Isaac, binding, 471–472
Herod of Chalcis, 226, 235, 237, 241–242, Issar(s), 17, 219, 332
245, 457, 458, 459 Issos, 75, 111
Herod Philip, 219, 220, 226, 227, 229, 232, Italian, 6, 284, 332
242, 243, 255 Italy, 227, 407, 410, 463–464, 471, 478, 490
Herodias, 218–219, 233 Ituraea(n), 147, 202, 226, 457–458
Herodium, 196–197, 298, 307, 332
Hezekiah, 91, 104–105 J
Hezekias, 194 Jaffa, 429
Hillel, 16 James, 234
Hippicus, 197 Jamnia ( Javneh, Yavneh), 247
Hippodrome, 199 Jannaeus, 4, 18, 26, 28–29, 76, 88, 140,
Hippos, 463 –141, 143–144, 147, 153–154, 155–157,
Hittites, 40 161, 166, 167, 168–17174, 177, 179,
Hybrid, 41, 91, 96, 328, 330, 370, 388–389 181, 182, 183, 193, 203, 209, 310,
Hypsaeus, 366 436–437, 457
Hyrcanus I, 27–29, 75, 121, 139–141, Jeremiah, 198
146, 148–149, 152–155, 157, 159–161, Jericho, 44, 64, 181, 197, 199, 426, 427
166–167, 172, 179, 181, 193, 208, 310, Jeroboam, 73, 79, 84–85
335 Jerome, 326
Hyrcanus II, 140–141, 143, 160, 171, Jerusalem, 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11–14, 15, 17, 18,
181–184, 193–194, 196, 365–366, 369 25, 27, 45, 50, 63, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79,
84, 87–88, 90, 95, 97, 112–113, 119–
I 121, 135, 137–141, 148, 149, 152, 154,
I Chronicles, 77 155, 156, 158, 159, 162, 166, 169, 170,
I Kings, 74 172, 181–182, 183–186, 189, 193–194,
I Maccabees, 138, 139, 153 196–197, 198–199, 202–203, 206–208,
I Samuel, 50–51, 62, 149 209, 215–216, 219, 225, 228, 234, 236,
IAA, see Israel Antiquity Authority 244, 247, 249, 250, 253, 255, 276, 278,
Iconium, 451 279, 281, 283, 293–298, 300, 301–310,
Iconographic(al), 100, 144, 423 312, 313, 315–319, 322–324, 325–328,
Iconography, 80, 94, 95, 100, 144, 147, 148, 330, 333, 335, 337, 339, 341–343, 347,
180, 262, 299, 377 350, 351–352, 355–364, 365–366, 369–
370, 371, 374, 376, 377, 378, 381, 419, Lepton(s), 26, 27, 146, 182, 434
424, 426–428, 429, 437, 438–439, Leviticus, 48, 309, 310
440–441, 443, 444, 447, 450, 451, 452, Libation(s), 167, 281, 288, 289, 313, 342,
455–456, 463–464, 467–468, 472 366
Jerusalemite(s), 120, 438 Limestone, 50, 52, 53, 468
Jezebel, 74 Loaf (loaves), 17, 186
Jezreel, 159 Lugdunum, 219, 449
Job, 49, 141 Luke, 219, 221, 225, 226, 433, 434, 436
Joppa see Jaffa Lulav, 153, 309–310, 321, 332, 338, 342,
Jordan, 7, 25, 64, 73, 74, 120, 158, 173, 180, 347, 351–352, 357–358
203, 221, 225, 298, 427 Lunar, 428
Josephus, 1, 2, 17, 24–26, 75, 85, 104, Lusitania, 372
112–113, 119, 143, 152, 158, 159, 160, Lycaonia, 451
166, 170, 172, 179, 183–184, 194, 197, Lycia, 45, 197, 451
198–199, 225, 233–237, 242, 243, 248, Lyon, 219
250–251, 254, 256, 275, 277, 278–282, Lyre(s), 3, 79, 332, 341, 342, 348, 350, 352,
293–297, 305–306, 323, 341, 365–367, 353, 354, 355, 356, 359, 360, 361, 362,
376, 378, 380, 401, 424, 426, 428–429, 363
439–440, 442, 457–458, 463–465, Lysanias, 251, 458, 459
467–468
Jotapata, 424, 428, 430 M
Judah Aristobulus, 166, 169 Maccabee (Maccabean), 95, 135, 137, 140,
Judges, 43 141, 142, 156, 157, 169, 183, 300, 439
Julia Livia, 226, 231, 232, 253, 287 Macedon, 111, 143
Macedonia, 460, 462–463, 489–490
K Macedonian, 22, 65, 87, 88, 90, 91, 111,
Kermatistes, 13 155
Kesef, 43, 44, 56, 64 Machaerus, 197, 295, 298, 325, 428
Kithara, 341, 354–355, 359–363 Malta, 451
Kodrantes, 435 Malthace, 215
Koinon, 412 Manasseh, 75, 79, 112, 457
Kokhba, 3, 18, 21–22, 24, 25, 30, 33, 35–36, Maqqaba, 137
37, 55, 95, 142, 152, 214, 220, 311, Marcus Ambibulus, 277, 278
326–347, 361, 362, 423, 427, 462, 468 Marduk, 76
Kolbon(ot), 14–16, 445 Mariamne, 156, 196, 197, 232, 233, 242,
Kollybistes (Kollybos), 13 248
Kos, 45, 310 Marisa, 182, 463
Kosher, 119 Mark Antony, 3, 184, 194, 196, 197, 202,
Kuntrunk, 219, 332 369, 371, 425, 427, 440, 458, 460
Mark, 27, 218, 221, 226, 434, 435, 436,
L 446, 447, 448
Lachish, 19, 50 Mattatayah Antigonus, 9, 143, 150, 152,
Lamp(s), 3, 4, 16, 17, 148, 186, 335, 366, 152, 158, 161, 166, 167, 182–189, 194,
437, 452 202, 206, 209, 369–370
Lampsacus, 45 Matthew, 2, 13, 193, 199, 215, 221, 225,
Laodicea, 197, 425, 452 226, 279, 433, 450
Largess, 174, 201, 379 Mauretania, 143
Legionary, 346, 374, 423, 429, 430 Mazaeus (Mazday), 62, 79, 455, 456
Lepta, see Leptons Medaba, 158
Index 571
Medallion(s), 208, 249, 251, 252, 254, 255, 258–262, 277, 281–283, 291, 292,
262–266, 336, 350, 352, 354, 358–359, 295, 296, 338, 372, 374, 424, 428, 430,
360 442, 448, 464, 465, 466
Mediterranean, 25, 55, 57, 62, 63, 113, 170, Neronias, 251, 255, 260–261
236, 344, 455 Nerva, 420–421
Melchior, 187 Nevel, 341, 348, 350, 352–354, 356
Melqart(h) (see Herakles), 438, 445–446 Nezef, 52–54
Menelaus, 120 Noah’s Ark, 469–470
Menorah(s), 9, 21, 152, 184–189, 191, 208, Numbers, 142, 338
209, 298, 311, 313, 378, 452 Numidia, 143
Mercenaries, 138, 144, 147, 158, 172, 452 Nummus, 442
Mesopotamia(n), 40, 44, 49, 53, 76, 93, Nysa Scythopolis, 148, 429, 461, 463, 465
111, 325
Messianic, 186, 296, 303, 326, 329, 330, O
338, 341 Octavia, 257, 259
Metrological, 27, 89, 201 Onias, 120
Metrology, 52, 146, 254 Ornithologist, 93
Mezuzot, 17 Orodes, 183
Microscope, 32, 33, 35 Ossuaries, 186
Microscopic(ally), 320, 322, 336 Ostraca, 45, 64, 75
Mikvaot, 218 Ottoman, 59
Miletos, 45
Miletus, 428, 451
Mina(s), 41–42, 44, 47, 114–118, 126 P
Minuta, 434, 436 Paleography, 304
Mishnah, 14, 26, 314, 338, 341, 438, 468 Palm Tree(s), 69, 220, 285–286, 291, 309,
Mishnaic, 313, 442 311–313, 321, 322, 338, 342, 345, 346,
Mite(s), 143, 182, 434–436, 438 349, 350, 356, 357, 363, 364, 367, 373,
Moab, 62 375–377, 379, 380–383, 385, 390–412,
Monetized, 200 414–418, 421
Moneychangers, 13–15, 30, 301, 443, 444 Parthian(s), 139, 158, 183–184, 194, 219,
Moneyer, 65, 202, 366 325, 369, 428
Monotheism, 103, 367, 368 Patmos, 452, 454
Mosaic(s), 6, 145, 149, 442, 471 Patriarch, 298
Mucianus, 426, 462, 463, 465 Paul, 247, 281, 282, 450–451, 454
Mythological, 86, 92 Pecunia (Pecus), 39
Pella, 381, 463
Penning, 435
N Pentateuch(al), 113, 141, 145, 438
Nabataea(n)(s), 140, 143, 147, 181, 193, Pentecost, 309
194, 197, 331, 365, 367, 426, 458 Perga, 451
Nablus, 78, 80, 170, 281 Pergamum, 452, 453
Neapolis, 151, 430, 451 Persepolis, 111
Nebuchadnezzar, 62, 76 Persia, 73, 76, 77, 78, 119, 455
Nebuchadrezzar, 76 Persians, 62, 111
Nehemiah, 1, 45, 51, 60, 62, 75, 77, 78, 95, Pharisee(s), 143, 159, 169, 170, 171, 172,
438, 455, 456 174, 179, 199, 234, 294,
Neo-Assyrian, 47 Phasael, 183, 184, 194, 197, 248, 369
Nero Claudius Caesar, 246, 261 Philadelphia, 452, 453, 463
Nero, 5, 7, 28, 243, 244, 246, 249, 250, 251, Philip, 111, 215, 218, 220, 225–226, 228,
229, 230, 231, 232, 243, 251, 255, 457, Ptolemies, 94, 111, 112, 119
458, 459, 461, 463, 465, 470, 471 Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, 457
Philistine(s), 50, 55, 61, 62, 63 Ptolemy I, 93, 108–110, 113–115, 117–119
Philo, 233, 279, 439, 440, 467 Ptolemy II, 91, 110, 113, 114, 115–118
Phocaea, 45 Ptolemy III, 113, 115, 117–118
Phoenicia(n)(s), 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, Ptolemy IV, 113, 114, 116, 119
70, 74, 77, 79, 80, 90, 94, 112, 113, 121, Ptolemy V, 114, 116, 119
123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, Pundion, 17, 219, 332
131, 142, 431, 442, 445, 447, 451, 456,
462, Q
Pilgrimage, 247, 309, 310, 342 Quadrans, 27, 200, 219, 410–411, 435
Pilgrim(s), 216, 276, 312, 338, 443, 463 Quadratus, 462–464
Pisidia, 451 Quietus, 325
Pisidians, 158 Quirinus, 278
Plautius, 366 Qumran, 307, 427
Polemo, 235, 249
Pomegranates, 114, 116, 117, 149, 151,
152, 154, 315 R
Pompey, 141, 147, 181–182, 193, 365, 366, R. Akiba, 325, 329
367, 369, 426, 439, 457, 462, 463 R. Ben Zakkai, 247
Pontius Pilate, 2, 219, 225, 275, 277, 279, R. Eleazar of Modein, 330
284, 457 R. Gamaliel, 145, 450
Pontus, 143, 235, 249 R. Hillel, 16
Poppaea, 282 R. Johanan ben Tortha, 298, 310
Poppy, 149–153, 162–165, 168, 175, R. Judah bar Nachman, 17
177–178, 191, 210 R. Judah ben Ezekial, 17
Porcius Festus, 277, 282 R. Levi, 17
Pork, 199 R. Meir, 15
Prefect(s), 2, 140, 150, 200, 216, 237, 275, Rabbi, 5, 14–17, 145, 247, 298, 450
276, 278, 279, 284, 285, 286, 293, 311, Rabbinic(al), 13, 15, 16, 26, 148, 154, 179,
423, 428, 463 219, 233, 298, 309, 311, 313, 330, 342,
Priesthood, 76, 120, 159, 184, 194, 206, Ramallah, 79, 87
281, 311, 365 Ramat Rachel, 427
Priestly, 53, 84, 120, 137, 138, 142, 143, Raphia, 113
152, 196, 2099, 282, 299, 410 Rectangular, 350, 382, 383, 385, 430–432
Procurator(s), 2, 14, 16, 24, 25, 95, 140, Recut, 64, 72
182, 200, 220, 237, 248, 249, 250, 275, Redemption price, 438
276, 278, 279, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, Redemption, 304, 305, 308, 321, 323, 328,
286, 293, 297, 299, 307, 313, 320, 420, 347–350, 438
423, 463 Re-engraved, 98
Procuratorial, 220 Religion(s), 1, 75, 80, 120, 158, 198, 242,
Propaganda, 179, 184, 244, 294, 308, 323, 247, 279, 293, 294, 341, 367, 368, 467
372 Republican, 182, 366, 461
Prophecy, 159, 198 Revelation, 452
Prophet(s), 51, 247, 452 Rhegium, 451
Prototype(s), 24, 78, 79, 146, 189, 315, 370, Rhodes, 155, 451
380, 456 Rhodos, 154
Psalm(s), 84, 310, 342 Ritual Chalice, 310, 315, 316, 317–319,
Ptolemais (also see Akko), 197, 295, 424, 322–323
428, 451 Roman governors of Syria, 463
Index 573
Romanized, 284 Scroll, 8, 9, 12, 141–142, 168–169, 287–

Rome, 7, 30, 120, 146, 147, 150, 151, 155, 288, 340–341, 347, 351–352, 357–358,
158, 159, 182, 183, 184, 186, 193, 194, 416, 418,
196, 197, 199, 200, 202, 207, 215, 218, Scythica, 424–425
219, 225, 226, 227, 233, 234, 235, 236, Sebaste, 73–74, 78, 197, 202, 203, 253, 427,
237, 240, 241, 242, 244, 247, 248, 249, 431
253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 260, 270, 272, Semis, 219, 273, 273, 332, 417
275, 276, 278, 279, 281, 282, 283, 293, Semitic, 62, 199, 279
294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 308, 311, Semitic-speaking, 64
326, 327, 333, 344, 364, 367, 369, 370, Senate, 138, 159, 194, 202, 237, 241, 255,
371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378, 379, 273, 327, 369, 372
380, 381, 420, 421, 426, 439, 440, 447, Senators, 276, 375
451, 452, 463, 465 Sepphoris, 17, 145, 150, 155, 218, 220,
Rosette, 338 254–255, 261–262, 437
Roskilde, 18 Septuagint, 113, 470
Rupee, 39 Sepulcher, 158
Russia, 433 Shahak, 46
Shammai, 193
S Shechem, 75, 158, 170, 281
Sabbath(s), 48, 113, 198, 314 Shepherds, 9, 11
Sabratha, 373 Sheqel, 3, 13–16, 26, 29, 33, 36, 41–43, 47,
Sadducee(s), 143, 159, 171, 174, 34, 294, 48, 50–54, 59–60, 63, 64–72, 81, 83,
365 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 99–101, 104, 107,
Sages, 6, 26, 332 300–301, 304–305, 307, 308, 311, 312,
Salome, 199, 219, 233, 242, 243, 246 314, 315–320, 322–323, 333, 334–335,
Salome Alexandra, 143, 160, 166, 171, 174, 340, 358, 419, 437, 439, 440, 441, 442,
181 445–446, 447, 448
Samos, 45, 197 Shlomozion, see Salome Alexandra
Samosata, 426 Shma, 351
Samson, 62 Shofar(s), 88, 103, 104, 313
Samuel, 9, 38, 47, 50, 51, 62, 149, 333 Shomron, 73, 80–82, 197
Sanctuaries, 76 Showbread table, 148, 184, 185–188, 191,
Sanctuary, 41, 47, 50, 53, 121, 182, 256, 209, 298, 313, 333, 340, 358
298, 314, 338–340, 366, 464 Shulhani, 13
Sanhedrin, 157, 159, 194, 196, 298, 328 Sicarii, 282, 294
Sanskrit, 39 Sicilian, 426
Sardis, 452, 453 Sicily, 451
Sargon, 75 Sidetes, 139, 158, 161, 300
Satrap(s), 61, 79, 85, 454 Siglos (sigloi), 1, 78, 89
Satrapy, 57, 73, 77, 456 Simon Maccabee, 300
Saturninus, 462 Sinope, 45
Saul, 51, 450 Smyrna, 452, 453
Scale(s), 29, 42–43, 45–46, 47–49, 53, 89, Solomon, 73, 88, 145, 152, 343
93, 152, 151, 234, 246, 272, 273, 283, Spices, 45, 366
293, 299, 310, 374, 472 Spikenard, 448
Scarabs, 37 Spoils, 378
Scribes, 17, 141, 328 Stater(s), 45, 59, 124, 455, 456
Scriptural, 434, 435 Stoa, 197
Scripture(s), 296, 329, 340, 443 Strategos, 99, 193
Susa, 111 Thebes, 41, 46

Synagogue(s), 145, 187, 324, 327, 341, 440, Tiberias, 151, 218, 220, 221, 234, 235,
450, 471 249–253, 255–258, 262
Syncretistic, 80 Tiberius, 218, 219, 225, 226–228, 230–233,
Syracuse, 451 236, 240–242, 276–281, 286–289, 297,
Syrian(s), 2, 9, 55, 80, 137, 139, 158, 166, 320, 426, 428, 446–450, 457, 465–466
197, 247, 278, 463 Tigranes, 242–244
Syrian-Palestinian, 80 Titus, 186, 246, 247, 249, 252, 253–254,
Syria-Palestina, 8 256, 262, 263–266, 268, 270, 295–298,
Syrinx, 262, 264 304–305, 311, 323, 325, 341, 364, 367,
372, 373–384, 389–391, 393, 399–403,
T 404–406, 409, 411–419, 424–429, 431,
Tabernacle(s), 145, 152, 153, 158, 169, 234, 440
309, 312, 313, 342, 367 Tooling, 31–34
Tacitus, 243, 275, 281, 296, 297, 368, 373, Torah, 75, 120, 169, 193, 340–341
426, 428 Tosefta, 438
Talanton, 40 Trachonitis, 215, 225, 226, 457, 458
Talent, 40–43, 54 Trajan, 3, 325, 334, 345, 361, 418–419,
Tallit, 17 426–428, 431
Talmud, 1, 2, 5, 7, 13–15, 24, 26, 29–31, Transjordan, 120, 158, 197, 218
112, 143, 185, 193, 208, 209, 234, 279, Trapezites (Trapeza), 13
332, 340, 341, 342, 343, 367, 381, 437, Tribute Penny, 447–448
442 Tripolis, 197
Talmudic, 14–16, 156, 326, 341, 468 Triumvirate, 194, 369
Tamkaru(m), 48 Trumpets, 337, 341, 353, 355, 359–360
Tarapik, 16 Tryphon, 125, 129, 138–139
Tarichaeae, 249, 427, 429 Tyre, 13–15, 55, 57, 59, 78, 79, 90, 91, 111,
Tarsus, 73, 99, 450–451, 455–456 112, 147, 197, 200, 236, 308, 311, 314,
Taxation, 47, 182, 200, 276, 278, 293 438–443, 445, 451, 463
Taxed, 197 Tyros, see Tyre
Taxes, 50, 119, 197, 215, 276, 283, 338
Taxpayers, 89 U
Temple tax, 60, 421, 438–439, 441–442 Udjat, 67
Temple, 6, 12–16, 26, 47, 49–50, 60, 75, 76, Ugarit(ic), 40, 42, 53–54, 62 524
77, 79, 87–90, 104, 112–113, 119–121, Umayyad, 187, 189
125, 135, 137, 138, 139, 141, 145, 147, Unstruck, 20, 24, 30, 31
148, 149, 152, 153, 154, 158, 182,
184–187, 193, 197, 199, 208–210, 215, V
226, 227, 229, 234, 240, 241, 242, 247, Valerius Gratus, 277–278, 284, 313
256, 259, 276, 278, 281, 282–284, 294, Ventidius Cumanus, 277, 281, 463–464
296–299, 301–306, 308, 309–311, 313, Vespasian, 152, 244, 246, 247, 252, 254–
314, 325, 326, 329, 330, 333, 338, 339, 256, 262–266, 268–270, 295–296, 311,
340–342, 346, 347, 351, 352, 357, 358, 323, 325, 337, 362, 372––382, 386–417,
364, 366–368, 374, 377–378, 413, 414, 419, 424, 426, 427, 429, 431, 465
419, 421, 433, 436, 437, 438–445, 450, Vine, 139, 190, 214, 217, 238, 287–288,
452, 455, 456, 464, 4676–468, 471–472 313, 317, 319, 332, 338–339, 342,
Tetrarchy, 202–203, 218, 226, 233, 249, 345–346, 349, 356, 363, 367, 368
458 Vitellius, 256, 281, 296, 311, 367, 370,
Theater, 234, 275 372–374, 380, 385–386, 426, 462, 465
Index 575
W Z
Wadi Daliyeh, 45, 73, 75, 84 Zacynthus, 370, 461
Western Asia Minor, 56 Zealots, 247, 282, 294, 296–298, 303–304,
Widow’s mite, 434, 436–438 464
Workshop(s), 20, 142, 167, 327 Zedekiah, 76
Zenodorus, 226, 458, 459, 460
Y Zerubbabal, 95
Yahvistic, 79 Zeus, 6, 115, 118, 121, 122–129, 199, 227,
Yahweh, 75 459, 465
Yavne, 247 Zion, 303–305, 308, 318, 319, 321,
Yehiziqiyah, 91, 95 Zionistic, 308
Yehohanan, 139–141, 159–160, 161–165,
557
Yehonatan, 168–171, 175–178, 557
Yonatan, 168–171, 177, 557
Plate 1
6001 6002 6004a 6005 6006 6009 6010
6011 6016 6017 6018 6019 6024
6003 6007 6012 6013 6014 6021 6022 6023 6025
6004 6008 6012 6015 6015b

2x
Plate 2
6001 6002 6005 6006

2x 2x 2x 2x
6009 6010 6011 6016

2x 2x 2x 2x
6017 6018
2x 2x
Plate 3
6019 6020
1.5x 1.5x
6003 6007 6012 6013 6014 6020

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
6021 6022 6023 6024 6025

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
6026 6027 6028 6029 6030 6032 6031 6033 6034 6035
Plate 4
6036 6037 6038 6039 6040 6041 6042 6043 6044 6045
6026 6027 6028 6029 6030

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
6031 6032 6033 6034 6035 6036

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
6037 6038 6039 6041 6042 6043

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
Plate 5
6035 6040
2x 2x
6046 6047 6048 6049 6049b 6050 6051 6052
6052b 6052 6052a 6053 6053a 6053b 6054 6055 6056 6056a
6057 6058 6058a 6058b 6058d 6058e 6058f 6059 6059a 6060 6061
6063 6064 6064a 6065 6066 6067 6068 6069 6069a 6069b 6070 6071
Plate 6
6046 6047
1.5 x 1.5 x
6048 6049 6049b 6050

2x 2x 2x 2x
6044 6045 6051 6052 6052a 6053

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
6053a 6053b 6054 6055 6056 6056a

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
Plate 7
6057 6058 6058a 6058b 6058d 6059

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
6058e 6058f 6059a 6060 6061 6062

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
6063 6064 6064a 6065 6066 6067

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
6072 6073 6074 6075 6075a 6075b 6075c 6076 6077

Plate 8
6078 6078a 6079 6080 6081 6081a 6081b 6081c
6082 6082a 6083 6084 6085

6086 6088
6087
6068 6069 6069a 6070 6071 6072 6073

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
6077
6074 6075 6075a 6075b 6075c 6076 2x
2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
6086
6087
2x
2x
Plate 9
6077a 6078 6078a 6079 6080 6081 6081a

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
6081b 6082 6082a 6083 6084 6085 6088

2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 2x
6089 6090 6091
6092
Plate 10
6093 6097 6098 6099
6100
6102 6103 6104
6105 6106b 6108 6109

Plate 11
6110 6113 6115 6116 6117 6118 6123
6124 6111 6114 6113
6119 6120 6121 6122

Plate 12
6123 6124 6125 6126 6128
6127 6129 6130 6131
6132 6133 6134 6135

Plate 13
6136 6137 6138 6139
6140 6141 6142 6143 6144
6146 6147 6149 6150 6151

Plate 14
6152 6153 6154 6155
6156 6157 6159 6160 6162 6163
6164 6164 6165 6165a 6165b 6165c 6166

2x
6167 6168 6168b 6169 6170 6171 6172

Plate 15
6172a 6172b 6172c 6172d 6172e 6173 6174
6175 6175a 6175b 6175c 6175d 6176 6176a 6176b
6177 6178 6179 6179a 6180 6181 6181a
6182 6183 6184 6185 6185a 6185b 6185d

Plate 16
6186 6186a 6186b 6186c 6187 6188 6188a
6189 6189a 6189b 6189c 6189d 6189e
6189f 6189g 6190 6190a 6191 6191a 6192
6192a 6192b 6193 6194 6195 6195a 6195b

Plate 17
6195c 6195d 6195e 6195f 6195g 6195h 6195i 6196
6197 6197a 6197b 6198
6198a 6198b 6198c 6199 6199a 6199b
6200 6201 6201a 6202 6203 6203a 6203b

Plate 18
6168 2x 6169 2x 6170 2x
6171 2x 6172 2x 6172a 2x
6172b 2x 6172c 2x 6173 2x

Plate 19
6175a 2x 6175d 2x 6176a 2x
6177 2x 6178 2x 6179 2x
6179a 2x 6181 2x 6182 2x

Plate 20
6183 2x 6184 2x 6185c 2x
6186 2x 6186c 2x 6189 2x
6168f 2x 6190 2x
Plate 21
6204 6204a 6205 6206 6206a
6207 6207a 6208 6209 6209a 6210 6210a
6210b 6210c 6210d 6210e 6211 6211a
6212 6212a 6213 6214 6214a 6215

Plate 22
6216 6217 6217a 6218 6219 6219a 6219b
6219c 6219d 6219e 6220 6220a 6220b 6221
6221a 6221b 6221c 6222 6222a 6223 6224
6225 6225a 6225b 6226 6226a 6226c

Plate 23
6227 6227a 6227b 6227c 6227d 6227e
6228a 6232
6228 6229
6231
6230
6233 6234 6235 6236 6237
6238 6239 6240 6241 6242

Plate 24
6243 6244 6245 6246 6247
6248 6249 6250 6251 6252
6252a 6252c 6253 6254 6254a
6254b 6255
Plate 25
6255a 6255b 6255c 6256 6257 6258
6259 6260 6260a 6261 6262 6263
6264 6265 6266 6267 6268 6269

Plate 26
6270 6271 6272 6273 6274 6274a
6274b 6274c 6275 6275a 6276
6276a 6276b 6277 6278 6278a

Plate 27
6279 6279a 6279b 6280
6281 6282 6283 6284 6285
6285a 6286 6287 6287a 6288

Plate 28
6289 6290 6291 6292 6293
6294 6295 6295a 6296
6297 6298 6299 6300 6301

Plate 29
6302 6303 6304 6305 6306 6307
6311
6308 6309 6310
6312 6312a 6313 6314

Plate 30
6314a 6314b 6315 6315a 6315b
6315c 6316 6317 6318
6319 6320 6320a 6321

Plate 31
6324
6322 6323 6325
6326 6327 6328 6329
6329a 6330 6331 6331a

Plate 32
6332 6333 6333a 6334
6334a 6335 6336 6336a
6337 6338 6339 6340

Plate 33
6345
6341 6342 6343 6344
6350
6349
6348
6346 6347
6351 6352 6353 6354
6355 6356
Plate 34
6357 6357a 6357b 6358 6359 6360
6360a 6360b 6360c 6360d 6361 6361a
6361b 6362 6362a 6362b 6362c 6362d
6363 6363a 6363b 6364 6364a 6364b

Plate 35
6365 6365a 6366 6367 6367a 6368
6369 6369a 6369b 6370 6370a 6370b
6370c 6370d 6371 6371a 6371b 6371c
6371d 6371e 6371f 6372 6372a 6372b

Plate 36
6372c 6372d 6372f 6373 6375

6372e
6376 6376a 6376b 6376c 6376e

6376d
6376f 6377a 6377b 6377c

6377 6377d
6378 6380a 6380b 6380c 6380d

6380
Plate 37
6380e 6380f 6380g 6380h 6380i 6380j
6381 6382 6383 6384 6384a
6385 6386 6386a 6386b

6387
6388 6389 6389a 6389b 6389c

Plate 38
6389d 6389e 6389f 6390 6391
6392 6392a 6392b 6392c 6393
6394 6395 6396 6396a

Plate 39
6396b 6397 6397a 6398 6398a
6398b 6398d 6399 6399a
6399b 6400 6401 6401a

Plate 40
6402 6402a 6403

6404
6405 6406 6406a 6407
6407b 6407c 6408 6408a

Plate 41
6409 6409a 6409b 6409c 6410
6410a 6410b 6411 6412 6413
6414 6415 6416 6416a

Plate 42
6416b 6417 6417a 6418
6418a 6419 6419a 6420 6421
6421a 6422 6423 6424 6425

Plate 43
6426 6426a 6427 6427a 6428
6429 6431
6432 6433
6434 6435 6436 6436a

Plate 44
6436b 6436c 6436d 6437
6438 6439 6439a 6440
6441 6441a 6441b 6442

Plate 45
6443 6443a 6444 6445 6446
6447 6448 6449 6450 6451
6452 6453 6454 6455 6456

Plate 46
6457 6458 6458a 6459 6459a
6460 6461 6462 6462a 6462b
6462c 6462d 6463 6463a 6463b

Plate 47
6464 6464a 6464b 6465
6466 6466a 6467 6467a 6467b
6467c 6467d 6468 6469 6470

Plate 48
6471 6472 6473 6473a 6474
6476 6476a 6478 6479
6480 6481 6482 6483 6484

Plate 49
6485 6485a 6486 6486a
6487 6488
6489 6490
6491 6492 6493 6494 6495

Plate 50
6497 6498 6499 6500 6500a
6502 6503 6504 6505 6506
6506a 6507 6508 6509 6509a

Plate 51
6510 6512 6513 6513a 6514a
6515 6515a 6516 6517 6518
6520 6521 6522 6523

Plate 52
6526 6527 6530
6530c 6531 6532
6534
Plate 53
6534a 6536 6537b
6537d 6538 6538d
6539
Plate 54
6539a 6541 6547
6552 6553 6554a
6555
Plate 55
6557 6559 6560
6561a 6562 6563
6565
Plate 56
6566 6570 6571
6572 6573 6573a
6574
Plate 57
6576a 6577 6580
6582 6583 6584 6584a
6584c 6585
Plate 58
6587 6589 6590
6591 6592 6593 6594
6596 6598 6599 6601 6602 6603

1607a
Plate 59
6605 6606 6607 6608a
6609a 6609b 6610b 6611 6612
6613 6614 6614a 6614b 6614c

Plate 60
6615 6615a 6616 6617 6618
6620 6620a 6621
6622a 6623 6624a

Plate 61
6624b 6624d 6625
6625a 6627 6627a
6628
Plate 62
6629 6631 6632 6632a 6633
6634 6634a 6634b
6634c
6633a
Plate 63
6635 6635a 6635c
6635f 6636 6637
6638a 6638b
Plate 64
6639 6639a 6639b 6639c
6640 6640a 6641 6641a
6641b 6642 6643 6644

Plate 65
6645 6645a 6646 6646a
6646b 6647 6648 6648a
6649 6650 6650a 6651

Plate 66
6651a 6652 6652a 6652b
6653 6653a 6653b 6654
6655 6656 6657 6658

Plate 67
6659 6660 6661 6662
6663 6666 6667 6668
6669 6670 6671 6672

Plate 68
6674 6675 6676a 6677
6678 6679 6680
6681
About the Author
David Hendin is a leading authority on Biblical and ancient Judean coins
and artifacts. His original research has been published in more than 75
journal articles and book chapters and he is author of hundreds of maga-
zine articles on these topics.
Hendin is first vice president and adjunct curator at the American Nu-
mismatic Society. He pursued his half-century-plus fascination with coins
and archaeology of the Middle East alongside his career as an award-win-
ning medical journalist, publishing executive and literary agent for clients
who have included cartoonists Charles M. Schulz (creator of Peanuts®),
Lincoln Peirce (creator of Big Nate®) and writers Judith Martin (Miss
Manners®) and mystery writer Elaine Viets.
He is the author of six editions of Guide to Biblical Coins as well as
Collecting Coins, Ancient Scale Weights, and Not Kosher (Forgeries of Ancient
Jewish and Biblical Coins). He is also the author of the national bestseller
Death as a Fact of Life and nine (non-numismatic) nonfiction books which
have been translated into six languages.
Hendin received the Gunnar Holst Foundation Medal at the Uni-
versity of Gothenberg (Sweden) in 2013 and the Presidents Award of the
American Numismatic Association in 2003. His work has earned more
than a dozen literary awards, ranging from the Numismatic Literary
Guild’s “Best Museum Catalog” in 2012 and 2013 to the Medical Journal-
ism Award of the American Medical Association in 1972.
Hendin has lectured on Judean and Biblical coins in Lebanon, Italy,
Germany, Sweden, England, and Israel as well as at seminars of the Amer-
ican Numismatic Society, the American Numismatic Association, and
many colleges and other organizations. In 1985 and 1986 he was chief
numismatist of the Joint Sepphoris Project under the auspices of Duke
University and Hebrew University and Duke’s Sepphoris Research Project
in 2011. As chairman of the numismatic committee of the Jewish Museum
in New York, Hendin prepared and acquired coins for the exhibit Coins
Reveal, with Ya’akov Meshorer. He edited and published A Treasury of Jew-
ish Coins and Ancient Jewish Coinage I & II by Ya’akov Meshorer.
Hendin earned his M.A. from the University of Missouri School of
Journalism in 1970 after a year as a biology teacher at Kfar Silver Agri-
cultural High School near Ascalon, Israel. He was named a distinguished
alumnus of Horton Watkins (Ladue, MO) High School in 2002. Hendin
is a life fellow of the American Numismatic Society and has been listed in
Who’s Who in America since 1974.
645
CNG
Classical Numismatic Group, LLC
www.cngcoins.com
cng@cngcoins.com
The Handbook of Greek Coinage Series

by
Oliver D. Hoover
More than three decades have passed since
David Sear published Greek Coins & Their
Values, his revision of Gilbert Askew’s A
Catalogue of Greek Coins published by B. A.
Seaby in 1951. Since then, the field of ancient
numismatics and the hobby of collecting an-
cient coins have changed so much that now
Greek Coins & Their Values would require a
complete revision to include all of the most
current numismatic information available, list
the many new types and varieties unknown to
Sear, and determine an approximate sense of
rarity for all of these issues. In order to en-
compass this new material and create a viable
reference for the beginning and specialized
collector, such a handbook would have to be
more than the two volumes which Sear found
necessary. As a result, Classical Numismatic
Group is publishing The Handbook of Greek
Coinage Series, written by Oliver D. Hoover,
in a series of 13 volumes, each covering a specified area of Greek coinage with the first
being The Handbook of Syrian Coins: Royal and Civic Issues, Fourth to First Centuries
BC (Volume 9 in the series). This series is designed to aid the user in the quick, accurate,
and relatively painless identification of Greek coins, while providing a cross-reference for
each entry to a major work, which will allow the inquirer to pursue more in-depth research
on the subject. The subject-matter of each volume is arranged chronologically for royal is-
sues, and regionally for the civic issues; within each region, cities are listed directionally,
depending on the region. For those rulers or cities that issued coins concurrently in all three
metals, these issues will be arranged in the catalog with gold first, followed by silver, and
then bronze; each metal is arranged by denomination, largest to smallest. Known mints for
the royal coinage are listed below the appropriate type, making an easy search for a specific
mint. Each entry will include a rarity rating based on the frequency with which they appear
in publications, public and private collections, the market, and/or are estimated to exist in
public or private hands. No valuations are listed, since such values are generally out of date
by the time of publication. An online valuation guide at will allow interested individuals the
opportunity to gauge the market, and reduce the need for repeated updates of this series.
Whether one purchases the entire set for their reference library, or the individual volume
pertaining to one’s area of specialization, The Handbook of Greek Coinage Series should
provide a useful staging-point from which collectors and interested scholars can pursue their
research and interests.

Guide to Biblical Coins - David Hendin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide to Biblical Coins - David Hendin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide to Biblical Coins - David Hendin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“One of the most comprehensive guides to date describing coins related to biblical

“Indispensable for serious collectors of ancient Judean and related coinages…Hendin

DAVID HENDIN is an expert in coins and

American Numismatic Society

Designated Graphics © by J-P Fontanille

American Numismatic Society

Names: Hendin, David, author.

Printed in the United States

Aaron Hendin, M.D.

Jeannie, Sarah & Bobby, Ben & Chrissy, Alexander

CHAPTER ONE: Biblical Coins.......................................................1

CHAPTER TWO: Scale Weights to Coinage..................................39

CHAPTER THREE: Persian Period: Philistia.................................55

CHAPTER FOUR: Persian Period: Samaria and Judea...................73

CHAPTER FIVE: Ptolemaic and Seleucid Coins..........................111

CHAPTER SIX: Hasmonean Dynasty...........................................135

catalog: John Hyrcanus I.........................................................162

CHAPTER SEVEN: Herodian Dynasty........................................193

CHAPTER EIGHT: The Roman Governors of Judaea..................275

CHAPTER NINE: The Jewish War...............................................293

CHAPTER TEN: Bar Kokhba Revolt............................................325

CHAPTER ELEVEN: Judaea and Rome.......................................365

Nerva’s Fiscus Judaicus.....................................................................419

CHAPTER TWELVE: New Testament Coins..............................433

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Related Issues.......................................455

numismatics. I call out to the memory of my late friend Charles M. Schulz

Figure i. Author with Peanuts creator Charles M. Schulz in 1979.

Information and Acknowledgements

is among the most knowledgeable experts of coins of the ancient Middle

About the Catalog

Rarity Number of Examples Frequency/Availability

CC — Extremely common Almost always available

Found in many collections

Coins appear more

What Are Biblical Coins?

Coins Are Where You Find Them

I was on vacation, so I sat and enjoyed friends, sometimes puffing on

1.2. Pi-style Athenian tetradrachm

1.3. Alexander III tetradrachm reverse (en-

Collecting Coins Today

Ghosts of Old Jerusalem

Dead Sea Legends

Surcharge of the Money Changers

The Hebrew word for moneychanger, or exchange banker, is shulhani

Prices and Values

How Coins Are Dated

Ancient Judean Coin Manufacture

Irregular Coins of Judea

“copies,” the work of apprentices, or outright forgeries, mostly conclusions

Names of the Small Bronze Coins

General Observations on Judean Coins

The diameter of a particular coin is not necessarily a reflection of its

Fiduciary Coinage of Judea

The matter of fiduciary coinage, even for small bronze denominations,

prove that the concept of fiduciary coinage applied in ancient Judea as it

Conservation, Smoothing, Tooling

There are not many expert conservators of ancient coins. It is difficult

Cleaning Ancient Coins

Fakes and Forgeries