The Coinage of Herod Antipas : A Study and Die Classification of the Earliest Coins of Galilee [1 ed.] 9789004362987, 9789004359611

Citation preview

The Coinage of Herod Antipas

Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity arbeiten zur geschichte des antiken judentums und des urchristentums

Founding Editor Martin Hengel † (Tübingen)

Executive Editors Cilliers Breytenbach (Berlin) Martin Goodman (Oxford)

Editorial Board Lutz Doering (Mü nster) – Tal Ilan (Berlin) – Judith Lieu (Cambridge) Tessa Rajak (Reading/Oxford) – Daniel R. Schwartz ( Jerusalem) Seth Schwartz (New York) – Christiane Zimmermann (Kiel)

volume 102

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ajec

The Coinage of Herod Antipas A Study and Die Classification of the Earliest Coins of Galilee

By

Aaron J. Kogon Jean-Philippe Fontanille Foreword by

Catharine Lorber

leiden | boston

Cover illustration: ( front cover) The reverse sides of five coins struck by Antipas. From left to right: (1) unit denomination from 29/30 ce, showing a palm branch (type no. 6), (2) unit denomination from 29/40 ce, showing a palm tree (type no. 18), (3) half-unit denomination from 33/4 ce, showing a palm branch (type no. 15), (4) quarter-unit denomination from 39/40 ce, showing a cluster of dates (type no. 20), and (5) half-unit denomination from 30/1 ce, showing a palm branch (type no. 11); this coin was changed into a weight in antiquity. The name of Herod Antipas and the date are inscribed on each coin. (Back cover) The obverse and reverse faces of Antipas’ half-unit denomination from 20/1 ce (type no. 3). The enwreathed obverse inscription “Tiberias” and the aquatic reed on the reverse suggest that the coin type was struck to commemorate the foundation of the city Tiberias. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kogon, Aaron J., author. | Fontanille, Jean-Philippe, author. Title: The coinage of Herod Antipas : a study and die classification of the earliest coins of Galilee / by Aaron J. Kogon, Jean-Philippe Fontanille ; foreword by Catharine Lorber. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2018. | Series: Ancient Judaism and early Christianity, issn 1871-6636 ; volume 102 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: lccn 2018006482 (print) | lccn 2018015808 (ebook) | isbn 9789004362987 (e-book) | isbn 9789004359611 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: lcsh: Coins, Roman–Palestine. | Jewish coins–Palestine. | Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee. Classification: lcc cj1375 (ebook) | lcc cj1375 .k63 2018 (print) | ddc 737.4933–dc23 lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018006482

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1871-6636 isbn 978-90-04-35961-1 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-36298-7 (e-book) Copyright 2018 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

To my parents, David and Dina, and to my sister, Rebecca – A.J.K. To my wife Elisabeth, and my sons Kevin and Enzo – J.-P.F.

∵

Contents Foreword ix Preface x Acknowledgements xi List of Figures and Tables Abbreviations xiv 1

xii

Introduction 1 1.1 Documentary Sources for Antipas 1.2 Herod Antipas’ Biography 2 1.3 Economy of Galilee 6

1

2

The Coins 8 2.1 Research on the Coins of Antipas 8 2.2 Herod Antipas’ Numismatic Corpus 9 2.3 Attribution of Type No. 1 9 2.4 Division of the Coins into Groups 11

3

Denominations and Metrologies 3.1 Series a (Coin No. 1) 13 3.2 Series b–f 13

4

Chronology 16 4.1 Denoting Dates 16 4.2 Reasons for Minting Each Series 17 4.3 Misreading of Dates in the Literature

12

20

5

The Mints 21 5.1 Series a (Coin No. 1) 21 5.2 Series b–f and the Foundation of Tiberias 21

6

Dies and Minting 23 6.1 Die Cutting 23 6.2 Die Study 23 6.3 Relative Quantities of Types 28 6.4 Die Axes 29 6.5 Minting Process 30 6.6 Composition 31

viii

contents

7

The Inscriptions 33 7.1 The Name of Herod Antipas 33 7.2 HPW / TeTPA[PX?]HC (Herod the Tetrarch) 36 7.3 HPΩΔOY TETPaPXOY (Of Herod the Tetrarch) and Variants 36 7.4 HPΩΔHC TETPaPXHC (Herod the Tetrarch) and Variants 37 7.5 TIBEPIaC (Tiberias) and Variants 37 7.6 ΓaIΩ KaICAPI ΓEPMaNIKΩ (To Gaius Caesar Germanicus) 37 7.7 Letter Forms 37

8

The Iconography 39 8.1 Aniconism 39 8.2 Palm Tree 42 8.3 Grain (?) 44 8.4 Wreath 44 8.5 Reed 45 8.6 Palm Branch 46 8.7 Cluster of Dates 47 8.8 Iconography of Type No. 14

9

47

Geographical Distribution 52 9.1 Gaulanitis 54 9.2 Upper Galilee 55 9.3 Lower Galilee 57 9.4 Decapolis 57 9.5 Judaea 57 9.6 Samaria 58 9.7 Outside Palestine 58 9.8 Summary and Analysis of the Provenanced Finds

58

10 The Legacy of Antipas’ Coins 60 10.1 Imitations of Series c–e by the Roman Administration and Agrippa ii 10.2 Antipas’ Coins during the First Jewish Revolt 62 Appendix a. Tooled and Forged Coins Appendix b. Provenanced Finds 68 Bibliography 73 Die Study Plates 79 Index 122

65

60

Foreword Herod Antipas is perhaps the most frequently recalled member of the Herodian dynasty. He is constantly evoked in Christian teaching, and comes to life in opera houses whenever the opera Salome reenacts the dance of his stepdaughter and the execution of John the Baptist (Mark 6:22–25). The tale of Antipas’ reluctant cruelty may seem far removed from a sober study of his coinage, but it is precisely because Antipas was ruler of Galilee during the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth that his coins are so prized by numismatists today. In this monograph Aaron J. Kogon and Jean-Philippe Fontanille present the first book-length study of the coinage of Herod Antipas. At its heart is a die study of 788 specimens struck from 81 obverse and 222 reverse dies. Although all of Antipas’ 21 coin types have been known since 2006, when David Hendin published a previously unsuspected prutah, the close attention of Kogon and Fontanille has yielded new and interesting discoveries. The die study revealed that there are more dies with the issuer’s name than without it. In other words, the name of Herod the Tetrarch appears on the reverse of the coins, just as the issuing authority is normally named on the reverse of most Greek coins, but contrary to the presentation of Antipas’ coinage in the works of Yaʿakov Meshorer. Despite the superior quality of the die engraving of the coins struck at Tiberias, individual specimens almost never display all the features of the type. Fontanille’s technique of superposition of images and reconstitution of the original dies allows for a full appreciation of the artistry of these coins. Remarkably, Fontanille also uncovered new details of the largest denomination of year 37: a star above the name of Tiberias on the obverse, and a small double cornucopia flanking the stem of the palm branch on the reverse. Antipas’ aniconism receives a nuanced discussion emphasizing the difficulty of knowing the actual beliefs of most Jews of the Herodian era. Although the authors are skeptical that coin types provoked strong negative reactions, they nevertheless conclude that Antipas’ choices showed respect for the sensibilities of his subjects, who probably included a significant number of religious Jews. The iconographic analyses of the types—almost all drawn from plant life—weave together botanical science, artistic comparanda from other media, and information about the economic and/or symbolic importance of each plant or plant part in the life of ancient Galilee.

The regnal dates on each of Antipas’ six coin issues allow for precise dating within the limits of our understanding of how regnal years were counted, a problem nicely elucidated in the chapter on chronology. Of these six issues, only two can be explained in terms of an historical event. The second issue, of regnal year 24, has long been associated with Antipas’ foundation of the city of Tiberias. Kogon and Fontanille demonstrate that this event should be dated between 19 and 20/1 ce. The sixth issue, honoring Caligula, represents an attempt to curry favor with the Roman emperor in the context of rivalry with Herod Agrippa i and is critical for dating the deposition of Antipas. The authors examine the controversial idea that Antipas’ third issue was a response to a coin issue of the Roman governor of Judea but reserve judgment, favoring the assumption that Antipas struck his coinage to fund particular projects. Kogon and Fontanille’s metrological study confirms that Antipas’ four bronze denominations are related in the ratio 1:2:4:8. The weights do not conform to those of the Roman quadrans, semis, as, and dupondius, as was hypothesized by Meshorer. Nevertheless, the authors suggest that an equivalence to Roman coin denominations was likely from the perspective of a regional economy. Another original contribution of the book is a comprehensive survey of the circulation of Antipas’ coinage based on a dossier of 181 coins from excavations. The results of this investigation are necessarily hedged about with caveats concerning selection bias, but it appears that Antipas’ coins usually stayed within the borders of his tetrarchy. Unsurprisingly, the finds are concentrated in Lower Galilee, the most urbanized part of the tetrarchy. Antipas’ coins also crossed the Sea of Galilee into Gaulanitis where they are actually better represented than the coins of Antipas’ half-brother Philip, tetrarch of Gaulanitis. Even after the scholarly content of this work has been absorbed and digested, the practical utility of the die study will remain vital. Collector interest in the coins of Antipas has made them especially subject to forgery and tooling. The die study can help to detect dishonest coins. Comparison with the reconstituted original dies will expose coins that have been altered by tooling, and conversely good die matches may rehabilitate suspect coins. Catharine Lorber

Preface Throughout this text we will refer to people from antiquity by their names used in contemporary research. For example, we call Herod the King simply “Herod,” even though Kokkinos’ onomasticon lists seven others named Herod from the same dynasty (1998:364). Similarly, we refer to Herod’s youngest son as “Antipas” or, with his dynastic epithet, “Herod Antipas”, even though Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus are the only known ancient sources who refer to him as “Antipas.” King Herod’s Judaea was divided into several distinct political entities after his death. Some confusion exists in the literature about how to refer to this region. “Judaea” may either refer to Herod’s former kingdom or it may simply refer to the province of the same name. To avoid this ambiguity, we refer to the territory that made up Herod’s kingdom as “Palestine” and the province as “Judaea.” To date coins, we will use the chronology outlined in Israel Numismatic Research (No Author 2009:5–7). Since one year in an ancient calendar (e.g. Julian, Hebrew) generally overlaps with two different years in the Gregorian calendar most dates used throughout this work will be written with two sets of numbers, separated by a slash (e.g. 1/2ce).

All coin and lamp images are to scale (1:1) unless noted otherwise. Quoted excerpts from the nt follow the translation of the New International Version. All other translations of Greek and Latin texts are taken from the Loeb Classical Library unless specified otherwise. Hebrew texts are translated by the authors. The obverse side of a coin is defined as that which was struck by the lower die, while the reverse side is that which was struck by the upper die. Obverse dies generally have a longer lifespan than their reverse counterparts, usually resulting in fewer obverse than reverse dies. Therefore, a die study can allow us to determine which side is the obverse and which side is the reverse. If the obverse and reverse sides cannot be identified by these methods, convention holds that the obverse side bears indication of the minting authority, through, for example, a bust or an honorific inscription (Mørkholm 1991:15; cf. ajc 1:57). When discussing coins, “type” refers to a class of coins of a specific denomination from a specific year that shares the same main iconographic and textual features. Each coin type is assigned a number in Section 2.2.

Acknowledgements We would never have been able to complete this manuscript if not for the help of many individuals from all around the world over the past few years. Without them, this book could not have been made into a reality. First and foremost, we gratefully acknowledge our indebtedness to S. Booth, I. Goldstein, D. Hendin, D. Kogon and C. Lorber who helped edit and revise preliminary versions of this book. Their comments and revisions are all greatly appreciated. We are grateful to D.T. Ariel for providing us invaluable access to records in the database of the Israel Antiquities Authority coin collection. K. Ehling and N. Kaestner graciously provided us with images of coins in the Staatliche Münzsammlung in Berlin. We thank W. Esty for aiding us in analyzing and computing die statistics. Images of coins from the Israel Museum in Jerusalem were

generously provided by H. Gitler. L. Holland and K. Weber kindly examined and analyzed the Antipas weight coin. Finally, we are grateful to D. Syon for giving us access to his then-unpublished book on the coin finds at Gamla, providing us with coin photographs and giving us valuable comments on our coin distribution analysis. We would like to thank the following private collectors for allowing us to use images of their coins for our die study: R. Atherton, K. Baumheckel†, S. Booth, J. Clark, T. Dorp, M. Dunning, P. Dunstan, D. Fletcher, J. Galst, D. Garstang, J. Goddard, C. Kaufman, D. Hendin, S. Hendler, J. Kingsbury, J. Knox, C. McDonald, M. Ruderfer, J. Samel, E. Singer, A. Sofaer, D. Stone, P. Tan and Z. Zur. We apologize to anyone we may have inadvertently not thanked above.

List of Figures and Tables Figures Busts of Philip at about 26 and about 56 years old from his coinage 2 1.2 Map of the territories given to Antipas and his brothers 3 1.3 Coin of Aristobulus (king of Lesser Armenia) featuring Salome on the reverse (tjc:No. 365). Scale 3:2 5 2.1 A page from Madden’s “History of Jewish Coinage and of Money in the Old and New Testament” (1864:97) 9 2.2 Examples of each coin type of Herod Antipas. Scale 3:4 10 6.1 An illustration of how dies O1 and R1 of type no. 6 may have looked before and after cutting. Composite dies (see Section 6.2) reconstructed from coins struck by these dies are also displayed. Not to scale 24 6.2 The presumed order of die cutting. Not to scale 25 6.3 Creating a composite image. Not to scale 26 6.4 The progression of die disintegration on die O1 of type no. 11 27 6.5 Percent frequency of all coins in each series. Not to scale 28 6.6 Percent frequency of each denomination per series. Not to scale 29 6.7 Percent frequency of each denomination in total. Not to scale 30 6.8 Percent frequency of each denomination in each series. Not to scale 31 6.9 Antipas’ type no. 12 overstruck on a prutah. The bevelled edges are shown at bottom. Scale 2:1 32 6.10 Representative examples of corroded coins of Antipas. Not to scale 32 7.1 The lead weight of an agoranomos under Herod Antipas 35 7.2 The Cos inscription mentioning “Herod, son of Herod the King” 36 8.1 Parts of palm trees on the coins. Not to scale 40 8.2 Detail on the leaves of the wreath on type no. 6 (die O1) 44 8.3 A Judaean oil lamp displaying reeds. Not to scale 45 8.4 Type no. 4 compared to Arundo Donax in Israel. Note how the edges bend on some of the branches like on the coins. Not to scale 46 8.5 A clear example of type no. 14, showing both the star symbol on the obverse and the two appendages on the reverse. Scale 2:1 47 8.6 Composites of five obverse dies of type no. 14 showing the star. Not to scale 48

8.7

1.1

8.8 8.9

9.1 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4

10.5 10.6 a.1 a.2 a.3

All nine reverse dies of type no. 14 showing the left cornucopias. Note that an appendage may also be seen on the right side of some of the palm branches. Not to scale 49 Coin of Hyrcanus i showing a star (?). Not to scale 50 The left cornucopia from a prutah of John Hyrcanus i (1, on left) and the left cornucopia on die R1 of Antipas’ type no. 14 (2, on right; see plate 24) 50 Map of the distribution of Antipas’ coins in Palestine, on modern borders 53 Map of the distribution of Antipas’ coins in the north, on modern borders 54 All coins from the Caesarea Philippi hoard. Not to scale 56 The Antipas coin modified to behave as a weight. Scale 2:1 61 Edges of the Antipas coin modified to behave as a weight. Not to scale 61 Oil lamp possibly featuring a coin of Herod Antipas 62 Largest denomination of the Roman administration imitating Antipas’ series c–e (rpc:No. 485; tjc:No. 347). Scale 2:1 62 Agrippa ii’s imitating Antipas’ series c–e (rpc:No. 2242; tjc:No. 134). Scale 2:1 63 A bronze Gamla coin (Syon 2014b:190, no. 4885) 63 Some examples of possible modern forgeries of Herod Antipas’ coins. Not to scale 66 A possible type no. 6 coin tooled to resemble type no. 10. Not to scale 67 A possible fake coin of Antipas with a countermark. Scale 2:1 67

Tables 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1

Concordance of our coin types with those in literature 8 Division of coin types into series 11 Weight data of different denominations 13 Ratios of the weights by denomination 14 Diameters (mm) of different denominations 14 Weights of coins of Antipas and Roman bronze denominations (g) 15 Value of Antipas’ coins in relation to the silver denarius according to Meshorer’s two systems 15 Relative chronologies of Jewish coins struck between the deaths of Herod and Gaius Caligula 18

xiii

list of figures and tables 4.2 6.1 7.1

Erroneous coin date inscriptions recorded in the literature 20 Quantitative die information 27 Obverse inscriptions on Antipas’ coins (excluding dates). Letter styles are noted. Underlined words indicate possible spelling variants. 34

7.2

8.1 8.2

Reverse inscriptions on Antipas’ coins (excluding dates). Underlined words indicate possible spelling variants. 34 Obverse imagery on Antipas’ coins 41 Reverse imagery on Antipas’ coins 41

Abbreviations General ajc c. cm coll. denom. ed. FGrH g iaa inj inr mm n. no., nos. p., pp. rpc

tjc

transl.

Y. Meshorer. Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 vols. Dix Hills, n.y. 1982. circa centimetre(s) collection denomination edition, editor F. Jacoby. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker iia. Berlin 1926. gram(s) Israel Antiquities Authority Israel Numismatic Journal Israel Numismatic Research millimetre(s) note number, numbers page, pages A. Burnett, M. Amandry and P. Ripollès. Roman Provincial Coinage 1: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44bc–ad 69). London–Paris 1992. Y. Meshorer. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba. Jerusalem–Nyack 2001. translation/translator

Ancient Works Rabbinic Literature bt Babylonian Talmud, Vilna ed. G. Rab. Genesis Rabbah, Theodor and Albeck ed. jt Jerusalem Talmud, Bomberg (Venice) ed. m Mishnah, Bomberg (Venice) ed. Tos. Tosefta (Lieberman ed.)

Josephus aj Antiquities of the Jews bj Jewish War ca Against Apion Vita The Life of Josephus Mac. Books of the Maccabees nt New Testament Matt. Matthew Old Testament Lev. Leviticus Num. Numbers Deut. Deuteronomy Philo Leg. Legatio Ad Gaium (Embassy to Gaius)

Talmudic Tractates ʿAr. ʿArakhin ʿAvod. Zar. ʿAvodah Zarah Bav. Bat. Bava Batra Bav. Kam. Bava Kamma Bav. Metz. Bava Metziʿa Ber. Berakhot Kel. Kelim Kid. Kiddushin Maʿas. Sh. Maʿaser Sheni Meʿi. Meʿila Men. Menaḥoth Ned. Nedarim Rosh Hash. Rosh Hashanah San. Sanhedrin Shab. Shabbat Shev. Shebiʿit Tev. Yom Tevul Yom Ter. Terumot

chapter 1

Introduction The study of Herod Antipas is relevant from both historical and theological perspectives. Research of his life and reign is important for the understanding, inter alia, of firstcentury Galilee and the historical Jesus. Antipas ruled Galilee, a region in the northern part of Palestine, along with Peraea, which lay in Transjordan. Naturally, “Antipas has emerged as the decisive factor of explanation of the socio-economic realities of early firstcentury Galilee” (Jensen 2010:46). Numismatic studies, in particular, are fundamental components of any study of the Galilean economy. The dispersion and reasons for minting of coins of Antipas provide reflections of how trade was carried out. Research on Antipas has become a vital component of understanding the so-called “urban-rural” relationship in Galilee: did Antipas act as a “buffer against direct Roman rule and exploitation, thereby providing a good basis for trade and mutual enrichment of both urban and rural areas” or was he a “typical tyrant extracting heavy taxes from his region for the financing of his building program, which resulted in economic upheaval with increasing indebtedness and tenancy” (Jensen 2010:9)? The study of Antipas also has a theological motivation. Antipas is a prominent character in the nt. It was Antipas who ordered the imprisonment and beheading of John the Baptist. It was Antipas who, like Pilate, was involved in the trial of Jesus. It was also in Antipas’ territories, Galilee and Peraea, that most of Jesus’ and John the Baptist’s ministries took place. “A full understanding of the message of Jesus will require a careful linking of the events described in the Gospels with a reconstruction of the historical context of the life and times of those who surrounded him” (Hoehner 1972:1). While Pontius Pilate has received considerable attention from modern scholars and has been the subject of numerous studies (e.g. Bond 2004; Carter 2003; for numismatic studies, see Fontanille and Gosline 2001; Bond 1996), the corpus of Antipas research is more exiguous. The ancient literary sources on Antipas are few and of varying historical value. It is therefore natural to seek other sources to aid with the study of Antipas. For this purpose, primary sources and those provided by archaeology and numismatics play important roles. Numismatics, in particular, is an often overlooked tool that aids in historical analysis and archaeological research (cf. ajc 2:5). Coins from Antipas’ Galilee provide important information about the

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004362987_002

region. This volume is meant to help expand the current understanding of Herod Antipas, his reign and his territories and its inhabitants by examining and discussing his coinage in detail.

1.1

Documentary Sources for Antipas

As with many important individuals and events that took place in Early Roman Palestine (63 bce–70 ce), most of the primary information we have regarding Herod Antipas is from the works of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 37– c. 100 ce). His works are an invaluable and often unique source for near-eastern history. They provide insight into the society and culture of the late Second Temple period. Josephus was a military leader in Galilee at the beginning of the First Revolt, thereby obtaining first-hand knowledge of the region, albeit after Antipas’ rule (bj 2:568; Vita 28– 29). Josephus’ works are known to contain numerous inaccuracies and discrepancies, caused plausibly by carelessness or ignorance by Josephus or a later scribe. Moreover, Josephus, a Jew writing under Flavian patronage, had good reasons to be tendentious—he had to flatter both his Roman overlords and appease his Jewish comrades. Cohen gives the following examples (2002:240–242): In bj, Josephus primarily wanted to demonstrate to the Romans that only a few revolutionary Jews were to blame for the war. He did everything he could to be an ideal leader and was well-liked by the masses. Josephus was motivated to write aj to demonstrate that the Pharisees were powerful, that the Jews revolted out of necessity and that Agrippa i (contra Agrippa ii) was a loyal Jew. Vita was written to accuse Justus (and his hometown of Tiberias) of being revolutionary and to demonstrate that Josephus was a popular and honourable leader. Fortunately, a few critical studies partially resolve some of the difficulties involving interpreting Josephus’ works (e.g. Bilde 1988; McLaren 1998; Rappaport 1994). Josephus “remains loyal towards his sources as far as their substance, main contents and their most essential data are concerned” (Bilde 1988:196) despite his characteristic tendentiousness. Other relevant literary sources that briefly discuss or mention episodes relating to Antipas (Jensen 2010:101– 125) are works of:

2

chapter 1

figure 1.1 Busts of Philip at about 26 and about 56 years old from his coinage

– Philosopher and historian Nicolaus of Damascus (born c. 64bce) – Roman geographer, philosopher and historian Strabo (c. 64bce–c. 24ce) – The nt (Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts, written during the first or early second century ce) – Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 bce– c. 50ce) – Roman historian Tacitus (c. 55–c. 117ce) – Christian philosopher Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 ce) – Roman historian Dio Cassius (c. 135–235ce) Each of these sources has its own bias. Nonetheless, they usually agree (or at least, do not contradict) with Josephus’ accounts of Antipas. Other later historians mention Antipas (e.g. PseudoHegesippus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Josippon and extracanonical literature), but they have less historical value (Jensen 2010:101 n. 64; cf. Hoehner 1972:105–106, 245–249). Unsurprisingly, the extant ancient literature has no references to Antipas’ coins (cf. Duncan-Jones 1994:97).

1.2

Herod Antipas’ Biography

In this section we present a brief vita of Antipas based on the ancient textual sources mentioned above, with complementary analysis provided by modern studies. This biography provides the historical background for Antipas’ coins, an essential factor for understanding the context in which they were struck and circulated.

Antipas was born to King Herod and Malthace sometime around the early twenties bce.1 Very little is recorded about Antipas’ youth. According to Hoehner, young Antipas was probably educated at home, where his learning would be focused on Jewish law (halakhah) and the scriptures (tanakh), as was common for the time (1972:14; see aj 4:209–211; ca 2:178; ca 1:60; Leg. 210). When Antipas grew older, he probably sailed to Rome to advance his education about Hellenism and Roman culture2 (Braund 1984:10–11; for other sons of Herod, see bj 1:435, 602). During this time, he may have stayed in the house of Pollio3 as his older brothers, Alexander and Aristobulus, previously did (Hoehner 1972:14; cf. aj 15:343). Antipas returned to his father’s kingdom in 7/6 bce (Kokkinos 1998:229) or 5/4 bce (Hoehner 1972:17). Around 5/4 bce (Richardson 1996:294), King Herod discovered plots against his life by his son and heir Antipater. The King imprisoned Antipater and named his youngest son Antipas as his sole benefactor and heir (aj 17:142–146;

1 Richardson believes the year was 21bce (1996:xix), Hoehner suggests 22bce (1972:11) and Kokkinos favours 25bce (1998:225). 2 Hoehner suggests Antipas sailed around 8/7bce with Nicolaus of Damascus on his trip to Rome to reconcile on behalf of Herod after Syllaeus’ accusations that he attacked Nabataea (Hoehner 1972:14). 3 Pollio is generally assumed to have been the orator and historian G. Asinius Pollio (Hoehner 1972:15; Richardson 1996:231 n. 49; Stern 1976:213; Feldman 1953 and others). Syme, in a brief addendum, suggests that Pollio is “perhaps Vedius Pollio” (1961:30). Willrich (1929:117) and Braund (1983:240–241) believe that Pollio was a Jew who resided in Rome and whose identity is now obscure.

3

introduction

figure 1.2 Map of the territories given to Antipas and his brothers

bj 1:645) when he modified his will for the fifth time.4 The monarch’s eldest two remaining sons, Philip (see Figure 1.1) and Archelaus, were not qualified to inherit the kingdom because “they had been the subject of Antipater’s calumnies” (bj 1:646; aj 17:146). Four or five days before King Herod’s death in 4/3 bce,5 Herod changed his will6 for the seventh and final time. The king’s distrust for Philip and Archelaus had worn off. In this new will, Herod named his son Archelaus king and Archelaus’ brothers, Philip and Antipas, tetrarchs7 (aj 17:188–189; bj 1:664, 668).

4 For the numbering of the wills, see Richardson (1996:34–36; cf. Hoehner 1972:269–276). 5 The date of Herod’s death is discussed in Chapter 4. 6 According to Hoehner, this will was actually made up of codicils; however, most authors simply call this a will (Hoehner 1972:275; cf. Richardson 1996:36 n. 12). 7 A tetrarch is a “ruler of a quarter” of a kingdom; cf. Strabo Geographica 12:5:1.

Antipas sailed to Rome with his supporters to petition for the kingdom, after being goaded by Salome (aj 17:224– 225; bj 2:20–21; Nicolaus FGrH 90 136:9). At the same time, Archelaus travelled to Rome as well to defend himself from Antipas’ charges and request ratification of Herod’s will by the Emperor (aj 17:222, 224; bj 2:18, 20; Nicolaus FGrH 90 136:8). After a lengthy trial, Archelaus, with the help of Nicolaus of Damascus and other supporters, was eventually granted the title of “ethnarch”8 (aj 17:317; bj 2:93; cf. Nicolaus FGrH 90 136:8). Archelaus was given aegis over Judaea, Samaria and Idumea. Though Archelaus was not a king like his father, the emperor gave Archelaus the chance to become king “if he proved himself worthy” (Nicolaus FGrH 90 136:11, translation from Stern 1976:255; aj 17:317; bj 2:93). Antipas and Philip received the titles and territories assigned to them in their father’s last will (see Figure 1.2; aj 17:228–317; bj 2:23–93; Nicolaus FGrH 90 136:11). Hippos and Gadara, the two cities of the Decapolis that

8 Ethnarch means “ruler of a nation” or a “ruler of a tribe.”

4

chapter 1

were under Herod’s control, were placed under the authority of the Syrian governor (aj 17:320; bj 2:79; cf. Nicolaus FGrH 90 136:10). After this ordeal in Rome, Antipas returned to Palestine and moved to Galilee, which, along with Peraea, made up his tetrarchy. Though Galilee and Peraea were not physically connected, “it is reasonable to suppose that there was freedom of movement between them” (Hoehner 1972:50– 51). “Like all the Herods, Herod Antipas delighted in magnificent architecture” (Schürer 1973:342). Sometime around 6–9ce (Kokkinos 1998:234; cf. Hoehner 1972:85), Antipas finished refortifying Sepphoris (Ṣippori) and named it “Autokratoris”9 in honour of Augustus. Josephus wrote that Antipas made Sepphoris “the ornament of Galilee” (aj 18:27). Antipas also walled the city of Betharamphtha in Peraea and renamed it “Julias” after Julia, mother of Tiberius, in c. 13ce (aj 18:27; bj 2:168; Hoehner 1972:9). Antipas’ ties with Rome strengthened after Tiberius succeeded Augustus as emperor in 14ce. To demonstrate his friendship, Antipas built the city of Tiberias in the emperor’s honour (aj 18:36; bj 2:168; G. Rab. 23:17). This city, built on the western coast of the Sea of Galilee, replaced Sepphoris as the seat of power in Antipas’ domain (Vita 37). Tiberias was close to Ḥammat, a site famous for its hot springs (e.g. bj 2:614, 4:11; Vita 85; Pliny, Naturalis Historia 5:71; m Shab. 3:4). Unfortunately for Antipas, his grand plans for Tiberias quickly hit a stumbling block. Antipas had unknowingly established Tiberias over an ancient burial ground. The land was ritually impure for Jews (aj 18:38), so many religious and priestly Jews refused to settle there. This made populating the new city difficult for Antipas. Antipas forced or paid people to settle there (aj 18:37–38). Jews eventually began settling in Tiberias in great numbers some time during the second century ce after the city was purified by Rabbi Shimʿon Bar Yoḥai (jt Shab. 33b–34a; G. Rab. 79:6 and others; for detailed treatment, see Levine 1978). Tiberias eventually became the site of the Sanhedrin (bt Rosh Hash. 31a–b). Antipas fell in love with Herodias, the wife of one of his brothers10 (aj 18:109). Herodias agreed to marry Antipas on 9

10

The meaning of “Autokratoris” is not fully understood. The title could indicate Sepphoris was “autonomous” or that it was Antipas’ capital. Alternatively, it could be a name that somehow honoured Augustus or his grandson Gaius Caesar (Hoehner 1972:86 n. 1; Jensen 2010:91 n. 53). The title “Autokrator” is inscribed on three coin types of Trajan from Sepphoris (Rosenberger 1977:60–61, nos. 3–5). Josephus (aj 18:110) states that Herodias was Herod’s (i.e. son of Mariamme ii and King Herod) wife, while Matthew (14:3) and

the condition that he divorce his wife, Phasaelis (Kokkinos 1998:231), daughter of Aretas iv of Nabataea (aj 18:110). Unbeknownst to Antipas, Phasaelis got wind of his plan. Phasaelis asked Antipas if she could visit Machaerus, an important fortress city in Peraea, near the border of Nabataea (aj 18:111). Once in Machaerus, she entered her father’s territory and she told him about Antipas’ arrangement to divorce her (aj 18:112). Aretas considered a divorce to be an insult that would bring shame to the Nabataean royal house. Subsequent Nabataean hostilities and provocations led to a war between Antipas and the Nabateans around 36 ce (Hoehner 1972:257), ending decisively with Antipas’ defeat (aj 18:113–114). These events piqued Antipas. He reported Aretas’ aggression to Tiberius. Angered by Aretas’ actions, the Emperor ordered L. Vitellius, a governor of Syria (aj 18:88; Tacitus Histories 1:9), to kill or capture Aretas (aj 18:115). However, Tiberius died before war started and Vitellius, fearing he no longer had authority to battle with the Nabateans, ended his campaign before it began (aj 18:124). According to the nt, Antipas had an antagonistic relationship with Jesus and John the Baptist. The Synoptic Gospels (viz. Matthew, Mark and Luke) indicate that Herodias convinced Antipas to imprison John around 30 or 31 ce (Hoehner 1972:131) for condemning their marriage (Matt. 14:3; Mark 6:18; Luke 3:19). Josephus, on the other hand, records that Antipas feared John could influence the people to rebel (aj 18:118). Sometime later, during Antipas’ birthday celebration, Herodias’ daughter (traditionally presumed to be Salome; see Figure 1.3; Hoehner 1972:151–154; Kokkinos 1998:232) danced for his invited guests11 (Mark 6:22; Matt. 14:6). Antipas was pleased by this and promised to do whatever she asked. Herodias slyly prompted Salome to ask for the “head of John the Baptist” (Mark 6:22–25; Matt. 14:6–8). Antipas became distressed after hearing Salome’s request, but he nonetheless honoured his oath. John was beheaded in prison and his head

11

Mark (6:17) write that she was Philip’s wife. Hoehner (1972:131– 136) gives several possible explanations for this inconsistency: (1) The Gospels incorrectly wrote that Herodias was married to Philip, (2) the Gospels did not originally claim she was married to Philip but the text was corrupted later, (3) Herodias married Herod, then Philip, then Antipas and (4) Herod, son of Mariamme ii was also named Philip. Hoehner prefers the fourth solution (1972:133–136) while Kokkinos favours the penultimate one (1998:223, 266–268). Jensen writes “the standard solution has been either to prefer Josephus over Mark and Matthew, or to combine the evidence proposing that Herodias’ first husband was named Herod-Philip” (2010:44). Mark describes these guests as “court officials, military commanders, and leaders of Galilee” (6:21).

5

introduction

figure 1.3 Coin of Aristobulus (king of Lesser Armenia) featuring Salome on the reverse (tjc:No. 365). Scale 3:2.

was brought on a platter (Mark 6:26–28; Matt. 14:9–11). Many, including Josephus, appear to have believed that Antipas’ defeat at the hands of the Nabataeans was divine punishment for John’s execution (aj 18:116, 119). Jesus famously called Antipas “that fox” when he was told by Pharisees that Antipas was plotting his death (Luke 13:31–32; for a discussion on this topic, see Hoehner 1972:343–347). Antipas is mentioned in the nt for his role in the trial and interrogation of Jesus. When Jesus was arrested, he was sent to the prefect12 Pontius Pilate who, upon hearing that Jesus was a Galilean, sent him to Antipas (Luke 23:1– 7). Pilate and Antipas both agreed that Jesus had done nothing to deserve death (Matt. 27:23; Mark 15:14; Luke 23:13–15; cf. John 18:38, 19:6). But to appease the crowd who wanted Jesus killed, Pilate acquiesced and had Jesus crucified (Matt. 27:22–26; Mark 15:12–15; John 19:6, 15–16; Luke 23:23–25). A communal prayer led by Peter and John in Acts condemns Antipas, Pilate, the gentiles and the people of Israel for conspiring against Jesus (4:27). In the “late twenties to 32” ce (Schwartz 1990:47), Antipas began financially supporting his nephew, Agrippa i, after Agrippa returned from Rome, impecunious and debt-ridden (aj 18:143–149). Agrippa was given residence, an allowance and the position of agoranomos (commissioner of markets) of Tiberias (aj 18:149). Josephus records that Antipas took advantage of Agrippa’s poverty by mocking and insulting him (aj 18:150). In about 32 ce (Schwartz 1990:49), Agrippa became fed up with Antipas’ abuses and left to live with his friend L. Pomponius Flaccus (aj 18:151), a governor of Syria (aj 18:151). Agrippa ended up falling from Flaccus’ favour and left Syria (aj 18:151–154). After 12

A limestone inscription was found at Caesarea Maritima that refers to Pilate as a prefect of Palestine (Vardaman 1962). Tacitus (Annals 15:44) and Josephus (bj 2:169) both refer to Pilate as a procurator, so it is possible Pilate held this title at some point, possibly under the reign of Claudius (Bond 2004:12; cf. Vardaman 1962:71). Carter suggests “prefect” and “procurator” were essentially interchangeable titles of governors, the former being a military and the latter being a civilian title (2003:44). Due to the uncertainty regarding Pilate’s title or titles, we refer to him as a prefect throughout this text.

many more debt-related difficulties, Agrippa returned to Rome (aj 18:155–160) in 33 or 34 ce (Schwartz 1990:47). Unfortunately for Antipas, this was not the last he saw of Agrippa. Around 33 ce (Kokkinos 1998:359), Pilate installed votive golden shields in the palace of Herod in Jerusalem. The reason for their installation, records Philo, was “not so much to honour Tiberius as to annoy the multitude” (Leg. 299). A delegation of dignitaries and members of the Herodian family was sent to Pilate to protest these shields. The delegation included four sons of King Herod, “who in dignity and good fortune were not inferior to a king” (Leg. 300). Antipas was “definitely” part of this delegation (Kokkinos 1998:195 n. 80) and was possibly even the leader (Jensen 2010:106–109). When Pilate did not remove the shields, “the magnates” informed Tiberius about the situation (Leg. 303). The emperor “wrote to Pilate with a host of reproaches and rebukes for his audacious violation of precedent and bade him at once take down the shields and have them transferred from the capital to Caesarea” (Leg. 305).13 While in Rome, a servant overheard Agrippa stating that he wished Tiberius would give up the throne to his friend Caligula, who Agrippa believed was a more capable ruler. The servant reported the conversation to Tiberias, who had Agrippa imprisoned. Tiberius died about half a year after this ordeal and was succeeded by Caligula in 37 ce (aj 18:161–236; bj 2:178–180; Dio Cassius, Roman History 59:8:2). At this point, Agrippa’s luck changed for the better. Agrippa was freed from prison and awarded a chain of gold equal in weight to the iron chain he wore in prison. He was further granted the former territories of Philip and the tetrarch Lysanias, and the title of king (aj 18:237–239; cf. bj 2:181). King Agrippa returned to Judaea in the summer of 38 ce (aj 18:238; Schwartz 1990:55). Agrippa’s return roused Herodias’ jealousy. She was infuriated that Agrippa, Antipas’ junior by a generation, was established as a king, while the tenured Antipas stayed 13

Schwartz believes that Philo embellished the story by adding Tiberius’ intervention (2013:25; see aj 18:55–62).

6

chapter 1

a tetrarch. Herodias goaded her husband to sail to Rome to petition for the crown (aj 18:240–246; bj 2:182). Agrippa, however, found out about the journey. He quickly sent accusations to Rome that Antipas had conspired with Sejanus against former emperor Tiberius and was in partnership with Parthian king Artabanus14 (aj 18:250). As proof for the latter, Agrippa alleged that Antipas had weapon stockpiles sufficient for arming 70,000 (aj 18:250). Upon questioning by Caligula, Antipas admitted that the arms stockpiles existed and was banished to Lugdunum15 in 39/40 ce with Herodias (see Chapter 4). All of his wealth and territory was transferred to Agrippa (aj 18:252, 255; cf. bj 2:183). The rest of Antipas’ life is uncertain.16 Antipas ruled a total of about 43 years, a span exceeded only by Agrippa ii among the Herodians. Unlike his father Herod (and brother Archelaus), Antipas’ rule was not marred by massacres or odium. Antipas is generally regarded as a mild and unambitious ruler who was led into trouble on several occasions by his desirous and jealous wife Herodias (Jensen 2010:267; Hoehner 1972:264–265).

1.3

Economy of Galilee

Scholars, especially those interested in understanding early Christianity and Galilean Jewry, have placed a great deal of importance on understanding the culture of firstcentury Galilee. Therefore, the economics of Galilee has been a subject of significant modern research and debate. It is beyond the scope of this book to cover all the points and contributions made by authors on this subject. This section will briefly summarize some of the main ideas and conclusions. Recent archaeological findings suggest that Galileans were not, as many presume, mostly poor and downtrodden (Aviam 2013:43). For instance, Aviam writes that exca14

15

16

Schwartz writes that Caligula would care little about the accusation that Antipas was in league with Sejanus. However, the accusation that Antipas was friendly with the Parthians possibly had foundation and would have “touched a perennially sensitive Roman nerve” (1990:58–59). Josephus writes in aj that Antipas was exiled to Lugdunum in Gaul (aj 18:252), but in bj that he was exiled to Spain (2:183). It is possible that Josephus erred or one of the texts were corrupted (Braund 1984:177 n. 76; Kokkinos 1998:235). Alternatively, the city could be Lungdunum Convenarum, which was located on the Spanish border (Hoehner 1972:262 n. 1; but see Jensen 2010:94 n. 56). Dio Cassius implies that Antipas was killed by Caligula in exile (Roman History 59:8:2), but this is likely erroneous (Schürer 1973:353 n. 43; cf. Hoehner 1972:263 n. 4).

vations indicate that Yodefat was “populated by middle to upper-middle class persons” (2013:43). Wealth at Gamla is clear by the presence of miqvaʾot (ritual baths), an oil press, a flour mill and houses with frescoes (Aviam 2013:43–44; see also Syon 2014a:9–10). Galilee was a particularly fertile region of Palestine. The Galileans traded agricultural crops and fish from the Sea of Galilee. Ancient historians mentioned the agricultural importance of Galilee (discussed in detail in Chapter 8). Agriculture was hardly the only means of income for Galileans. According to Strange, some small landowners could work for someone else or “develop a specialty on the side” (1997:47). In places where land was not fit for agriculture, such as Kfar Ḥananiah, residents took on other occupations, such as pottery or the production of olive oil (Adan-Bayewitz 1993:235–236) or wool/clothing (Aviam 2013:27). Pottery finds are useful for understanding trading patterns since they are uncovered in nearly every ancient Galilean site and their provenance can often be analyzed accurately. Adan-Bayewitz, using neutron activation analysis, found that Galilean pottery was generally made in Kfar Ḥananiah (1993). The percent of Kfar Ḥananiah ware at a site is inversely proportional to the distance of the site from Kfar Ḥananiah. Apparently, the size of the site does not affect this relationship. These trends indicate continual trade between urban and rural sites of Galilee (AdanBayewitz 1993:219). Galileans were constantly interacting with their Judaean neighbours in the south. Judaea was the religious and ethnic capital for the Jews. Trade with Judaea was a necessity due to temple pilgrimages during the three annual harvest festivals. The high volume of Judaean coins in Galilee is indicative of export of Galilean goods to Judaea (Syon 2015:184). Ostensibly, the Jews of Galilee preferred trade with their Judaean compatriots rather than with nearby pagans. Berlin describes how Kfar Ḥananiah ware and Eastern Sigillata a (a red-slipped pottery) were present in both Jewish and gentile sites of Galilee. Around the turn of the first century ce, Eastern Sigillata a abruptly disappears in Jewish sites, but continues to be found in pagan cities and towns (Berlin 2002:63). She posits that this unusual behaviour occured because of the anti-Roman (and pro-Jewish) sentiment of the Galileans. The preference of local over pagan wares, she argues, was a cultural statement (Berlin 2002:67–69). Syon sees a similar pattern reflected in the coin distribution. Antipas’ coins arrived in Philip’s territories in greater quantities than Philip’s arrived in Galilee. This “can be seen as a preference of the Jews inhabiting central Golan for trading with Jew-

introduction

ish Tiberias and its non-figurative coins rather than with pagan Paneas, coupled with a relative proximity to the former” (Syon 2015:178). Apparently Jewish sites around NysaScythopolis also seem to have preferred to trade with the Jewish regions (Syon 2015:179–180). Adan-Bayewitz et al. have demonstrated that the majority of oil lamps in the north were made in Jerusalem until the end of the Jewish War (2008:72). They suggest Jerusalemite oil lamps were preferred for religious reasons; lighting lamps was “the most definitive act signifying the onset of the Sabbath” (2008:75). It is not hard to imagine that other ritual items would be purchased from Judaea out of necessity. One additional reason for the economic relationship between Judaea and Galilee is likely similar trade and tort laws of the two regions. Consequently, transactions were likely easier to enforce and regulate.

7 Even though Herod is famous for his impressive building activity, he did not undertake major construction projects in Galilee (Richardson 1996:175; see Aviam 2013: 16). When Antipas succeeded his father, he began extensive building in Galilee for the first time since the Hasmonean period. Examples of several large structures in Tiberias dating from the early first century ce include a theatre, a mansion (Antipas’ palace?), a monumental archway and a stadium (Root 2014:108–110). Aviam believes that Antipas’ construction projects helped the economy by providing jobs, creating trade and injecting money into the market (cf. Aviam 2013:20). Root argues that Galilee’s economy was strengthened since Antipas did not usually “fund expensive (and unnecessary) building projects,” “fight unnecessary wars” or “engage in various forms of rent-seeking activity” (2014:160–161).

chapter 2

The Coins 2.1

Research on the Coins of Antipas

Coins of Antipas have been known and studied for more than three centuries. The earliest research on the coins of Antipas began in the Renaissance, as academic interest in numismatics began to take hold. Usually, Antipas’ coins were mentioned in passing or without much elaboration. Perhaps the most detailed of the early publications dealing with coins of Antipas was Rigord’s Dissertation historique sur une médaille d’Herodes Antipas (1689), in which the author used a coin of Antipas (type no. 19) to confirm Jesus’ birth and death dates. The first major numismatic publication that included Antipas’ coins was Eckhel’s groundbreaking Doctrina Numorum Veterum, wherein four1 different coin types are described (1828:486–490). In 1881, Madden reported 132 different types (1881:118–122; see Figure 2.1) and around a century later, six more coin types were known (ajc 2:242– 243). The last coin of the multidenominational series was published in an addendum to ajc in 1990, after several examples of Antipas’ smallest denomination were discovered, dating to his 43rd year (Meshorer 1990:108). Meshorer’s 2001 book includes all 20 of these coins (tjc:226–228). Finally, in 2006, Hendin published a small bronze coin which he attributes to Antipas, completing the current numismatic corpus of Herod Antipas. Today, 21 coin types of Antipas are known. Other literature focuses on analyzing Antipas’ coins’ technical aspects (e.g. their distribution based upon archaeological data) rather than physical appearance (e.g. iconography or epigraphy). Syon’s doctoral dissertation discusses at length and summarizes the coin finds throughout Galilee and the Golan, with a particular emphasis on Gamla (2004). The former half of his dissertation, focusing on coins found in Gamla, was updated and published in Gamla excavation reports (Syon 2014b). The latter half of his dissertation, which focused on coin distribution in Galilee, was also recently updated and published (Syon 2015). In addition, systematic excavation reports of 1 One coin has the date ΜΓ (our type no. 18, year 43 = 39/40ce) misread as ΜΔ (year 44 = 40/1 ce; Eckhel 1828:486–487; cf. Hoehner 1972:262 n. 4), so Eckhel in fact refers to three true types. Similar date errors are discussed below (Section 4.3). 2 Madden accepted Eckhel’s incorrect reading of a date on one coin as well (1881:No. 13); see n. 1.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004362987_003

table 2.1

Concordance of our coin types with those in literature

Coin type no. Reference 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Hendin 2003–2006 rpc:No. 4918, tjc:No. 75 rpc:No. 4919, tjc:No. 76 rpc:No. 4920, tjc:No. 77 rpc:No. 4921, tjc:No. 78 rpc:No. 4922, tjc:No. 79 rpc:No. 4923, tjc:No. 80 rpc:No. 4924, tjc:No. 81 rpc:No. 4925, tjc:No. 82 rpc:No. 4926, tjc:No. 83 rpc:No. 4927, tjc:No. 84 rpc:No. 4928, tjc:No. 85 rpc:No. 4929, tjc:No. 86 rpc:No. 4930, tjc:No. 87 rpc:No. 4931, tjc:No. 88 rpc:No. 4932, tjc:No. 89 rpc:No. 4933, tjc:No. 90 rpc:No. 4934, tjc:No. 91 rpc:No. 4935, tjc:No. 92 rpc:No. 4936, tjc:No. 93 rpc:No. 4937, tjc:No. 94

sites throughout Judaea and neighbouring realms provide us with context of the circulation of, as well as important technical and statistical information about Antipas’ coins and the economy of his territories. Some other important numismatic books that analyze coins of Antipas include Hill 1914:xcvii, Reifenberg 1973:19, Meshorer 1967:72–75 and Hendin 2010:245–255. The coins of Antipas are also discussed in non-numismatic literature, e.g. Jensen 2010:187–217 and Hoehner 1972:10 n. 5, 97 n. 2. Most numismatic books discuss Antipas’ coins only briefly. For example, Reifenberg (1973:19) and Hill (1914: xcvii) each allocate one paragraph to coins of Antipas. This is the first volume dedicated specifically to the coins of Herod Antipas.

9

the coins

figure 2.1 A page from Madden’s “History of Jewish Coinage and of Money in the Old and New Testament” (1864:97)

2.2 Herod Antipas’ Numismatic Corpus Herod Antipas minted 21 different coin types over the span of 39 years. For convenience, each coin type is assigned a number. This number ascends both chronologically and by denomination, as was done in tjc. Our coin type numbers are defined in Table 2.1. The best examples we have found of each coin type of Herod Antipas’ are shown in Figure 2.2 and the composite images of each type are in the “Index of connection tables” plate. The denominations and dates of the coin types are discussed below.

2.3 Attribution of Type No. 1 We are aware of example of type no. 1 (Hendin 2003– 2006). The coin’s provenance is unknown. It is not obvious that Antipas minted this coin since it is different from other coins of Antipas in many respects. According to the inscription on type no. 1 (HPW TeTPA[PX?]HC; see Chapter 7), the coin appears to have been minted by a tetrarch named Herod. Only two people named Herod known to us were tetrarchs: Herod (i.e. Antipas’ father)3 and Herod Antipas. 3 Herod was established as a tetrarch in 42/1 bce (bj 1:244; aj 14:326).

From a purely technical viewpoint, this coin more closely resembles coins of Antipas’ father Herod than of Antipas. In respect to fabric (set of flan characteristics) and weight, type no. 1 resembles King Herod’s smallest denomination. Most critically, type no. 1 has bevelled edges, a feature often associated with the Jerusalem mint (Kushnir-Stein 2000–2002). Two cut edges are present on opposite sides of type no. 1 where the (struck?) flan was separated from the strip of flans, as is commonly seen on prutot. Although we know of no coins definitely4 struck by Herod during his tetrarchy, he struck vast quantities of small bronzes in Jerusalem during his reign as king. Antipas’ previously-known coins were not minted in the prutah denominational standard and are stylistically distinct from type no. 1. Notably, a mould used to cast bevelled flans of coins of about the same size as type no. 1 was found at Sepphoris (see Section 5.1). We therefore do not need to view

4 Meshorer (tjc: 62) asserted that the dated (year-three) coins of Herod were issued during his tetrarchy and that the year-three references the beginning of that tetrarchy in 42/1 bce. This idea was rejected by Richardson (1996:212) and Ariel and Fontanille (2012:90– 91).

10

figure 2.2 Examples of each coin type of Herod Antipas. Scale 3:4. Image sources: 1: D. Hendin (1.58g); 2: A. Sofaer (17.76 g); 3: Dr. P. Tan (10.47 g); 4: Dr. P. Tan (4.05g); 5: Private (1.77g); 6: American Numismatic Society (13.49 g); 7: Formerly D. Hendin; 8: American Numismatic Society (3.20g); 9: A. Sofaer (1.18g); 10: J. Clark (10.79 g.); 11: J. Bershad; 12: Dr. P. Tan (3.71 g); 13: Goldberg 41 (2007) no. 2423, Superior (1993) no. 1969; 14: A. Sofaer (12.60 g); 15: E. Singer (5.93 g); 16: A. Sofaer (3.55g); 17: Dr. P. Tan (1.69g); 18: American Numismatic Society (12.58 g); 19: M. Weiss (6.10 g); 20: Formerly D. Hendin; 21: Dr. P. Tan (1.67g)

chapter 2

11

the coins

Jerusalem as having the only mint in Palestine that produced small bevelled coins. There are compelling reasons to support the attribution of this coin to Antipas (cf. Hendin 2003–2006:60–61): 1.

2.

3.

Ariel argues convincingly that the W form of omega was used exclusively on Herod’s later coins while the form Ω was used on Herod’s earlier coins. The W form was preferred on all the subsequent coins struck in Jerusalem under Archelaus, the governors and Agrippa i (Ariel 2000–2002:119–120; Ariel and Fontanille 2012:123–124). Since the W form appears on type no. 1, it is unlikely it was struck by Herod before he was a king. Herod and his brother Phasael were probably subordinate to the coinless Hyrcanus ii and were not in a position to mint coins. When Hyrcanus ii and Phasael were imprisoned by the Parthians in 40 bce, the Parthians controlled Jerusalem, including the Hasmonean mint. The letter Δ on the obverse possibly indicates the year. If so, this coin was struck in the minting tetrarch’s fourth year in power. Herod became a tetrarch in late 42 or early 41bce, so his fourth year would coincide with 39/8bce. However, Herod’s de jure rule began in 40bce so he would not have considered himself to be a tetrarch after this date. To bolster this reasoning, by his third regnal year (= 38/7bce; Ariel and Fontanille 2012:89) Herod was already minting coinage that referred to him as king. It is not entirely certain that Δ indicates the year (Kushnir-Stein 2008:127 n. 3) (see Chapter 4). Ariel and Bijovsky advanced that the letter Δ may stand for Diocaesarea (Διοκαισάρεια) (forthcoming). Since the extant inscriptions mentioning the name Diocaesarea all appear during the second century ce, it is sometimes believed that this toponym was given to Sepphoris around this time (e.g. Chancey 2002:73;

Schürer 1979:176). Dalman, however, argued that the name was given when Antipas refortified the site (1935:75). Goldstein gives a different explanation for the Δ. The name Herod (HPWΔ) on the reverse lacks an identifiable Δ (ostensibly due to lack of room on that side). Goldstein suggests that the Δ on the obverse may be the missing letter (personal communication). The points above do not conclusively prove the minting authority for type no. 1, but they establish that other possibilities exist for the reading of the inscription on this coin—besides that of Hendin. The above two possible readings do not argue against the identification of the coin as having been struck by Antipas. We therefore conclude that it is more likely that Antipas minted the coin type than that his father did. Thus, we attribute this coin type to Antipas.

2.4 Division of the Coins into Groups The coin types of Antipas may be divided into intuitive groups (see the “Index of connection tables” plate). We assign the first six letters (a–f) to represent each of the six years in which Antipas minted. Each one of these years of minting is referred to as a “series” (see Table 2.2). table 2.2

Division of coin types into series

Series

Date (regnal year)

Coin no(s).

a b c d e f

1 bce/1 ce (?) (Δ = 4 [?]) 20/1 ce (KΔ = 24) 29/30 ce (ΛΓ = 33) 30/1 ce (ΛΔ = 34) 33/4 ce (ΛZ = 37) 39/40 ce (MΓ = 43)

1 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12, 13 14, 15, 16, 17 18, 19, 20, 21

chapter 3

Denominations and Metrologies The primary denomination struck by Judaean minting authorities was a small bronze coin, originally modeled after the Seleucid chalkous (Hendin 2009b:106). This denomination was minted in large numbers by the Hasmonean kings, the Herodians and later, the Roman governors of Judaea. This denomination was probably called a prutah (‫( )ְפּרוָּטה‬plural prutot), which is a name of a type of small coin in rabbinic literature. The Mishnah and Tosefta, redacted in the late second century or early third century ce, comprise of rabbinic discussion from the late Second Temple period until the second century ce (Safrai 1987:215–216). Thus the Tannaitic pericopes relating to prutot of first-century Palestine, at least, are relevant historically. Talmudic-era literature (c. 400–c. 600ce) mentions and discusses prutot as well, but these later sources need to be examined with greater care than the Tannaitic works. However, due to the fact that the Talmudic-era works were also based on earlier oral tradition and discussion, the general conclusions of pericopes discussing prutot may be reasonably accurate. The Gospels refer to a denomination called a lepton (λεπτὸν) (plural lepta), which was apparently the smallest in circulation (Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2). While some consider a lepton to have equalled a half-prutah (e.g. tjc:32; Hendin 2009b:106–107), wild weight variances in these coins (Hendin 2009b:109, Table 1) lead others to believe that a prutah equalled a lepton (e.g. rpc:589; see Ariel and Fontanille 2012:58). Whatever the case, a lepton was equal to half of a quadrans (Mark 12:42). The purchasing power of a prutah can be discerned by certain passages in early rabbinic writings. Although the exact dates of the passages are unknown, the value of the prutah seems to have remained rather consistent1 (cf. ajc 1:59 n. 52). Prutot were able to purchase small, common items. Ordinary pomegranates and citrons were each valued at

1 Even if the value of a prutah compared to other denominations was not static chronologically or geographically, as suggested by Ariel and Fontanille (2012:49), there was certainly a consensus amongst the rabbis that prutot were diminutive denominations. As small change, prutot probably did not radically change in purchasing power over the centuries they were used (cf. ajc 1:59 n. 52). It is of note that prutot were used at least up to the middle of the Talmudic era (for a summary of other relevant literature, see Syon 2015:45–46).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004362987_004

one prutah, though a large citron would be worth double (m Meʿi. 6:4). It can be discerned from m Kel 3:2 that the diameter of a prutah was comparable to that of the mouth of an oil lamp.2 The paltriness of prutot and lepta was stressed in the ancient literature. For example, Mark (12:41–44) and Luke (21:1–4) both recount the narrative of the “Widow’s Mite.” In this narrative, Jesus explained to his disciples that the impecunious woman who donated just a few lepta truly gave more than a wealthy person who might contribute significant wealth. Similar sentiments are recorded in rabbinic literature. The Gemara states that stealing even someone’s prutah is like “taking away his life” (bt Bav. Kam. 119a). Elsewhere, the Gemara declares that a trial over even a prutah is like a trial over one hundred mina (bt San. 8a)—the latter denomination being worth about an ox (m Men. 13:8). Numerous similar examples exist throughout the Talmudic corpus (see Sukenik 1968:50). In both Christian and early rabbinic sources, small Jewish bronze coins were considered to be the paradigmatic paltry denomination (Hendin 2009b:119). As well as full and half-prutah denominations, other denominations were minted in integral multiples. During the Hasmonean period, 8-, 4- and 2-prutot were struck. When Herod assumed power, he also minted multiple denominations. Even knowing the weights of the denominations (Hendin 2009b:115), it is difficult to determine their relative values. Meshorer suggests the denominations were 8-, 4-, 2- and 1-prutot like the denominations of Antigonus. Ariel and Fontanille add that the dated denominations of Herod may have followed a 1 : 2⁄3 : 1⁄2 : 1⁄3 or 1 : 3⁄4 : 1⁄2 : 1⁄4, relationship, corresponding respectively to the Aeginetic and the Attic systems of reckoning (2012:52). They “conclude that the denominational relationships between Herod’s dated coins are not yet established” (2012:52). Archelaus struck prutot and two-prutot in his father’s established mint in Jerusalem. Philip’s coins were not multiples of prutot, but were perhaps based on Roman standards (Strickert 1995:173–178; cf. tjc:90).

2 Usually, prutot have diameters between 1–2cm (cf. Syon 2004:43); Judaean oil lamps from around 2bce–2ce have wick holes of diameters ranging from 1⁄2–2cm (see e.g. Hayes 1980:Nos. 44–69; other examples in Sussman 1982).

13

denominations and metrologies table 3.1

Weight data of different denominations3

Denom. Type no. Series Sample size Average weight (g) Standard deviation Standard error of the mean i

2 6 10 14 18 Total

b c d e f

12 32 19 17 25 105

15.96 11.51 12.79 12.36 12.51 12.61

1.70 1.45 1.68 2.10 1.46 2.06

0.49 0.26 0.39 0.50 0.29 0.20

ii

3 7 11 15 19 Total

b c d e f

24 32 30 54 43 183

7.79 5.99 5.97 6.10 6.24 6.30

1.23 0.81 0.72 0.76 0.81 1.03

0.25 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.08

iii

4 8 12 16 20 Total

b c d e f

53 19 7 9 15 103

3.96 3.59 3.04 3.12 2.96 3.61

0.73 0.78 0.52 0.33 0.44 0.77

0.10 0.18 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.08

iv

5 9 13 17 21 Total

b c d e f

18 6 6 5 2 37

1.67 1.68 1.65 1.51 1.52 1.65

0.38 0.99 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.48

0.09 0.40 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.08

3.1

Series a (Coin No. 1)

Coin no. 1 (1.58g, 14mm) has the same approximate size, weight4 and fabric as prutot minted by Archelaus, which were probably minted around the same time as this coin (Hendin 2003–2006:58). As described in Section 6.5.1, this coin was struck on a strip and the edges were bevelled (2006:60) from the flan casting (see Ariel 2012:55–57), which was very typical of prutot of the era (Kushnir-Stein 3 Outliers were removed by first manually removing all the coins that were underweight clearly because of excessive tooling (see Appendix a), flan defects or corrosion. Afterwards, Grubbs’ test (α = 0.05) was used to remove other outliers that may have come from erroneous weight recordings. In total, 14 coins were removed as outliers. 4 Hendin records that the average weights of Archaleus’ prutot tjc:No. 72 and tjc:Nos. 73–74 are 1.19 ± 0.01 g and 2.06 ± 0.02g respectively (2009b:115).

2000–2002:79–80; cf. Ariel 2012:57–59). From a technical standpoint, there is little doubt that type no. 1 is a prutah.

3.2 Series b–f Each series from b to f had four different denominations (i–iv). Based on the fabric and minting style, it is clear that these coins were not based on the prutah system. Traditionally, these are simply given the relative values of 1 : 1⁄2 : 1⁄4 : 1⁄8 in the literature (tjc:84; ajc 2:37–38; cf. Kindler 1961:50). We recorded the averages and standard deviations of the weights of Antipas’ coins collected for the die study in Table 3.1. Coin types of particular rarity allow for only a small sample size. Some error is introduced into the measurements by the fact that worn coins generally weigh less than unworn ones.

14 Several interesting observations may be made from this data. First, we see that the weights of each denomination may vary significantly. This indicates that Antipas’ coins were probably struck al marco (i.e. a specific number of coins was minted using a certain amount of metal) and not al pezzo (i.e. the weight of each coin was individually adjusted). This is consistent with the rest of Judaean bronze coinage (Hendin 2009b:107). This method was cheaper and ostensibly, small weight fluctuations were of little concern to the general public. Second, the magnitude of the standard deviation increases with the weight of the coin type. The greater the weight of the coin type, the less significant is a given weight fluctuation. Smaller coins fluctuate more relative to the average weight than larger coins. Third, denominations i and ii of series b (types 2 and 3, respectively) weighed substantially more on average than in the later series. We were able to determine the weight ratios between each denomination. To express the values of the ratios as close to integer values we define denomination i as 8 units (see Table 3.2). The data supports the view that denominations i–iv form an 8:4:2:1 (= 1 : 1⁄2 : 1⁄4 : 1⁄8) weight ratio in all the series. In the unweighted ratio of the entire sample, denomination iii appears to be unusually higher than its theoretical value largely because of the relatively high weight of series c. Taking a weighted average of the ratios—treating each series with a statistical weight equal to the sample size—makes the empirical ratio for type iii much closer to the theoretical value of 2. The diameters of Antipas’ coins are approximately equal to the diameter of the dies used to strike them, unlike some coins of Herod and Antigonus (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:81–83). The diameters of the coins are fairly consistent within each denomination (see Table 3.3). The flans are not perfectly circular and may fluctuate up to c. 2mm. We have not observed any systematic change in diameter of the respective denominations in different series. Interestingly, the diameters of some coins varied enough so that in rare cases two different denominations may have the same diameter. Archelaus minted using the prutah system because his mint in Jerusalem had the technology to do so when he became ethnarch. Jerusalem had been minting coins using this Judaean standard since John Hyrcanus i’s reign (135–104bce). What denominational standard was used by Antipas? Antipas, like Philip, did not have an established mint in his lands and had the ability to decide the denominational standard.

chapter 3 table 3.2

Ratios of the weights by denomination

Series

Denom. iii

i

ii

b c d e f

8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00

3.90 4.16 3.73 3.95 3.99

1.98 2.49 1.90 2.02 1.89

0.84 1.17 1.03 0.98 0.97

Total

8.00

4.00

2.29

1.05

Weighted ratio

8.00

3.95

2.06

0.95

table 3.3

iv

Diameters (mm) of different denominations

Denom. Sample size Average diameter Standard deviation

i

ii

iii

iv

28 23 1.2

49 19 1.6

22 15 1.3

18 12 1.2

In the eastern Roman empire, coins were rarely marked with denominational markings, and the ancient literature and inscriptions seldom mention the denominations in use in different locales. Consequently, it is generally difficult to determine the denominations of coins struck in the eastern Roman empire (rpc:35–37; Butcher 2004:207– 215). Coins of Antipas are no exception. Meshorer was the first to propose an equivalence of Antipas’ denominational coins with the Roman standard (tjc:84; ajc 2:37). He suggests that the unit, half, quarter and eighth denominations of Antipas were equal to the Roman dupondius, as, semis and quadrans respectively (cf. rpc:31–34). We reproduce the average weights of Antipas’ coins beside the weights of contemporary and possibly equivalent Roman denominations of Tiberius and Augustus in Table 3.4.5 Meshorer asserts that the discrepancies between the weights of Antipas’ coins and the Roman denominations are due to differences in their metal composition. Asses, semisses and quadrantes were made out of pure copper, while dupondii were made of cheaper orichalcum. According to Meshorer, Antipas’ coins were made of bronze, a more costly metal than copper. This 5 Roman weight averages are developed from weighted averages of data from Mattingly (1976:liv–lvii) and Willers (1904:162, 169, 171). No standard deviation was recorded.

15

denominations and metrologies table 3.4

Denom.

Weights of coins of Antipas and Roman bronze denominations (g)

Antipas Augustus Tiberius (sample size) (sample size) (sample size)

i/Dupondius 12.61 (105) 6.30 (183) ii/As iii/Semis 3.61 (103) iv/Quadrans 1.65 (37)

11.97 (153) 10.53 (276) 4.55 (11) 3.06 (258)

14.62 (38) 10.89 (43) 3.61 (2) –

would explain why denominations i and ii weigh respectively less than Tiberius’ dupondia and asses (ajc 2:37). Antipas’ coins are comparable to some denominations found in Syria (see the weights recorded in rpc:588 and Butcher 2004:209–214). Roman denominations appear to have been widely used in Syria (rpc:33–37, 587–590; Syon 2015:63–64; Howgego 1985:54–60). Roman bronze denominations are mentioned in the nt (Mark 12:42; Matt. 10:29, etc.) and early rabbinic literature (m Kid. 1:1; Tos. Bav. Bat. 5:12, etc.). Epigraphic and numismatic inscriptions testify to the use of Roman bronze denominations in Syria and elsewhere, though there is also evidence that Greek denominations were retained in some localities well into the third century ce (Butcher 2004:193–194, 207–209). Accordingly, we tentatively accept that Antipas’ coins were struck in Roman denominations. If Antipas’ denominations had non-Roman names, there probably was an equivalence with Roman denominations, as outlined by Meshorer. Why, then, was type no. 1 struck as a prutah, and not in a non-Judean denomination? Was Antipas using minting equipment from Jerusalem? Did Antipas originally intend to mint coins based on the Judaean denominations? We hope these questions will be answered in the future.

table 3.5

Value of Antipas’ coins in relation to the silver denarius according to Meshorer’s two systems

Denom. Equivalence 1 1⁄2 1⁄4 1⁄8 system (Dupondius) (As) (Semis) (Quadrans) Roman Jewish

1⁄8 1⁄12

1⁄16 1⁄24

1⁄32 1⁄48

1⁄64 1⁄96

Meshorer suggests equating Antipas’ coins with the primary silver denomination of Rome, the denarius (tjc:84; ajc 2:38). He sees two possible equivalence systems (tjc:84): the regular Roman system (see Melville Jones 1971), and the system recorded in early rabbinic literature (bt Kid. 12a; bt Bav. Metz. 44b; jt Maʿas. Sh. 55b; Tos. Bav. Bat. 5:12, etc.). Equivalences of Antipas’ denominations to the denarius using these reckoning systems are given in Table 3.5. Meshorer considers the rabbinic equivalence system to be “perhaps more appropriate” (tjc:84). Howgego, on the other hand, does not believe the rabbinic system was ever used during the principate (1984–1985). The drachm (δραχμή), not the denarius, was the standard silver denomination of Syria (rpc:29, 586). Using metrological and textual sources, Walker advances that two different systems for equating drachmae with denarii existed in Syria: the Antiochene/Rhodian system (where each drachm was equal to 3⁄4 of a denarius) and the Tyrian/Attic system (where each drachm was equal to a denarius) (1976:70–73). Butcher and Ponting acknowledge the existence of two different fineness standards of Syrian silver coins, but hesitate to conclude that these standards had different nominal values (2009:71–72).

chapter 4

Chronology All of Antipas’ coins are dated by his regnal year (except perhaps coin type no. 1, which may not be dated), following the tradition of his predecessors, Alexander Jannaeus and Herod. Antipas began counting his reign either as soon as his father died (beginning his rule de jure) or when he began to rule after his return from Rome (beginning his rule de facto). The former is more likely for two reasons. First, there exist many instances of kings counting their regnal years from their ascensions to power, even before they became royalty (see Kushnir-Stein 2002:129). For example, the modern communis opinio in scholarship is that the dated coins of Herod are counted from his de jure ascension to the throne and not from the beginning of his de facto rule (i.e. after defeating Mattathias Antigonus and capturing Jerusalem; see Richardson 1996:161) (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:89–92). Second, Antipas would have had no desire to commemorate his humiliation in Rome. According to Schürer, Herod died just before Passover (cf. aj 17:191, 213; bj 1:665, 2:10) in late March of 4 bce (1973:326–328). More recently, however, Kushnir-Stein argued compellingly that Herod died in the winter of 4/3bce (1995; see also Hendin 2009a:60). Several methods of counting regnal years may be considered. If Antipas counted each regnal year as a full year from his ascension, his first year would have spanned the winter of 4/3 bce to the winter of 3/2 bce, assuming Kushnir-Stein’s chronology. A somewhat different form of counting is outlined in a baraita that states that the regnal year of a king increments at the first of Nissan each year, irrespective of when he ascended the throne (bt Rosh Hash. 2a; cf. also the baraita in 2b). According to this halakhah, Antipas would have begun counting his regnal years from his father’s death and his first regnal year would have concluded on the first of Nissan in 3 bce. Alternatively, Antipas may have counted his regnal years from Tishri (cf. bt Rosh Hash. 3a). This system implies that Antipas’ first regnal year would have concluded at the first of Tishri, 3bce.1 According to Kokkinos, the “consensus” is that the Tishri reckoning was used to count regnal years by the Herodians (1998:285). By beginning Herod’s calendar from the autumn (i.e. Tishri), Ariel and Fontanille

were able to assign Herod’s earliest coins to the mint in Jerusalem, which is the most likely mint for historical reasons (2012:97). In any case, counting each regnal year from Nissan or Tishri of 3 bce is most likely correct (cf. Kindler 1999a:248; Strickert 1995:168). From either method of reckoning, Antipas’ first year would have spanned 4/3 bce to 3 bce, his second year would have spanned 3/2 bce, etc. Since Antipas’ last coin series was minted in his 43rd year, this chronology agrees with Josephus’ assertion that Antipas was banished sometime around Caligula’s second year (= 39/40 ce) (aj 18:238). Likewise, Philip’s last coins were minted in his 37th regnal year. Thus, assuming Philip used the same reckoning as Antipas (cf. tjc:86), the chronology conforms with Josephus’ statement that Philip died in Tiberius’ 20th year (= 33/4 ce). On Antipas’ type no. 1, the letter Δ appears after the inscription “Herod the Tetrarch.” Hendin argued that this letter indicates the coin was minted in Antipas’ fourth regnal year (= 1 bce/1 ce), even though there is no explicit indication that the Δ represents the date (e.g. by preceding it with the siglum L or the word ETOYC; see below). Hendin notes, however, that an absence of such an indicating inscription before a date is not exceptional. For example, dates are present but are not explicitly stated on silver and bronze coins from Tyre between 126/5 bce– 194/5 ce (rpc:655–658; Hill 1910:cxxxiv–cxxxix). Hendin argues that the lack of inscription before a date was simply because of deficiency of space (2006:58). The lack of any indication that Δ is a date allows for the possibility that it is not a date (see Section 2.3). Whatever the case, it is likely that type no. 1 was still minted before series b in 20/1 ce; by this point Antipas had an established mint in Tiberias that minted coins in a style quite different than that of type no. 1. Series b–f are respectively dated KΔ, ΛΓ, ΛΔ, ΛZ and MΓ, corresponding to Antipas’ regnal years 24 (= 20/1 ce), 33 (= 29/30 ce), 34 (= 30/1 ce), 37 (= 33/4 ce) and 43 (= 39/40 ce) respectively.

4.1 1 Reckoning the months between a ruler’s ascension to the throne and the new year as a full year appears to have been the norm (Schürer 1973:327 n. 165; see also Kushnir-Stein 1995:74).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004362987_005

Denoting Dates

The siglum L was widely used throughout the Levant to denote a date. For example, a lead weight of an agoranomos of Antipas, discussed below, denotes the year

chronology

with L. This ubiquitous symbol was inscribed on coins of Alexander Jannaeus, Herod, Philip, Roman Governors of Palestine and autonomous city coins (cf. Ariel and Fontanille 2012:124). L precedes the date on all the coins of series b–f, except coin type no. 18. As discussed above, coin type no. 1 has no inscription for indicating its date. On type no. 18, ETOYC was inscribed to indicate the date. In this word, the Υ is often placed above ETO (or is missing completely) and the terminal C is always on the line below. The Y is also often merged into the top of the O to form a ligature or it is strangely located above the initial E. These phenomena can be explained by the engraver’s miscalculation of space (i.e. the tree was cut into the die before the text, so that the dates from the palm tree often filled most of the space above the O). This forced the engraver to squeeze in the final two letters above and below the ETO. Many scholars missed the elusive Υ of ETOΥC and its mention is generally omitted from the literature2 (e.g. ajc 2:243; tjc:227; Hendin 2010:254; Jensen 2010:208; Reifenberg 1973:45). While spelling variants of ETOΥC can be found on various coins (e.g. of Agrippa ii: tjc:No. 134, no. 141, etc.; ajc 2:93), this is not the case here.3

17

A ruler may have one or more of several reasons to mint coins. Coins could be minted to finance wars or construction projects. While coins were not usually struck solely for propaganda, they were still used to disseminate it. Inter alia, coins could also be used to mark a ruler’s autonomy, symbolize his strength, mark notable travels, and commemorate military victories or the founding of a city. Antipas may have struck fiduciary bronze coinage to finance some of his expenditures (cf. Jensen 2010:215– 216; Chancey 2005:177; cf. tjc:84; ajc 2:38). According to Duncan-Jones, the main expenditures of a ruler were (1) the army, (2) civilian employees, (3) household costs, (4) handouts to civilians and soldiers (congiaria and donativa), (5) building and infrastructure (6) gifts and public spending and (7) foreign subsidies and gifts (1994:33–45). (1) and (5) were perhaps the biggest costs for Antipas, since he had an active military and was a builder. Josephus records two military incidents involving Herod Antipas which would have required extensive funding: the war

with Nabataea and his accumulation of weaponry that led to his banishment. Antipas also built Tiberias de novo, fortified cities and constructed public buildings. The propagandistic and self-advertising messages that his coins bore complemented the financial value of minting (rpc:16–17; Howgego 1985:91). Gold and silver were the usual vehicle for financing large expenditures. Since Palestine did not have a history of minting precious metal coinage, it appears Antipas was not in a position to begin (Dahmen 2010:110; Braund 1984:125). Notwithstanding, Ariel and Fontanille demonstrate that profit can be generated by minting bronze coinages. Bronze has also been shown to have played a part in financing the army (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:23– 25; Howgego 1985:19–21). Antipas’ coins were struck sporadically, much like other Judaean coins (see Table 4.1; Ariel and Fontanille 2012:21). The reasons for minting each series were likely different. To better understand why each series was minted, it is natural to examine the context in which they were struck. However, the lack of extant written sources on Antipas make it difficult, if not impossible, to determine a specific reason for the mintage of some series. Coin no. 1 was struck in very small quantities, possibly as a trial piece4 (cf. Hendin 2003–2006:57) or as part of a short-lived series. No particularly meaningful legend or symbol is present on this unique coin, so little else about why this coin was minted can be discerned. Perhaps the mintage of this coin type could be associated with construction at Sepphoris, which likely began around the beginning of Antipas’ reign (Jensen 2010:151). The reason for the minting of series b appears more certain. The new obverse inscription, “Tiberias,” and the reed on all the coins of the series show, according to Meshorer and others, that this series was struck to symbolize the founding of Tiberias (tjc:81–82). Possibly, Antipas’ coins were used to help pay for construction of the city, related festivities or even subsidies for the residents (see aj 18:38). Foundation coins were common in antiquity, “especially in the coinages of the Jews and of the Romans” (Meshorer 1975:54; see also rpc:44–45). Herod apparently minted coins to commemorate the founding and dedication of Caesarea Maritima (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:181–182, 184–185). Antipas’ contemporary and rival Aretas iv struck coins commemorating the founding of Hagra (Meshorer 1975:54). Philip struck coins in his 34th

2 In fact, de Saulcy and de Barthélemy missed the C as well (1877:92). 3 Syon noted two coins “with ΕΤΟΥ/C instead of ETO/C for ‘year’ on the [reverse] inscription,” which he considered to be a “new variant” of type no. 18 (2004:49).

4 Interestingly, the earliest coins of Philip (struck in 1/2 ce, a year after the minting of type no. 1, if we consider it to have been struck in Antipas’ fourth year) are among his rarest as well (Fontanille 2006:106).

4.2 Reasons for Minting Each Series

18 table 4.1

chapter 4 Relative chronologies of Jewish coins struck between the deaths of Herod and Gaius Caligula. Chart shows dates on coins (original Greek with equivalent Arabic numerals)

Emperor

Date

Archelaus5

Augustus

4/3 bce 3/2 2/1 1bce/1ce 1/2 2/3 3/4 4/5 5/6 6/7 7/8 8/9 9/10 10/1 11/2 12/3 13/4

* * * * * * * * * *

Tiberius

Caligula

14/5 15/6 16/7 17/8 18/9 19/20 20/1 21/2 22/3 23/4 24/5 25/6 26/7 27/8 28/9 29/30 30/1 31/2 32/3 33/4 34/5 35/6 36/7 37/8 38/9 39/40 40/1 41/2

Antipas

Δ, 4 (?)

Philip6

Governors

Agrippa i

E, 5

Λς, 36 IB, 12

ΛΘ, 39 M, 40 MA, 41

Iς, 16

IΘ, 19

B, 2 Θ, 3 Δ, 4 E, 5

KΔ, 24

IA, 11 Λ, 30 ΛΓ, 33 ΛΔ, 34

ΛΓ, 33 ΛΔ, 34

ΛZ, 37

ΛZ, 37

Iς, 16 IZ, 17 IH, 18

B, 2 MΓ, 43

5 None of Archelaus’ coins are dated. Asterisks are placed in all the years Archelaus reigned.

E, 5

ς, 6

6 Philip struck numerous undated coins. It is unclear precisely when these types were struck.

chronology

year (= 30/1ce) with the word “founder” (KTIΣTHΣ), presumably referring to the foundation of Julias from what was formerly Bethsaida (tjc:88). Later, Agrippa ii struck coins for his dedication of Neronias (tjc:104–106). Arnal postulated that series b, the first series minted in large numbers by Antipas, was issued to bolster monetization in Galilee by supplying small change (2001:137–138). He believes that Tiberias “served as a stimulus to the use of copper currency” which is the reason Antipas’ coins may be found throughout Galilee (2001:137–138; for the distribution of Antipas’ coins, see Chaper 9). Arnal argues that the reason that Tiberias and its mint were simultaneously established was an attempt to urbanize and monetize Galilee by Antipas. It is doubtful that Antipas’ coins caused a significant impact on Galilean monetization. First, Chancey argues that Antipas’ coins appear to have been minted in relatively small numbers, and thus would have would have had a minor effect on Galilean economy (2005:181). Jensen concurs (2010:215). Syon’s study confirms that coins of Antipas are scarce in comparison to, for example, the earlier bronze Hasmonean coins in Galilee7 (see Syon 2015:158, Fig. 33). Second, Syon’s study does not indicate that an appreciable increase in monetization occurred around the Herodian period (2015:32–33, 62). The nearly decade-long gap between the minting of series b and c (21/2–28/9ce) is once again difficult to explain. Possibly, series c and series d (which was struck the year after series c) were minted simply to fund some project of the tetrarch. Meshorer offers a less likely suggestion that Antipas’ resumption of minting in 29/30 ce was in response to the minting of prutot by a Roman governor8 of Judaea who struck images that may have been offensive to the Jewish populace (ajc 2:38, 180). While these coins did not depict humans or animals, they did contain distinctly Roman religious symbols: one type (tjc:No. 331, struck in 29/30 ce) has a simpulum (a Roman priestly ladle) and the subsequent issue, (tjc:333, struck in 30/1 ce) displays a lituus (an augural wand). The prutot were stuck coevally with Antipas’ series c and d. Strickert believes that the coins Philip struck during these years (tjc:Nos. 104–108) were also minted as a reaction to the gubernatorial prutot (1995:169–173). While the governor in Jerusalem continued 7 Although Hasmonean coins are known to have circulated for many centuries after they were minted (Syon 2015:44–47, 62), it is reasonable that many of them travelled to Galilee during the Hasmonean period (see the arguments in Syon 2015:162–164). 8 tjc:No. 331 and tjc:No. 333 were minted successively and were probably struck under the same governor.

19 to mint the lituus prutot in 31/2 ce, neither Antipas nor Philip minted any coins during that year. How offensive were the images on these gubernatorial prutot? Four prominent views have arisen: (1) the governor intentionally minted coins with provocative images (Stauffer 1957:16–18; cf. Hoffeditz 2006:87; tjc:171), (2) the lituus and simpulum were inoffensive symbols that were used by the governor to demonstrate his allegiance to Tiberius, as maiestas (treason) charges became more frequent (Hoffeditz 2006), (3) the Roman symbols on the coins would have been foreign (unrecognizable) to local Jews and therefore not offensive (Fontanille and Gosline 2001:34–38) and (4) the imagery would not have been unduly offensive to the populace (Bond 1996; cf. tjc:171). The minting prefect/procurator may have been the antagonistic Pilate9 (tjc:170–173) whose relationship with Antipas and the Jews was hostile (Hoehner 1972:175– 183). If Pilate did issue these prutot, perhaps their minting was cognate to the votive shields in Jerusalem: Pilate tried to offend the population and Antipas responded in defence of the Jews. In any case, Antipas may to have tried to emphasize his legitimate rights as a Jewish ruler in contrast to the Roman governor (cf. ajc 2:38). This hypothesis is largely untenable, however, since it is difficult to imagine that the symbolic contradistinction between the coin types of Antipas and the governor would be recognized by many. Indeed, Philip’s coins, depicting human images and cultic temples would have contrasted even less (contra Strickert 1995:169–173). The minting intermission between series d and e is only two years long (31/2–32/3 ce) and is also inexplicable. It is interesting that Philip’s last three coin issues correspond with Antipas’ series c–e (with the same biennial minting interruption), but this may be coincidental. Five years after the minting of series e, production of coinage resumed with the ultimate series, f. It had new designs and inscriptions honouring Caligula, during a time when Antipas was trying to seek the emperor’s favour. Ostensibly, this series was struck to show his devotion to the new emperor (tjc:83). It appears that since minting the iconic bust of the emperor was out of the question (see Section 8.1), Antipas used innovative designs to flatter Caligula. 9 tjc:Nos. 331–338 are generally attributed to prefect Pontius Pilate in the literature (e.g. tjc:170–173; ajc 2:177–180). These coins, as well as others struck by prefects and procurators in Judaea do not bear the name of the governor, but rather, the name of the Emperor and his regnal year. Because the chronology of the governors is not established for certain, we are unable to definitively attribute these coins to any specific governor (No Author 2007:3–4).

20 table 4.2

chapter 4 Erroneous coin date inscriptions recorded in the literature

Inscription

Regnal year

Date (ce)

Example(s)

Notes

ΛA

31

26/7

ΛC

36

32/3

ΛH MΔ

Error from Meshorer 1967 noted in ajc 2:39, n. 20 Rosenberger’s line drawing clearly displays the date ΛΓ which is a date whose validity we accept.

38 44

34/5 40/1

ME

45

41/2

Meshorer 1967:133, no. 66; Rosenberger 1977:63–64, no. 1 Meshorer 1967:134, no. 71; Rosenberger 1977:64, no. 2; Kindler 1961:48; Narkiss 1936:102 Kindler 1961:48 Madden 1881:No. 13; Eckhel 1828:486–487 Wandel 1894:303

The dating of series f to 39/40 ce is important for establishing the year of Antipas’ deposition. According to Josephus, Antipas was exiled in Caligula’s second year, which spanned 39/40ce (aj 18:238). Most authors date Antipas’ deposition to 39ce by considering the last coins of Antipas (Schwartz 1990:57; Hoehner 1972:262; Schürer 1973:353 n. 42). However, using the double-figured dates outlined in No Author 2009:6, we must consider that Antipas may have been exiled in 40ce. Van Bruggen maintains that Antipas must have reigned for 43 years because series f is dated to Antipas’ 43rd year. He concludes that Antipas must have been exiled in 40/1ce (1978:5–6). However, a coin from Antipas’ 43rd

See Chapter 2, n. 1, 2.

year indicates that Antipas reigned for 42 complete years, as he presumably did not begin counting with year zero (cf. Hoehner 1972:94).

4.3 Misreading of Dates in the Literature Coins of Antipas are occasionally misdated, likely due to poor coin condition. Since before Eckhel’s time, these errors have caused chronological problems and discrepancies, especially in comparison with chronologies of the literary sources. To avoid future potential confusion, these errors are summarized in Table 4.2.

chapter 5

The Mints 5.1

Series a (Coin No. 1)

Mints of coins were usually established in large or capital cities. For example, within Judaea’s capital Jerusalem was the (main?) mint of the coins of, inter alia, the Hasmoneans (see Kushnir-Stein 2000–2002:80–82), Herod (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:98) and Archelaus (tjc:78); Nabataea’s capital of Petra was the central mint of the Nabataean coins (Meshorer 1975:27–28) and mints were present in some other large Nabataean cities as well.1 Antipas’ biggest Galilean settlements were Sepphoris and, after 20/1ce, Tiberias. Sepphoris, is the most probable candidate for the mint of type no. 1 (Hendin 2003– 2006:59–60) for two reasons: (1) the coin type was likely struck before the foundation of Tiberias and (2) the technological differences between coin no. 1 and coins of series b–f from Tiberias suggest they were struck at different mints. Sepphoris, a hilltop city in lower Galilee, was important before Antipas became tetrarch. The Syrian proconsul Gabinius placed a Roman Council in Sepphoris (aj 14:91; bj 1:170)—the only one in all of Galilee. Josephus describes Sepphoris as the “ornament of Galilee,” as well as the “strongest” (bj 2:511) and “largest” (Vita 346) Galilean city. Josephus writes further that “of the cities of Galilee the largest are Sepphoris and Tiberias” (Vita 346). Elsewhere, Josephus lists Sepphoris, Tiberias and Gabara as the “three chief cities” of Galilee (Vita 123). Sepphoris became the administrative centre of Antipas’ territories and was succeeded by Tiberias after its completion (Vita 37). Several construction projects were initiated by Antipas in Sepphoris. Many archaeologists attribute the refortification of the city wall, the construction of the citadel (Strange, Longstaff and Groh 2006:43), the cardo and the aqueduct (Aviam 2013:17) to Herod Antipas. The theatre of Sepphoris may have been built during Antipas’ reign, but this is a subject of debate (Root 2014:107–108). The Mishnah mentions an “old archive” in Sepphoris2 (m Kid. 4:5) and an ancient wall purportedly built before the time of Joshua ben Nun (m ʿAr. 9:6). Though dating the wall to the time of Joshua is probably hyperbolic (Strange, 1 Damascus (Meshorer 1975:12–13) and Hagra (an “important city on the caravan route”) (Meshorer 1975:53–54), also were mints of Nabataean coins. 2 This may even be the royal archive that Antipas moved from Sep-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004362987_006

Longstaff and Groh 2006:21), it is very possible that this wall existed during the time of Antipas. There is no reason to doubt that these ruins were present in Sepphoris during the writing of the pericope (cf. Strange, Longstaff and Groh 2006:17). Though no coins are known to have been struck in Sepphoris before Antipas’ reign, Sepphoris had an active mint in the reign of Emperor Nero during the beginning of the First Revolt (tjc:103–104). A fragment of a Judaeanstyle stone flan mould was excavated in Sepphoris (Hendin 2003–2006:59–60). The mould is now lost, but was apparently “prutah-sized” (Ariel 2012:66 n. 39). It is possible that this mould was used to cast the flans for type no. 1 (Ariel 2012:67). Other, smaller sites in Galilee could have possibly held the mint (cf. Ariel 2012:69). It is also possible that type no. 1 was minted in Jerusalem (especially if viewed as trial coinage) but this seems less likely.

5.2 Series b–f and the Foundation of Tiberias The coins of series b–e bear their dates of minting and also the name of their mint, Tiberias. Although the coins of series f make no mention of the city of Tiberias, they almost certainly were struck there as well. Series f was struck in the same technical fashion as the earlier dated series and in the same denominations. Antipas would have had no reason to transfer the mint from Tiberias, especially so late in his reign. Series b was probably struck to commemorate the foundation of that city. Accordingly, coins from series b can be used to help determine the year of Tiberias’ foundation. Josephus is clear in attributing the construction of Tiberias to Antipas, thus, the city’s foundation must have been some time during Antipas’ reign. It must have also occurred during the reign of Tiberius (14–37 ce). Josephus describes the foundation of Tiberias (aj 18:36) directly after mentioning the appointment of Pilate to Judaea (aj 18:35) in c. 26 ce (Bond 2004:1). Using this chronology, Schürer sets a terminus post quem for the foundation of Tiberias to 26 ce (1979:179). Avi-Yonah correctly

phoris to Tiberias (aj 14:91). The archive was re-established in Sepphoris by Agrippa ii (aj 20:159; bj 2:252; Vita 38).

22 notes that in bj, Josephus often wrote thematically, not chronologically (1950–1951:167–168; cf. Cohen 1979:80). On this basis, Schürer’s dating must be rejected. Eusebius states that Tiberias was founded in the fourteenth year of Tiberius’ reign (= 27/8ce) (Chronicle, in Karst 1911:212). “Since, however, Eusebius lumps together in that year whatever else Josephus has written about Antipas’ reign, as well as the founding of Tiberias, this dating is of little value” (Avi-Yonah 1950–1951:167). To determine a terminus post quem of Tiberias’ establishment, we turn to the coins. Avi-Yonah writes that coins were struck in the name of Hadrian in Tiberias’ centennial year. Using the fact that Hadrian became emperor in 117ce, Avi-Yonah establishes 17ce as a terminus post quem for Tiberias’ foundation (1950–1951:168). Similarly, a terminus ante quem for the inauguration of Tiberias was to 22 ce based on the existence of coins of Commodus (who died in 192ce) dated to Tiberias’ 170th year (Meshorer, Bijovsky and Fischer-Bossert 2013:71–72, nos. 15–17). Hoehner incremented Avi-Yonah’s terminus post quem and terminus ante quem by one year, as Tiberias’ first year would be counted as year one, not year zero (1972:94). Hadrianic coins were struck in Tiberias’ 101st year (Meshorer, Bijovsky and Fischer-Bossert 2013:71, nos. 10– 13). But, we have not found proof for the existence of Tiberian coins from its centennial year. This would restore the terminus post quem back to 17ce. Whatever the case,

chapter 5

19 ce must remain the terminus post quem due to the existence of coins struck under Elagabalus (who became emperor in 218 ce) in Tiberias’ 200th year (Meshorer, Bijovsky and Fischer-Bossert 2013:72, nos. 19–20). The Herodians often set foundation ceremonies to coincide with important events in the Emperor’s life (AviYonah 1950:68). The foundation of Tiberias, according to Avi-Yonah, was 18 ce, the most important imperial date between 17 and 22 ce. This year marked Tiberius’ sixtieth birthday and his twentieth anniversary of his assumption of tribunicia potestas. Hoehner, using his revised chronological range, believes that Tiberias was founded in 23ce. This year marked Tiberius’ sixty-fifth birthday, the twentyfifth anniversary of the assumption of tribunicia potestas and the tenth anniversary of his being emperor. The inscription on series b (struck in 20/1 ce) mentioning Tiberias sets 21 ce as a terminus ante quem for the city’s establishment. Thus Tiberias was founded sometime between 19 ce and 21 ce. Since series b probably was struck to mark the foundation of the city, it is probable that Tiberias was founded in 20/1 ce (Jensen 2010:136; Kokkinos 1998:234–235; rpc:679). After Antipas’ reign, the mint at Tiberias was likely active again during the reign Agrippa i (tjc:93). Minting in Tiberias continued sporadically until 1004/5ce while under control of the Fatimid Caliphate (Kindler 1961:35).

chapter 6

Dies and Minting 6.1

Die Cutting

Coin dies were likely cylindrical and made out of a hard metal, such as iron or bronze (Ariel 2012:47). Using hard blades, celators (die engravers) cut mirror images of the final coin’s design into the die; the coins created subsequently have designs that are positive (non-retrograde) and in relief. The dies were probably filed before or after the carving process to remove surface irregularities. Possibly, different engravers cut the images and inscriptions (Butcher 2004:127). Although no dies of Antipas have been found, we illustrate the die cutting process with images of reconstructed dies (see Figure 6.1). Although some dies were crudely produced, Antipas’ dies were usually manufactured to a higher degree of artistic quality than those of his predecessors, Herod and the Hasmoneans. No orthographic mistakes were made, though some abbreviated legends were cut due to spatial constraints. Some mints probably employed a master-apprentice celator system, meaning that one or a few master die cutters cut the first dies and then the apprentice die cutters cut (sometimes crude) imitations of the original dies. The apprentice dies are seldom as well executed as the master dies and can be often identified on this basis. It is unclear if the master-apprentice system of cutting dies was employed on Antipas’ dies. Nonetheless, it appears likely due to the presence of dies of varying stylistic quality of both the designs and inscriptions. The order of cutting features on the dies of series b–f may be discerned from the coins (see Figure 6.2). Since outer borders of dots and a wreath (if present) are always complete, we infer that these were cut first. On the reverse dies, the central image (reed, palm frond, palm tree) was then inscribed. Finally, the inscription was fit into the available space, sometimes truncated if needed.

6.2 Die Study In general, much can be gleaned about a coin series by the die connections of the coins. A die study provides insight into the relative rarity of coin types and the operation of the mint and the use of minting technology. Analyzing die deterioration can sometimes be used to help establish internal chronologies of the struck coins, to estimate the

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004362987_007

total number of coins struck, etc. A die study of all of Antipas’ coin types was carried out for this publication and appears in the plates, with sporadic notes that point out interesting features relating to the dies. Images of coins from private and public collections, online and offline auction catalogues and numismatic literature were collected for the die study. A total of 854 coins were available for us to use in the die study. Of these coins, 788 were in acceptable condition on both faces to be included in the die study. Eighty-one obverse and 222 reverse dies were identified (see Table 6.1). The paucity of some of the coins types makes meaningful comparisons with or statistical inferences from other bronze dies studies difficult. Nonetheless, some tentative conclusions may be drawn. Modern image manipulation software has provided the ability to reconstruct the original die (partially or fully) from the coins. This technique permits more systematic analysis of coin features. It has helped reveal some previously unknown features on type no. 14 (see Section 8.8) and has further allowed us to more easily detect modern alteration (see Appendix a). Composite coin images are created by superimposing images of the best coins struck by a particular die (see Figure 6.3). By doing this, the resulting die reconstruction contains all the most detailed features present on known coins. After combining the images, the features of the composite image are sharpened and the fields (i.e. the areas around the images and text) are smoothed. The composite images are reconstructions of the dies and therefore are, to some degree, our interpretations of the images. We have therefore taken great care to preserve as many details of the original coins as possible. For a coin to be included in the die study, it needed to be clear enough on both sides to determine if the coin matched known dies. A coin with one intact side and one poor side cannot be used to establish die connections or frequencies (though the intact side could potentially be used to construct a die composite image). Though corrosion is usually the reason for rejection, heavy tooling can also prevent a coin from being classified by die. The composite reconstructions are developed from two or more coins. Images of the original coins used in the die study may be found on the Menorah Coin Project website (http://menorahcoinproject.org).

24

chapter 6

figure 6.1 An illustration of how dies O1 and R1 of type no. 6 may have looked before and after cutting. Composite dies (see Section 6.2) reconstructed from coins struck by these dies are also displayed. Not to scale.

Mis-struck and worn coins generally do not have complete or clear faces, so details on the coins may be missed by the numismatist. Composite coin pictures, however, may clearly show the intended design on each die. Clear composite dies also aid in matching new coins with recorded dies. The die study was complicated by high degrees of tooling and forgery. We have made great efforts to identify these coins so that they would not affect the integrity of the die study.

Most numismatic works consider the reed/palm branch/palm tree side of the multidenominational series to be the obverse (e.g., tjc:226–228; ajc 2:242–243). However, obverse dies are generally fewer in number than reverse dies. The die study has confirmed that the obverse side of the coins of the dated series is in fact that with the wreath. The obverse and reverse on coin type no. 1 cannot be identified with certainty at this time. As such, we follow Hendin’s convention (2010:250, no. 1198).

25

dies and minting

figure 6.2 The presumed order of die cutting. Not to scale

Many reverse dies, especially those of the coins of the earlier series, are connected to precisely one obverse die. Obverse dies generally are connected to one or more reverse dies. Possibly, die pairs were kept together until a die broke and was replaced. The dies were generally replaced before any major die breaks could appear, though small cracks may be observed on some dies. An example of die breaking is illustrated in Figure 6.4. To rectify die wear, dies were occasionally recut to re-enhance, embolden and sharpen worn features and

extend the life of the die. Die O2 of type no. 3 apparently was recut. Although the obverse side of Antipas’ coins are nearly identical throughout series c–e, no dies were used in more than one series. Unlike Antipas, some Judaean minting authorities occasionally reused dies. For example, the obverse die of Philip’s smallest denomination was used on coins from both 30/1 ce and 33/4 ce (Fontanille 2011:112). To examine the quantitative comprehensiveness of the die study, the total coverage of the die study was statis-

26

figure 6.3 Creating a composite image. Not to scale

chapter 6

27

dies and minting

figure 6.4 The progression of die disintegration on die O1 of type no. 11

tically approximated. The total coverage of the sample is defined as the percent of coins struck by dies we know out of the number of coins struck by all the dies; alternatively, one may think of the coverage as the probability

that a new, unlisted coin is attached to a known die (Esty 2006:359–360). Formula (1) from Esty 2006:359 allows us to estimate the coverage2 and formula (5) gives us a 95 % confidence interval for it3 (Esty 2006:359). Thus, we find that our total sample coverage for obverse dies is about 98±1 % and about 90±3 % for reverse dies. With our sample size, total die extrapolations are probably quite accurate (Esty 2006:362). As mentioned, type no. 1, known from a unique coin, was struck in very small quantities and may have even been struck as a trial issue (Hendin 2003–2006:56). One should note, however, that coin types 9, 17 and 21, which were certainly not trial issues, are similarly quite rare. It is interesting economically to know approximately how many coins Herod Antipas minted throughout his reign. To produce such an approximation, numismatists generally try to determine the number of coins each obverse die could strike, on average. When this number is multiplied by the number of obverse dies, we arrive at an approximation of the number of coins struck. Determining the average number of coins struck by each obverse die is difficult at best and impossible at worst. Moreover, it is not clear how much coin output and die number can be correlated (see Section 6.3). The question of how many coins an obverse die could strike—or determining if such a number is even possible—has been discussed at length by numismatists (see De Callataÿ 1995:294–303). However, most scholars agree that an average obverse die used to strike silver flans would have been able to produce c. 10,000–c. 50,000 coins in its lifetime (De Callataÿ 1995:298). Assuming a similar figure for bronze coins, we cautiously reckon that Antipas struck about 1–5 million coins throughout his reign. The actual number is probably closer to the lower estimate because Antipas’ dies struck bronze flans, which are harder than silver ones. Antipas’

1 To determine the approximate number of original dies, the number of dies used to strike only one coin (singleton) was counted (d1 ). If n represents the number of coins and d represents the number of dies used, formula (5) from Esty 2011:50 was used to find a point-estimate n(d+d ) of the original number of dies: e = n−d 1 . Formula (4) from Esty 1 2006:360 was then used to determine the endpoints for the 95% 2 confidence interval: e + ( 2en ) ± 2en √2e. The formula assumes random sampling.

2 The approximate coverage formula is Cest = 1 − n1 where n is the number of coins in the sample and d1 equals the number of dies attached to exactly one coin in the sample (i.e. the number of singleton dies). d2 3 The confidence interval formula is Cest ± n2 √d1 + 2d2 − n1 where d2 equals the number of dies that struck exactly two coins (i.e. the number of doubleton dies).

table 6.1

Quantitative die information1

Type. No. of No. obv. Estimate of No. rev. Estimate of no. coins dies original no. dies original no. of obv. dies of rev. dies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1 16 47 88 29 56 83 27 5 38 76 11 7 34 101 13 4 48 76 25 3

1 3 6 5 6 4 4 6 1 2 1 2 1 5 7 3 1 13 6 3 1

– 2–4 5–7 6–7 6–11 4 4 7–14 1–2 2 1 1–3 1 6–9 7–8 4–10 1–2 13–22 6–8 2–4 1–2

1 9 12 16 6 24 23 8 4 16 13 5 2 9 27 5 2 14 20 4 2

– 17–87 15–25 16–21 6–11 28–51 26–38 9–18 25–108 16–32 14–19 5–17 1–3 10–18 36–51 5–15 2–14 16–28 23–34 4–7 5–23

Total

788

81

94–101

222

310–354

d

28

chapter 6

figure 6.5 Percent frequency of all coins in each series. Not to scale

dies would likely have had a shorter life than dies for silver issues.

6.3 Relative Quantities of Types In creating the die study, we collected all available images of Antipas’ coins. The relative quantities of the coins we located probably reflects, to a certain degree, the true ratios of coins output by Antipas. Admittedly, the sample is not perfectly random. For example, some public or private coin collections may be biased to disproportionately have coins from specific years or coins of specific denominations. Smaller coins may be underrepresented in the sample since they are harder to find and are also subject to disintegration. Each year, Herod Antipas appears to have minted approximately the same number of coins. No major trends are apparent in Figure 6.5.

The ratios in Figure 6.6 demonstrate an interesting trend: in each of the multidenominational series except b, denomination ii is most common, followed by denomination i, iii and then iv. In series b, denomination iii appears to have been the most common based on coin find numbers. Figure 6.7 illustrates that, in total, denomination ii is the most common. Denominations i and iii are approximately tied as second most common and denomination iv is the least common. The two smallest denominations were minted in substantially larger relative quantities in series b than in the later ones (see Figure 6.8). In other series, the number of each denomination produced every year appears to have been similar. The trends seen by examining the relative quantities of coins is not usually reflected in the relative quantities of dies. This fact shows that great caution should be used when relating die numbers with total coin output.

dies and minting

29

figure 6.6 Percent frequency of each denomination per series. Not to scale

6.4 Die Axes 6.4.1 Series a (Coin No. 1) The die axis on the unique example of type no. 1 is upright (Hendin 2003–2006:57). 6.4.2 Series b–f Coins of series b–f have upright or nearly upright die axes (Syon 2014b:118). The only exception to this trend we could

find is Syon 2014b:179, no. 4707, which apparently has a die axis of about 5:00. This is consistent with the axes of most coins of Philip (tjc:228; but note Syon 2014b:118) and Agrippa i (tjc:230) and most coins from northern Syria (Butcher 2004:130–131) which are upright.

30

chapter 6

figure 6.7 Percent frequency of each denomination in total. Not to scale

6.5 Minting Process Antipas’ coins, like all other Judaean coins, were manufactured utilizing a striking process. However, the flan production techniques differ between series a and series b–f. 6.5.1 Series a (Coin No. 1) Type no. 1 strongly resembles coins output by contemporaneous issues of the Jerusalem mint under Archelaus, as discussed in Section 3.1. It is thus likely the flans for type no. 1 were cast and struck in a similar fashion to those from Jerusalem. Several flan moulds have been discovered within the borders of Palestine, all in the Jerusalem mint form (see Ariel 2012). Though the exact process is uncertain, a probable minting method has been discerned. First, the flans were produced by pouring metal into stone moulds. The moulds had evenly-spaced shallow drillings with a small “nipple” in the centre. Each drilling was connected by a shaft, along which molten metal would flow. The moulds were covered by another slab of rock. As mentioned, a small fragment of a “prutah-sized” stone mould was found in Sepphoris, which may have been used to cast the flans for type no. 1. The dies were struck on the flans while they were hot (Bower, Hendin and Burt 2016). Clear signs of flan detachment are present on the unique example of type no. 1. There is some debate over whether the coins were separated from the strip before or after striking at the

Jerusalem mint, in particular; Hendin (2010:35), Ariel (2003:118) and Barkay (1992:94) argue the former, while Hoover (2008:57 n. 12) prefers the latter. It appears likely, however, that both methods were in fact employed (Zlotnik 2012; Schauer 2010:101–102). The two parallel cuts on the unique example of type no. 1 show where the flans were separated. 6.5.2 Series b–f While Jerusalemite bevelled flan casting methods are relatively well understood (Ariel 2012), the production technique for straight-edged flans is less clear. Certainly, different methods were used in different locales throughout history. Unfortunately, the paucity of archaeological remains relating to flan production inhibits a detailed understanding of flan production in most cases. Ariel enumerates several potential methods of nonbevelled flan production: (1) pouring molten metal onto a surface could form a primitive flan, (2) casting flans in open clay moulds, (3) casting flans in “clay moulds of many varieties” (closed, bivalve, etc.) or (4) cutting flans from sheets or rods (Ariel 2012:73–74). Ariel considers method (2) to be more appropriate for precious metal coinages which required extra care in flan production. He notes also that method (3) is not well represented in the archaeological record and believes method (4) was rare until the Middle Ages. Butcher writes that flans from north Syria were produced by casting in an open or closed mould, or by cutting long cylinders of metal (2004:129). It is unlikely

31

dies and minting

figure 6.8 Percent frequency of each denomination in each series. Not to scale

that Antipas’ flans were formed from cutting metal rods, since no coins of Antipas known to us show characteristic striations on their faces or edges caused by forming and cutting the rods. Still, the method used to produce the flans for series b–f is unclear. We are aware of one coin of Antipas (type no. 12) overstruck on another coin (see Figure 6.9). The images on the undertype, as well as much of the palm branch of the overtype, were obliterated by the overstriking. The flan is bevelled, weighs 2.30g and has a prominent casting sprue. The physical characteristics of the flan strongly suggest that the undertype was a prutah. Apparently, the fabric resembles those of Mattathias Antigonus’ common pru-

tah (tjc:220, no. 40; Goldstein, personal communication), though the weight is high for the type4 (Hendin 2009:109).

6.6 Composition The only metallurgical analysis carried out on Antipas’ coins was described in Syon’s dissertation (2004:267–268) (reproduced with errors corrected in Butcher 2014:224– 4 The average weight of tjc:220, no. 40 is 1.68 ± 0.02g with a standard deviation of 0.18976g, based on a sample of 144 coins. The heaviest recorded example is 2.34g (Hendin 2009:109, table 1).

32

chapter 6

figure 6.9 Antipas’ type no. 12 overstruck on a prutah. The bevelled edges are shown at bottom. Scale 2:1.

figure 6.10

Representative examples of corroded coins of Antipas. Not to scale

225). The compositions of two of Antipas’ coins were discussed, along with coins of Gamla and the First Revolt (Syon 2004:268). The coin types used for the analysis are not recorded, but they may have been the largest denomination (cf. Syon 2014b:121). The elemental analyses were performed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (Ponting, personal communication). Unfortunately, the raw composition data for Antipas’ coins were not included in Ponting’s Table 5.30 (2014:225). However, Ponting 2014:224, Figure 5.35 shows that the tested coins had almost no lead and were made of about 9–10 % tin by weight.

Meshorer writes heuristically that Antipas’ coins were made of “poor quality” metal that results in many “corroded and worn” coins today (ajc 2:41; 1967:75). Syon describes Antipas’ coins as “usually smooth and shiny, and […] prone to bronze disease”5 (2014b:121). Typical examples of corrosion seen on coins of Antipas are illustrated in Figure 6.10.

5 “Bronze disease” is a term for the corrosion of copper-based artifacts by cuprous chloride.

chapter 7

The Inscriptions All of Antipas’ coins bear inscriptions that refer to him as Herod the Tetrarch. On coin no. 1, this legend is split between the reverse (HPW) and obverse (TeTPA[PX?]HC). On the later series, it transitioned to be completely on the reverse, abbreviated or in full. The obverse sides of the coins in series b–e have the name of Tiberias, or an abbreviation, inscribed. The reverse sides of all the coins of series f have the inscription Gaius Caesar Germanicus in the dative. This inscription is always found in full, even on the small denominations. Among the dated series, only c and d have the same orientations and orthography. Series d was struck just one year after c so it is natural that these series are very similar. Series e introduced several new letter forms and a differently oriented legend. The inscription ΓAIΩ / KAICA / CEBAC was recorded in ajc 2 as a variant of the regular obverse inscription of type no. 18 (no. 17a). In fact, ajc 2:No. 17a has the obverse die O4 with the legend ΓaIΩ / KaICAP / ΓEPMa. The legends on coins of Antipas are summarized in Table 7.1 and Table 7.2 along with letter form variants.

7.1

The Name of Herod Antipas

Extant fragments from the works of Nicolaus of Damascus mention Herod Antipas once, calling him “Antipas” (FGrH 90 136:11). Josephus refers to Herod Antipas as both “Antipas” (e.g. aj 18:36, 109; bj 1:256, 646) and “Herod the Tetrarch” (e.g. aj 17:20, 146; bj 2:178, 181). The remaining literary sources and extant ancient inscriptions call Antipas “Herod” or “Herod the Tetrarch.” A lead weight, allegedly from the vicinity of Tiberias, and two stone inscriptions mentioning Antipas have been found. The lead weight mentions an agoranomos operating under the administration of Antipas (see Figure 7.1). The inscription on this weight reads: ΕΠΙ ΗΡWΔΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΧΟΥ LΔΛ ΑΓΟΡΑΝΟΜΟΥ ΓΑΙΟΥ ΙΟΥΛΙΟΥΕΤΑΛ[ΕΝ?]ΤΟ

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004362987_008

Qedar translates this inscription as “In the 34th year of Herod the tetrarch, [in the term of office as] agoranomos of Gaius Julius …” (1986–1987:29). Stein suggests that this Gaius Julius may have even been Agrippa i, who was the agoranomos of Tiberias during his stay with Antipas (1992). The last line of the weight is not readable in toto. The area between ΕΤΑΛ and TO appears to have traces of two or three letters (Stein 1992:144). Throughout the inscription, the letters N and P are always retrograde. The reverse is anepigraphic, bearing a convex 9 by 9 mm protrusion in the centre surrounded by a wreath. A palm branch is visible on the bottom right side. It is worth noting the date on this weight (LΔΛ = regnal year 34 = 30/1 ce) is the year of the minting of series d.1 Two inscriptions, found on the Greek islands on Cos and Delos, are dedicated to Antipas (Dittenberger 1903:No. 416 and no. 417 respectively). The Cos inscription (see Figure 7.2) is as follows: Ἡρῴδην Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως υἱόν, τετράρχην, Φιλίων Ἀγλαοῦ, φύσει δὲ Νίκωνος τὸν αὑτοῦ ξένον καὶ φίλον Jensen translates this as “Herod, the son of Herod the King, tetrarch, Philo, son of Aglaos, but by birth son of Nikonos, his guest and friend” (2010:209). He suggests that this inscription accompanied or adorned a monumental statue (which is now lost) that was dedicated to Antipas. Once again, this inscription calls Antipas “Herod the Tetrarch”, with the addition of “son of Herod the King”. An inscription mentioning Antipas was found at Delos in 1878 in the propylon (the outer monumental gateway) of the Temple of Apollo. The text was unfortunately recorded differently by different sources and the inscription is apparently missing or no longer extant. The alternate recordings are summarized and discussed by Jensen (2010:211). Nonetheless, all the recordings of the inscription agree that the monumental statue that accompanied

1 Unlike on the lead weight, the dates on Antipas’ coins begin with the letter corresponding to the larger value, followed by the smaller one. The date on series d, therefore, is written as LΛΔ.

34

chapter 7

table 7.1

Obverse inscriptions on Antipas’ coins (excluding dates). Letter styles are noted. Underlined words indicate possible spelling variants.

Denomination Series

Full

Half

Quarter

a (1bce/1ce [?])

Eighth

Prutah HPW

–

b (20/1ce)

TIBd/PIaC

TI/Bd

c (29/30ce)

TIBc/PIbC

T/C

TIBE/PIaΣ

T

–

d (30/1ce) e (33/4ce) f (39/40ce)

table 7.2

ΓaIΩ / KaICAPI / ΓEPMa/NIKΩ2

ΓaIΩ / KaICaPI / ΓEPMa/NIKΩ3

ΓaIΩ / KaICA/PI

ΓA/IΩ

Reverse inscriptions on Antipas’ coins (excluding dates). Underlined words indicate possible spelling variants.

Denomination Series

Full

Half

a (1bce/1ce [?]) b (20/1ce) c (29/30ce)

Quarter

Eighth

Prutah TeTPA[PX?]HC

– HPWΔOY TdTPaPXO

HPW TdT

HPWΔOY TcTPbPXOY

HPWΔOY

HPΩΔOY4 TETPaPXOY

HPΩΔOY TE

–

d (30/1ce) e (33/4ce) f (39/40ce)

HPΩΔHC TETPaPXHC5

the inscription was dedicated to Herod the Tetrarch who was the son of Herod the King.6 Antipas’ inscriptions include the title tetrarch not only to signify his authority, but also to differentiate him from 2 3 4 5 6

O1 uses W instead of Ω. O4 uses W as well as Ω. R19 of type no. 15 uses W instead of Ω. R1 and R2 use W instead of Ω. This line probably can be reconstructed to Ἡρῴδην βασιλέως Ἡρῴδου υἱὸν/τετράρχην (cf. Jensen 2010:210; see also Schürer 1973:341, n. 1 and Noy, Panayotov and Bloedhorn 2004:234–235), which translates

HPΩΔHC TETPaPXHC

his kingly father. Archelaus, another Herod, accompanied his name with his title (ethnarch) on his coins (tjc:79) for the same reason. Philip did not refer to himself as Herod on his coins, and from this we must conclude that either (1) Philip was not given the title of Herod or (2) he wanted to avoid confusion with Antipas, who was also a tetrarch. to “for Herod, King Herod’s son, tetrarch” (Jensen 2010:211). In the subsequent lines, the transcriptions (and translations) of the Delos inscription vary significantly (see comparisons in Jensen 2010:211; Noy, Panayotov and Bloedhorn 2004:234).

35

the inscriptions

figure 7.1 The lead weight of an agoranomos under Herod Antipas

The precise beginning of a circular inscription on coins can be ambiguous. In Judaea, many coins bore circular inscriptions since the reign of John Hyrcanus i.7 King Jannaeus minted coins having circular Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic scripts, all bearing his name and title. The Greek (BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY) (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:122) and Aramaic (‫ )מלכא אלכסנדרוס‬inscriptions begin with “King” before Jannaeus’ name (Naveh 1956:24), though the Hebrew version (‫ )יהונתן המלך‬does not (Talshir 1991; cf. bt Kid. 66a). The Greek inscriptions on coins of Antigonus clearly begin with “king” (BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIΓONOY) as it is written this way in three lines on tjc:No. 37.8 Herod, too, has similar circular Greek legends (BAΣIΛEΩΣ HPΩΔOΥ), again with “king” preceding his name (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:121–123). Ariel and Fontanille point out that inscribing the title before the name was standard on both Ptolemaic and Seleucid coins (2011:122). The ambiguity continues with coins of Antipas. Meshorer notes the changes of the word location and orientation on reverse dies on different series. Based on this, he tentatively proposes that the name “Herod” should be read 7 Meshorer argued that, as a rule, Greek legends always begin on the lower left, reading counterclockwise (ajc 1:83). This does not seem be the case (see e.g. Ariel and Fontanille 2012:122). 8 None of the Hebrew legends on Antigonus’ coins state that he is a

first on b, e and f and “tetrarch” should be read first on c and d (ajc 2:39, 41). Upon examining the relevant coins, legends and inscriptions, we propose that Antipas’ name should be read first on all his coins (except perhaps type no. 1) since: 1. 2.

3.

The inscriptions mentioning Antipas all include his name before his title. On all but the smallest denomination, the word “tetrarch” is occasionally abbreviated, though “Herod” never is. Die cutters evidently cut the name “Herod” first and truncated the final word, “tetrarch”, if there was not enough room on the coin (cf. Ariel and Fontanille 121–123). On types no. 9 and 13, the word “tetrarch” was left off altogether. On coin types of series e and f the name “Herod” consistently appears on the top right side of the coin. The title “tetrarch,” however, begins at the bottom of the coin, before or after the trunk of the tree/stem of the palm branch. This implies that “Herod” was written first on coins of these series.

king, but rather, the high priest (‫)כהן גדל‬. This title is still found after Antigonus’ name.

36

chapter 7

figure 7.2 The Cos inscription mentioning “Herod, son of Herod the King”

7.2 HPW / TeTPA[PX?]HC (Herod the Tetrarch) This inscription is present on coin type no. 1.9 It is formed from merging the inscription HPW on the reverse and TeTPA[PX?]HC on the obverse. The name of Herod (HRWΔHC) is abbreviated on the obverse because of a lack of space as on coins of Herod (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:No. 15) and Archelaus (tjc:Nos. 68, 71a, 71b, etc.). The single known example of coin type no. 1 has a lacuna in the obverse inscription where the letters PX probably existed (cf. the obverses of series f). All inscriptions on Herod’s coins (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:122), and on two types minted by Archelaus (tjc:Nos. 70–71), were written in the nominative (like in this inscription). The letter Δ appears on the obverse in the space after the letters […]HC. The purpose of the letter is unclear, but it is possibly a date (see Chapter 4). Several scholars have suggested that the name “Herod” became a dynastic title after King Herod’s death: first Archelaus received the title, and after his deposition it was given to Antipas10 (Kokkinos 1998:226 n. 78; Hoehner 1972:105–109). Hoehner gives three arguments to support this conclusion: (1) Josephus “specifically states that Antipas was now called Herod” when discussing Archelaus’ deposition11 (bj 2:167) and refers to Antipas as 9

10

11

This legend being discussed appears on coin no. 1, and should not to be confused with similar legend HPΩΔHC TETPaPXHC, found on coins of the last series. This hypothesis may have been partially encouraged by later historians (see Hoehner 1972:106). Pseudo-Hegesippus (c. 300ce) states on two occasions that Antipas changed his name to Herod (2:3:2 and 2:5:3). Josippon (c. 953 ce; Flusser 1981:1) mentions that Antipas “changed (‫ )ויסב‬his name to Herod” explicitly after Archelaus’ death (56:65 and 58:1). In fact, Josephus calls Antipas “Ἡρώδης ὁ κληθεὶς Ἀντίπας,” which

“Herod” after this time (2) Dio Cassius (Roman History 54:27:6) and coins (tjc:Nos. 67–74) refer to Archelaus as Herod and (3) Philip, who died before Antipas’ exile, is never called “Herod” on his coins or in the ancient literature. If type no. 1 was indeed struck in Antipas’ fourth year, it would remove any chance that “Herod” was a dynastic title. Antipas’ fourth year took place before Archelaus’ deposition and the coin still refers to Antipas as “Herod.” Thus, if Hendin’s dating is correct, “Herod” was part of both Archelaus’ and Antipas’ cognomina (cf. Hendin 2003–2006:59 n. 19). 7.3 HPΩΔOY TETPaPXOY (Of Herod the Tetrarch) and Variants This inscription is fuller than that on coin no. 1 and is in the genitive case. Due to spatial constraints, the smallest three coin types in series b have truncated reverse legends. Eventually, the die cutters apparently noticed that they could complete the reverse legends on the two middle denominations. On all subsequent series, the reverse legend is complete. Still, the legend was often truncated on the smaller denominations (iii and iv). The truncated inscription HPW TET appears on the smallest denomination of series b (coin type no. 5). The smallest denominations of the next two series (coin nos. 9 and 13) bear only his full name.12 The year after, it was

12

does not imply that Antipas was only called Herod after this point. The inscription “HPWΔOY” on these coins should be interpreted as a variant of “HPWΔOY TETPAPXOY”, not as a completely

37

the inscriptions

probably noticed that a few more letters could be squeezed in, so TE[TPAPXOY] was added to type no. 17. Antipas’ name on series b begins on the bottom, reads clockwise and faces inwards. His title also begins at the base, reading counter clockwise and facing outwards. The legends on the coins of the next two series all begin at the bottom, read clockwise and face inwards. The orientation of series e’s legend is the same as on series c and d, except that the legend now starts at the top as on Herod’s coins. The exception to this rule is on die R2213 on type no. 15, where Herod’s name is inscribed from the bottom left of the palm branch. The legend on series f begins at about 2:00, immediately beneath the branches of the palm tree. .

7.4 HPΩΔHC TETPaPXHC (Herod the Tetrarch) and Variants On Antipas’ final series, f, the reverse inscriptions changed to the nominative form. Possibly, the case was changed so that the obverse and reverse legends could be read together as “Herod the Tetrarch [dedicates this coin] to Gaius Caesar Germanicus” (cf. ajc 2:41). 7.5 TIBEPIaC (Tiberias) and Variants As discussed, this inscription indicates the place of minting of the coins. Why did this legend continue to be used years after the commemorative series b ended? Tiberias was Antipas’ masterpiece, the capital of Galilee constructed by him. Antipas invested significant resources and effort toward Tiberias’ construction and to establish a significant population therein. Although he initiated several building projects, none compared to the foundation of Tiberias. The engraving of this legend was another way for Antipas to increase the recognition, prominence and fame of his pièce de résistance, Tiberias. 7.6 ΓaIΩ KaICAPI ΓEPMaNIKΩ (To Gaius Caesar Germanicus) One of the most striking innovations of series f, along with the new motifs, is this obverse inscription. It replaced the legend “Tiberias” found on the four preceding series.

13

different legend. The final word was removed simply because it occupied too much space on the small coin. Die R22 of type no. 15 is also unusual for having a cursive omega form (see Section 7.7.4).

There are many reasons that this new legend would have been introduced. First, if we accept that the legend “Tiberias” was meant to honour Tiberius, it would only seem natural, as mentioned above, for Antipas to continue to have obverse legends dedicated to the emperor. Second, Jensen offers the possibility that this may have been a “demonstration of the notion in Josephus, that Antipas ‘prepared himself lavishly not escaping anything demanded’ […] before setting sail for Rome” (2007:302). Meshorer suggests that this legend would have been to emphasize that the coins were struck “for and in honor of the emperor, […] as a tribute” (ajc 2:41).

7.7 Letter Forms Several Greek letters vary in style on Judaean coins (Kogon 2015). Palaeographic variations sometimes exist within a single rulers’ reign. The style of some letters on Herod’s coins changed with time (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:123– 124), and some general palaeographic transitions can be seen on coins from the Jerusalem mint in general (Kogon 2015:118–120). Kogon described an obverse die type no. 19 that apparently had two different forms of omega (2015:117). Clear composite images of the dies of type no. 19 indicate that in fact, all the dies have classic omegas everywhere. Many different letter forms are observed on coins of Antipas. Changes of alpha and omega form were described first by Meshorer (ajc 2:39). Some other palaeographic trends and features are given below. 7.7.1 Alpha Alpha may have a straight cross-bar (A), a bent cross-bar (a) or a central dot (b) (cf. ajc 2:32). The alpha form on the unique known coin of type no. 1 is unclear. However, on type b, the alpha with a bent cross-bar is used. The next two series use the alpha with a central dot. The alpha with the bent cross-bar is revived in series e, and is also used in series f. 7.7.2 Epsilon The epsilon on series A resembles e. On series b the cursive epsilon is used (d) and on series c and d it has a central dot (c). The classic epsilon (E) appears on series e and f. 7.7.3 Sigma Lunate sigmas (C) were used on all Antipas’ coins until series e when they are replaced by angular sigmas (Σ).14 14

Syon notes that the inscription “Year 43” on coin 18 is recorded as

38

chapter 7

7.7.4 Omega The evolution of the palaeographic forms of the omegas on Antipas’ coins was diametrically opposed to those of Herod the King. As mentioned, Ariel related the chronology of Herod’s coins with palaeographic forms: inscriptions used “classic” omegas (Ω) on the early coins exclusively while “cursive” omegas (W) appeared only on the later issues (see Section 2.3). Antipas’ earliest four series, a, b, c and d bear only cursive omegas. The penultimate series e bears exclusively classic omegas except on die R2 of type no. 15. The final series, f, bears classic omegas on all dies except O1, R1 and R2 of type no. 1815 (cf. ajc 2:39) and O4 of type no. 19. All the cursive omegas on Antipas’ coins are open on the bottom.

ΕΤΟΥΣ ΜΓ (i.e. with an “angular” sigma) by Burnett, Amandry

15

and Ripollès (1992:680), probably in error (2004:49 n. 12). In fact, all the coins of series f are mistakenly recorded with “angular” sigmas. Curiously, these dies are connected only with each other.

7.7.5 Palaeographic Conclusions The letter forms on each series differ from those on other series, except on series c and d. Almost always, letter forms are identical throughout a given series, on both the obverse and reverse sides. Letter forms were probably chosen by the die cutters themselves or a mint authority (Kogon 2015:120). There appears to be an attempt by the die cutters to maintain uniform letter forms on each series. It is unclear, however, why within a few year span the letter forms on the coins were changed. Unlike with Herod’s coins, the die cutters didn’t “settle” on a single form: on series b, alpha has a bent crossbar, then on series c and d it was changed to an alpha with a central dot, only to be changed back to the original form. This phenomenon is similar to that of the orientation of the inscriptions, which the die cutters inexplicably changed twice.

chapter 8

The Iconography The coins of Antipas depict traditional Jewish themes and symbols, while bearing some innovations in Jewish numismatic symbolism. All of the images on Antipas’ coins are of plants. Plants were cultivated in Peraea, and Galilee was considered to be one of the most fertile parts of Palestine. Water is fundamental for plant life. The Sea of Galilee is, to this day, the most significant body of freshwater in all of Palestine (cf. bj 3:506–508). In his archaeological survey of eastern Galilee, Leibner writes “thirty of the fifty sites included in this study are located within 500m. of permanent water sources—springs, perennial streams, or wells” (2009:13). Several coin types of Antipas emphasize the palm tree and its components (see Figure 8.1). Palm trees were a common sight in both Galilee and Peraea, and were a symbol of Palestine and the Jews who inhabited it (Fine 1989). Date palms were used in antiquity for, inter alia, food and construction. Strabo recalls a Persian song wherein 360 uses of date palms are enumerated (Geographia 16:1:14). “Date palms rich in date clusters, or in Antipas’ case simply a date cluster, were used by the numismatic artist to denote both the impressive palms of Palestine, and perhaps more importantly, the fruit” (Fine 1989:109). Like many other Jewish coins, a round border of dots encompasses the features of Antipas’ coins. The imagery found on Antipas’ coins are recorded in Table 8.1 and Table 8.2.

8.1

Aniconism

Aniconism, the refraining from the creation of images of deities, humans or animals, was a paradigm of ancient Judaism. The avoidance of these “graven images” was based on a strict adherence to the second of the Ten Commandments: Do not make for yourself a statue or an image of what is in the sky above, below the earth and in the water, beneath the land. Do not bow to them and do not worship them. (Exodus 20:3) Do not make for yourselves false Gods and do not raise up an idol or a pillar for yourselves; and do not have a carved stone to bow upon. (Lev. 26:1)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004362987_009

It is difficult to discern the extent this law was followed during the Herodian era. Josephus discusses his own objection to iconism in regards to the provocations of Herod (aj 15:272, 276–279; 17:149–167; bj 1:648–655) and Pilate (aj 18:55–59). He further mentions several other occasions when the Jewish populace was enraged by public iconic depictions (see von Ehrenkrook 2011:1–2). However, the strict aniconism described by Josephus may be an exaggeration or may not have been universal amongst Jews. Since Josephus was writing for a Roman audience, he may have touted strict aniconism so it would be perceived as a Jewish loyalty to their own mos maiorum (ancestral customs), thereby earning Roman respect (von Ehrenkrook 2011:137–172). Von Ehrenkrook contends that “Josephus Romanizes the Jewish resistance to images, and in so doing, he articulates a notion of Jewish identity that reflects in part the values of Romanitas” (2011:18). The rabbis of the Mishnah variously interpret the second commandment to mean that some or all images are forbidden for Jews (m ʿAvod. Zar. 3:1–3). For instance, Rabban Gamaliel ii ( floruit late first century ce) allows bathing in a bathhouse with a statue of Aphrodite because the statue is an adornment for the bath (m ʿAvod. Zar. 3:4). It is tempting to believe, as many have done, that Judaism as practised in the Second Temple period was aniconic in toto (cf. von Ehrenkrook 2011:31–34). The extent and nature of the aniconic paradigm amongst Jews during Antipas’ time was a function of their location (von Ehrenkrook 2011:38–45) and, more generally, their hermeneutical interpretation of Mosaic Law (von Ehrenkrook 2011:96–97). It is therefore imprudent to view Judaism as wholly iconic or aniconic. Differing levels of aniconism are present throughout the Judaean numismatic corpus. The coins of the Hasmoneans, Archelaus and all but one coin type of Herod1 do not bear any graven images. Philip was the first to break the long aniconic tradition by minting a coin with his own bust in 1/2 ce (tjc:86; see also Fontanille 2011:108–110). Antipas, though minting contemporaneously, refrained from striking coins bearing graven images. “The coins of

1 Ariel and Fontanille argue that the figure of the eagle which is found on a lone issue of Herod, “were probably offensive to some, but would not have been offensive to all” (2010:117).

40

chapter 8

figure 8.1 Parts of palm trees on the coins. Not to scale

Antipas bearing the name of the emperor (without his image) occupy a middle position between those of Herod the Great, which carry neither the emperor’s name nor his image, and those of Philip, which have both” (Schürer 1973:343 n. 16). Kindler notes that “coin-types of Herod Antipas continued almost unaltered under Roman rule 14 years after his banishment” (1961:41), bearing neutral, aniconic motifs. This continuity, Kindler postulates, is indicative of a strong Jewish influence in Tiberias. Although some Jews would not live in Tiberias at this time due to its impurity, it had a significant Jewish presence by the First Jewish Revolt as is apparent by its support of the rebels (Vita 31–42). Most scholars agree that the strong Jewish presence throughout Galilee was the aetiology for the numismatic aniconism under Herod Antipas (Finney 1993:637; Reifenberg 1973:19; Meshorer 1967:73; Goodenough 1953:274; cf. Jensen 2010:239). Antipas’ numismatic aniconism, in contradistinction to Philip’s blatant iconism, is worthy of discussion. Most scholars maintain that Philip’s territories had few Jews, so no objections would be raised if he minted coins with human depictions (e.g. tjc:85; Chancey 2005:182; Strickert 1995:167; Schürer 1973:340 n. 9; see also bj 3:57; aj 16:285, 17:23). Fontanille, on the other hand, argues that there

was a substantial Jewish population in Philip’s domain (cf. Wilson 2004:70–75), but it simply did not object to Philip’s iconism (2006:116). The Jewish population in Philip’s territories varied markedly from site to site. Sites like Gamla had a majority of Jews (Hartal 2003:246), while Paneas was largely pagan (Syon 2015:178). It is noteworthy that Philip’s coins appear to have generally circulated in the northern, gentile part of his territories (Syon 2015:178). We therefore believe that Philip’s coins were meant to circulate in his primarily nonJewish areas, whose population would have no problems with iconic coins. Thirty-seven coins of Philip, many of which were worn from use, were found in Gamla (Syon 2014b:118). Notably, one rare coin bearing Philip’s own bust was found in Gamla that was in use until the beginning of the First Revolt (Syon 2014b:118; Fontanille 2006:116). It must be therefore assumed that Jews did handle Philip’s coinage—even the ones with his own bust (Fontanille 2006:116; cf. Finney 1993:633). There can be little doubt that this was the case; even coins commonly used to pay the tax at the Temple in Jerusalem bore blatant pagan images and inscriptions: an eagle, a bust of the Phoenician deity Melqart-Heracles and an honorific inscription to “Tyre the Holy” (tjc:73–77). If the Jews accepted

41

the iconography table 8.1

Obverse imagery on Antipas’ coins

Denomination Series

Full

Half

Eighth

Prutah

–

Single Grain (?)

Wreath, tied at bottom2

–

a (1bce/1ce?) b (20/1ce)

Quarter

c (29/30ce) d (30/1ce) e (33/4ce) f (39/40ce)

table 8.2

Reverse imagery on Antipas’ coins

Denomination Series

Full

a (1bce/1ce?) b (20/1ce) c (29/30ce)

Half

Quarter

Eighth

Prutah

–

Palm tree

Reed

–

Palm branch3

d (30/1ce) e (33/4ce) f (39/40ce)

Palm tree

Bunch of dates

Tyrian coinage with explicit depictions of “graven images”4 for use in religious rituals in a Jewish city par excellence, why would they object to handling or using iconic coins of Philip?

2 With a star near the top on type no. 14 (see Section 8.8.1). 3 With two cornucopias on the bottom left and right of the palm branch on type no. 14 (see Section 8.8.2). 4 Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès reckon that Tyre may have refrained from placing images of rulers on their coins out of respect for the Jews who may use the currency (rpc:584, 586). It is difficult for us to accept, however, that a ruler’s portrait is any worse than the image of a pagan deity.

The case may be made that Jews had an aversion to Philip’s coins because they were both iconic and minted by a Jewish ruler. This appears to be unlikely, as it does not suitably explain the preponderance of Philip’s coins in Gamla. Still, Fontanille asserts Philip compromised with his Jewish subjects by minting coins with his own bust in smaller quantities than his other issues (2011:117). Notably, more coins of Antipas than of Philip were found in Gamla, which is part of Philip’s territory. This is probably due to trading patterns, and not a preference of coin types. Another possibility is that Antipas’ coins were more common than those of Philip.

42 In general, Herod Antipas’ creations were respectful of the sensitivities of the Jewish residents. No temples or cultic emblems that have been indisputably dated to Antipas’ reign have been uncovered in either Sepphoris or Tiberias (cf. Jensen 2010:185–186). Galilean oil lamps are figureless as well (Aviam 2013:45). No statues of the emperor have been found, nor is there any indication of an imperial cult in Galilee. Meyers concludes that “Antipas would seem to have allowed the Galilee to remain essentially aniconic during the first half of the first century c.e.” by argumentum ex silentio (1997:60). Antipas had images of animals in his palace (Vita 65; contra Hachlili 1988:65), but they were probably not in public view. Chancey argues that both Antipas’ numismatic and architectural aniconism “imply that the majority of Antipas’ subjects would have resented the images and institutions of paganism. Whether Antipas’ actions imply his own Jewish piety or simply prudence is debatable, but it is notable that both Luke and Josephus report his attendance at festivals in Jerusalem” (2004:52). According to Jensen, the Cos and Delos inscriptions (mentioned above) each accompanied a statue dedicated by Antipas (2010:210–211). The Delos statue may have depicted Antipas himself (Kokkinos 1998:137) or even Apollo (Jensen 2010:210–211). If Antipas was responsible for dedicating a statue in Greece or the production of the animal images found in his palace during the First Revolt, then we may conclude that Antipas’ coins were aniconic out of respect for his many Jewish inhabitants, though he personally may have had less concern for religious aniconism. In sum, it appears that Galilee probably contained a higher population of iconoclastic Jews than Philip’s territories did. Though Antipas did not personally object to depictions of “graven images”—at least in “mild” forms— many Galilean Jews would have felt it a disgrace if the Jewish tetrarch Antipas had struck iconic coins. Accordingly, Von Ehrenkrook’s assertion that “the predominant (our emphasis) tendency, both before and after 70c.e., was to restrict the scope of the second commandment to images that had some kind of cultic association” is probably too extreme, at least in Galilee. The aniconism of Antipas’ coins also reflect his characteristic moderation. Antipas prudently honoured the emperor with inscriptions while avoiding depicting potentially offensive images.

chapter 8

8.2 Palm Tree The date palm tree (Phoenix dactylifera) appears on Antipas’ type no. 1, possibly for the first time in the history of Jewish coinage. The palm tree also appears on a gubernatorial prutah issued under Augustus in 6/7 ce (tjc:No. 311). In 39/40 ce, Antipas reused the figure of the date palm on his coins, this time as the central motif on the large denomination of his final series, type no. 18. Date palms were displayed on gubernatorial prutot issued in the name of Claudius (tjc:No. 340) in 54 ce, coins of Agrippa ii (84/5 ce according to Kushnir-Stein 2002:130) (tjc:Nos. 156–157) and large bronzes of the First Revolt (tjc:Nos. 211–212) in 69/70 ce. For many years, opinions differed as to the type of tree depicted on type no. 18. De Saulcy and de Barthélemy identified this tree as an orange (1877:92) and later, Madden suggested that it could also be a fig (1881:122; cf. ajc 2:39 n. 22). Hill, apparently influenced by other Antipas coin types, believed the tree was a palm branch (1914:230, no. 10). However, discoveries of more intact examples have clarified that the tree is a date palm with clusters of dates beneath it (tjc:82). The trade of palm tree derivatives in Palestine was recorded by Strabo (Geographia 17:1:15, 17:1:51). Lucanus (39–65 ce) poetically describes Judaea5 as “rich in palmplantations.” Around the same time, Pliny the Elder (c. 23– 79 ce), discusses date palms the Levant in detail in his “Naturalis Historia:” In other respects Egypt is of all the countries in the world the best adapted for the production of unguents, but Campania with its abundance of roses runs it close. But Judaea is even more famous for its palm-trees, the nature of which will now be described. It is true that there are also palms in Europe, and they are common in Italy, but these are barren. In the coastal regions of Spain they do bear fruit, but it does not ripen, and in Africa the fruit is sweet but will not keep for any time. On the other hand in the east the palm supplies the native races with wine, and some of them with bread, while a very large number rely on it also for cattle fodder. For this reason, therefore, we shall be justified in describing the palms of foreign countries […] The other kinds [of palm] are rounded and tall, and have compact rows of knobs or circles in their bark which render them easy for the eastern races to climb; they put a 5 As was common among Latin poets, Lucanus calls Palestine “Idume” (Stern 1976:440 n. 216).

the iconography

plaited noose round themselves and round the tree, and the noose goes up with the man at an astonishingly rapid speed. […] Next to [the sandalis dates] the most famous are the caryotae, which supply a great deal of food but also of juice, and from which the principal wines of the East are made […] But not only are these trees abundant and bear largely in Judaea, but also the most famous are found there, and not in the whole of that country but specially in Jericho, although those growing in the valleys of Archelais and Pheselis and Livias in the same country are also highly spoken of. Their outstanding property is the unctuous juice which they exude and an extremely sweet sort of wine-flavour like that of honey. The Nicholas6 date belonging to this class is not so juicy but exceptionally large in size, four put end to end making a length of eighteen inches. The date that comes next in sweetness is less attractive to look at, but in flavour is the sister of the caryotae and consequently is called in Greek the sister-date. The third class among these, the pateta, has too copious a supply of juice, and the excess of liquor of the fruit itself bursts open even while on the parent tree, looking like dates that have been trodden on. Of the many drier dates the finger-date forms a class of its own: it is a very long slender date, sometimes of a curved shape. The variety of this class which we offer to the honour of the gods is called chydaeus by the Jews, a race remarkable for their contempt for the divine powers. Naturalis Historia 13:26–45

Pliny makes special note of not only Jericho’s famous palm trees, but also those of “Archelais and Pheselis and Livias”—the last being the Peraean city of Betharamphtha that Antipas renamed to Julias.7 The extent of Pliny’s discussion is indicative of the importance and renown of dates in Palestine. Other ancient sources mention the palm tree in connection with Judaea and the Jews, but in less detail than Pliny’s description (e.g. Alexander Polyhistor FGrH 273 19a:29, quoting Aristeas’ On Jews; Horace

6 Athenaeus (Deipnosophists 14:652) and Plutarch (Quaestiones Convivales 8:1) agree that Nicholas dates are named after Nicolaus of Damascus. These dates are also mentioned in the Mishnah (Ab. Zar. 1:5). 7 Betharamphtha is called “Livias” (in honour of Empress Livia) by inter alia Ptolemy Chennus (Geographia 5:15:6) and Eusebius (Onomasticon, in Klostermann 1904:48:13). Josephus records that Antipas named the city after the empress’ adoptive name, “Julias” (aj 18:27).

43 Epistulae 2:2:183–185; Varro Res Rusticae 2:1:27; Virgil Georgica 3:12–15). Date palms were actively cultivated in Galilee and, to a lesser extent, in Peraea (bj 3:44–45). Still, Josephus writes that the Peraean city of Abila (i.e. Khirbet el-Kefrein according to Hoehner 1972:48) was situated in a “region thickly planted with palm-trees” (aj 4:176). The palm tree symbolized Judaea on the so-called “Judaea Capta” series struck by the Romans to commemorate Judaean defeat during the First Revolt. This symbolism was present also on the Temple of Peace in Rome, built by Vespasian to commemorate the victory over the Jews (Fine 2005:143). The symbolism of the date palm was well known to the Jews of the time, being mentioned positively in the scripture and in other early Jewish texts. The Book of Psalms states that “the righteous, like a palm, will flourish” (92:13). The image of the date palm was depicted on the walls of the First Temple (1 Kings 6:29, 32, 35) and the Second Temple (Ezekiel 40:16, 22, 26, 31, 34, 37, 41:18–20, 25–26). The beauty and magnificence of the date palm is also referenced in the apocrypha (1 Enoch 24:4–5; Sirach 24:14). The popularity of Judaean date palm as symbol is clear from archaeological sources. A royal bulla of Alexander Jannaeus was found bearing a palm tree (Avigad 1975:246). Second Temple-era ossuaries commonly depict date palms, in varying forms and degrees of abstraction (Rahmani 1994:48–49; Figueras 1983:42). Palm trees are also common on Jewish oil lamps (Sussman 1982:23). The palm tree on the reverse of type no. 1 appears to have 9 branches, though the wear on the unique coin makes it difficult to be sure. The design of the tree is quite schematic, as was typical for prutot of the time. The date palm on type no. 18 is more detailed than on type no. 1. It has between five to eight8 branches (contra ajc 2:145) and the leaflets are clearly visible. Like inter alia the tree on the gubernatorial prutot stuck under Augustus (tjc:Nos. 311–315) and Claudius (tjc:Nos. 340–341) and the largest bronze denomination of the First Revolt 8 Numismatists have noted that palm trees on coins of Bar Kokhba have exactly seven branches. Some have suggested that these palm trees may represent the seven-branched menorah (Mildenberg 1984:48; contra Romanoff 1971:31). Meshorer suggests that Antipas’ palm tree (on our type no. 18) could also be viewed as such (ajc 2:145). This is improbable (cf. Fine 1989:106) for two reasons: (1) palm trees on coins of type no. 18 do not all have exactly seven branches and (2) though Antipas was apparently sensitive to Jewish iconographic concerns, little evidence suggests that he made any attempt to be specifically “Jewish” like other Jewish minting authorities did (e.g. using Hebrew or Aramaic scripts or depicting Jewish religious items).

44

chapter 8

figure 8.2 Detail on the leaves of the wreath on type no. 6 (die O1)

(tjc:Nos. 211–212), the date palm on type no. 18 bears a bunch of dates on either side, possibly representing fecundity. Each cluster has between three to six dates.

stores in Upper Galilee (Vita 71–73) and Herodian stores in the lower part (Vita 118–119).

8.4 Wreath 8.3 Grain (?) The prominent single grain on type no. 1 was an innovation on Jewish coinage; no other Judaean coin type bears this symbol. It is impossible to tell exactly which type of grain is depicted, but it is probably a common one, such as barley (Hordeum vulgare) or wheat (genus Triticum). While a single grain was not a common Jewish symbol in antiquity, grain stalks were. Since the coins of the Hasmoneans, stalks of grain were depicted in cornucopiae. Gubernatorial prutot struck under were the first “Jewish” coins to depict stalks of grain alone. Oil lamps too depicted a barley or wheat stalk (Sussman 1982:23). Wheat and barley are both members of the seven species, as discussed above. These two grains were associated with fertility and abundance. Grain was the primary food for both animals and humans alike and was unquestionably a fundamental component of a typical Galilean diet. Meshorer points out the following interesting passage in the Gemara that describes wheat favourably (ajc 2:58): Rabbi Ḥiya bar Abba said: If one sees wheat in a dream, he sees peace, as it is written: “He makes peace on your borders and satisfies you with the finest wheat” (Psalms 147:14). If one sees barley in a dream, his iniquities will depart, as it is written: “Your iniquity will depart and your sins will be atoned for” (Isaiah 6:7). bt Ber. 57a

The bt relates that grain was grown in Chorazin and Capernaum (bt Men. 85a). There were imperial grain

Wreaths are found on the obverse faces of all the coins of series b–f. They are always tied at the bottom (or slightly to the side) with a ribbon. The wreath was a very popular symbol on Judaean coins. In fact, almost all Jewish rulers who struck coins had at least one coin type displaying a wreath. Noy traces the origin of this classic Judaean numismatic symbol all the way back to the Seleucid era (2012:32–37). Wreaths are present in the archaeological record as well, being occasionally found on ancient Jewish ossuaries (Rahmani 1994:41). Wreaths were “one of the most common motifs in Jewish decorative art” (Hachlili 1988:318). The leaves of the wreath are thick and pointed (see Figure 8.2). The leaves on wreaths of series b are generally sharper than on subsequent series. The two sides of the wreath merge at the top or slightly to the side. On some dies, the stems of both sides of the wreath bifurcate and join to form a diamond shape. The type of wreath is difficult to determine due to its schematicism, but it may be olive (Olea europaea) or laurel (Laurus nobilis) (Noy 2012:31; Narkiss 1936:103; De Saulcy and de Barthélemy 1877:92). Wreaths were awarded to victors at prestigious cultural competitions throughout Rome, and they eventually became ubiquitous symbols for victory. Josephus considers “crown of wild olive or of parsley” to be an honourable prize, along with silver and gold (ca 2:217). The same sentiment is expressed in 2 Timothy, where a “wreath” (στέφανος) is awarded to the righteous (4:8). Other apocryphal and canonical works contain references to wreaths as symbols of beauty and honour. For

45

the iconography

figure 8.3 A Judaean oil lamp displaying reeds. Not to scale

example, images of wreaths were displayed on Solomon’s temple (1Kings 7:29–30, 36). Knowledge is equated with wreaths twice in Proverbs (1:9, 4:9). God is described as a “beautiful wreath” for the nation of Israel (Isaiah 28:5). The crowd at Lystra offered wreaths (στεμματα) and bulls as sacrifices to Barnabas and Paul, who rejected them (Acts 14:13–14). Wreaths are presented as gifts for good behaviour in the Greek Sirach (32:2). Antipas’ coins likely depict the wreath because of its popular association with honour (cf. ajc 2:64). While wreaths are commonly associated with victory, this does not appear to be the case here. The wreath was “certainly meant not only to serve as a decoration around the legend, but also to add to the dignity of the person mentioned in it” (Kindler 1961:36).

8.5 Reed The symbol on the reverse sides of coins in series b has been has been identified as a reed, a palm branch, a lily and a laurel. Jensen (2010:206), Meshorer9 (ajc 2:36; tjc:81– 82) and Cavedoni (1856:34) prefer the first identification,

9 Meshorer writes that “the identification [of this symbol as a reed] has been upheld by botanists consulted for this study” (ajc 2:36).

Hill (1914:229) and Romanoff (1972:74, no. 14) prefer the second, Spijkerman (1962–1963:303) prefers the third and Wirgin (1968) the last. Madden initially believed that the image was a palm branch (1864:97), but he later concluded that it was a reed, apparently in deference to Cavedoni (1881:121). We reject the attribution of this symbol as a palm branch on two grounds: (1) leaflets on palm branches generally do not droop, but the leaflets on the coins do (especially on type nos. 3–5) and (2) the branches on series b are unlike the palm branches on the later series. Wirgin suggested this symbol is a laurel that, going hand in hand with the wreath on the obverse, was associated with the triumphal procession of the emperor (1968:29). Jensen rejects this suggestion, writing: “Even the unskilled eye, however, can detect a difference in the shape of the leaves of a laurel wreath on the [obverse] and the leaves of the plant on the [reverse]” (2010:205–206). Though the plant depicted on type no. 2 has straight and blunt tips, while the tips of types 3–5 are sharp and slightly droop down, it appears that the reed is on all coin types of series b. Theißen argues for the reed attribution with four points: 1.

It was common for reeds to be a symbol for cities lying near rivers (1975:47).

46

chapter 8

figure 8.4 Type no. 4 compared to Arundo donax in Israel. Note how the edges bend on some of the branches like on the coins. Not to scale.

2.

3.

4.

It would be natural for Antipas to put symbols on his coins representing his territories. Archelaus put maritime symbols to represent the ports of Caesarea and Joppa. Philip’s coins depict the Augusteum of Paneas (1975:47–48). The Jordan River separates Galilee and Peraea. The reed thus represents a connection between Antipas’ territories (1975:48). Both Strabo (Geographia 16:2:16) and Pliny the Elder (Naturalis Historia 24:85) associate the reed with Palestine (1975:49).

We add that since series b commemorated the founding of Tiberias, which is adjacent to the Sea of Galilee, the reed is a logical iconographic choice (tjc:82). The reeds depicted on a mosaic from the Byzantine Basilica of the Multiplication of the Loaves of et-Tabgha (on the northern coast of the Sea of Galilee) (Finegan 1978:50) strongly resemble the plant on the reverse sides of coins of series b (Theißen 1975:46, 47 Figure 4), as are the reeds depicted on a Jewish oil lamp (c. 70–132ce) of uncertain provenance (see Figure 8.3; Sussman 1972:No. 206). Among Jewish coins, the reed may only be found on those of series b. The schematicism of the reed makes it difficult to determine exactly what type of reed it is,10 but it is probably from the Arundo (see Figure 8.4) or the Phragmites families, both of which are found in Galilee (especially around the Sea of Galilee) (Feinbrun-Dothan 1986:268–270).

10

There has been some confusion around the name of the reed in numismatic literature. Cavedoni recorded the type of reed as the Canna communis (1856:34), apparently a variant of the name Canna comune (Italian for “common reed”), i.e. the Arundo donax. Many authors accepted and recorded the name Canna communis as the reed on Antipas’ coins in error (e.g. Jensen 2010:205; Theißen 1985:46; Wirgin 1968:248; Madden 1881:121, 1864:98).

Just as with grain, the Talmud speaks favourably about seeing a reed in a dream (bt Ber. 56b). Elsewhere, the reed is described as being hardy and firm (bt San. 105b–106a) and is notably associated with the founding of a city (bt San. 21b).

8.6 Palm Branch The palm branch appears on the reverses of all denominations of series c–e and the smallest three denominations of series f. The branches are usually detailed, and small spines are often visible along a portion of the bottom of the stalk. The leaflets on the palm branches of series c and d are generally more splayed than on the last two series. Why was the reed replaced after series b? The reed represents the founding of Tiberias. Further commemoration may not have been required subsequent to series b (though the inscription “Tiberias” remained). Meshorer suggests that the palm branch represents the consolidation and maturity of the city (tjc:82). Horsley and Silberman allege that the palm branch represents Antipas’ “political ambitions and messianic dreams” (2002:22), but little evidence backs this claim (Jensen 2010:208). Palm branches are described as symbols of victory (2 Esderas 2:45), gratitude (1 Mac. 13:51; 2 Mac. 10:7) and peace (1 Mac. 13:37; 2 Mac. 14:4) in the apocrypha. The palm branch was, like many other images on Antipas’ issues, a popular symbol on Judaean coins. It was well represented on coins of almost all the minting authorities of Judaea. Palm fronds are found on coins of Hyrcanus i, Jannaeus, Herod, governors under Tiberius and Claudius, Agrippa ii, the First Revolt and the revolt of Bar Kokhba. The palm branch is even depicted on countermarks that were struck on gubernatorial prutot likely even during Antipas’ reign (Lönnqvist 1992–1993:61); the palm branch on Antipas’ coins tapers upwards much like certain variants of this countermark (Kogon 2012:96, no. 3c).

47

the iconography

figure 8.5 A clear example of type no. 14, showing both the star symbol on the obverse and the two appendages on the reverse. Scale 2:1

Like the other symbols depicted on Antipas’ coins, palm fronds have a special meaning in first-century Judaism. A palm frond is the most prominent component of a lulav,11 a collection of branches from specific trees used during the holiday of Sukkot (Lev. 23:40). Lulavim (depicted on the coins of the First Revolt and the Revolt of Bar Kokhba) were common symbols on lamps and synagogue mosaics (Hachlili 1988:262). Although the palm frond on Antipas’ coins is not a lulav, the connection of the palm branch to Jewish tradition is apparent. Excavations have shown that palm branches, distinct from ritual lulavim, were popular symbols as well. The lead weight of an agoranomos serving under Antipas mentioned above bears a palm branch, as do Jewish ossuaries (e.g. Rahmani 1994:76, no. 4, 128, no. 210, 188, no. 494) and oil lamps (e.g. Sussman 1982:52, no. 52).

are only found at the tips of the branches. It also does not resemble the cluster of grapes found on the coins of Archelaus (tjc:No. 73–74). Dates are commonly depicted under the fronds of a palm tree on ancient Jewish artwork. For example, lone date clusters are found on oil lamps (Sussman 1982:24). Dates were a vital source of food due to their hardiness, and were prized for their sweetness. Dates can be eaten raw. They can be dried and preserved for long periods of time (cf. m Tev. Yom 3:6). They can be pressed to make sweet honey (m Ned. 6:8; m Ter. 11:3; bj 4:468). It was possibly due to these attractive qualities that the author of 1 Enoch described the fruit of the Tree of Life as resembling “clusters of the date-palms” (24:4, quoted from Black 1985:39). Dates in the form of honey, are also included as one of the seven species of the Land of Israel: For the Lord your God brings you into a good land; a land of rivers of water, from the fountains and depths, coming out from valleys and hills. A land of wheat and barley and the vine and figs and pomegranates; a land of olive oil and [date] honey.

8.7 Cluster of Dates A branch with a cluster of dates appears on one coin type of Antipas, viz. no. 20, where the dates hang down in a natural way.12 No other known Jewish coin type bears this fruit alone. The paucity of type no. 20 has hindered the identification of the symbol on its reverse. Kindler identified the cluster as “an olive spray” (1961:37) and later, as “a bunch of grapes” (1974:37). A close examination of the reverse of type no. 20 confirms that neither of these suggestions is likely correct (cf. ajc 2:39 n. 22). No leaves are present around the top of the stem, and the fruit (or leaves) 11

12

The word lulav in Hebrew has two meanings: (1) a palm branch, (2) palm, myrtle and willow branches bound for ceremonial use during the holiday of Sukkot (cf. Romanoff 1971:17 n. 66). To avoid ambiguity, we always intend the latter meaning by lulav. This assumes that the inscription starts at the top of the coin like on the other coin types of series f.

Deut. 8:7–8

8.8 Iconography of Type No. 14 Type no. 14 stands out due to some unique iconographic features. The obverse dies of this coin type have a star shape right above the name “Tiberias” and the reverse has two appendages (probably cornucopias) that rise from the bottom left and right sides of the palm branch (see Figure 8.5 and Figure 8.6). Unfortunately, it is difficult to examine these features in detail due to the rarity of this coin type and the generally poor condition of the coins.13 13

The appendage in the right field is harder to see than the left field on all known coins. This appears to be due to random wear.

48

chapter 8

figure 8.6 Composites of five obverse dies of type no. 14 showing the star. Not to scale

It is clear too that the more subtle features on the coins were erased from the die with usage. The rationale for these symbols to only appear on type no. 14 is difficult to determine. Few events of significance occurred to Antipas around or slightly before 33/4 ce, according to the literary sources (Hoehner 1972:350). Kokkinos dates the envoy of Jewish princes to Tiberius, as recorded by Philo, to around 33ce (1998:359). If this event was not an exaggeration by Philo (Schwartz 2013:25), it is likely that Antipas was part of the delegation. Then, perhaps the symbols on type no. 14 are related to this event. This would be even more compelling if Antipas was, in fact, the leader of this group

(Hoehner 1972:178; but see Jensen 2010:107–108). We do not know the relationship, if any, between the star symbol and the cornucopias, though it is hard to imagine that they both appear only on the large denomination by chance. 8.8.1 Star Apparently every obverse die of type no. 14 has a small object, presumably a star, above the name “Tiberias” (see Figure 8.7). On dies O1 and O3–O5, the sign is within the wreath and on die O2, it apparently lies within the upper closure of the wreath (see Figure 8.6; but cf. the wreath closure on die O4). This star, like the appendages on the

the iconography

49

figure 8.7 All nine reverse dies of type no. 14 showing the left cornucopias. Note that an appendage may also be seen on the right side of some of the palm branches. Not to scale

reverse (see below), has not been described until recently (Fontanille and Kogon 2015). We are unable to find a similar figure on any other coin types of Antipas. Thanks to clear examples of type no. 14, we see that the star on die O3 has seven points. Small stars and other astronomical symbols are found on some coin types of Syria. Butcher notes that “it may be that these symbols represent periods of the year which were seen as being under the influence of particular heavenly bodies, although on many coins they occur with such irregularity that one wonders whether their appearance was sometimes little more than talismanic” (2004:238). Meshorer writes that “the star is associated with luck and fate, and astrology, which also made inroads into Judaism, deals with stars and their influence on the universe and its inhabitants” (tjc:37–38). Numismatically, the star is usually associated with royalty (tjc:38; Ariel and Fontanille 2012:108). Some scholars have associated the star with messianic rule, based on Num. 24:17: “a star will tread forth from Jacob and a scepter will rise from Israel” (e.g. tjc:38;

Ariel and Fontanille 2012:108). On type no. 14, a messianic message is untenable. Stars may be found on several Judaean coin types. A rare variety of John Hyrcanus i’s cornucopias/wreath prutah appears to have a schematic five-pointed star above the crossed cornucopias (see Figure 8.8; Fontanille 2007). This symbol has only been identified on one die and may be simply an adornment. Jannaeus’ types k and l in tjc have an eight-pointed star within a diadem on the reverse side. The stars on these common coins are made up of a central dot with eight rays flaring outwards. A six-pointed star adorns the top of the helmet on the obverse of Herod’s largest denomination (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:107–108). A small six-pointed star appears on some coins of Agrippa ii (tjc:Nos. 130, 160, 166, 167 and some examples of tjc:No. 165). In the latter case, the star may represent a control mark or perhaps symbolize the consecration of the Emperor’s two-year-old son who had died (ajc 2:91). The selaʿim of the second to fourth years of the Bar Kokhba revolt have a star-like shape

50

chapter 8

figure 8.8 Coin of Hyrcanus i showing a star (?). Not to scale.

figure 8.9 The left cornucopia from a prutah of John Hyrcanus i (1, on left) and the left cornucopia on die R1 of Antipas’ type no. 14 (2, on right; see plate 24)

the star symbol represented a different, but unrecorded astronomical event, such as a supernova or comet. Church Father Origen cites Phlegon regarding an eclipse occurring during the reign of Tiberius (Contra Celsum 2:33), but the reliability of this record is questionable. Divus Augustus is represented on coins of Tiberius by a star above the portrait of his predecessor. Antipas did not appear to have supported the religious aspects of the imperial cult in Galilee (Bernett 2007:343–348), so it is unlikely the star represents Divus Augustus.

above the temple. This symbol usually has eight points, but sometimes has as few as four (cf. tjc:158, ajc 2:151). However, Mildenberg considers this symbol to be simply a decorative rosette (1984:44–45) and Meshorer does not attempt to attach meaning to it (tjc:158). A six-pointed star countermark, commonly found on coins of Philip up to 15/6 ce (Howgego 1985:No. 457) also resembles the star on type no. 14. In particular, the countermark is found on about one third of the examples tjc:No. 100 (ajc 2:47). The reason for the countermark is uncertain; possibly it has to do with the fact that Philip did not mint any coins between 15/6 ce and 26/7 ce (tjc:90). We are aware of one coin of Agrippa ii with a similar star countermark14 (tjc:No. 169a). It is possible that the stellate sign on type no. 14 represents an unrecorded astronomical event. An annular solar eclipse was visible in Judaea on September 12th, 33 ce.15 If Antipas used Tishri counting, this eclipse would have occurred around when he began his 37th regnal year; if he used Nissan counting, it would have occurred about halfway through the regnal year. It is possible also that

8.8.2 Cornucopia On type no. 14, two cornucopias rise from the bottom of the palm branch into the left and right16 fields respectively (cf. tjc:82). These cornucopias are found in varying degrees of schematicism. Each one always appears as a thickening curve with a broad top, which is sometimes disconnected from the curve. Two horizontal lines are sometimes present midway through their midsections. These appendages seem to appear on all the reverse dies of the type.

14

16

15

According to Howgego, “it is possible that the countermark was on an earlier coin which was overstruck under Agrippa ii” (1985:192). According to nasa’s index of eclipses (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa .gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Maps-05.pdf) there were two eclipses that occurred in the years 33 ce and 34 ce: September 12th, 33 ce and September 1st, 34 ce.

On the coins we examined, the cornucopia is generally clearer on the left side. However, an examination of the composite dies of type no. 14 reveals marks beneath the date in the right field that appear like the one on the left side. These marks were quickly worn off from the dies and are thus difficult to spot on coins. Both Jewish and non-Jewish coins from the Levant depict double cornucopias joined at their bases in this fashion (tjc:34).

the iconography

These symbols, like the star, do not appear on any other coin types, including the smaller denominations from series e. The significance of the appendages is enigmatic. The cornucopia symbolized plenty and fertility (Goodenough 1958:109), and was depicted ubiquitously on coins of the Hasmoneans (tjc:Nos. a–b, d–g, etc.), King Herod (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:No. 15–16), Archelaus (tjc:Nos. 67–68, 70–71), Agrippa i (tjc:Nos. 112, 119),

51 Agrippa ii (tjc:Nos. 127, 135, 153, etc.) and a Roman governor of Judaea (tjc:No. 320). The two parallel lines along the midsections of the cornucopias could represent a ribbon or a similar adornment, like on the cornucopia of the Hasmonean prutah illustrated (see Figure 8.9). The cornucopias on Antipas’ coins do not have a pointed top that is usually present on Judaean cornucopias.

chapter 9

Geographical Distribution Coins of Herod Antipas have been documented through systematic archaeological excavations. This provides important information to analyze the distribution of Antipas’ coins in antiquity. All of Antipas’ coins were minted in Galilee over a span of many years, so analysis of their circulation can provide important insight into the economy and trade of first-century Galilee. The only thing that can be said with certainty about a coin found at a certain site is the tautology that the coin was found at that site. Cautious statistical inferences can be formed with the understanding that coin finds are not random, as selection bias is unavoidable and occurs in many forms. For instance, one may erroneously conclude the existence of a disproportionate number of coins in a certain region simply because more excavations have been carried out there. Alternatively, a certain denomination may be systematically missed in excavation due to its small size. There is also the possibility that coins are not present at a certain site by sheer chance, creating undetectable random error. Lastly, our sample size of 181 coins is undoubtedly minute compared to the number of coins of Antipas circulating in antiquity (see Section 6.2). Most of the sites where Antipas’ coins were found only yielded one or two coins. It is clear that these factors mean great care needs to be taken when analyzing provenance data (cf. Syon 2015:31–49). Nonetheless, the fact that Antipas’ coins are generally found around the Sea of Galilee (and more rarely in many rigorous excavations elsewhere) suggests that the data is at least somewhat reflective of the circulation of Antipas’ coins in antiquity. A comparably restricted distribution pattern for Philip’s coins has also been observed (tjc:90; cf. Syon 2015:178). We obtained provenance information from the iaa, publications, private collections and from Syon 2015. Great care was taken to avoid duplication during data gathering. We have included a list of all the provenanced coins known to us in Appendix b. The locations of the finds in the Levant are illustrated in Figure 9.1 and Figure 9.2. Unless otherwise stated, all provenance information comes from Syon 2015. It is likely that coins of Antipas would be found in excavations beyond the borders of modern Israel. However, we were unable to obtain any provenance information from the departments of antiquities of Jordan, Lebanon or Syria. Excavation reports from sites in these countries

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004362987_010

are relatively rare. Consequently, our analyses are mostly restricted to the borders of modern Israel. All the sites in which Antipas’ coins were found are divided by region below. We use the borders defined by Josephus, with slight modifications (after Syon 2015:179, Figure 45). Josephus was well-acquainted with Galilee and Gaulanitis and was active there not long after the reign of Antipas. Though the Mishnah also discusses the borders of Galilee, it was compiled long after Antipas’ reign. Most of the Tannaitic Rabbis lived in and were familiar with Galilee (Gafni 1987:21–22; see Safrai 2006), but it is unfortunately difficult to date Mishnaic pericopes with certainty. Josephus describes the Galilean borders in detail, though he mixes both administrative and geographical borders: Galilee, with its two divisions known as Upper and Lower Galilee, is enveloped by Phoenicia and Syria. Its western frontiers are the outlying territory of Ptolemais and Carmel, a mountain once belonging to Galilee, and now to Tyre; adjacent to Carmel is Gaba, the “city of cavalry,” so called from the cavalry who, on their discharge by King Herod settled in this town. On the south the country is bounded by Samaria and the territory of Scythopolis up to the waters of Jordan; on the east by the territory of Hippos, Gadara, and Gaulanitis, the frontier-line of Agrippa’s kingdom; on the north Tyre1 and its dependent district mark its limits. Lower Galilee extends in length2 from Tiberias to Chabulon, which is not far from Ptolemais on the coast; in breadth, from a village in the Great Plain called Xaloth to Bersabe. At this point begins Upper Galilee, which extends in breadth to the village of Baca, the frontier of Tyrian territory; in length, it reaches from the village of Thella, near the Jordan, to Meroth. bj 3:35–40

1 This boundary passes through Naḥal Dishon (Frankel et al. 2001:111). 2 Length refers to east-west measurement, while breadth refers to south-north measurement.

geographical distribution

53

figure 9.1 Map of the distribution of Antipas’ coins in Palestine, on modern borders

54

chapter 9

figure 9.2 Map of the distribution of Antipas’ coins in the north, on modern borders

Josephus’ borders are discussed by Frankel et al. (2001:111–113; some errors are corrected3 in Syon 2015:82, Figure 14). Using the coin data, however, Syon argues that the border of Galilee before c. 44 spanned somewhat farther west, including up to about Shaʿar ha-ʿAmaqim (2015:181). Galilee and Gaulanitis were administratively distinct during the early first century ce—the former being in Antipas’ territory and the latter being in Philip’s. Still, it 3 Figure 4.2 in Frankel et al. (2001:112) appears to have confused the Baraita and Josephus borders.

should be emphasized that lower Gaulanitis was, to some degree, considered to be part of Galilee by the Jewish population (Syon 2015:22; Ben David 2011:24–30). Josephus, for instance, considers Judas, the son of Hezekiah to be a Galilean (bj 2:118) and a Gaulanite (aj 18:4).

9.1

Gaulanitis

Coins of Antipas reached Gaulanitis in significant numbers. In fact, more coins are recorded to have been found in Gaulanitis than in all the other regions combined. This

55

geographical distribution

is primarily due to the large number of coins of Antipas found in Gamla, many of which were left at the time of the city’s destruction in the first century ce. Gamla was occupied during the Early Bronze Age ii (c. 3000–c. 2700 bce) and then once again between the second century bce and Gamla’s fall to the Romans in 67ce. The coins found in Gamla have been thoroughly studied by Syon in his dissertation (2004) and in the Shmarya Gutmann excavation report (2014b). In Gamla, 5,892 identifiable coins were found (Syon 2014b:109). The earliest numismatic phase of Gamla is marked by 610 Seleucid coins. The Hasmoneans, however, had the largest numismatic impact on Gamla (3,964 Hasmonean coins were found = 62.8% of total). This results from the large number of Hasmonean coins minted, long minting period and broad circulation. Tyrian coins and coins of the Roman governors in Judaea are also well represented in Gamla. Of the coins found at Gamla, 282 were coins of the Herodians and Roman Administrators, including 106 or 107 coins of Herod, 6 coins of Archelaus and 37 coins of Philip. An unexpectedly large number of coins of Antipas were discovered at Gamla; all the years of his minting (except for the year of series a) are represented by at least two denominations (Syon 2004:48–49). The site yielded 64 coins of Antipas—more than any other single site. Nonetheless, we emphasize that Antipas’ coins comprise only about 1% of the total number of coins found at Gamla. This percentage is comparable to that of most other Gaulonite and Galilean sites where Antipas’ coins were found. Gush Ḥalav, where the second most coins of Antipas were found, had less than one-sixth of the number of coins of Antipas found in Gamla. Though Gamla was in Philip’s territories, coins of Antipas represented almost twice as many as of Philip. Syon argues that this phenomenon is explained “by the more favourable position of Tiberias for the people of Gamla. It was both more easily accessible and it had a Jewish population, as opposed to the predominantly pagan population of the Paneas area” (2004:112). The large number of coins found in lower Gaulanitis can also be understood by its strong cultural ties with Galilee (cf. Syon 2015:22–23). This trend also appears in respect to pottery distribution (Adan-Bayewitz 1993:247– 249). Bethsaida (et-Tell), on the Sea of Galilee, is another site in Philip’s territory that yielded coins of Antipas. The excavations in Bethsaida produced some 287 coins (2015:120, no. 125). This figure includes 30 Ptolemaic coins, 75 Seleucid coins, 44 Tyrian coins and 28 Jewish coins.

Only two Late Roman coins were discovered. Of the Jewish coins found, 17 coins are Hasmonean and the remainder Herodian, including two coins of Antipas and three of Philip. The northernmost site where Antipas’ coins were found is Caesarea Philippi (Caesarea Paneas), the capital city of Philip’s territories. Philip founded Caesarea Philippi at the site of Paneas and it became his capital (bj 2:168). Paneas was largely pagan, housing the famous Sanctuary of Pan. Still, there was a Jewish, and later, a Christian presence in the city (Wilson 2004:70–84). Two lone coins of Antipas were found at this site. 9.1.1 Caesarea Philippi Hoard In January 2016, a hoard of Antipas’ coins that was allegedly discovered in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi was brought to our attention (see Figure 9.3). This hoard was comprised of nine coins of Antipas. The terminus post quem of the hoard is 39/40 ce, due to the appearance of coins from series f. After discovery, the coins from this hoard were put up for sale in the antiquities market. Since the coins have similar patinas and are in similar states of wear, there is little reason to doubt the integrity of the hoard. Bronze hoards generally are rarer than silver hoards. Syon records no bronze hoards coming from Galilee between 63 bce and 70 ce (2015:66). In Syria, “hoard evidence for the first and second centuries ad is almost entirely absent” (Butcher 2004:185). The hoard is disproportionately made up of coins from series f (67 %). This might indicate that the hoard was put together soon after 39/40 ce. Only coins of denominations i and ii are represented in the hoard. The context and reason for which the coins were assembled is unclear.

9.2 Upper Galilee Upper Galilee yielded a notable, though relatively modest number of coins. To date, Gush Ḥalav yielded more coins than any other site in Upper Galilee. Relatively little is recorded about Gush Ḥalav in ancient literature. The town is only mentioned occasionally by Josephus, often in reference to John (of Giscala), a Jewish leader in the First Revolt and an opponent of Josephus, who was born there (e.g. Vita 43; bj 2:629). “Extensive building activities” have been identified at the site of Gush Ḥalav. Painted plasters and geometric designs from this period may even be indicative of a synagogue from the early Roman period (Meyers et al. 1979:36).

56

chapter 9

figure 9.3 All coins from the Caesarea Philippi hoard. While we were only able to obtain blurry images of many coins in the hoard, the quality was good enough to identify all the dies. Not to scale

57

geographical distribution

In Gush Ḥalav, 518 coins were discovered (Syon 2015:114, no. 74), the majority being from the Late Roman Era. Gush Ḥalav yielded 10 coins of Antipas, making up about 2 % of the total finds. Systematic excavations were carried out in Meiron. 1,003 or 1,004 identifiable coins were found during these excavations. In total, 19 Herodian coins were found in Meiron, three of which were minted by Antipas. A unit and half denomination (Raynor and Meshorer 1988:Nos. 206 and 207 respectively) of series c (29/30ce) were found as well as a half denomination (Raynor and Meshorer 1988:No. 208) of series e (33/4ce). Other Herodian coins present include six issues of Herod, two of Philip, four of Agrippa i and four of Agrippa ii. A considerable 48 Phoenician autonomous coins were also found. The 108 Hasmonean coins make up some 10.6% of the total number of coins found in Meiron (Raynor and Meshorer 1988:83). Nevoraya is a site located about four kilometres north/ northeast of Safed. Based on numismatic and ceramic finds at the site, Nevoraya was inhabited from the early Roman period (Meyers, Strange and Meyers 1981:6). It is thus unsurprising that the earliest extant literary reference to this site is in Talmudic era literature (jt Yeb. 2:3; G. Rab. 7:20). In Nevoraya, 101 identifiable coins were found. While “coinage from the period of the Jewish commonwealth is […] limited” (Raynor 1981:19), three coins of Antipas were discovered. Only three other Jewish coins were found in Nevoraya; all of them are of the same ubiquitous type minted by Alexander Jannaeus (Raynor 1981:19). Few earlier coins have been found there.

432–442). Eight more coins were recovered in excavations at Khirbet Ḥamam, a rural site established during the Hasmonean period (Leibner 2009:205–212). Sepphoris was Antipas’ first capital and an important Jewish city for many centuries (Rosenfeld 2010:115–120). The earliest literary reference to Sepphoris is made by Josephus (aj 13:338), who recounts Ptolemy Lathyrus’ unsuccessful siege of Sepphoris. There appears therefore to have been a Jewish presence in Sepphoris as early as c. 103 (Syon 2015:165). Gabinius instated Sepphoris as the lone Galilean synedrium (aj 14:91). Syon 2015 records 5 coins of Antipas found in Sepphoris. Coins of Antipas were found in several other sites in Lower Galilee. However, due to the small number of coins at these sites, few sound conclusions can be made about the importance of the discoveries.

9.3 Lower Galilee

9.5 Judaea

The majority of Antipas’ coins found in Lower Galilee were spread among numerous sites in the region. The diversity of the sites in Lower Galilee that yielded coins of Antipas is unsurprising, as most of the important Galilean cities were located here. Migdal (Tarichea) was a site overlooking the western Sea of Galilee. During the first century bce, Migdal was possibly the most important site in the region and remained a relatively urbanized town into the first century ce (Leibner 2009:221–227). Syon records that 509 coins were found dating from the middle Roman period (63bce–70ce) at Migdal. This site yielded 22 coins of Antipas, the largest number outside of Gamla. Eight coins of Antipas were found in Yodefat. Yodefat is perhaps most famous from Josephus’ detailed account of its siege during the First Revolt (bj 3:141–288, 316–408,

Jerusalem was the capital of Judaea and the religious, social and political centre of the Jews, as attested to by both multitude of literary sources and modern archaeology. Pilgrimages were made by Jews to Jerusalem thrice yearly. Curiously, of all the c. 20,000 coins found in Jerusalem excavations (Ariel 2016:104), just one was minted by Antipas. This coin was found at St. Andrew’s Church, about half a kilometre southwest of the Old City of Jerusalem. Antoine Galland apparently found a coin of Antipas in Jericho in 1674 (Fréret 1754:293). The coin is described as having a palm branch on one side and a wreath on the other, though denomination is not recorded. The date

9.4 Decapolis Seven coins of Antipas were found in the Decapolis, all in Hippos (Sussita) . Among the cities in the Decapolis, Hippos was the closest to the Sea of Galilee. Hippos is situated on the eastern side of the lake, directly opposite to Tiberias. The settlement of Hippos dates back to Hellenistic times. Few Jewish coins were found in Hippos, possibly because of the site’s non-Jewishness (cf. Adan-Bayewitz 1993:220). Antipas’ coins comprise an unusually large component of the Jewish coins found in Hippos, probably because of Hippos’ close proximity with Tiberias.4

4 Trade between Tiberias and Hippos is attested to in rabbinic literature (Dvorjetski 2013:55–56).

58 on the coin is recorded as MΔ—a common erroneous reading (see above, Section 4.3)—so we can only speculate as to what the actual date is. Fréret notes that the coin was housed in the King’s Cabinet (cabinet du roi) in France. We were unable to determine any other information about this coin or any other coins found in Jericho. The only known example of type no. 1 was purchased as part of a group of prutot, apparently from the Jordan Valley (Hendin 2003–2006:57 n. 10). This coin was probably a stray find. The Jordan Valley runs through Judaea and Samaria, up to the Decapolis and Galilee; the exact location in the Jordan Valley where this coin was found is unknown. While Qumran yielded 1,265 coins, not one was minted by Antipas (Murphy 2002:306–307).

9.6 Samaria Caesarea was a large port that was undoubtedly the most important economic site in Samaria. No coins of Antipas were identified among the 2,734 identifiable coins found during excavations (DeRose Evans 2006:13, 26). However, two stray coins of Antipas were found along the dunes of Caesarea Maritima by collectors.

9.7 Outside Palestine Phoenicia was the north-westerly neighbour of Galilee. Certainly, the Phoenicians were important trade partners with the Galileans. However, only one coin of Antipas was discovered in Phoenicia, in Ḥorvat Karkara. One coin of Antipas was found in Cyprus. This coin is a half denomination from series b (type no. 3) and was probably a stray find (Destrooper-Georgiades 2006:39). Destrooper-Georgiades suggests that the coin probably arrived in Cyprus sometime before 70ce (2006:46). Some coins of the Hasmoneans, Herodian and Roman governors of Palestine were found in Cyprus as well (DestrooperGeorgiades 2006; Cox 1959:25–26).

9.8 Summary and Analysis of the Provenanced Finds Antipas’ series b–f were minted in Tiberias, on the western side of the Sea of Galilee. Many coins of Antipas have been found in cities situated around this lake. The Sea of Galilee was undoubtedly one of the most important resources in Galilee. The lake provided fresh water—a scarcity in Palestine, especially during the summer months—as well as fish. Boats enabled people to quickly travel between

chapter 9

cities on the Sea of Galilee, allowing for greater ease of interaction and trade. Syon emphasises that when bronze coins were minted for a certain region, they were not expected to broadly circulate (2015:35). This was the case regarding Antipas’ coins, which appear not to have strayed far from Galilee and Gaulanitis. Syon also argues that ethnic differences between populations also may have affected distribution patterns (2015:87–101). This may explain, in part, why Antipas’ coins are rarely found at non-Jewish sites, even when they are near Galilee itself. Although many Jewish bronzes were found in Machaerus (Piccirillo 1980), Callirrhoe (Clamer 1997:91–92) and Heshbon (Tell Ḥesban) (Mitchel 1992:162–163), we are unaware of any finds of Antipas’ coins in his territory of Peraea. Due to “poor documentation of coin-finds in Jordan” (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:153; see Augé 1987:227), coupled with the fact that Antipas’ coins are quite rare in excavations, we are unable to conclude much about the distribution of Antipas’ coins in Peraea. No coins of Herod, who minted many more coins than Antipas, were even found in the excavations carried out in Peraea—but still, large quantities of Herod’s coins are exported from Jordan today (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:154). Similar arguments may be made to explain the apparent lack of coins of Antipas in regions near Galilee outside of modern-day Israel. Figures 9.1 and 9.2 illustrate the apparently unnatural preponderance of provenanced coins of Antipas in modern Israel in comparison to Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. It remains likely, however, that Antipas’ coins did not travel to Peraea in large numbers, just as they did not frequently reach Samaria and Judaea. More systematic excavations in western Transjordan may help elucidate the economic relationship between Galilee and Peraea. The apparent absence of coins of Antipas in most of the Decapolis may likewise be due largely to the paucity of modern excavation data from modern Jordan. Nonetheless, no coins of Antipas have been found at the Cisjordanian site of Nysa-Scythopolis (Beit Sheʾan). Nysa-Scythopolis probably did not have as strong an economic tie with Galilee as Hippos did simply because of its geographic placement. The Sea of Galilee allowed for easy travel between Hippos and Tiberias. However, NysaScythopolis did not have maritime access. The lone coin of Antipas from Cyprus is possibly a product of Cypriot trade with Galilee (cf. Chancey 2004:160– 161; Destrooper-Georgiades 2006:44–45; Edwards 2009: 227–229). Syon prefers to associate the Jewish coins found in Cyprus with “a large Jewish presence” on the island (2015:40).

geographical distribution

Of the coins found in Gamla, the majority are Hasmonean. In contrast, a relatively small number coins of the Herodians and the Roman administration (4.8% of total) were found (Syon 2004:27, Figure 1); in particular, coins of Antipas make up a mere 1% of the entire numismatic profile of Gamla. Based on the number of coins found in different sites, it is clear that Antipas’ minted coins in small quantities compared to his predecessors and in similar quantities to Philip. Possibly, the Roman authorities denied the tetrarchs the ability to mint as many coins as a king or an ethnarch (cf. Dahmen 2010:100; rpc:1–2). We note, however, that Herod Agrippa ii was a king but also minted exiguously. Very few coins of Antipas appear to have travelled to Jerusalem: c. 0.005% of all the coins (1 in c. 20,000) found in Jerusalem excavations were struck by him. On the other hand, we see that Jerusalemite coins of the Hasmoneans

59 (Syon 2004:226–238; cf. Syon 2006) and Herod (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:149) arrived in Galilee in great numbers. A certain level of trade with Jerusalem was a necessary byproduct of the triannual Jewish pilgrimages. One does not see this reflected by finds of Antipas’ coins in Jerusalem ostensibly since the temple tax was generally paid in silver. We are unable to determine any special distribution patterns for coins of different denominations or years. All denominations of all years (except perhaps the very rare type no. 1) appear to have circulated in a similar manner. In sum, Antipas’ coins have restricted circulation, centred at Tiberias. Very few have been found outside of Galilee and Gaulanitis. The major factors impacting circulation patterns of Antipas’ coins (from most to least important) appear to have been: distance of sites from Tiberias, ethnic makeup of sites, and administrative and political borders.

chapter 10

The Legacy of Antipas’ Coins This section is devoted to curiosities and phenomena related to Antipas’ coins. In particular, we will discuss the nachleben and influence of the coins after Antipas’ exile. Antipas’ coins were kept in circulation for centuries after minting. Coins of Antipas have apparently been found at late synagogues in Ḥammat, Meiron, Gush Ḥalav, Nevoraya, Arbel and Capernaum1 (ajc 2:41 n. 28). A curious post-minting modification of an Antipas coin was carried out on an example of type no. 11. This coin was cut into a square and the edges were filed (see Figures 10.1 and 10.2), reducing the weight of the coin from about 6 g to 4.15g. This was likely done to change the coin into a one nomisma (solidus) weight (nominally c. 4.5g2), probably after the coin was demonetized (Weber 2014:10–11). Modifying coins into weights was a widespread phenomenon in antiquity (see Weber 2014). Several Judaean coins are known to have been converted into weights, sometimes inscribed with the letter n for nomisma (Hendin, personal communication; cf. Ronen 2010). If Weber is correct in concluding that the modification of coins into weights became widespread in the third century ce (2014:16), it would appear that Antipas’ coins were still in personal possession until at least that period. Sussman records an oil lamp (c. 70–c. 132ce), whose nozzle displays a “raised disc with a palm-branch in relief” that is “reminiscent of a coin of Herod the Great, bearing a palm-branch” (Figure 10.3; 1972:74, no. 102). Upon examination it is clear that this feature more resembles the reed on the reverses of Antipas’ series b than any coin of Herod. Due to the rough condition and simplicity of the lamp design, this reattribution is tentative. It is quite possible that this symbol does not reference a coin at all (cf. Sussman 1982:75, nos. 105–107). The case for reattribution would be supported considerably if this lamp were discovered in Galilee, but unfortunately, no provenance information is recorded.

1 We were not able to find the coin from Capernaum that Meshorer describes. 2 The deviation in weight of the modified coin from the nominal value falls within the normal range (see Weber 2014:42–45).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004362987_011

10.1 Imitations of Series c–e by the Roman Administration and Agrippa ii Antipas was deposed and exiled from his territories in 39/40 ce. Although he was far from his former lands, his coins were used for many years after his reign. Agrippa i inherited Antipas’ lands after his deposition. When Agrippa i died, his son Agrippa ii was the natural successor to the kingdom. The inheritance did not occur immediately; Emperor Claudius was dissuaded from giving the kingship to Agrippa ii—who was about 17 years old—on the advice that it was dangerous to give such a powerful title to someone so young. As a result, Cuspius Fadus was appointed as procurator of all Judaea (aj 19:360–363) until Agrippa ii was old enough to rule the kingdom. The right of minting coins during the interim period between Agrippa i’s death and the time that Agrippa ii was given to the Roman administration, based in Caesarea Maritima. The administration minted coins in three important northerly cities: Tiberias, Caesarea Philippi and Caesarea Maritima (tjc:177). Three denominations were minted in Tiberias under Claudius (rpc:Nos. 4851–4853; tjc:Nos. 347–349) (Figure 10.4). All of these coins are dated to Claudius’ 13th regnal year (LIΓ = 53/4 ce). These coins were obviously minted with Antipas’ series c–e as prototypes, for, like Antipas’ coins, they bear the name “Tiberias” in two lines of text within a wreath on the obverse3 and a palm branch flanked by a date and surrounded by a legend on the reverse. Other than the date, the only difference between the imitative coins and Antipas’ series c–e is the reverse inscription: the legend “of Herod the Tetrarch” from Antipas’ coins is replaced with “of Claudius Caesar” (ΚΛΑΥΔΙΟΥ ΚΑΙCΑΡΟC). Meshorer believes that “this coinage was minted on the initiative of the city council and not that of the senior Roman administrators, since the city’s name appears on them” (tjc:178). The Roman administrative imitations resemble Antipas’ coins metrologically4 (rpc:588; Kindler 3 Based on our conclusion that the side with the wreath is the obverse on coins of series b–f (see Section 6.2) and preliminary observations, we believe that this side is also the obverse on the imitations of Antipas’ issues by the Roman aministration and Agrippa ii. 4 The imitatives are about the same size and weight as Antipas’ three

61

the legacy of antipas’ coins

figure 10.1 The Antipas coin modified to behave as a weight. Scale 2:1

figure 10.2 Edges of the Antipas coin modified to behave as a weight. Not to scale

1961:50) and stylistically. Palaeographically, the inscriptions of the administration are quite similar to those on Antipas’ series e: the alphas have a bent crossbar (a) and the epsilons are angular (E). We examined many Roman administrational coins of Tiberias and were unable to find any obverse dies shared between them and the coins of Antipas. This is not unexpected as, after all, no obverse dies were shared even amongst different series of Antipas. Plausibly, some of the die cutters of Antipas’ coins remained working under the Roman administration and cut the dies for the Antipas imitations, struck only 14 years after Antipas’ final series.

largest denominations. rpc:672 records that the three denominations under Claudius had respective sizes and weights of (1) 23mm and 11.09 g (three samples), (2) 18 mm and 7.43 g (three samples) and (3) 13 mm and 3.65 g (two samples).

A year or two after these coins were minted, Agrippa ii was given control of Tiberias (aj 10:158–159). Around the start of the First Jewish Revolt, he began minting his own coins. One of these types also used Antipas’ series c–e as prototypes: the obverse bears a wreath with the name “Tiberias” within in two lines and the reverse has a palm branch with text around and a date across the fields (rpc:No. 2242; tjc:No. 134; see Figure 10.5). This coin has particularly surprising obverse legend, commemorating the Emperor’s victory over the Jews in the First Revolt, viz. “King Agrippa—the emperor’s victory” (ΒΑ ΑΓΡΙΠΑ ΝΙΚ CΕΒ) (tjc:106). The average weight and size of the coin type appears to fall somewhere between that of denominations ii and iii. The meaning of this legend is easily understood in the historical context. Agrippa ii, being a Roman client king, naturally sided with the Romans during the revolt. In fact, Agrippa ii even sent troops to aid the Romans in Galilee

62

chapter 10

figure 10.3 Oil lamp possibly featuring a coin of Herod Antipas

figure 10.4 Largest denomination of the Roman administration imitating Antipas’ series c–e (rpc:No. 485; tjc:No. 347). Scale 2:1.

(bj 3:68) and invited Vespasian to celebrate his victories with him (bj 3:443–444). Agrippa ii’s imitation is dated “year 15” (ΕΤ ΙΕ). Using Kushnir-Stein’s placement of the eras of Agrippa ii, this type may be dated to 69/70 or 74/5ce (2002:130). The minting of this coin type evinces that Antipas’ coins continued to enjoy regular circulation even after the First Revolt. The style of Agrippa ii’s imitation is different than Antipas’ coins and its imitations by the Roman administration. The leaves of the wreath are small and fine on the obverse and on the reverse, the leaflets on the branch are congruent and few in number.

10.2 Antipas’ Coins during the First Jewish Revolt Roman–Jewish tensions climaxed in the month of Marḥeshvan of 66 ce, marking the beginning of the First Jewish Revolt. A violent Jewish uprising spread from Caesarea Maritima to the farthest reaches of Palestine. Roman troops were swiftly sent to suppress the insurrection. As a result, many fortified rebel cities were besieged—

the most infamous sieges including those of Jerusalem, Gamla, Yodefat and Masada. The end of the revolt is usually placed at the destruction of the Second Temple on the 9th of month of Av of 70 ce. Still, some cities, including Masada and Machaerus, managed to repel the Romans for some years after. Two assemblages of coins of the First Jewish Revolt were discovered in Jerusalem and discussed by Bijovsky (2009). Most of the coins from the hoards were burnt or blistered, presumably from the blaze set by Roman troops that consumed Jerusalem at the end of the revolt (described in bj 6:281–284). Fontanille published seven other Judaean coins—albeit without provenance—that may have been burnt in antiquity (2009). One of these coins was struck by Antipas (Fontanille 2009:124). It is likely, however, that this coin was simply damaged by corrosion. Antipas’ coins may also be related to the autonomous coins struck during the First Revolt in Gamla, aptly named “Gamla coins” (see Figure 10.6). These coins are crude bronze imitations of the Jerusalemite silver sheqalim from the revolt. The obverse displays a chalice, surrounded by

63

the legacy of antipas’ coins

figure 10.5 Agrippa ii’s imitating Antipas’ series c–e (rpc:No. 2242; tjc:No. 134). Scale 2:1.

figure 10.6 A bronze Gamla coin (Syon 2014b:190, no. 4885)

an inscription probably mentioning Gamla or Jerusalem.5 The reverse contains a round illegible inscription with no design. Syon has noted filing marks around the edges of the Gamla coins, which may indicate that they were struck on circulating coins that were filed for overstriking. If this is indeed the case, the most likely candidates (based on size and weight) for the undertypes are (1) the largest denomination of Antipas and (2) the largest denomination of the Roman administration imitation of Antipas’ coins from 53/4ce. In terms of fabric, the Gamla coins and those of

Antipas are different: Gamla coins feel “gritty” and “stable” while Antipas’ coins are generally prone to bronze disease (Syon 2014b:121). Syon believes that the flans for the Gamla coins were cast locally since a metal-casting workshop was identified in the city (Syon 2014b:121). A metallurgical analysis of one Gamla coin carried out by Ponting revealed a similar lead content to two coins of Antipas (2014; see Section 6.6). The weights and sizes of the Gamla coins (except Syon 2014b:120, table 5.17 “trade” = Farhi 2006:70, no. 66) are similar to those of Antipas’ large denomination (see Table 3.1).

5 Some difficulty has been encountered when reading the inscriptions of the Gamla coin. Meshorer, based on the fact that the Gamla coins were imitating revolt sheqalim, reads the obverse and reverse together as [‫“( לגאלת ירשלם קד]שה‬for the redemption of / Jerusalem [the] Ho[ly]”) or [‫“( לגאלת ירשלם הק]דשה‬for the redemption of / Jerusalem the H[oly]”) (tjc:131; ajc 2:129). Syon added a few letters to Meshorer’s reading: [‫לגאלת ירושלים קד]שה‬ (though the recorded texts in Figure 27 do not have the letter yud, ‫)י‬ (2004:56–57). Farhi (2006:73–74) and Pfann (2006:108–110) argued that the obverse inscription is ‫“( בגמלא‬in Gamla”) and ‫מגמלא‬ (“from Gamla”) respectively, leaving the crude reverse inscription unread. To these, Syon added yet another possible obverse inscription, ‫“( לגמלא‬to Gamla”) (2007:117).

6 If the auction catalogues that listed the coin correctly recorded the weight (see Syon 2014:121 n. 15), it may have been struck on Antipas’ (or the Roman administration’s) half denomination.

appendix a

Tooled and Forged Coins Many ancient Jewish coin types are faked and tooled,1 and unfortunately, Antipas’ coins are among the more common victims (see Figure a.1). Some coins are tooled to such a degree that they lose any semblance of the original coin. For this reason, a significant number of coins could not even be classified in our die study. An example of a coin that we believe to be completely tooled is illustrated in Figure a.2. On this coin, the obverse die matches with die O1 of type no. 6 while the reverse is too tooled to classify. It appears to us that, curiously, the coin was tooled into a type no. 10; the bottom of the Λ in the date was sharpened, forming a Δ. The reason for such a high rate of faking and tooling of Antipas’ coins is likely due to the simplicity of their designs and high prices; Antipas’ coins are quite rare (especially in good condition) and are sought after by collectors. Hendin’s catalogue of forged Judaean and biblical coins records five faked coins of Antipas (2005:81–82, nos. f514.o-f21.o). No known coins of Antipas with countermarks have been discovered to date. Nonetheless, we have identified what appear to be countermarks tooled into Antipas’

1 “Tooling” refers to the act of re-engraving metal of ancient coins in modern times through the use of a graver or a similar instrument. Tooling is done in an attempt to improve a coin’s aesthetic qualities, thereby increasing its price.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004362987_012

coins. As far back as 1982, two fake countermarks on coins of Antipas, from collections in Vienna and Munich, were identified by Meshorer (ajc:39 n. 21). A coin of Antipas with a countermark (Figure a.3) is recorded in Howgego’s seminal corpus of countermarked coins (1985:232, no. 640). According to K. Ehling, the countermark is likely fake. This coin, from the collection of the Staatliche Münzsammlung in Munich, may be the same fake as mentioned by Meshorer. Familiarity with the fabric of the coins and the style of the inscriptions and legends helps greatly with heuristic identification of tooled coins and modern forgeries. Our die study can be used as an aid for the same task. Tooling can be spotted with greater ease by comparing a coin with composite images of its dies, though this method is not foolproof. One’s belief in a coin’s authenticity is enhanced if it is found to match composite die images. The converse, however, may not be true; if dies from a questionable coin do not match any dies listed in our study, it need not be a forgery. Furthermore, cast forgeries can appear to match a listed die if the mold was formed from an authentic piece.

66

figure a.1 Some examples of possible modern forgeries of Herod Antipas’ coins. Not to scale.

appendix a

67

tooled and forged coins

figure a.2 A possible type no. 6 coin tooled to resemble type no. 10. Not to scale.

figure a.3 A possible fake coin of Antipas with a countermark. Scale 2:1.

appendix b

Provenanced Finds Abbreviations Ḥ. Kh. iaa sg ssc

Ḥorvat Khirbet Israel Antiquities Authority Coin no. in Syon 2014 Syon 2015:179, Figure 45

Site

iaa no.

Year (ce)

Arbel Arbel Beʾer Shevaʿ, Ḥ. Bethsaida Bethsaida Caesarea Maritima Caesarea Maritima Cyprus

91840

29/30

104762 116398

29/30 33/34 20/1 20/1 20/21

quarter eighth half

4 5 3

20/21 20/21 20/21 20/21 20/21 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 30/31 30/31 30/31 30/31 30/31

half half quarter quarter eighth unit unit unit unit unit unit half half half half half half half quarter quarter unit unit half half half

3 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 10 10 11 11 11

El-Tirya, Kh. Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla

18380 19863 18417 34965 19804 17881 17905 18280 18326 34693 35106 19636 20385 20449 20776 34959 35143 35158 19806 34420 17732 18272 19095 19294 20004

Denom.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004362987_013

Type no.

Source ssc ssc ssc, Sasa coll. ssc ssc Hendler coll. Hendler coll. Pitsillides coll. Destrooper-Georgiades 2006:39 ssc sg:4697 sg:4696 sg:4699 sg:4698 sg:4700 sg:4705 sg:4704 sg:4706 sg:4701 sg:4703 sg:4702 sg:4708 sg:4713 sg:4707 sg:4712 sg:4711 sg:4710 sg:4709 sg:4715 sg:4714 sg:4717 sg:4716 sg:4718 sg:4722 sg:4719

69

provenanced finds

Site

iaa no.

Year (ce)

Denom.

Type no.

Source

Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Gamla Givʿat Qumi Givʿat Qumi Givʿat Qumi Gush Ḥalav Gush Ḥalav Gush Ḥalav Gush Ḥalav Gush Ḥalav Gush Ḥalav

20030 34274 34961 87501 18325 18223 21141 21187 21369 34288 34423 68453 88520 17541 17543 21329 34306 35081 87513 18241/1 34277 34660 17652 18279 18977 19245 19414 21203 21675 34310 35303 68465 19801 20123 88516 88518

30/31 30/31 30/31 30/31 33/34 33/34 33/34 33/34 33/34 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40

half half half half unit half half half half unit unit unit unit half half half half half half half quarter quarter half half half half half half half half half half unit unit unit unit

11 11 11 11 14 15 15 15 15 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20

sg:4720 sg:4724 sg:4723 sg:4721 sg:4725 sg:4726 sg:4728 sg:4727 sg:4729 sg:4731 sg:4732 sg:4730 sg:4733 sg:4734 sg:4737 sg:4739 sg:4735 sg:4736 sg:4738 sg:4740 sg:4741 sg:4742 sg:4747 sg:4753 sg:4748 sg:4750 sg:4752 sg:4754 sg:4755 sg:4751 sg:4749 sg:4756 sg:4746 sg:4745 sg:4744 sg:4743 Sasa coll. Sasa coll. Sasa coll. ssc, Yannai coll. ssc, Yannai coll. ssc, Yannai coll. ssc ssc ssc, Sasa coll. ssc, Sasa coll. ssc, Sasa coll. ssc, Sasa coll.

32591 32643

70

appendix b

(cont.)

Site Gush Ḥalav Gush Ḥalav Gush Ḥalav Gush Ḥalav Ḥammam, Kh. Ḥammam, Kh. Ḥammam, Kh. Ḥammam, Kh. Ḥammam, Kh. Ḥammam, Kh. Ḥammam, Kh. Ḥammam, Kh. Hippos Hippos Hippos Hippos Hippos Hippos Hippos Jericho Jerusalem, St. Andrewʾs Church Jordan Valley Kafr Kanna Kafr Kanna Karkara, Ḥ. Karm er-Ras Kazyon, Ḥ Maqbarat Banat Yaʿqub Meiron Meiron Meiron Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal

iaa no.

Year (ce)

29/30 30/31 33/34 29/30 39/40

22720

Denom.

Type no.

half unit eighth

7 10 17

prutah

1

Source ssc, Sasa coll. ssc, Sasa coll. ssc, Sasa coll. ssc, Sasa coll. ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc Fréret 1754:293

39/40 1bce/1ce (?)

109622 29680

quarter 107620 29/30 33/34

unit half half

7 14

Hendin 2006:57 n. 10 ssc ssc, Elion coll. ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc

71

provenanced finds

Site Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Migdal Nein Nevoraya, Ḥ. Nevoraya, Ḥ. Nevoraya, Ḥ. Panias Panias Panias Panias Panias Panias Hoard Panias Hoard Panias Hoard Panias Hoard Panias Hoard Panias Hoard Panias Hoard Panias Hoard Panias Hoard Qaṣrin Ravid, Ḥ. Ravid, Ḥ. Sepphoris Sepphoris Sepphoris Sepphoris Sepphoris Shaʿar ha-ʿAmaqim Shaʿar ha-ʿAmaqim Shaʿar ha-ʿAmaqim Tiberias and Ḥammat Tiberias and Ḥammat Tiberias and Ḥammat Tiberias and Ḥammat Tiberias and Ḥammat Yehudia Yodefat Yodefat Yodefat Yodefat Yodefat

iaa no.

Year (ce)

73175 121403

29/30

80459 75268 106065

29/30 39/40 39/40

45918

29/30 29/30 30/1 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40 39/40 29/30

118540 113720 116160 99549 118961 114971 114972 114973 99205 97450 99210 91985 67081

19/20 30/31 33/34 39/40 39/40 19/20 29/30 30/31

46930 48840 48856 83172 83989

29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30 29/30

19/20 19/20 30/31 33/34

Denom.

Type no.

Source ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc, Sasa coll. ssc, Sasa coll. ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc

unit half unit unit half half half half half

6 7 10 18 19 19 19 19 19 ssc ssc, Y. Yannai coll. ssc, Y. Yannai coll. ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc ssc

72

appendix b

(cont.)

Site

iaa no.

Year (ce)

Yodefat Yodefat Yodefat Zalmon, Ḥ. Zalmon, Ḥ.

95336 97616 83977

29/30 29/30 30/31

Denom.

Type no.

Source ssc ssc ssc ssc, Sasa coll. ssc, Y. Yannai coll.

Bibliography Ancient Sources 1Enoch: Black M. ed. The Book of Enoch, or IEnoch: A New English Edition. Leiden, 1985. Eusebius, Chronicle: Karst J. ed. Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Kommentar (Eusebius Werke 5). Leipzig. 1911. Eusebius, Onomasticon: Klostermann E. Ed. Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen (Eusebius Werke 3:1). Leipzig. 1904. Josephus, aj, bj, ca: Josephus. 13 vols. (Loeb Classical Library). Transl. H. St. J. Thackeray et al. London–New York–Cambridge, Mass. 1926. Josippon: Flusser D. ed. The Book of Josippon 1: The Body of the Book and its Commentary. Jerusalem. 1981. (Hebrew). nt: Burer M.H., Harris iii W.H. and Wallace D.B. ed. New Testament. (New English Translation, Novum Testamentum Graece). Dallas. 2004. Philo, Leg.: Philo 10: On the Embassy to Gaius (Loeb Classical Library 379). Transl. F.H. Colson. Cambridge, Mass. 1941. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia: Natural History 9: Books 12–16 (Loeb Classical Library 370). Transl. H. Rackham. Cambridge, Mass. 1941. Pseudo-Hegesippus: V. Ussani ed. Hegesippi qui dicitur Historiae libri v: pars prior, Textum criticum continens 1 (Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 66). New York–London. 1960.

General Adan-Bayewitz D. 1993. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade (Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture). Ramat Gan. Adan-Bayewitz D., Asaro F., Wieder M. and Giauque R.D. 2008. Preferential Distribution of Lamps from the Jerusalem Area in the Late Second Temple Period (Late First Century b.c.e. – 70c.e.). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 350: 37–85. Ariel D.T. 2000–2002. The Jerusalem Mint of Herod the Great: A Relative Chronology. inj 14:99–124. Ariel D.T. 2003. Flan Moulds from the Temple Mount Excavations. In E. Mazar ed. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar. Final Report, ii: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods (Qedem 43). Jerusalem. Pp. 115–119. Ariel D.T. and Fontanille J.-P. 2012. The Coins of Herod: A Modern Analysis and Die Classification (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 79). Leiden–Boston.

Ariel D.T. 2012. Judaean Perspectives of Ancient Mints and Minting. inr 7:43–80. Ariel D.T. 2016. Coins from a Small Country: How Excavated Coins are Managed in Israel, from the Dig to the Bookshelf. In F. Duyrat and C. Grandjean eds. Les monnaies de fouille du monde grec (vie–ier s. a.C.). Apports, approches et méthodes (Ausonius Scripta Antiqua 93). Bordeaux. Pp. 99–111. Ariel D.T. and Bijovsky G. Forthcoming. “The Numismatic Evidence and the History of Sepphoris.” In Eric M. Meyers, Carol L. Meyers, and Benjamin D. Gordon, eds. The Architecture, Stratigraphy, and Artifacts of the Western Summit of Sepphoris (Duke Sepphoris Excavation reports 3). Winona Lake. Arnal W.E. 2001. Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of q. Minneapolis. Augé C. 1987. La reutilisation des monnaies de bronze à l’époque imperiale: quelques exemples proche-orientaux. In G. Depeyrot, T. Hackens and G. Moucharte eds. Rythmes de la production monétaire, de l’antiquité à nos jours: actes du colloque international organisé à Paris du 10 au 12 janvier 1986 (Numismatica Lovaniensia 7). Louvain-la-Neuve. Pp. 227– 235. Avi-Yonah. 1950–1951. The Foundation of Tiberias. Israel Exploration Journal 1:160–169. Aviam M. 2013. People, Land, Economy, and Belief in FirstCentury Galilee and Its Origins: A Comprehensive Archaeological Synthesis. In D.A. Fiensy and R.K. Hawkins eds. The Galilean Economy in the Time of Jesus. Pp. 5–48. Avigad N. 1975. A Bulla of King Jonathan. Israel Exploration Journal 25:245–246. Barkay R. 1992. The Processes of Production of Ancient Jewish Coins. Rivon Le Mehkar LeHagut Veletarbut Yehudit 2:92–101 (Hebrew). Berlin A.M. 2002. Romanization and Anti-Romanization in PreRevolt Galilee. In A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman eds. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology. London– New York. Pp. 57–73. Bernett M. 2007. Roman Imperial Cult in the Galilee: Structures, Functions, and Dynamics. In Zangenberg J., Attridge H.W., and Martin D.B. eds. Religion, Ethnicity, and Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 210). Tübingen. Pp. 337–356. Ben David C. 2011. Were there 204 settlements in Galilee at the time of Josephus Flavius? Journal of Jewish Studies 62:21– 36. Bijovsky G. 2009. A Burning Testimony: Two Bronze Hoards from the Time of the First Jewish Revolt. inr 4:73–81.

74 Bilde P. 1988. Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works and Their Importance. Sheffield. Bond H.K. 1996. The Coins of Pontius Pilate: Part of an Attempt to Provoke the People or to integrate them into the Empire? Journal for the Study of Judaism 27:241–262. Bond H.K. 2004. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 100). Cambridge. Bower N.W., Hendin D.B. and Burt S.E. 2016. A Thermomechanical Study of Judean Prutot Minting Methods. inr 11:95–110. Braund D. 1983. Four Notes on the Herods. The Classical Quarterly (New Series) 33:239–242. Braund D. 1984. Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of the Client Kingship. London–Canberra–New York. Butcher K. 2004. Coinage in Roman Syria: Northern Syria, 64 bc– ad 253. London. Butcher K. and Ponting M. 2009. The Silver Coinage of Roman Syria Under the Julio-Claudian Emperors. Levant 41:1:59–78. Carter W. 2003. Pontius Pilate: Portraits of a Roman Governor (Interfaces). Ed. by B. Green. Minnesota. Cavedoni D.C. 1856. Biblische Numismatik; oder, Erklärung der in der Heil. Schrift erwähnten alten Münzen 2. Hannover. Chancey M.A. 2004. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee: The Population of Galilee and New Testament Studies (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 118). Cambridge. Chancey M.A. 2005. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 134). Cambridge. Clamer C. 1997. Fouilles archéologiques de ‘Áïn Ez-zâra/Callirrhoé villégiature hérodienne. Bierut. Cohen S.J.D. 2002. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Leiden–Boston. Cox D.H. 1959. Coins from the Excavations at Curium, 1932–1953. New York. Dahmen K. 2010. With Rome in mind? Case Studies in the Coinage of Client Kings. In T. Kaiser and M. Facella eds. Kingdoms and Principalities in the Roman Near East. Stuttgart. Pp. 99–112. Dalman G. 1935. Sacred Sites and Ways Studies in the Topography of the Gospels. London. De Callataÿ F. 1995. Calculating Ancient Coin Production: Seeking a Balance. The Numismatic Chronicle 155:289–312. De Saulcy F. and de Barthélemy A. 1877. Mélanges de numismatique 2. Paris. DeRose Evans J. 2006. The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima Excavation Reports (Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima Excavation Reports 6). Boston. Destrooper-Georgiades A. 2006. Jewish Coins Found in Cyprus. inr 1:37–49. Dittenberger W. 1903. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae: Supplementum Sylloges Inscriptionum Graecarum 1. Leipzig.

bibliography Duncan-Jones R. 1994. Money and Government in the Roman Empire. Cambridge. Dvorjetski E. 2013. “City mostly of non-Jews, such as this Sussita”: The Historical Geography of Sussita-Antiochia HipposQalʾat el-Ḥuṣn. In Segal A., Eisenberg M., Młynarczyk J., Burdajewicz M. and Schuler M. Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations, 2000–2011 1. Haifa. Pp. 279–301. Eckhel J. 1828. Doctrina Numorum Veterum, 3. Vienna. Edwards D.R. 2009. Walking the Roman Landscape in Lower Galilee: Sepphoris, Jotapata, and Khirbet Qana. In Z. Rodgers, M. Daly-Denton and A. Fitzpatrick McKinley eds. A Wandering Galilean: Essays in Honour of Seán Freyne (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 132). Leiden. Pp. 219–236. Esty W.W. 1986. The Efficiency of Good’s Nonparametric Coverage Estimator. The Annals of Statistics 14:1257–1260. Esty W.W. 2006. How to Estimate the Original Number of Dies and the Coverage of a Sample. The Numismatic Chronicle 166:359–364. Farhi Y. 2006. The Bronze Coins Minted at Gamala Reconsidered. inj 15:69–76. Feinbrun-Dothan N. 1986. Flora Palaestina 4: Alismataceae to Orchidaceae. Jerusalem. Feldman L.H. 1953. Asinius Pollio and His Jewish Interests. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 84:73–80. Figueras P. 1983. Decorated Jewish Ossuaries. Leiden. Fine S. 1989. On the Development of a Symbol: The Date Palm in Roman Palestine and the Jews. Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha 4:104–118. Fine S. 2005. Art and Judaism in the Greco-Roman World: Toward a New Jewish Archaeology. New York. Finegan J. 1978. Archaeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church. Princeton. Finney P.C. 1993. The Rabbi and the Coin Portrait (Mark 12:15b, 16): Rigorism Manqué. Journal of Biblical Literature 112:629– 644. Fontanille J.-P. and Gosline S.L. 2001. The Coins of Pontius Pilate (Marco Polo Monographs 4). Pennsylvania. Fontanille J.-P. 2007. Is the Famous Nova of Hipparchus (134bc) Depicted on a Judaean Coin? Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada 101:1:11–13. Fontanille J.-P. 2011. Herod Philip: The First Jewish Portrait. inr 6:105–119. Fontanille J.-P. 2012. Seven Burnt Coins of the Last Years of the First Jewish Revolt. inr 7:115–126. Fontanille J.-P. and Kogon A.J. 2015. Two New Symbols on a Coin of Herod Antipas. inr 10:129–136. Frankel R., Getzov N. Aviam M. and Degani A. 2001. Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee. iaa Reports 14. Jerusalem.

bibliography Fréret N. 1754. Eclaircissement sur l’année & sur le temps précis de la mort d’Herode le Grand, roi de Judée. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres avec les Mémoires de Littérature tirés des Registres de cette Académie 21:278–299. Gafni I.M. 1987. The Historical Background. In S. Safrai and P.J. Tomson eds. The Literature of the Sages, 1. Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2). Assen/Maastricht–Philadelphia. Pp. 283–302. Goodenough E.R. 1953. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period 1. The Archeological Evidence from Palestine (Bollingen Series 37). New York. Goodenough E.R. 1958. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period 8. Pagan Symbols in Judaism 2 (Bollingen Series 37). New York. Hachlili R. 1988. Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel (Handbuch Der Orientalistik 7). Leiden. Hartal M. 2003. The Material Culture of Northern Golan in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Hayes J.W. 1980. Ancient Lamps in the Royal Ontario Museum 1: Greek and Roman Clay Lamps. Toronto. Hendin D. 2003–2006. A New Coin Type of Herod Antipas. inj 15:56–61. Hendin D. 2009a. A Medallion of Agrippa ii. inr 4:57–61. Hendin D. 2009b. The Metrology of Judean Small Bronze Coins. American Journal of Numismatics (Second Series) 21:105–121. Hendin D. 2005. Not Kosher: Forgeries of Ancient Jewish and Biblical Coins. Nyack. Hendin D. 2010. Guide to Biblical Coins (5th ed.). Nyack. Hill G.F. 1910. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia. London. Hill G.F. 1914. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Palestine (Galilee, Samaria, and Judaea). London. Hoehner H.W. 1972. Herod Antipas: A Contemporary of Jesus Christ. London. Hoffeditz D.M. 2006. Divus of Augustus: The Influence of the Trials of Maiestas upon Pontius Pilate’s Coins. inr 1:87–96. Horsley R.A. and Silberman N.A. 2002. The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World. Minneapolis. Howgego C.J. 1984–1985. The Relationship of the Issar to the Denar in Rabbinic Literature. inj 8:59–64. Howgego C.J. 1985. Greek Imperial Countermarks: Studies in the Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire (Royal Numismatic Society Special Publications No. 17). London. Jensen M.H. 2007. Message and Minting: The Coins of Herod Antipas in their Second Temple Context as a Source for Understanding the Religio-Political and Socio-Economic Dynamics of Early First Century Galilee. In J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge and D.B. Martin eds.Religion, Ethnicity, and

75 Identity in Ancient Galilee: A Region in Transition (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 210). Tübingen. Pp. 277–313. Jensen M.H. 2010. Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 215; 2nd ed.). Tübingen. Kindler A. 1961. The Coins of Tiberias. Tiberias. Kindler A. 1967. The Monetary Pattern and Function of the Jewish Coins. In A. Kindler ed. International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem, 27–31 December 1963: The Patterns of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity. Tel Aviv. Pp. 180–203. Kinder A. 1974. Coins of the Land of Israel: Collection of the Bank of Israel: A Catalogue. Ed By G. Sivan, Trans. R. Grafman. Jerusalem. Kindler A. 2009. Bethsaida Numismatic Survey. In R. Arav and R.A. Freund eds. Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee (Bethsaida Excavations Project Reports & Contextual Studies 4). Kirksville. Pp. 252–266. Kogon A.J. 2012. Countermarks on Small Judean Coins. inr 7:93– 106. Kogon A.J. 2015. Greek Letter Forms on Judean Coins. inr 10:111– 128. Kokkinos N. 1998. The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 30). Sheffield. Kushnir-Stein A. 1995. Another Look at Josephus’ Evidence for the Date of Herod’s Death. Scripta Classica Israelica 14:73–86. Kushnir-Stein A. 2002. The Coinage of Agrippa ii. Scripta Classica Israelica 21:123–131. Kushnir-Stein A. 2000–2002. Some Observations on Palestinian Coins with a Bevelled Edge. inj 14:78–83. Kushnir-Stein A. 2008. Reflection of Religious Sensitivities on Palestinian City Coinage. inr 3:125–136. Leibner U. 2009. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee. Tübingen. Levine L.I. 1978. Simeon B. Yoḥai and the Purification of Tiberias: History and Tradition. Hebrew Union College Annual 49:143– 185. Lönnqvist K.K.A. 1992–1993. New Vistas on the Countermarked Coins of the Roman Prefects of Judaea. inj 12:56–70. Madden F.W. 1864. History of Jewish Coinage, and of Money in the Old and New Testament. London. Madden F.W. 1881. Coins of the Jews. London. Mattingly H. 1976. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum 1: Augustus to Vitellius. London. McLaren J.S. 1998. Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judea in the First Century ce (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 29). Sheffield.

76 Melville Jones J.R. 1971. Denarii, Asses and Assaria in the Early Roman Empire. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 18:99–105. Meshorer Y. 1967. Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period. Transl. I.H. Levine. Tel Aviv. Meshorer Y. 1975. Nabataean Coins (Qedem 3). Jerusalem. Meshorer Y. 1990. Ancient Jewish Coinage Addendum i. inj 11:104– 132. Meshorer Y., Bijovsky G. and Fischer-Bossert W. 2013. Coins of the Holy Land: The Abraham and Marian Sofaer Collection at the American Numismatic Society and the Israel Museum. Ed. by D. Hendin and A. Meadows. 2 vols. New York. Meyers E.M., Strange J.F., Meyers C.L. and Hanson R.S. 1979. Preliminary Report on the 1977 and 1978 Seasons at Gush Ḥalav (el-Jish). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 233:33–58. Meyers E.M., Strange J.F. and Meyers C.L. 1981. Preliminary Report on the 1980 Excavations at en-Nabratein, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 244:1–25. Meyers E.M. 2013. Jesus and His Galilean Context. In D.R. Edwards and C.T. McCollough eds. Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods (Archaeology and the Galilee 143). Atlanta. Pp. 57–66. Mildenberg L. 1984. The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War (Typos 6). Frankfurt am Main. Minc H. 1985. Ancient Jewish Coins in the Correspondence between John Locke and Nicolas Toinard. The Biblical Archaeologist 48:108–121. Mitchel L.A. Hellenistic and Roman Strata (Hesban 7). Berrien Springs. Mørkholm O. 1991. Early Hellenistic Coinage: From the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamaea (336–188b.c.). Ed. by P. Grierson and U. Westermark. Cambridge–New York. Murphy C.M. 2002. Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 40). Leiden–Boston–Köln. Narkiss M. 1936. Coins of the Land of Israel 1: Coins of the Jews. Jerusalem. (Hebrew). No Author. 2007. Editor’s Note. inr 2:3–4. No Author. 2009. Editor’s Note. inr 4:5–7. Noy D., Panayotov A. and Bloedhorn H. ed. 2004. Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis: Eastern Europe, 1 (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 101). Tübingen. Noy I. 2012. The Victory Wreath of Hyrcanus i. inr 7:31–42. Pfann S. 2006. Dated Bronze Coinage of the Sabbatical Years of Release and the First Jewish City Coin. Bulletin of the AngloIsraeli Archaeological Society 24:101–113. Piccirillo M. 1980. Le monete della Fortezza di Macheronte (ElMishnaqa). Liber Annuus 30:403–414. Ponting M. 2014. Compositional Analysis of the Gamla Jewish War Coin. In D. Syon ed. Gamla iii: The Shmarya Gutmann

bibliography Excavations 1976–1989 Finds and Studies. Part 1 (iaa Reports 56). Jerusalem. Pp. 224–225. Qedar S. 1986–1987. Two Lead Weights of Herod Antipas and Agrippa ii and the Early History of Tiberias. inj 9:29–35. Rahmani L.Y. 1994. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel. Jerusalem. Rappaport U. 1994. Where Was Josephus Lying—In His Life or in the War? In F. Parente and J. Sievers eds. Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Leiden–New York–Köln. Pp. 279–289. Raynor J. 1981. Numismatic Report of Nabratein 1980. Pp. 15–21 in E.M. Meyers, J.F. Strange and C.L. Meyers: Preliminary Report on the 1980 Excavations at en-Nabratein, Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 244:1–25. Raynor J. and Meshorer Y. 1988. The Coins of Ancient Meiron (Meiron Excavation Project Series 4). Winona Lake. Reifenberg A. 1973. Ancient Jewish Coins (6th edition). Jerusalem. Richardson P. 1996. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans. Columbia, s.c. Rigord J.-P. 1689. Dissertation historique sur une médaille d’Herodes Antipas. Paris. Romanoff P. 1971. Jewish Symbols on Ancient Jewish Coins. New York. Ronen Y. 2010. Coins as Scale Weights. inr 5:183–184. Root B.W. 2014. First Century Galilee: A Fresh Examination of the Sources (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 378). Tübingen. Rosenberger M. 1977. City-Coins of Palestine: The Rosenberger Israel Collection 3. Jerusalem. Rosenfeld B.-Z. 2010. Torah Centers and Rabbinic Activity in Palestine 70–400ce: History and Geographic Distribution. Transl. C. Cassel. Leiden–Boston. Safrai S. 1987. Oral Tora. In S. Safrai and P.J. Tomson eds. The Literature of the Sages, 1. Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2). Assen/Maastricht–Philadelphia. Pp. 35–119. Safrai Z. 2006. Geography and Cosmography in Talmudic Literature. In S. Safrai, Z. Safrai, J.J. Schwartz and P.J. Tomson eds. The Literature of the Sages, 2. Midrash and Targum, Liturgy, Poetry, Mysticism, Contracts, Inscriptions, Ancient Science and the Languages of Rabbinic Literature (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2). Assen. Pp. 497–508. Schauer Y. 2010. Mint Remains from Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem. inr 5:99–107. Schürer E. 1973. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 1. Rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black. Edinburg. Schürer E. 1979. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2. Rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black. Edinburgh.

77

bibliography Schwartz D.R. 1990. Agrippa i: The Last King of Judaea (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 23). Tübingen. Schwartz D.R. 2013. Reading the First Century (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 300). Tübingen. Spijkerman A. 1962–1963. Some Rare Jewish Coins. Liber Annuus 13:298–318. Stauffer E. 1957. Jerusalem und Rom im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. Bern. Stein A. 1992. Gaius Julius, an Agoranomos from Tiberias. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 93:144–148. Stern M. 1976. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism 1: From Herodotus to Plutarch. Jerusalem. Strange J.F. 1997. First Century Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts. In D.R. Edwards and C.T. McCollough eds. Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Contexts in the GraecoRoman and Byzantine Periods (Archaeology and the Galilee 143). Atlanta. Pp. 39–48. Strange J.F., Longstaff T.R.W. and Groh D.E. 2006. Excavations at Sepphoris: University of South Florida Probes in the Citadel and Villa 1. Leiden–Boston. Strickert F. 1995. Coins of Philip. In R. Arav and R.A. Freund eds. Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee (Bethsaida Excavations Project Reports & Contextual Studies 1). Kirksville. Pp. 123–148. Sukenik E.L. 1968. What is the Prutah? In Meyshan J. Essays in Jewish Numismatics. Jerusalem. Pp. 49–53. Sussman V. 1982. Ornamented Jewish Oil Lamps from the Destruction of the Second Temple through the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Warminster. Syme R. 1961. Who was Vedius Pollio? The Journal of Roman Studies 51:23–30. Syon D. 2004. Tyre and Gamla—A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Syon D. 2006. Numismatic Evidence of Jewish Presence in Galilee before the Hasmonean Annexation? inr 1:21–24. Syon D. 2007. Yet Again on the Bronze Coins Minted at Gamla. inr 2:117–122. Syon D. 2014a. Introduction—A History of Gamla. In D. Syon. Gamla iii. The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989: Finds and Studies (iaa Reports 56). Jerusalem. Pp. 1–20. Syon D. 2014b. The Coins. In D. Syon. Gamla iii. The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989: Finds and Studies (iaa Reports 56). Jerusalem. Pp. 109–232. Syon D. 2015. Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee: Evidence from Numismatic Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction. Jerusalem. Pp. 109–232. Talshir D. 1991. Yehonatan the King or the King Yehonatan. Leshoneinu 55:277–280 (Hebrew). Theißen G. 1985. Das “schwankende Rohr” in Mt. 11,7 und die

Gründungsmünzen von Tiberias: Ein Beitrag zur Lokalkoloritforschung in den synoptischen Evangelien. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 101:43–55. Van Bruggen J. 1978. The Year of Death of Herod the Great (Τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ Ἡρῴδου …, Mt ii 19). In T. Baarda, A.F.J. Klijn and W.C. Van Unnik eds. Miscellanea Neotestamentica 2 (Suppliments to Novum Testamentum 47). Leiden. Pp. 1–15. Vardaman J. 1962. A New Inscription Which Mentions Pilate as “Prefect” Journal of Biblical Literature 81:1: 70–71. Von Ehrenkrook J.Q. 2011. Sculpting Idolatry in Flavian Rome: (An)Iconic Rhetoric in the Writings of Flavius Josephus (Early Judaism and Its Literature 33). Atlanta. Walker D.R. The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage 1: From Augustus to Domitian (British Archaeological Reports Supplement Series 5). Oxford. Wandel 1894. Die Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu Christi nach Nösgen und Nebe. Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift 5:286–315. Weber K. 2014. Late Antiquity Weights: The Second Life of Antique and Late Antiquity Coins (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Metrologie 16). Schwelm. Willers H. 1909. Geschichte der römischen Kupferprägung vom Bundesgenossenkrieg bis auf Kaiser Claudius: nebst einleitendem Überblick über die Entwicklung des antiken Münzwesens. Leipzig and Berlin. Willrich H. 1929. Das Haus des Herodes: Zwischen Jerusalem und Rom. Heidelberg. Wilson J.F. 2004. Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan. London. Wirgin W. 1968. A Note on the “Reed” of Tiberias. Israel Exploration Journal 18:248–249. Zlotnik Y. 2012. Were Jewish Coins Struck on Attached Strips or Flans? inr 7:81–92.

Supplementary Die Study References Lovette J. 1985. Biblical Related Coins: Including Both the Old and New Testaments. Little Rock. chd: J. Meyshan. Coins of the Herodian Dynasty. Tel Aviv– Jerusalem 1958. chl: Meshorer, Bijovsky and Fischer-Bossert 2013 Maltiel-Gerstenfeld J. 1982. 260 Years of Ancient Jewish Coins: A Catalogue. Tel Aviv. Reinach T. 1966. Jewish Coins. Chicago. sng: Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum. American Numismatic Society 6, Palestine–South Arabia. New York 1981.

Coin images from sales listed by the following stores, auctions and eBay users were used in the die study: acs, Agora, Albedo, Amphora Coins, Athena, Barakat, Better, bjajc, BoeBoe (eBay), Clark, cng, Dieterle, Deutch,

78 Fontanille Coins, Forum Ancient Coins, Gemini, Goldberg, Goldberg-Kardatzke, Harlan J. Berk, Helgi-Thor, Amphora Lists, Heritage, Heritage-Shoshana, Herakles, Hess-Leu, Holyland, Jeff4532 (eBay), Kern, Leu, M&m, Morton and Eden, nac, nfa, nyinc-Herbst, orc, Pegasi, Peus, Ponterio, Poonchia (eBay), Propia12 (eBay), Qedar, Roma, Rosen-

bibliography

blum, Sahar, Schultan, Siegel, Sincona, Sotheby’s-nfa, Stack’s, Stack’s-Ellenbogen, Sternberg, Superior, SuperiorAbramovitz, Superior-Bonner, Superior-Bromberg, Superior-Heifetz, Superior-Moreira, Superior-Reinhart, Tantalus, Thomas5bc (eBay), Vaughn, Vosper, Waddell, Zurqieh, zuzim.

Die Study Plates

∵

Die Study Plates

plate 0

Index of connection tables

81

82

plate 1

Die Study Plates

Type 1: Prutah—All dies No composite pictures. Scale 2:1

Die Study Plates

plate 2

Type 2: Full denomination—Dies O1 & O2 All the pictures are composites, except R2, R6 & R7

83

84

plate 3

Die Study Plates

Type 2: Full denomination—Die O3 Only O3 is a composite picture

Die Study Plates

plate 4

Type 3: Half denomination—Dies O1 to O3 All the pictures are composites, except R5 & R6. Scale 4:3

85

86

plate 5

Die Study Plates

Type 3: Half denomination—Dies O4 to O6 All the pictures are composites, except R8. Scale 4:3

Die Study Plates

plate 6

Type 4: Quarter denomination—Die O1 All the pictures are composites, except R11. Scale 5:3

87

88

plate 7

Die Study Plates

Type 4: Quarter denomination—Dies O2 to O5 All the pictures are composites, except O5 & R16. Scale 5:3

Die Study Plates

plate 8

Type 5: Eighth denomination—All dies All the pictures are composites, except O5, O6, R5 & R6. Scale 2:1

89

90

plate 9

Die Study Plates

Type 6: Full denomination—Die O1 (part 1) All the pictures are composites

Die Study Plates

plate 10

Type 6: Full denomination—Die O1 (part 2) No composite pictures except O1 & R10

91

92

plate 11

Die Study Plates

Type 6: Full denomination—Dies O2 to O4 All the pictures are composites

Die Study Plates

plate 12

Type 7: Half denomination—Die O1 (part 1) All the pictures are composites. Scale 4:3

93

94

plate 13

Die Study Plates

Type 7: Half denomination—Die O1 (part 2) No composites pictures except O1 & R9 to R11. Scale 4:3

Die Study Plates

plate 14

Type 7: Half denomination—Dies O2 to O4 All the pictures are composites, except R21. Scale 4:3

95

96

plate 15

Die Study Plates

Type 8: Quarter denomination—Dies O1 to O4 All the pictures are composites, except O2 & O4. Scale 5:3

Die Study Plates

plate 16

Type 8: Quarter denomination—Dies O5 & O6 Only the pictures O5 & R5 are composites. Scale 5:3

97

98

plate 17

Die Study Plates

Type 9: Eighth denomination—All dies Only the picture O1 is a composite. Scale 2:1

Die Study Plates

plate 18

Type 10: Full denomination—Die O1 All the pictures are composites, except R8 to R10

99

100

plate 19

Die Study Plates

Type 10: Full denomination—Dies O2 & O3 All the pictures are composites, except dies O3 and R17

Die Study Plates

plate 20

Type 11: Half denomination—Die O1 (part 1) All the pictures are composites. Scale 4:3

101

102

plate 21

Die Study Plates

Type 11: Half denomination—Die O1 (part 2) No composite pictures except O1, R9 & R1O. Scale 4:3

Die Study Plates

plate 22

Type 12: Quarter denomination—All dies All the pictures are composites. Scale 5:3

103

104

plate 23

Die Study Plates

Type 13: Eighth denomination—All dies All the pictures are composites. Scale 2:1

Die Study Plates

plate 24

Type 14: Full denomination—Dies O1 to O4 All the pictures are composites, except O4, R4 & R7

105

106

plate 25

Die Study Plates

Type 14: Full denomination—Die O5 No composites pictures

Die Study Plates

plate 26

Type 15: Half denomination—Die O1 (part 1) All the pictures are composites. Scale 4:3

107

108

plate 27

Die Study Plates

Type 15: Half denomination—Die O1 (part 2) All the pictures are composites, except R11 to R14. Scale 4:3

Die Study Plates

plate 28

Type 15: Half denomination—Die O2 All the pictures are composites, except R18 to R22. Scale 4:3

109

110

plate 29

Die Study Plates

Type 15: Half denomination—Dies O3 to O6 All the pictures are composites, except R24 & R25. Scale 4:3

Die Study Plates

plate 30

Type 15: Half denomination—Die O7 All the pictures are composites. Scale 4:3

111

112

plate 31

Die Study Plates

Type 16: Quarter denomination—All dies No composites pictures except O1, R1, R2 & R4. Scale 5:3

Die Study Plates

plate 32

Type 17: Eighth denomination—All dies All the pictures are composites, except R2. Scale 2:1

113

114

plate 33

Die Study Plates

Type 18: Full denomination—Dies O1 to O4 All the pictures are composites, except R2

Die Study Plates

plate 34

Type 18: Full denomination—Dies O5 to O9 All the pictures are composites, except O8 & R9

115

116

plate 35

Die Study Plates

Type 18: Full denomination—Dies O10 to O13 All the pictures are composites, except O11 & R13

Die Study Plates

plate 36

Type 19: Half denomination—Dies O1 & O2 All the pictures are composites, except R2, R7 & R8. Scale 4:3

117

118

plate 37

Die Study Plates

Type 19: Half denomination—Die O3 All the pictures are composites, except R13 & R14. Scale 4:3

Die Study Plates

plate 38

Type 19: Half denomination—Dies O4 to O6 All the pictures are composites, except O6 & R20. Scale 4:3

119

120

plate 39

Die Study Plates

Type 20: Quarter denomination—All dies All the pictures are composites, except O1 & R2. Scale 5:3

Die Study Plates

plate 40

Type 21: Eighth denomination—All dies All the pictures are composites, except R2. Scale 2:1

121

Index Abila 43 Aglaos 33 Agrippa i, Herod 1, 5, 6, 11, 18, 22, 51, 57, 60 as agoranomos 5, 33 Agrippa ii, Herod 1, 6, 17, 19, 21, 42, 46, 49– 51, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62 Akko-Ptolemais 52 Al marco 14 Al pezzo 14 Alexander (Antipas’ brother) 2 Antigonus, Mattathias 12, 14, 16, 31, 35 Antiochene denominational standard 15 Antipater (Antipas’ brother) 2, 3 Arbel 60 Archelais 43 Archelaus, Herod 3, 6, 11–14, 18, 21, 30, 34, 36, 39, 46, 47, 51, 55 Aretas iv 4, 17 Aristobulus (Antipas’ brother) 2 Aristobulus of Chalcis 5 Artabanus 6 As 14, 15 Attic denominational standard 12, 15 Augustus 4, 14, 42, 43, 50 Autokratoris see Sepphoris

Gaba 52 Gabara 21 Gabinius 21, 57 Gadara 3, 52 Galilee 1, 4, 6–8, 19, 21, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57–61 Lower 44, 52, 57 Sea of 4, 6, 39, 46, 52, 55, 57, 58 Upper 44, 52, 55 Gamla 6, 8, 32, 40, 41, 55, 57, 59, 62, 63 Gaulanitis 8, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59 Giscala see Gush Ḥalav Golan see Gaulanitis Governors of Palestine, Roman 5, 11, 12, 17– 19, 46, 51, 55, 58, 60 Gush Ḥalav 55, 57, 60

Baca 52 Baptist, John the 1, 4 Bar Kokhba 43, 46, 47, 49 Bar Yoḥai, Shimʿon 4 Beʾer Shevaʿ, Ḥorvat 52 Beit Sheʾan see Nysa-Scythopolis Bersabe see Beʾer Shevaʿ, Ḥorvat Betharamphtha see Julias (Betharamphtha) Bethsaida 19, 55

Hadrian 22 Hagra 17, 21 Ḥammat 4, 60 Herod, King 2–7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 33–40, 46, 49, 51, 52, 55, 57–60 Herodias 4–6 Heshbon 58 Hippos 3, 52, 57, 58 Hyrcanus i, John 14, 35, 46, 49, 50 Hyrcanus ii, John 11

Caligula, Gaius 5, 6, 16, 18, 19, 20 Callirrhoe 58 Capernaum 60 Carmel 52 Cassius, Dio 2, 5, 6, 36 Chabulon 52 Chalkous 12 Chorazin 44 Claudius 5, 42, 43, 46, 60, 6 Congiaria 17 Cos 33, 36, 42 Countermarks 46, 50, 65 Coverage (of a sample) 27 Cyprus 58

Idumea

Damascus 21 Decapolis 3, 57, 58 Delos 33, 34, 42 Denarius 15 Diocaesarea see Sepphoris Donativa 17 Drachm 15 Dupondius 14, 15

Eastern Sigillata a 6 Ethnarch 3, 14, 34 et-Tell see Bethsaida Eusebius of Caesarea 2, 22, 43 First Revolt 1, 7, 21, 32, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 55, 57, 61, 62, 63 Flaccus, L. Pomponius 5

3

Jannaeus, Alexander 16, 17, 35, 43, 46, 49, 57 Jericho 43, 57, 58 Jerusalem 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14–16, 19, 21, 30, 37, 40, 42, 57, 59, 62, 63 Jesus 1, 4, 5, 8, 12 Jewish War see First Revolt Joppa 46 Jordan Valley 58 Josephus, Flavius 1, 2, 4–6, 16, 17, 20–22, 33, 36, 37, 39, 42–44, 52, 54, 55, 57 Josippon 2, 36 Jotapata see Yodefat Judaea 3, 5–8, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 30, 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 50, 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 65 Judaea Capta 43 Julias (Betharamphtha) 4, 43 Justus of Tiberias 1 Karkara, Ḥorvat 58 Kfar Ḥananiah 6

l siglum L 17 Lamps, oil 7, 12, 42–44, 46, 47, 60 Lepton 12 Livias see Julias (Betharamphtha) Lugdunum 6 Machaerus 4, 58, 62 Malthace 2 Maritima, Caesarea 5, 46, 58, 60, 62 Martyr, Justin 2 Masada 62 Meiron 52, 57, 60 Migdal 57 Nabataea 2, 4, 5, 17, 21, 21 Nabratein see Nevoraya Naḥal Dishon 52 Neronias see Philippi, Caesarea Nevoraya 57, 60 New Testament (nt) 2, 4, 5, 15 Nicolaus of Damascus 2, 3, 33, 43 Nikonos 33 Nomisma 60 Nysa-Scythopolis 7, 52, 58 Palestine 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 30, 39, 42, 43, 46, 58, 62 Paneas, Caesarea see Philippi, Caesarea Parthia 6, 11 Peraea 1, 4, 39, 43, 46, 58, 59 Pharisees 1, 5 Phasael 11 Phasaelis 4 Pheselis 43 Philip 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 59 Philippi, Caesarea 7, 19, 40, 46, 55, 60 Philo of Alexandria 5, 48 Philo (son of Aglaos) 33 Phoenicia 40, 52, 57, 58 Pilate, Pontius 1, 5, 19, 21, 39 Prefects/Procurators see Governors of Palestine, Roman Prutah 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 30, 31, 42–44, 46, 49, 51, 58 Pseudo-Hegesippus 2, 36 Quadrans 12, 14, 15 Qumran 58 Rhodian denominational standard see Antiochene denominational standard Rome 2–6, 15, 16, 32, 37, 43, 44 Sabbath 7 Salome 4, 5 Samaria 3, 52, 58 Scythopolis see Nysa-Scythopolis Selaʿ 49 Seleucid 12, 35, 44, 55,

123

index Semis 14, 15 Sepphoris 4, 9, 17, 21, 30, 42, 57 Sheqel 62 Standards, denominational 12, 14, 15 Strabo 2, 3, 39, 42, 46 Sussita see Hippos Syllaeus 2 Syria 4, 5, 15, 21, 29, 30, 52, 58 Tacitus 2, 5 Tarichea see Migdal

Tetrarch 3–6, 9, 11, 16, 19, 21, 33–37, 42, 59, 60 Thella 52 Tiberias 4, 5, 17, 19, 21, 21, 22, 33, 37, 40, 42, 46–48, 52, 55, 57–61 agoranomos see Agrippa i, Herod foundation 4, 17, 19, 21, 22, 46 Tiberius 4–6, 14–16, 21, 22, 37, 46, 48, 50 Transjordan 1, 58 Trial coinage 17, 21, 27 Tyre 15, 16, 41, 52

Tyrian denominational standard denominational standard Vitellius, L. Weights Xaloth Yodefat

4

16, 33, 35, 47, 60, 61 52 6, 57, 62

see Attic