Gamla III. The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations. 1976-1989 : Finds and Studies [1] 9789654065030, 9789654065948, 9654065037

Citation preview

IAA Reports, No. 56

Gamla III The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989

Finds and Studies Part 1 Danny Syon

With contributions by Shua Amorai-Stark, Yoav Arbel, Chaim Ben-David, Baruch Brandl, Deborah Cassuto, Carol Cope, Yoav Farhi, Rafael Frankel, Nimrod Getzov, Patrick Geyer, Shimon Gibson, Malka Hershkovitz, Andrew E. Holley, Shimon Ilani, Ruth Jackson-Tal, Omri Lernau, Nili Liphschitz, Jodi Magness, Orna NagarHillman, Matthew Ponting, Ronny Reich, Aharon Shemesh, Guy D. Stiebel and Herbert J. Wagner

ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY JERUSALEM 2014

IAA Reports Publications of the Israel Antiquities Authority Editor-in-Chief: Judith Ben-Michael Series Editor: Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz Volume and Production Editor: Lori Lender Production Coordinator: Lori Lender Front Cover: View of Gamla, looking west (photographer: Danny Syon) Back Cover: Poppies blooming in the Western Quarter; in the background—Nahal Daliyyot, looking east (photographer: Danny Syon) Cover Design, Production, Layout and Typesetting: Hagar Maimon Illustrations: Natalya Zak Printing: Art Plus Ltd., Jerusalem Copyright © 2014, The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004 ISBN 978-965-406-503-0 eISBN 9789654065948 www.antiquities.org.il

Gamla—before the excavations (drawing by D. Ben-Ami).

220 000

219 800

219 600

iv la

m

a lG

h.a

cie

nt

Tr ail

Na

Byzantine Cemetery

An

257 800

Roman Ramp Tower Cisterns 0

22

Synagogue

Area A Area N

0

25 257 600

Area G Area BA

Hasmonean Quarter

Eastern Quarter Cit

Area P

duct

Aque

Area B

all yW

Area M

Area H 250

Cemetery? ‘Basilica’ Area S

Area K Area T

Cistern Area R

Western Quarter 257 400

220

t

iyyo

l Dal

Nah. a

200 m

0

topographic map. Area P

Ridge

Area N

Area D Round Tower Area L

Area B

‘Basilica’

Area B77 Area F

Area RN Area S

Area A Cistern

Area E

Synagogue

Area H Hasmonean Quarter Area C

Western Quarter

Area R Olive-Oil Press and Miqveh

Area G

Area K

300m

Area M

Eastern Quarter Area T

Area T

0

General site plan of Gamla, showing the major areas.

40 m

v

Contents

Part 1 Abbreviations

viii

FOREWORD

ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION—A HISTORY OF GAMLA

Danny Syon

1

CHAPTER 2: Arrowheads and PROJECTILE POINTS

Jodi Magness

21

CHAPTER 3: STONE PROJECTILES AND THE USE OF ARTILLERY IN THE SIEGE OF GAMLA

Andrew E. Holley

35

CHAPTER 4: MILITARY EQUIPMENT

Guy D. Stiebel

57

CHAPTER 5: COINS

Danny Syon

109

Matthew Ponting

224

CHAPTER 6: The Coins Minted in Gamla: an Alternative Analysis

Yoav Arbel

233

CHAPTER 7: ROMAN–BYZANTINE PERIOD Settlements NEAR GAMLA

Chaim Ben-David

239

Appendix: Compositional Analysis of the Gamla Jewish War Coin

vi

Part 2 Abbreviations FOREWORD CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS

Ruth Jackson-Tal

CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS

Shimon Gibson

CHAPTER 10: A STONE SCALE-WEIGHT

Ronny Reich

CHAPTER 11: MILLS AND QUERNS

Rafael Frankel and Danny Syon

CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY

Shua Amorai-Stark and Malka Herskovitz

CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS

Ruth Jackson-Tal

CHAPTER 14: METAL WEIGHTS

Orna Nagar-Hillman

CHAPTER 15: A BRONZE PENDANT IN THE SHAPE OF HORUS THE CHILD (HARPOKRATES)

Yoav Farhi

CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS

Yoav Farhi

CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS

Deborah Cassuto

CHAPTER 18: SEALS, SEAL IMPRESSIONS AND A VIOLIN FIGURINE

Nimrod Getzov

CHAPTER 19: THREE “HYKSOS” SCARABS

Baruch Brandl

CHAPTER 20: STUDY OF A MIDDLE-BRONZE SICKLE-SWORD

Herbert J. Wagner and Danny Syon

CHAPTER 21: THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE NON-FERROUS METALWORK

Matthew Ponting

CHAPTER 22: COMPOSITION OF FRESCO AND SECCO PIGMENTS

Shimon Ilani

CHAPTER 23: BUTCHERING PATTERNS

Carol Cope

vii CHAPTER 24: FISH REMAINS

Omri Lernau and Aharon Shemesh

CHAPTER 25: POLLEN ANALYSIS

Patrick Geyer

CHAPTER 26: ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS

Nili Liphschitz

viii

Abbreviations

AJA AJN ASOR ‘Atiqot (HS) BAIAS BAR British S. BAR Int. S. BASOR BCH BJPES ESI IAA Reports IEJ INJ INR JRA JRA Suppl. S. JSOT JSP LA NEAEHL ORL PEQ PWRE QDAP RN SBF

American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Numismatics American Schools of Oriental Research Hebrew Series Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society British Archaeological Reports (British Series) British Archaeological Reports (International Series) Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society Excavations and Surveys in Israel Israel Antiquities Authority Reports Israel Exploration Journal Israel Numismatic Journal Israel Numismatic Research Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Judea and Samaria Publications Liber Annuus E. Stern and A. Lewinson-Gilboa eds. The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1–4. Jerusalem 1993 Winkelmann F. Das Kastell Pfünz. In E. Fabricius, F. Hettner and O. von Sarwey eds. Der obergermanisch-raetische Limes des Roemerreiches B VII Nr. 73. Heidelberg 1901 Palestine Exploration Quarterly Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine Revue Numismatique Studium Biblicum Franciscanum

ix

Foreword

This volume is about the finds from Gamla—great in quantity, bewildering in variety, and fascinating. Some of the reports are technical in nature; others offer some insight about the people who used the artifacts. All are detailed, and most are profusely illustrated to offer reference material for future studies. We begin with an introduction (Chapter 1) that attempts to synthesize the history of Gamla based on the data in the other volumes and from the historical sources. Two schematic plans at the beginning of the volume facilitate orientation with respect to the various areas. Those wishing to investigate the context of the finds in some detail are referred to Volume II of the series, which includes all relevant plans and architectural details. When I wrote the foreword forVolume II of the Gamla Final Report, I presumed that this third volume would be the final one. But, as chance would have it, in an analogy to the ‘exciting-discovery-on-the-last-day-ofthe-season’ that leads to the next season, the M.A. thesis by Shulamit Terem of Bar Ilan University on the lamps from Gamla conceived an additional volume, now in progress, written in collaboration with Shulamit’ s supervisor, David Adan-Bayewitz. This lamp volume will present their typology , as well as chemical and physical studies related to their provenance. Even the envisaged contents of the present volume changed since Volume II was submitted to the publisher. We present a report on the glass by Ruth Jackson-T al (Chapter 8), a chapter (11) on the grinding stones by Rafael Frankel and myself, and a chapter (18) on seals and seal impressions from the early periods by Nimrod Getzov. The ordering of the chapters in this volume presented great difficulties. The ‘traditional’ categorizations by either material or chronology were not possible, since too many chapters discuss objects made of various materials and several chapters discuss objects from both the Early Bronze Age and the Hellenistic/Roman periods. The division into two parts ultimately decided upon was deemed the best possible means to present the

material. Part 1 provides the background for much of the finds presented in this volume. Chapter 1 introduces the subjects discussed in this volume, providing an overview of a history of Gamla; Chapters 2–4 present the finds related to the Jewish War and reflect Gutmann’s strongest interest in this aspect of Gamla. These are followed by the coins (Chapter 5), a prime chronological indicator, followed by Chapter 6, which studies the historical implications of the coins, and Chapter 7, which observes the role of Gamla and its fate in the context of current scholarship on Jewish settlement on the Golan. The small finds, Chapters 8–20, continue in Part 2, the final chapters of which present finds also from the Bronze Age. Of these, only Chapter 18 deals with objects related to the periods of occupation at Gamla; Chapters 19 and 20 discuss rather esoteric objects that somehow found their way to the site. Chapter 20, in fact, straddles the dividing line between finds and analytical studies. The final six chapters dealing with analytical studies are arranged by material. They present seemingly technical lists, but most have an added value with some rather interesting insights about the behavior of Gamla’s ancient inhabitants. Part of the research was made possible through a grant received from the Yad Hanadiv Foundation and the Israel Antiquities Authority. I wish to express my gratitude to Uzi Dahari, deputy director of the IAA, who offered to include Gamla among the recipients of this grant. Partly because of the authors’ preferences and partly because of an oversight on my part, the metal jewelry is split between Chapters 12 and 13. Admittedly, several more aspects of material culture remain unstudied, and if the opportunity arises these may yet be published separately. I fully expect that many of the chapters will stimulate discussion and criticism and I am prepared to ‘face the music’. As with Volume II, my own work in compiling, coordinating and scientifically editing this volume

x was made possible thanks to the last installment of the generous grant I received from the Shelby White–Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications. Though under no formal obligation to anyone except myself, with the publication of this volume of the

final report I see my commitment toward Shmarya Gutmann’s expedition fulfilled, but not my continued commitment to Gamla.

Danny Syon December, 2014

Chapter 1

I ntroduction—A History of Gamla Danny Syon

As every history, that of Gamla draws from various sources and suffers shortcomings. The written sources, archaeology and even the personal experiences of the archaeologists at the site join forces to provide what might be termed—at best—a patchy and hazy glimpse of life at the site in antiquity, shedding quite a bit of light on certain periods and events and precious little on others. This history is also inevitably subjective. As is apparent in the efforts of the contributors to the volumes of the Gamla Excavations Final Report, heavy use is made of Josephus as a source with inherent problems of credibility and political agenda, the rabbinical sources with their confusing anachronisms, and the archaeological evidence with its inherently speculative character. Even the choice of the indefinite article in the title of this chapter is deliberate; the same evidence could possibly be used to reconstruct a different history. Though I am an archaeologist and not a historian, in what follows I shall attempt to reconstruct a history of Gamla as best can be done at this time. The early periods, which were not treated in depth in any of the essays and studies in the reports, will be illustrated by various finds that have not yet been fully studied. The history of the Second Temple period will draw mostly on the contributions to Volumes I–III of the Gamla excavations final report, with some additional observations. To make for easy reading, many commonly held historical and archaeological assertions are not backed up by a reference.

period (Syon and Yavor 2005:57, Fig. 14:1). However, a broken pillar figurine found near the southern tower along the city wall (L4052; Yavor 2010a:37) unquestionably belongs to the family of figurines identified and published by Epstein (1998:230–233, Pls. XXX–XXXIII) as characteristic of the Golan, though the Gamla specimen (Fig. 1.1) is of far inferior workmanship than those published by her. Some stone seals and a violin figurine discovered at the site also belong to this culture (see Chapter 18). Thus, while Gutmann attributed these finds to chance, it is clear today that they belong to a rather small, but real, settlement at the site concentrated apparently on the eastern part of the southern slope of the Gamla hillside. Though no architectural remains could be attributed to this period, this settlement was evidently part of a cluster of settlements that extends about 2–3 km east of Gamla (Epstein 1998:3 [map]). Two small vat-presses that tentatively date to this period were identified. One is at the very top of Area B (Goren 2010:122, Fig. ‎3.8), and the other, in the Western Quarter, is in an unexcavated area (Fig. 1.2).

The Early Periods The Chalcolithic Period The earliest occupation attested at Gamla was in the Chalcolithic period. A small number of scattered potsherds were collected over the years in various parts of the site, but only during later analysis were some sherds correctly attributed to the Chalcolithic

Fig. 1.1. Chalcolithic pillar figurine from Gamla.

2

Danny Syon

0

1

Fig. 1.3. An Early Bronze Age human figurine fragment.

Fig. 1.2. A Chalcolithic(?) vat-press in the Western Quarter.

The Early Bronze Age Huge quantities of pottery dating to the Early Bronze Age were recovered at Gamla. A few date to Early Bronze Age IB, but the majority, to the EB II phases. In fact, these Early Bronze Age remains are spread over a far larger area than those of the Second Temple period, and include the lower portion of the slope near Nahal Daliyyot; nearly every basket of pottery contained some Early Bronze Age material. In addition, in Areas B (Goren 2010: passim) and G (Syon and Yavor 2005:43– 45), building remains were identified that date to this period, as were parts of a massive wall discovered under the city wall that was built just before the Jewish War (Yavor 2010a:25 [W360 on Plan 2.5]; 31 [W796 on Plan 2.7]). A large number of flint implements from this period, many of them sickle blades, were found throughout the site (Olami 1989). The large number of pig bones found may well date to this period.1 Other small finds discovered include a large number of beads and some pendants (see Chapter 12), ceramic animal and human figurines (Fig. 1.3) and worked bone items (see Chapter 16). A single sherd of Khirbet Kerak

ware (Fig. 1.4) recovered from Area A is insufficient to postulate an EB IIIB phase.2 So far, only the pottery from the 1998 season has been analyzed and published (Getzov 2005), though reference to Early Bronze Age material from the Gutmann excavations is included in the doctoral dissertation of Paz (2003:e, Pls. 23–25). Thus, the adduced evidence points to a very large settlement that was situated on a spur between two streams and separated from the plateau by a narrow saddle, and which saw its floruit in the EB II period. On the Golan, a number of such ‘enclosures’ from this period were identified in a very similar topographic situation and some have been excavated (Paz 2003:e–f). There is nothing in the remains to suggest the fate of the Early Bronze Age settlement. On the one hand, the Second Temple period settlers greatly damaged the remains. Yet, on the other hand, they reused some of the walls (in Areas B and G), thus obliterating the stratigraphy (Goren 2010: passim, but especially pp. 118–122). The massive remains of the Early Bronze Age wall visible to the Second Temple period Jews who settled here may have given rise to the tradition that lists Gamla among the “walled towns from the time of

0

1

Fig. 1.4. Rim fragment of Khirbet Kerak Ware.

Chapter 1: Introduction—A History of Gamla

Joshua” (below; and Syon 2010:2–3). It is likely that the stones from this wall were mostly used as building stones, even for the wall built during the Jewish War.

3

2005:57, Fig. 14:4). The fact that there may be more than this single fragment might suggest some sort of presence during Iron II, but only extended excavations can support or refute this.

The Middle Bronze and Iron Ages A small, eclectic collection of artifacts from the Middle Bronze Age were found at Gamla. The MB I–MB IIA is represented by the fragment of a fenestrated axe found in Area G (Fig. 1.5). Finds from the later part of MB II include a single fragment of a Tell el-Yehudiya ware juglet (Area B, L1315, Reg. No. 868), three Hyksos scarabs (see Chapter 19) and the broken end of a sicklesword, also from Area B (see Chapter 20). One of the scarabs was found in the Hasmonean Quarter (Area B), and two others, in Area T, along the lower reaches of the town wall from the Jewish War. These meager finds do not support the existence of a settlement at the time, but rather suggest a much later arrival. Since Hyksos scarabs, sickle-swords and Tell el-Yehudiya wares are often found in tombs, it is possible to speculate that some inhabitants from the time of the Second Temple period chanced upon a Middle Bronze Age tomb and looted the contents. This tomb may have been one of the hundreds of dolmens in the vicinity of Gamla, dating roughly to the same period. Over the years, several fragments of suspected Iron Age pottery were found, but only recently was one identified definitively as Iron Age II (Syon and Yavor

0

Fig. 1.5. Fenestrated axe.

1

The Second Temple Period Disregarding the negligible remains from MB II and the Iron Age, the hill of Gamla stood abandoned from the end of EB II until the Hellenistic period (second century BCE)—a gap of about 2000 years. There is a settlement gap evident throughout the Golan Heights and northern Transjordan in general, though in the northern and central Golan this gap is shorter, beginning roughly in Iron II. The earliest known settlements after this gap, usually military outposts, are dated to the third century BCE (Hartal 2005:354). The Hellenistic Period A Seleucid Fort? The earliest material evidence for the Hellenistic period are one fourth-century BCE silver coin of Tyre (see Chapter 5, No. 5057) and eight Ptolemaic bronze coins that span much of the third century BCE (see Chapter 5, Nos. 1–8). Considering the relatively small percentage of the site that was excavated (approximately 5–6%), a temporary (military?) presence here at this time, related to the Syrian Wars waged between the Ptolemies and Seleucids during much of the third century BCE, cannot be ruled out.3 However, taking into account a total lack of pottery to back this up, and the fact that Ptolemaic coins are often found in early Seleucid contexts, it is preferable to treat these coins as intrusive among the approximately 610 Seleucid coins found throughout Gamla (see Chapter 5, Phase IIa). It is likely that they arrived here during the military activities of Antiochus III. The archaeological evidence from all the Golan clearly indicates a surge of activity and new settlement construction beginning in the mid-second century BCE (Smith 1990:125–127; Hartal 2005:356–357), though the area around Gamla was still rather sparsely populated. The numismatic evidence further suggests that the earliest occupation at the site followed the Fifth Syrian War (202/1–198 BCE), during which Antiochus III gained all of Phoenicia and Palestine and was finally able to hold on to them. Sixteen coins of this king, all minted in Seleucid mints established after

4

Danny Syon

200 BCE are evidence of this, as well as 27 coins of Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE) and scattered residual pottery, especially Black Slipped Predecessor Ware (hereafter: BSP Ware; Berlin 2006:6–7), which appears in the second quarter of the second century BCE. The round tower at the top of the wall constructed during the Jewish War has the hallmarks of Hellenistic military architecture—constructed of headers only— as, for example, the tower at Samaria (Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942: Pl. XXXVI). The city wall constructed during the Jewish War abuts the tower and partly rides it (Yavor 2010a:18; Fig. 2.7), indicating that the tower was originally a freestanding structure, predating the wall. Thus, it may have served a Seleucid garrison stationed here following the Fifth Syrian War, perhaps built by Antiochus III or, more likely, Antiochus IV. This presence is evident also in the pottery, showing some 55 unstamped Rhodian wineamphora handles found scattered over most of the site.4 A large percentage (62%) of the oil lamps from Area B is of the ‘delphiniform’ type, their floruit being in the second century BCE, and which disappear in the first half of the first century BCE (Terem 2007:109; Terem and Adan-Bayewitz, forthcoming). The strongest evidence, however, for a substantial Seleucid presence are the more than 600 coins of Seleucid rulers, from Antiochus III to Demetrius II (c. 200–125 BCE) (see Chapter 5). This evidence cannot be dismissed lightly, even if it is not backed up by architecture or pottery from the period. Though this is the easy way out of the dilemma, all the evidence suggests that the remains of this early settlement or military fort have not yet been found and excavated, with the exception of the tower, where later activity has obscured earlier evidence.5 A Civilian Settlement The transition of Gamla from a military outpost to a civilian settlement is hard to trace. In the earliest historical reference, as transmitted by Josephus (War 1.4.8 [103–106]), Gamla is mentioned in connection with the military campaign of the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus in the north (c. 80 BCE). During this campaign, he deposed its commander Demetrius, having heard many accusations against him. This episode suggests that Gamla was in a stage of transition at that time, with both a military component (Demetrius, a strong fortress) and a civilian component that complained to Jannaeus. It is likely that this civilian

component was made up of Jews who had settled here in the (later?) reign of John Hyrcanus I (135–105 BCE). The continued gentile presence is evident in two stamped Rhodian amphora handles dated to the last two decades of the second century BCE (Ariel 2006). A Jewish Settlement Scholarly concensus holds that the Golan became populated by Jews following the conquests of Jannaeus in c. 80 BCE and as a direct result of these conquests (Hartal 2005:388–390, with further bibliography therein). Gutmann (1973:202, following Samuel Klein) argued that the last letter of the name ‫( גמלא‬alef) suggests that its first Jewish inhabitants spoke Aramaic, and may have been a group of Jews returning from the Babylonian exile sometime in the Hellenistic period. While this argument is too simplistic (in the Jerusalem Talmud the name of the town is spelled ‫גמלה‬, with a he), the adduced evidence, both literary and archaeological, points to Jews settling at Gamla before Jannaeus. The Literary Evidence. Josephus (War 1.4.8 [103– 106]; Antiquities 13.15.3 [394]) describes Jannaeus’ campaign to the north in 83–80 BCE, in which the king took, among other lands, the town Golan6 and the present central and southern Golan Heights. At this point in time, Josephus’ sources still refer to Gamla as a ‘strong fortress’ rather than a town. It is here that Jannaeus deposed Demetrius, the governor of Gamla, because he heard complaints about him.7 In all likelihood, this Demetrius was a self-appointed tyrant, or—less likely—a Seleucid officer or governor appointed by one of the last Seleucid kings. The passage can be best understood as alluding to the local Jews who initiated the complaints to Jannaeus against their governor/tyrant, choosing the opportune moment when the Jewish king was close by. Qedesh in Galilee had been assigned by Joshua as a city of refuge (Josh. 20.7–9). In a Talmudic passage dealing with cities of refuge (JT Makkot 2.31), it is mentioned that Qedesh was not functioning as a city of refuge, so the elders assigned Gamla instead, until Qedesh was reconquered.8 This passage is taken to reflect the reality of the Second Temple period, when Jews, returning from the Babylonian exile following the Declaration of Cyrus, were setting up anew all the Jewish religious institutions in Judea. It should be stressed that while projecting rabbinic literature of the fourth century CE on older historical reality is usually

Chapter 1: Introduction—A History of Gamla

hazardous, Klein (1934–1935) convincingly argued that rabbinic passages dealing with cities of refuge in the Second Temple period seem to be reliable and to reflect the early Hasmonean period. Qedesh, a Tyrian settlement, was apparently conquered by Jonathan Maccabaeus in 145 BCE but not held by him, as evidenced by excavations there (Herbert and Berlin 2003:54). Thus, Gamla must have been a sizable Jewish settlement prior to the conquests of Jannaeus to qualify as a city of refuge. Since Gamla had no wall until Josephus built one during the Jewish War, it conformed also to one of the physical requirements of a ‘city of refuge’—according to the rabbinic literature—that it be an unwalled town (Sifri for Deuteronomy 180). The Numismatic Evidence. The numismatic evidence is based on the interpretation of 4 coins of Antiochus VII from the mint of Jerusalem, at least 310 coins of Hyrcanus I and 30 coins of Aristobulos I, all of which suggest a Jewish presence at Gamla before the conquests of Jannaeus. A coin type of Antiochus VII (138–129 BCE) (see Chapter 5, Nos. 237–240) was minted in Jerusalem in the years 132/1–131/0 BCE, and out of deference to the Jewish population carries no symbols offensive to Jews.9 A surprising number (12) of this local Judean coin type were found in Galilee (Syon 2006), including four at Gamla. I suggest that they reached the north with Jews returning from the yearly pilgrimage to Jerusalem, indicating a substantial Jewish presence in Galilee at this time. Among the approximately 3900 Hasmonean coins found at Gamla, at least 310 coins are of Hyrcanus I (135–105/4 BCE)—probably more, assuming that some of the 360 illegible Hasmonean coins are his. The beginning of Jewish minting by Hyrcanus I is tentatively dated to c. 125 BCE (see Chapter 5). Thus, more than 300 coins of this ruler cannot be regarded as all having arrived at least 25 years after his death, i.e., during or after Jannaeus’ campaign in 80 BCE. Thirty coins of Aristobulus I (105/4–104 BCE) were found at Gamla—as far as could be ascertained the largest quantity of his coins ever found in one place. It seems unlikely that all arrived some 25 years after they were minted. Since it is highly unlikely that a Seleucid garrison would have used Hasmonean currency, the numismatic evidence suggests a definite and substantial Jewish presence at Gamla, one that preferred Hasmonean

5

currency over the Seleucid issues as soon as the former was available. Soon after the appearance of Hasmonean coinage, there was also a sudden, dramatic drop in the quantity of Tyrian coins arriving at Gamla, coins that had been the most abundant at the site during the second century BCE (see Chapter 5). In sum, it appears that sometime in the last quarter of the second century BCE, most likely under the rule of Hyrcanus I, a civilian population gradually settled at Gamla, side by side with the garrison apparently still stationed there. This civilian population was predominantly Jewish, with a residual gentile element. The ancient sources do not mention any conquests in this area by Hyrcanus and the presence of a fair number of his coins in the Golan, not only at Gamla, baffled some scholars (e.g., Hartal 2003:180–181). There is no need to associate the Jewish presence at Gamla at this time with any conquests by Hyrcanus, but rather to the settlement of an empty area. One of the major problems facing the early Hasmoneans was land shortage in Judea, and the early campaigns were motivated in part by the need to acquire land for settlement (Bar-Kochva 1977:170–173). It should not be surprising, therefore, to find groups of landless Jews settling in this area, though admittedly the choice of the vicinity of a Seleucid fort is somewhat surprising. Hartal himself suggests (2005:381) that the Golan was a ‘sovereignty vacuum’ at this time, allowing strong groups to do as they pleased. This was at a time when Seleucid power was waning and the Nabateans, Itureans and the Hasmoneans found an opportunity to fill this vacuum. Huge quantities of coins of Alexander Jannaeus at Gamla attest to a major phase of growth in this period— demographic and probably economic—following the annexation of the Golan to the Judean state and a fresh influx of Jewish settlers. There is no question that following the conquests of Jannaeus (Josephus, War 1.4.8 [104–105]; Antiquities 13.15.3 [393–394]), the Golan became part of the Hasmonean state, and that at this time or shortly afterward Gamla became the capital of the Gaulanitis district (Hartal 2005:348). This is when the Hasmonean Quarter (Areas B, D; Goren 2010) was built, and occupied intensively during the first century BCE. Buildings throughout the area show evidence of advance planning, using a moreor-less regular grid. Planning on such a scale must have involved an organized effort and was not left to individual decision. The architecture and finds of daily life show a society of modest means, but not poor.

6

Danny Syon

The Babylonian connection Gutmann sought exists as well. Not in the name ‘Gamla’, but rather, in a handful of artifacts including coins, pottery and lamps. Three worn coins from Seleucia on the Tigris (see Chapter 5, Nos. 4892–4894) were found at Gamla. One may speculate that they arrived with Jewish pilgrims or immigrants who came from Babylonia to the Land of Israel during the Hasmonean period and passed through Gamla. The coins subsequently entered local circulation because of their similar size and feel to Phoenician coins, still circulating in the town. The earliest literary reference to such pilgrims and immigrants is from the time of Herod (Josephus, Antiquities 17.2.2 [26]), when Zamaris the Babylonian Jew was settled in Batanea, with the directive of defending the pilgrim routes. If in his time traffic of pilgrims was already great enough to warrant their protection, the trend no doubt began earlier. Gamla could have been a pilgrimage hub, as it was on a direct route to Babylonia and was the first Jewish center the pilgrims encountered in the Land of Israel. Yet another Babylonian connection is several tiny fragments of two vessels of green-glazed Parthian ware dating to the first century BCE–first century CE found in the Western Quarter; these vessels are rare in Palestine (Fig. 1.6). Finally, a possible third Babylonian connection might be found in two complete biconical imitation Attic lamps from the second century BCE, unearthed in the Hasmonean Quarter, which were common in Babylonian sites of the Seleucid/Parthian periods (Terem 2007:23, 108; Terem and AdanBayewitz, forthcoming).

As mentioned above in connection with the Early Bronze Age town, the first Jewish settlers in the Hasmonean period no doubt saw and were impressed by the ruins of what was already ancient in their time. As evident in Area B (the Hasmonean Quarter), parts of the Early Bronze Age structures and terraces were incorporated in the Hasmonean buildings, which are well aligned with each other. In one case (Building 1256, Goren 2010:143–145), the alignment of the Early Bronze Age house is the same as that of the Hasmonean buildings, but in other cases, the alignment is different. Just how impressed the Jewish inhabitants were with the ruins of the massive Early Bronze Age city wall is probably illustrated by the references in the rabbinic literature to Gamla as a walled town from the time of Joshua (Syon 2010:2–3), a tradition which may well have originated with these ruins. Two public buildings were discovered in the Hasmonean quarter. These are an olive-oil press and a miqveh (Goren 2010:123–129, 135–139). The elaborate olive-oil press further shows Judean connections. It is a Judean lever-and-weights press of a type found also in Galilee but not in gentile Northern Golan (Frankel 1999:169). Contrary to the practice of building oil presses at the edge of towns because of the malodorous smells, this one is surrounded by domestic structures. The miqveh, too, is elaborate, and includes a bathtub. This, and a small, private miqveh lower down the slope (Building 3105; Goren 2010:146–147), are practically the only direct archaeological evidence of the Jewish character of the Hasmonean Quarter, apart, perhaps, from the butchering patterns on bones that suggest

2

1

0

2

Fig. 1.6. Green-glazed Parthian beakers found in the Western Quarter.

Chapter 1: Introduction—A History of Gamla

kosher practices (see Chapter 23). The oil press and miqveh are close to each other. By analogy to the rock-cut miqveh in the first-century CE oil press in the Western Quarter (below), it may be suggested that the requirement for ritual purity of the oil-press workers dictated the proximity of the two, though admittedly the adherence to such rigorous ritual practices in the first century BCE is conjectural (Amit 2010:193). The two public buildings went out of use during the first century BCE and were immediately turned into domestic spaces (no chronological gap can be seen in the material culture). Because both buildings were plastered installations, it is possible that they sustained irreparable damage in a landslide or earthquake. In the case of the oil press, it is possible that the neighbors finally had had enough of the pollution caused by the press and had relegated it to the edge of town. Be that as it may, life in town went on. Throughout the Eastern Quarter, along the eastern edge of town, several buildings were discovered that date to the Hasmonean period. In most cases, later habitation obscured the Hasmonean origin of the buildings, such as Building 1700 in Area G. The city wall, constructed during the first months of the Jewish War, cut through buildings that yielded Hasmonean-period floors and associated finds. Some houses existed also on the western part of the hill, but these were apparently few and far between. This area, later to become the rich ‘Western Quarter’, was at this time at the edge of town. Its remains were identified here and there during the excavations in the form of one or two complete pottery vessels (in addition to many sherds), but not by any associated architecture or floors datable to the first century BCE. Economy and Diet This facet of life at Gamla in the late Hellenistic period can be studied through several classes of finds. First and foremost is the large oil press, followed by smaller finds, such as grinding mills, cooking ovens, animal and vegetable remains and, of course, pottery. The olive-oil press indicates oil production already in the first century BCE, probably mainly for local consumption. Olive pits found in several rooms indicate the consumption of olives as food as well (see Chapter 25). While date and grape seeds were recovered only in the Western Quarter in first-century CE contexts, no doubt these fruits, as well as other vegetables, were

7

consumed also in the Hellenistic period. Grinding stones are evidence of flour production, and remains of several tabuns were identified. The grinding stones include saddle querns and a single Olynthus mill, but not Pompeian mills, which arrived only in the Roman period (see Chapter 11). Though direct archaeological evidence is lacking for this period (the first century CE, see below), it is reasonable that the inhabitants grew grain on the plateau above the town. A relatively large number of fish bones—including non-kosher catfish (see Chapter 24)—are also evidence of diet, as are large numbers of cattle, sheep and goat bones (see Chapter 23); a general essay on butchery patterns identifies the cut marks that appear on the bones as consistent with kosher butchering processes. The pottery indicates a reasonably comfortable living standard and the means to buy and use imported pottery, often of gentile character (Berlin 2006: passim, and esp. pp. 136–144). As outlined by Berlin, the inhabitants of Gamla in the Hasmonean period produced much of their household pottery vessels for cooking and storage. They were also open to imported goods, especially the ‘Eastern Sigillata’ wares that were traded through Phoenician connections, and to simple storage jars from Shikhin (Asochis). Though glass bowls, especially the cast monochrome grooved types, are common, perfume bottles and other luxury items are very rare (see Chapter 8). Jewelry (except for beads and cabochons) is scarce in the Hasmonean Quarter (see Chapters 12, 13). Evidence of weaving is supplied by loom weights and spindle whorls (see Chapter 17), as well as a variety of bone spatulae and bone spindle whorls (see Chapter 16). Worked bone implements also include hairpins and awls. Evidence of economic activity is found in some lead weights (see Chapter 14) and of course, in the coins. The daily economic transactions were no doubt carried out in part by barter, but the enormous quantity of Hasmonean coins indicates a monetary economy well-advanced for its day. Though the finds indicate a dramatic decline in the arrival of foreign coins, the ubiquitous small Seleucid bronze coins from the second century BCE—mostly from Tyre—continued in local use, simply because they were available. They are found scattered in all areas, showing a high degree of wear. This trend of using old coins continued until the Jewish War, but is not exclusive to Gamla.

8

Danny Syon

The Early Roman Period The Roman period in Palestine is considered to begin with Pompey (c. 63 BCE) and the administrative reorganization of the country, under Gabinius in c. 55 BCE. Unfortunately, there are no sources mentioning Gamla during this period, and the resolution of the archaeological material is nowhere high enough to discern this phase. The ceramic evidence from the Hasmonean Quarter speaks of continuity, and if the refounding of the Hellenistic cities by Pompey and Gabinius had any impact on Gamla at all, it was economic. The central Golan, including Gamla, remained administratively part of Judea because it was at the time populated by Jews. Under Herod The transition between the Hasmonean and Herodian periods at Gamla is not clear cut. Though after the rise of Herod the political transition in Judea was rather abrupt, relatively remote Gamla did not experience any upheavals. Contrary to long-held opinion (e.g., Shatzman 1991:292, n. 55), the Golan was not given to Herod in 20 BCE, but formed part of the Hasmonean territories he wrested from Antigonus already at the beginning of his reign (Hartal 2005:349). Herod’s activities in Northern Transjordan consisted mainly of occasionally fighting the Nabateans and of efforts to eradicate the bands of brigands in the Trachon (Trachonitis), first by settling Idumeans in the region, and later, Babylonian Jews. It has been suggested that Herod did not care much about the Jewish population of the Golan, because these remained—at least covertly—loyal to the Hasmonean dynasty (Hartal 2005:401). Thus, as far as we are aware, Gamla neither benefited nor was harmed by the rise of Herod. The archaeological record indicates that at the end of Herod’s reign, the Hasmonean quarter was completely abandoned (for a detailed discussion, see Goren 2010:114–116). The date of this apparently traumatic event is indicated by the complete lack of first-century CE pottery forms and by extremely few examples of some classes of artifacts that appeared only late in the first century BCE or at the turn of the era and that are very common in other parts of Gamla. These include blown glass, limestone vessels and Herodian lamps. It would seem that during the first century CE, people deliberately avoided the area; otherwise, one would expect passersby to have lost a few coins and to have

broken a few vessels. The nine coins from the first century CE, as well as a handful of arrowheads and ballista balls from the Jewish War that were found here, are all surface finds. The reason for the abandonment eludes us. A possibility that comes to mind is avoidance because of the religious impurity of death. Though no human bones were found to indicate a disaster, the dozens of complete pottery vessels found on the floors suggest a hasty abandonment. The First Century CE The first century CE saw important developments at Gamla. It is difficult to say if these began already under Herod or only after the territory of Gamla passed to his son, Philip, but it would appear that the town prospered. This is evident in the archaeological record in several ways. A new quarter was constructed in the western part of town, named by the excavators the Western Quarter (Yavor 2010a:69–110). The new buildings indicate affluence; they were far better constructed than the houses in the Hasmonean Quarter and far more spacious. Apparently, people could now afford to build new, larger homes and needed an area that was not already densely built up. Though there were scattered buildings here already in the Hasmonean period, these were few and they were apparently demolished to make way for the new construction. Even the air is better here; a light breeze is felt here at all times, in contrast to the eastern reaches of the town, where the midday summer heat becomes unbearable. Many of the houses had columns and arches in the upper stories, the walls of some were found to have been covered with colored frescoes and stucco (Farhi 2010; and see Chapter 22) and the small finds included large quantities of glass vessels, as well as items of jewelry, such as finger and earrings, pendants and other small luxury items (see Chapters 12, 13). Possibly the earliest examples in Israel of a Roman arch and of Hauran-style architecture with stone roofs are found in this quarter (Yavor 2010b). At this time, two imposing public building were also constructed: the synagogue and the ‘basilica’. The first is a religiously-oriented community center,10 and the second, an administrative building (Syon and Yavor 2005:52–59). These fine, though modestly ornamented buildings necessitated the expenditure of large sums of money from public funds. Hebrew/Aramaic masons’

Chapter 1: Introduction—A History of Gamla

marks on column drums indicate that they were built by Jewish builders (Peleg-Barkat 2010:162, Fig. 5.5). The ‘basilica’ dates with certainty to the early first century CE. It is not a synagogue, for there is no single space within that is suitable for the assembly of a large group of people. It is an entirely new type of religious and/or secular Jewish public building of the Second Temple period. The two walls of the central aisle, pierced by two or three wide doorways on each side, may be regarded as two rows of piers, lending the building the appearance of a Roman basilica. Thus, the northern tier of the central aisle could be likened to the tribunal in a basilica, which could have accommodated judiciary and public functions under the auspices of the town council, while transactions and meetings could have been held in the side chambers. Geyer (see Chapter 25) suggests that the building served as a state-controlled store for surplus agricultural products, such as oil, grain, and especially, wine. Though I do not accept this interpretation, if only because of the building’s decorations, Geyer’s suggestion emphasizes its enigmatic nature. Aspects of the Economy The built-up area of Gamla in the first century CE was roughly 35–40 acres and the number of inhabitants is estimated to have been around 5000 people (for an artist’s reconstruction, see Gutmann 1994:56–57). The reasons for Gamla’s ‘economic boom’ in the first century CE are twofold. The first is that the

9

administrative role of Gamla apparently increased, as we hear from Josephus that under Agrippa II— but probably earlier—high-ranking officials owned villages near Gamla, spent time there, and that their families lived in the town (War 4.1.10 [81]; Life 46–47, 61, 184). The second is the lucrative production of and trade in olive oil, which, in the first century CE, seems to have reached great volumes because of the demand of Diaspora Jews for ‘kosher’ oil (Goodman 1990).11 Echoes of this are found in Josephus’ extolling of the productivity of Galilean olive trees and the accusations of John of Gischala that the latter sold oil to the Jews of Syria at eight to ten times the normal price (War 2.21.2 [591–592]; Life 74–75). At this time, the large oil press in the Western Quarter was constructed in the southern edge of town and included a built-in miqveh (Building 5000; Yavor 2010a:98–109). This press, too, is of the Judean type. Yet another oil press was situated at the far western edge of the town; it is known only by its huge crushing basin, still visible on the surface (Fig. 1.7). There may be more presses in the unexcavated areas. A large iron plowshare found in the Western Quarter (Fig. 1.8) and several mills of the Olynthus and the Pompeian types (see Chapter 11) are sure evidence of grain cultivation and of flour production on a commercial scale. Pollen analysis corroborates the presence of grain and olives, and offers the interesting suggestion that viticulture was also practiced at Gamla (see Chapter 25), though this is not substantiated by archaeological evidence. Olive and date stones, as well

Fig. 1.7. Crushing basin of an oil press on the far western edge of Gamla hill.

10

Danny Syon

0

20

Fig. 1.8. Iron plowshare from the Western Quarter.

as grape seeds, are seldom found in excavations (see Chapter 25), but those from Gamla corroborate the obvious, i.e., that the inhabitants’ diet included fruit and vegetables. According to Berlin (2006:12), there were probably pottery production centers in or near Gamla, providing a large percentage of the vessels needed for daily life. So far, no definite pottery kiln has been identified, but a few wasters found in a recent survey on the western outskirts of the town point to its likely location.12 Other aspects of the economy are evident in calibrated lead weights (see Chapter 14), a stone weight that apparently originated in Jerusalem (see Chapter 10), and again, by huge quantities of coins. In the first century CE, the citizens of Gamla not only still used the hundred-year-old coins of the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus, but also the small Seleucid bronze coins from the second century BCE. Because of the heavily biased statistics of so many coins, it is difficult to say whether this monetary economy was something peculiar to Gamla or reflects activity at other settlements of the period. It is noteworthy that though Gamla was formally in the territory of Philip, coins of Antipas from Tiberias are far more common at Gamla (61 vs. 37 coins). This may have been because Antipas ruled over a territory inhabited by Jews only, and thus, his coinage was more favored for commerce by the people of Gamla than gentile Caesarea Philippi but also because Tiberias was more accessible by boat than Caesarea Philippi, accessed overland. Meticulous sifting during the excavations yielded many small finds indicative of the social status and leisure activities of the populace. Hundreds of beads and glass cabochons, numerous finger rings and earrings (some of gold), gemstones and other items of jewelry found throughout the Western Quarter indicate the affluence of the inhabitants, as do numerous luxury items made of bone. Small objects for daily use include fibulae, so-called ‘kohl-sticks’, which in

0

1

Fig. 1.9. Toy rooster’s head.

fact had diverse uses, bone hairpins, various pieces of hardware made of bronze and iron, house keys and jewelry-box keys, astragali (gaming pieces made of sheep knucklebones), gaming dice and even a ceramic rooster’s head, probably a child’s toy (a surface find; Fig. 1.9).13 The luxury items compare well in their diversity, value and number to those in the excavated great urban centers of Sepphoris, Caesarea and even Jerusalem. In fact, as recently argued by Aviam (2011), though Gamla was not a city but rather a town of modest size, the material culture suggests exactly the opposite of one of the commonly held paradigms held by some New Testament scholars that Galilee was a region of wealthy cities and poor villages.14 Purity and Jewishness Another process, related to religion, not the economy, was also at work. It seems that all over Palestine, Jews began to adhere to stricter purity regulations. Berlin’s pottery analysis (2006:151) shows that this trend appears to have been even more pronounced in Galilee and Golan than in Judea.15 At the turn of the era, Jews started using soft limestone vessels (see Chapter 9), which cannot be ritually defiled, and wheel made, knife-pared Herodian-type lamps, which, in their simple design, were radically different from the decorated, mold-made lamps used by the gentiles (Terem and Adan-Bayewitz, forthcoming). In fact, the presence at rural sites of either of these two classes of objects alone is usually sufficient to determine that a site was inhabited by Jews in the first century CE. Moreover, the majority of the wheel-made Herodiantype lamps at Gamla were manufactured in Jerusalem

Chapter 1: Introduction—A History of Gamla

(Adan Bayewitz et al. 2008:49–50 [Table 1], 58–59, 72– 77),16 as may have been the case with some of the glass vessels (see Chapter 8). The pottery found in the wealthy houses of the Western Quarter at Gamla, similarly to that in the small number of other first-century Jewish sites in Galilee, does not contain imported wares but simple, local wares only. Jews in Jerusalem, on the other hand, started using imported wares during the reign of Herod and later. As the imported wares in Judea at the time were serving vessels and new kinds of cooking wares imported from Italy, this may suggest a radical change in dining habits, in keeping with a stricter observance of purity laws. Berlin (2006:51) suggests that in Galilee, however, the cessation of imports was a form of passive resistance to Rome. The metallurgical study of some of the copper-alloy artifacts from Gamla led to the suggestion of a similar trend—that Jews preferred bronze over brass because the latter was strongly associated with the Romans. This tendency was observed subsequently at other Jewish sites (see Chapter 21). Cope (Chapter 23) suggests that the butchering patterns used by Jews at Gamla and Yodefat are consistent with kosher practices. The fact that only two miqvehs—the quintessential archaeological indicator of Jewishness—were found in a first-century context is fortuitous. Several more miqvehs undoubtedly lie undiscovered in the unexcavated areas.

The Jewish War It appears that Gamla was one of the more important towns in first-century Galilee,17 though we do not have independent literary evidence of this. Josephus makes a point of mentioning it among the territories he was sent to command: “as was Josephus, the son of Matthias, [made governor] of both the Galilees. Gamala also, which was the strongest city in those parts, was put under his command” (War 2.20.4 [568]). A highranking official, Philip son of Yakim (Jacimus), one of King Agrippa’s generals (and the town’s governor?), apparently lived in Gamla (or some of his relatives did), as his comings and goings are detailed by Josephus (Life 46–61, 179). Two of Philip’s daughters were— according to Josephus, at least—the only survivors of the battle (War 4.1.10 [81]). It is likely that their house was in the Western Quarter. In War, but mostly in his autobiography (Life 46– 61; 114, 177–188; 398–406), we hear of the events

11

concerning Gamla that led to Vespasian’s arrival. In brief, Gamla initially remained peaceful, on account of Philip, whose presence at Gamla kept the town under control. On the occasion that Philip left the town, Joseph, son of the midwife—apparently one of the young rebels—‘persuaded’ the leaders (probably the elders of the town) to revolt and the rebels gained control. This was evidently forced persuasion—those who would not join were slain, including Chares, one of Philip’s relatives (not to be confused with Chares, one of the rebel commanders of the town). Though the exact timing of this event is unclear, it stands to reason that it occurred after a sizable number of refugees had already come to Gamla from the fighting in Galilee and turned the tide in favor of the rebels. It is likely that it was at this point in time that Josephus answered the call of the inhabitants to send an army and workmen to build the walls (Life 37). Agrippa’s Blockade Following this development, King Agrippa sent an army headed by Aequus (or Equiculus) Modius to retake Gamla, but failed. According to Josephus, he laid a loose siege around the town—probably more of a blockade—to control the roads to and from Gamla. One such roadblock, presumably to hinder the supply of provisions from Galilee to Gamla, was set up a short distance from Iulias (Bethsaida), i.e., in the Butteiha valley at the northeastern end of the Sea of Galilee, where we hear of a skirmish between Josephus’ soldiers and Sylla, one of Agrippa’s commanders. This blockade lasted seven months. By this time, Gamla was already overflowing with refugees, and the number given by Josephus of 9000 people in the city who eventually perished may well be accurate. For the town was crowded with refugees because the protection it offered, which was proved by the fact that the forces previously sent by Agrippa to besiege it had made no headway after seven months (War 4.1.2 [10]).

We have no accurate information on the origin of the refugees, but it can be assumed that they were of two kinds: rebels from Galilee proper, escaping the Roman army, and villagers from the vicinity of Gamla, who sought refuge behind its walls, a normal practice in antiquity when a town was about

12

Danny Syon

to come under siege. There was not enough housing for the refugees, so the town authorities threw open the public buildings for them and some lived in the public squares. Archaeologically, this phase can be identified by evidence of hearths, cooking pots and storage jars, left by the refugees. They were found at several public locations. The most dramatic finds were in the synagogue hall, on the northern landing (Yavor 2010a:54). These were all covered with the ballista balls that smashed the place. Other locations in which evidence of refugees was found in the Western Quarter were the paved square (L5012), in and around the olive-oil press (Yavor 2010a:93, 106, 109) and in the ‘basilica’ (Syon and Yavor 2005:57). The rebels also set up a mint in Gamla, probably in a local metal workshop, which was identified by several casting sprues left from the casting process (see Chapter 21). The crude coins imitate the silver sheqels minted concurrently in Jerusalem by either the secular leaders, or, as recently suggested, by the Temple authorities (Rappaport 2007). According to Arbel (Chapter 6), the period of Agrippa’s blockade was the most likely time for the minting of this unique local coinage at Gamla. Nine coins are known; seven of them were found at Gamla (see Chapter 5; Farhi 2003–2006; Syon 2007). These coins were evidently minted as a propaganda effort, rather than as currency for commercial transactions, and although the crude legend remains elusive,18 it no doubt carries nationalistic slogans. Vespasian’s Siege and the Fall of Gamla Vespasian had two reasons for taking Gamla. First, Roman strategy called for the elimination of all resistance, no matter how remote or slight. Second, the Jews were expecting help from their brethren in the Babylonian Diaspora and military intervention from Parthia, even if the majority saw in this a messianic, rather than a realistic expectation (Rappaport 1989:375, 377, 378). The only district of either Judea or Galilee with direct access to Parthia, with no hostile gentile cities blocking the way, was Jewish Gaulanitis and its capital, Gamla. Though Agrippa’s army was deployed in this area, the Romans could not rely on it completely. Hence, Gamla’s capture was of importance to Vespasian. The siege and battle of Gamla are described in detail by Josephus (War 4.1 [1–83]).

While his description of some of the events should be taken with a grain of salt, the reliability of his description of the site is remarkable. Indeed, some of the archaeological discoveries have helped clarify his statements concerning the events during the siege and battles. Josephus’ description of Gamla discloses an intimate acquaintance with the town. Here I beg to differ with Rappaport (1992:100–101), who claims that Gamla was too distant to be under Josephus’ command, and that he did not fortify it at all. During the siege of Vespasian, Josephus was already a prisoner of war, having fallen into Roman hands a few months earlier at Yodefat. Josephus persuaded Vespasian not to send him to Nero in Rome, but to keep him as his own prisoner (War 3.8.8 [392–398]). Josephus’ detailed description of Vespasian’s moves after the fall of Yodefat suggests that he remained in the train of the general and was an eyewitness to the events at Gamla. The results of the excavations enable a point-by-point comparison of the finds with the historical source. The Roman Camps Unable to put an unbroken ring of men round the town because of its situation, [Vespasian] posted sentries wherever he could and occupied the hill that overlooked it. When the legions had fortified their camps in the usual way on its slopes, he began to construct platforms at the tail end (War 4.1.3 [12–13]).

It is futile to look for the remains of the Roman camps. Attempts by Gutmann to locate them on the plateau to the north and south of Gamla did not yield results. Any comparison to the well-preserved stone-built camps at Masada is equally meaningless; Vespasian did not plan to spend much time at Gamla and the camps and sentry posts would have been constructed of perishable wood. Even if their foundations were of stone, these were long ago dismantled by agricultural and building activity during the subsequent centuries, especially from the Byzantine period onward. The Wall The vast majority of warfare-related objects were found along the city wall, inside and out. Although only about 5% of the built-up area of the town has been excavated, the distribution of the weapons in the town clearly

13

Chapter 1: Introduction—A History of Gamla

shows that most of the fighting took place within an approximately 50 m wide band along the wall. Josephus’ claim that he built the city wall (¢nast»son [Life 37], teic…zwn [War 4.1.2 [9]) was understood to mean that he strengthened and reinforced an existing wall, because the impression gained from his description was that of a fortified town. The archaeological picture is quite different, however. The wall is, in fact, a patchwork of pre-existing buildings at the eastern extremity of the town, with evidence of hasty construction, to close the gaps between them. The plan (Fig. 1.10) shows that the wall is anything but a straight line: it bulges, zigzags, projects and retracts. Thus, the fortification by Josephus included closing gaps between existing buildings (e.g., Fig. 1.10: Nos. 4, 6) and thickening the existing building walls facing east by constructing a second wall behind them (as in the breach, see below and Fig. 1.10: No. 11). It also included the filling-in with stones of rooms along the course of the wall, such as the ‘study room’ next to the synagogue hall (Fig. 1.10: No. 3) and rooms in Area T (Fig. 1.10: Nos. 9, 12). Buildings—perhaps weak or old ones—were dismantled to construct the wall over them (e.g., Fig. 1.10: No. 1). At all points along its length, the wall is distinguished from the pre-existing buildings of higher quality by its hasty, simple, fieldstone construction. About midway along the wall (see Fig. 1.10: Twin Towers) a pair of finely constructed towers was discovered, flanking a narrow passage. It is not clear if this was an ‘official’ entry into the town before the war, or whether it was built as part of the fortifications in anticipation of the Roman siege (see Yavor 2010a:27). In any case, the towers were constructed over an earlier building, probably of the Hasmonean period. At the bottom of the wall (Area T; Fig. 1.10: No. 13; ‘Water Gate’) are yet another pair of square buildings, 8 m apart, that may be towers, but could equally be pre-existing buildings that were incorporated in the wall (Yavor 2010a:36– 37). The gap between these towers may be an opening, termed by Gutmann the ‘water gate’, with reference to what appears to be a small reservoir just below this spot, outside the wall. However, recent (nineteenth– twentieth century) activity here in the form of a shepherd’s hut and animal pen (Yavor 2010a:39, Plan

K L M N O P Q R S T 20

20 19

19

18

Area L

18 17

Area OB

17

1

16

16 Area E 15 2 14

15 14 Area F Synagogue

13 Area A

12

13 12

11

3 11

10 9

10 9 Area C

8

4 8

5

7

Breach 6

6 Area G

5

5

4

4

6

3

3

2

2

7

1

1

20

20

19

19

18

18 17

17

8

16

Area M

16

15

15

14

14 13

13

9

12

12 11 10 Twin Towers 9

Area T

11 10 9 8

8

10

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3 2

2 The Wall

20 19

1

11

1

20 19

Area T

18

18 17

17

12

16

16

15

15

14

14 13

13 12 11 10 9 8 7

Fig. 1.10. The wall of Gamla during the Jewish War, indicating ammunition concentrations. 4

U A B

Round Tower

13

12 11

Water Gate

10 Ballista concentrations 9 (over 80) Arrowhead concentrations 8 (over 20) 7 0

6 K L M N O P Q R S T

20 m

U A B

6

14

Danny Syon

2.10 and Figs. 2.31, 32), makes it near impossible to assess the evidence. Enigmatically, relatively few arrowheads and ballista balls were found along the lower parts of the wall, suggesting that the Romans concentrated their siege efforts at the top half of the wall, which was more easily accessible to them.

upon as fantasy. It happened just before the second Roman assault on the town: Working in silence, the [three] soldiers [of the 15th legion] rolled away five stones forming the base. As they jumped out of the way the tower fell with a resounding crash, bringing the sentries down with it (War 4.1.9 [64]).

The Trench and the Ramp …but here too, by digging a trench across, the inhabitants made access very difficult (War 4.1.1 [6]).

Parallel to and outside the course of the wall is a depression running in a more or less straight line down to the stream below. This is an unlikely place for a natural wash to form, as it does not originate at the lowest point of the saddle connecting the hill of Gamla to the plateau above. Instead, it is probably the ‘trench’ referred to by Josephus that the inhabitants dug across the saddle and down the slope. Although this feature was not excavated systematically, it is still prominent in the landscape. The top of this trench, where it should have crossed the crest of the saddle, is filled up to an unknown depth, and is probably a ramp: With so many skilled hands the platforms (cwm¡twn) were soon finished and the engines brought up (War 4.1.4 [17]).

While cwm¡twn is variously translated as earthworks (Thackeray 1968), banks (Whiston 1822) or simply the necessary works (Bradshaw 1798), it appears that the Romans constructed an earthen ramp at this spot, consisting of the flat space stretching from below the round tower to the nearest cliff, some 30 m to the east. Although not excavated, over the years, many ballista balls, coins and various other objects surfaced in this area, which served as the expedition camp for 14 seasons. This was the only logical choice for Vespasian to build a siege ramp. The Round Tower As stated above, the round tower is most likely a Seleucid construction, but was incorporated in the fortifications against the Romans. Very little of the tower was found in the excavation (Yavor 2010a:17– 18, Fig. 2.7, Plan 2.2), but it could be verified that it was built directly on the soft chalk that makes up the hill of Gamla, without any discernible foundation. This point is relevant to a passage that is usually looked

While by no means conclusive, the fact that the tower had no foundations, and that its entire northern side was missing, lends some credibility to this story, as it would have been relatively easy to dislodge stones from a structure built directly on soft chalk. The Breaches According to Josephus, the Romans applied battering rams at three points along the wall (War 4.1.4 [20]). How many breaches they actually made is another question. The surviving Greek manuscripts state tîn ™reifqšntwn, literally “those [parts] that were torn down.” The translations, again, vary: “breach” (Bradshaw 1798), “broke through the wall” (Thackeray 1968), “breaches” (Williamson 1959), and “parts of the wall that were thrown down” (Whiston 1822). Further on, recounting the events after the first assault, Josephus states that “the bolder spirits guarded the gaps in the wall” (War 4.1.7 [51]), so we may assume that there was more than one breach, though how many exactly remains unclear. Although Gutmann always referred to three breaches, as did Gichon (1987:79), the excavations show only one clearly: in a building below the synagogue (Fig. 1:10, No. 4; Yavor 2010a:22–23, Figs. 2.13, 2.14). Here, the wall was found broken down almost to its foundation and a huge number of some 300 arrowheads and 180 ballista balls were found, inside and out. The wall is breached in a room of a domestic building. The wall was originally 0.7 m wide, and the addition of a secondary wall behind it, built mostly of fieldstones, broadened it to 2 m. Even after strengthening the wall to 2 m, this was still one of its weakest points; just south, the wall is 4 m wide. Did the Romans have information as to where breaching the walls would be easiest? As the room probably had no roof at this time, it may have been possible for someone standing on the cliffs above to judge the walls’ width. The information may also have been extracted from a prisoner, a fugitive or communicated by Josephus himself.

Chapter 1: Introduction—A History of Gamla

Another possible breach is located about midway along the wall (Fig. 1.10: No. 7), where a small concentration of arrowheads was found in front of a 3.5 m wide section where the wall was missing. A third place is situated just above the synagogue, where an unusually carelessly patched passage through the wall was found (Fig. 1.10: No. 2). This might be a breach that was reclosed by the defenders after the first attack. Not many arrowheads were found at this spot, but some 100 ballista balls tell of an artillery barrage. In conclusion, there does not seem to be a correlation between missing sections of the wall and concentrations of ammunition. Therefore, the actual number of breaches will, unfortunately, remain conjectural. The Weapons An immense number of weapons, ammunition and military objects was recovered at Gamla. Units from three legions took part in the siege and conquest of the town: the V Macedonica, the X Fretensis and the XV Apollinaris. From the (mainly epigraphic) sources, we know that the X, and probably much of the XV legion was composed of Syrian troops (see e.g., Mann 1983:41–42). There is, of course, no way to assign the material remains to specific units, but the weapons and other gear found at the site are typical of Roman military equipment of the first century CE (see Chapter 4). The sheer quantity of arrowheads and ballista balls found at Gamla is unsurpassed anywhere in the Roman Empire during this period. An analysis shows that except for the main breach and the synagogue area, the major concentrations of arrowheads and ballista balls along the wall do not overlap (Fig. 1.10). Ballista Balls. Some 2000 basalt ballista balls (some still lying along the wall and unrecorded) have been found to date (see Chapter 3). As opposed to arrowheads, which would have been collected after the battle (see below), this probably represents more or less the complete inventory that was deployed at Gamla. The concentration of ballista balls and arrowheads was greatest in and around the large breach, where an artillery barrage clearly took place, but most buildings next to the wall, including the synagogue hall, were filled with them, providing a dramatic visualization of the siege. In the synagogue hall itself, 157 balls were collected and near the round tower, some 130, while near the entrance just above the synagogue (Fig. 1.10: No. 2), about 100 were recovered.

15

At the interior foot of the twin towers in Area T (Fig. 1.10: No. 10), a concentration of several dozen ballista balls was found (Yavor 2010a:29, Fig. 2.17). Apparently, at night the defenders would gather the balls that had fallen in the town and hurl them back by hand at the Romans the following day. In the cut made in the mountainside during the construction of the service road to the expedition camp, a large pile of ballista balls was discovered. It is situated approximately 300 m from the wall, so it could be a ballista emplacement, but it could just as well be the spot where the balls were manufactured from locally collected basalt. Arrowheads. Some 1600 iron arrowheads have been found to date (see Chapter 2). Since the Romans would have collected any spent arrows that they found after the battle for reuse, this number probably represents only a fraction of the arrows spent—those that were either hidden by debris or vegetation, penetrated deep into the ground or escaped being corroded to powder. A look at Fig. 1.10 reveals that the majority of arrowheads were found outside the wall, implying that those in the town were probably more easily recovered. In addition to the arrowheads discovered in the breach, two other concentrations of arrowheads were found. One was in front of the synagogue wall and in the area around the passage just below the synagogue (Fig. 1.10, No. 5), where some 120 were collected outside the wall. The other was about 50 m north of the twin towers, where nearly 300 arrowheads were found, again, outside the wall (Fig. 1.10: No. 8). Although far from conclusive, it may be that some arrowhead types are evidence of auxiliary ethnic archer units (sagittarii), some of which may have used ‘traditional’ arrowheads alongside the ‘standard’ Roman issue.19 Josephus explicitly refers, for example, to Arab (Nabatean) bowmen at the siege of Yodefat (War 3.7.9 [168]). A little over 50 arrowheads were found in the western parts of the town (Areas S, R, RN), evidence of some advance of the Roman troops into these areas, though a certain number may have belonged to the Jewish defenders. Some 100 catapult bolts were also found along the length of the wall, including two concentrations that suggest an ‘artillery barrage’. One concentration was in the breach area (63 bolts) and a smaller one was near the twin towers in Area T (12 bolts). Some bolts found their way to the western areas of the town, about

16

Danny Syon

300 m west of the wall, underscoring the immense power of the catapults. No such bolts were found at Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007), and only a few at Yodefat, though at the latter, their percentage is greater in relation to the overall number found (Aviam 2002). Other Weapons. Apart from the ammunition, the plethora of military equipment is discussed in this volume by Stiebel (see Chapter 4). An unusual concentration of Roman military equipment was found in L4019, which is a very narrow alley between the inner side of the twin towers in Area M and the wall of a building (Fig. 1.10: No. 10; Yavor 2010a:29, Fig. 2.16). Here were found what appear to be discarded or lost pieces of the equipment of a Roman soldier. The concentration includes parts of a helmet, a scabbard chape and parts of lorica segmentata armor, this last a rare find in the eastern provinces. It would not be stretching the imagination too far to see a trapped Roman soldier during the failed first attack, trying to escape from the town and losing or dropping parts of his equipment in his attempt to flee. A dramatic illustration of the assault at the breach was a siege-hook found on the breach itself, used both for stabbing and for hooking onto the wall for climbing. A class of improvised ‘weapons’ are heavy objects that the defenders threw at the Romans from the wall. Except for reused ballista balls (see above), all kinds of stones and architectural elements were used, most of which cannot be told apart from the stones of the collapsed wall. A few, though, can be recognized: several round millstones and about ten roof rollers, found along the wall. About four of these rollers were observed next to the breach (Yavor 2010a:16, Fig. 2.4). These objects could roll, thus causing more damage than a square block that would come to rest as soon as it hit the ground. The Final Hours The most dramatic episode in Josephus’ story is no doubt the last stand of the defenders of Gamla. In this context, Gamla is sometimes called ‘Masada of the Golan’ or ‘Masada of the North’, a term Gutmann, I and others find unacceptable. The general public, even Stern (1982:384), is under the impression that just as at Masada, at Gamla too, a mass suicide took place. At both sites, dramatic episodes

of the Jewish War were played out; both are symbols of heroism for the modern State of Israel and both are important historical and archaeological sites. But here the similarities end. Masada was conceived of and built as a desert fortress and served as such throughout its existence. During the revolt, it was held by a group of several hundred sicarii and their families.20 Gamla, on the other hand, evolved as a town and existed as such, relying mainly on natural fortifications. Josephus’ recurring reference to the citadel of Gamla (Life 11, 24, 36) is misleading. It was suggested above that Gamla may have been a fortified Seleucid outpost until the days of Alexander Jannaeus, but during the first centuries BCE and CE it was an unfortified town and certainly not a citadel. Although the crest of the ridge at Gamla was not excavated, thorough surveys have not revealed any remains of a citadel—akra—in the sense of a fortified building. There are a few scattered building stones on the ridge, and a single column drum lies just below the crest above the western quarters, but the remains are not substantial enough to reconstruct a massive defensive building. Had one existed, it would be difficult to account for Josephus’ complete silence about it, especially as a refuge or a last stand for the defenders. Thus, a]kra at Gamla simply refers to the crest of the ridge. The Tempest But to ensure [the Jews’] destruction they were struck full in the face by a miraculous tempest, which carried the Roman shafts up to them but checked their own and turned them aside. So violent was the blast that they could neither keep their feet on the narrow ledges, having no proper foothold, nor see the approaching enemy (War 4.1.10

[76–77]). The siege of Gamla took place in the month of Hyperberetaios (Tishri—September–October), a time of year characterized by occasional but predictable eastern winds, sometimes approaching gale force. The excavators experienced at first hand the immense strength of these winds, which at Gamla accelerate even more because of the effect of the narrow gorge. Sporadic blasts of these winds can stop one from breathing, blow clouds of dust and make airborne almost anything that is not tied down or made of stone. Thus, the description of Josephus, even if embellished, is no doubt based on fact. A similar incident is described at Masada, where

Chapter 1: Introduction—A History of Gamla

the wall was set on fire by the Romans and the wind first blew the fire back toward them, but then, “as if by divine providence” the fire veered back and consumed the wall (War 7.8.5 [318]). The literary similarities between Gamla and Masada continue: The Final Stand No matter how critically—or uncritically—we read the suicide story of El‘azar Ben-Ya’ir and his companions (War 7.8.6–7 [320–388]), no actual battle was fought at Masada. At Gamla, however, a very real battle took place, at the end of which, when there was no more hope, They flung their wives and children and themselves too into the immensely deep artificial ravine that yawned under the citadel. In fact, the fury of the victors seemed less destructive than the suicidal frenzy of the trapped men; 4000 fell by Roman swords, but those who plunged to destruction proved to be over 5000 (War 4.1.10 [79– 80]).

Mass suicide in the Hellenistic-Roman world— real or literary—has been amply discussed,21 but the situation at Gamla suggests that such an action never took place. First, the only place along the crest of the ridge where there is a vertical cliff high enough for someone falling off it to die with reasonable certainty is at the summit, which can only be reached with a certain degree of difficulty by clambering over large boulders. Today, the summit area can accommodate a few score people at most. In antiquity, it may indeed have been larger, as earthquakes certainly brought down some massive boulders, but not by much. Even if we accept only 500 people, not 5000, standing on the ridge, it would be physically impossible for all but a few to reach the summit and jump headlong to their deaths. The rest would not have made it. The remainder of the ridge on the north simply slopes down, though steeply indeed, to the gorge below. Second, contrary to the time afforded to El‘azar BenYa’ir on Masada to make his speech and persuade his companions to commit suicide, it is hard to imagine that the people at Gamla would have had the presence of mind in the midst of the fighting to decide on carrying out a mass suicide.

17

The likely scenario, which Josephus wanted either to distort or ‘touch up’ in a literary way, is that the remaining defenders and townspeople tried to flee down the steep northern slope in a panic, with the inevitable result that many were trampled underfoot and died. The more agile actually reached the gorge, and thence—safety. For an observer (Josephus?) standing on the Deir Qruh ridge and looking at this drama unfolding, it may indeed have appeared as a mass suicide.

Epilogue While Josephus’ statement that only two daughters of Philip, son of Yakim, survived the battle by hiding should not be taken too seriously, Gamla undoubtedly was abandoned by its inhabitants. This may have happened on the same day the last battle was fought, as Josephus would have us believe, or, as at Yodefat, within a few days, after the Romans had flushed out people hiding in cisterns and perhaps in the underground passages. At Yodefat, human bones were discovered both in houses and in water cisterns converted to mass graves, in which the collected bones of dozens of individuals were found (Aviam 2005:169–174). This find was justly interpreted as the fulfillment—by survivors or other Jews—of the Jewish religious command for the burial of the dead, which is of supreme importance. The mass graves at Yodefat show that the collection of the bones and the burial occurred after the flesh had decomposed, that is, at least a year after the fall of the town. While there is neither literary nor positive archaeological evidence for a garrison the Romans may have left at either Yodefat or Gamla, the finds at Yodefat suggest that no such garrison was left, as one of its first tasks would have been the burial or cremation of the dead, for practical reasons of sanitation. A parallel may be drawn from Yodefat to Gamla, as, in all the seasons of excavations, among the thousands of animal bones recovered in all the excavated areas, only a single human lower jawbone and a piece of skull were found together with an arrowhead in Area S, in the Western Quarter, far from the main events of the battle. In an unexcavated area in the far western part of Gamla, some structures resembling tombs can be seen, but these may be part of Gamla’s main cemetery. In all likelihood, one or

18

Danny Syon

more mass graves in cisterns lie somewhere in the unexcavated parts of the hillside. The fate of the survivors is not known, but in all likelihood they fled to other Jewish settlements in Galilee and Golan, and some apparently made their way to Jerusalem, to join the rebels there. This I corroborated by the finding of one of the coins minted at Gamla near the fortress of Sartaba-Alexandrion in the Judean desert (see Chapter 5), probably lost by one such refugee. Contrary to long-held opinion (e.g., Ma‘oz 1995:349), it seems that except for Gamla, Jewish settlement in the Golan did not suffer greatly in the Jewish War. As Ben-David’s study shows (Chapter 7), among the 18 settlements that existed at the time, Gamla was the only one to be abandoned, and new settlements were established in its vicinity soon after. Occasional visitors to the hill where Gamla once stood in the following centuries are identified by single finds: a coin of Sidon from 76/7 CE and a coin

from Tiberias dated 120 CE; a couple of Ottoman clay tobacco pipes from the eighteenth or nineteenth century; a Turkish coin dated 1910; and some buttons from Syrian military uniforms. They all speak of a totally abandoned site. The only episode of a possibly more than ephemeral nature is found in a small group of some 12 pottery vessels from the third/fourth centuries CE identified in the house on top of the ridge in Area D (Berlin 2006:157–158). This find, together with three coins from the late fourth century CE, one of these also from Area D, may suggest a short-lived encampment at Gamla, perhaps of shepherds. It is possible that the name and location of Gamla remained in the collective memory of the local Jewish inhabitants until the Byzantine period, but with the cessation of this settlement at the end of this period, the name of the town was forgotten, along with the names of most of the other settlements that were abandoned (Ben-David 2001).

notes 1

Information on the animal bones is by personal communications from L.K. Horowitz at the time she catalogued the bones. 2 In this work, the chronological framework for the Early Bronze Age follows Getzov 2006:112–113. 3 Ma‘oz (1983) suggested a line of small forts extending across central and southern Golan in the Seleucid period. 4 Berlin (2006) reported only on 4 handles, but she studied 42. The number of 55 handles is taken from the entire excavation database. 5 This archaeological dilemma is also taken up by Berlin 2006:14 and in Chapter 5. 6 Location unknown. See Hartal 2005:347, with further bibliography. 7 Thus in War. In the parallel passage in Antiquities, Josephus has Jannaeus himself complaining about Demetrius. 8 Qedesh was in fact never recovered and remained Tyrian territory until it became part of the Roman province of Syria. 9 Another opinion (Hoover 2003) states that this coin was actually minted by Hyrcanus I. 10 Apart from the final archaeological report by Yavor (2010a), the Gamla synagogue has been discussed in many publications. For the most comprehensive bibliography see Syon and Yavor 2010: Appendix 2. 11 Aviam (2011:32–33) cautions that the archaeological data in Galilee is insufficient to reach such a conclusion. 12 Recent investigations at the site of el-Jumeize, c. 2 km from Gamla, referred to by Berlin (2006:17) as a possible candidate for a pottery kiln that produced ceramics for

Gamla, have shown that no products of this kiln appear at Gamla (Osband 2007). See also Chapter 7. 13 See Chapters 12, 13, 16. 14 A recurring tenet in New Testament scholarship has been that the teachings of Jesus found fertile soil in Galilee because of the oppression of the villagers by the rich city dwellers. This supposition has changed of late, mainly because of archaeological discoveries. For an excellent review of the issue, see Jensen 2006:9–29. 15 For the archaeological evidence, see also Berlin 2002, 2005. 16 Adan-Bayewitz et al. (2008) showed, however, that locally made variants of this lamp type were also in use at gentile sites. 17 That the Golan district was an integral part of Galilee at the time has been shown convincingly in several archaeological studies (Meyers 1976:99–100, 1985:127; Adan-Bayewitz 1993:247–249, 2003). The rabbinic literature also treats Golan as part of Galilee (Ben-David 1995). 18 For the different readings, see Chapter 5. 19 With rare exceptions, there were no organic archery units in a Roman legion. The Romans did not excel as archers and preferred using auxiliary units composed of ethnic groups from the East, who were known as excellent archers (Davies 1977:260–262; Kennedy 1989:241). 20 The literature on Masada is vast. The entry in NEAEHL 3:973–985 should provide an adequate bibliography. 21 Stern (1982) brings a complete list of mass suicides, real or literary, in the Hellenistic–Roman world. See also Hankoff 1977 and Hooff 1990.

Chapter 1: Introduction—A History of Gamla

19

R eferences Adan-Bayewitz D. 1993. Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade. Ramat Gan. Adan-Bayewitz D. 2003. On the Chronology of the Common Pottery of Northern Roman Judaea/Palestine. In G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcała eds. One Land— Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM (SBF Collectio Maior 41). Jerusalem. Pp. 5–32. 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.–70 C.E.). BASOR 350:37–85. Amit D. 2010. The Miqva’ot. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Pp. 193–196. Ariel D.T. 2006. The Stamped Amphora Handles. In A.M. Berlin. Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 29). Jerusalem. Pp. 157–158. Aviam M. 2002. Yodefat/Jotapata: The Archaeology of the First Battle. In A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman eds. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology. London–New York. Pp. 121–133. Aviam M. 2005. Yodefat: A Case Study in the Development of the Jewish Settlement in the Galilee during the Second Temple Period. Ph.D. diss. Bar-Ilan University. Ramat Gan (Hebrew; English summary, pp. i–v). Aviam M. 2011. Socio-Economic Hierarchy and Its Economic Foundations in First Century Galilee: The Evidence from Yodefat and Gamla. In J. Pastor, P. Stern and M. Mor eds. Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 146). Leiden–Boston. Pp. 29–38. Bar-Kochva B. 1977. Manpower, Economics and Internal Strife in the Hasmonean State. In Armées et fiscalité dans le monde antique (Actes du colloque Paris 14–16 octobre 1976) (Colloques nationaux du CNRS 936). Paris. Pp. 167–196. Ben-David C. 1995. The Golan—Transjordan or Galilee? Sinai 115:285–287 (Hebrew). Ben-David C. 2001. Preservation of Ancient Names in Judaea and Galilee: Geographical-Historical Considerations. Judea and Samaria Studies 10:153–158 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XXI). Berlin A.M. 2002. Romanization and Anti-Romanization in Pre-Revolt Galilee. In A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman eds. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology. London–New York. Pp. 57–73. Berlin A.M. 2005. Jewish Life before the Revolt: The Archaeological Evidence. Journal for the Study of Judaism 36:417–470. Berlin A. 2006. Gamla I: The Pottery of the Second Temple Period; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 29). Jerusalem. Crowfoot J.W., Kenyon K.M. and Sukenik E.L. 1942. Samaria-Sebaste I: The Buildings at Samaria. London.

Davies J.L 1977. Roman Arrowheads from Dinorben and the Sagittarii of the Roman Army. Britannia 8:257–270. Epstein C. 1998. The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan (IAA Reports 4). Jerusalem. Farhi Y. 2003–6. The Bronze Coins Minted at Gamla Reconsidered. INJ 15:69–76. Farhi Y. 2010. Stucco Decorations from the Western Quarter. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Pp. 175–187. Frankel R. 1999. Wine and Oil Production in Antiquity in Israel and Other Mediterranean Countries (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 10). Sheffield.  Getzov N. 2005. Finds of the Early Bronze Age from Area G. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla 1997–2000. ‘Atiqot 50:45–46. Getzov N. 2006. The Tel Bet Yerah Excavations, 1994–1995 (IAA Reports 28). Jerusalem. Gichon M. 1987. The Golan and the Battle of Gamla. In M. Inbar and E. Schiller eds. Ramat Ha-Golan (Ariel 50–51). Pp. 77–81 (Hebrew). Goodman M. 1990. Kosher Olive Oil in Antiquity. In P.R. Davies and R.T. White eds. A Tribute to Géza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOT Suppl. S. 100). Sheffield. Pp. 227–245. Goren D. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Hasmonean Quarter (Areas D and B) and Area B77. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Pp. 111–152. Gutmann S. 1973. Renewed Discussion about the Identification of Gamla. In The Roman Period in EretzIsrael (internal publication of the Kibbutz Movement). Tel Aviv. Pp. 199–225 (Hebrew). Gutmann S. 1994. Gamla—A City in Rebellion. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Hankoff L.D. 1977. Flavius Josephus—First Century A.D. View of Suicide. New York State Journal of Medicine 77:1986–1992. Hartal M. 2003. The Material Culture of Northern Golan in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 1*–8*). Hartal M. 2005. Land of the Itureans: Archaeology and History of Northern Golan in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods (Golan Studies 2). Qazrin (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 1*–7*). Herbert S. and Berlin A. 2003. A New Administrative Center for Persian and Hellenistic Galilee: Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan/University of Minnesota Excavations at Kedesh. BASOR 329:13–59. Hooff A.J.L. 1990. From Autothanasia to Suicide: Self Killing in Classical Antiquity. London. Hoover O.D. 2003. The Seleucid Coinage of John Hyrcanus I: The Transformation of a Dynastic Symbol in Hellenistic Judaea. AJN 15:29–39.

20

Danny Syon

Jensen M.H. 2006. 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 215). Tübingen. Josephus. The Jewish War. G.A. Williamson transl. London 1959. Josephus. The Jewish War. H. St.J. Thackeray transl. (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge, Mass. 1968. Josephus. The Wars of the Jews. The Whole Works of Flavius Josephus. T. Bradshaw transl. London 1798. Josephus. Wars of the Jews. The Whole Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus. W. Whiston transl. Edinburgh 1822. Kennedy D. 1989. The Military Contribution of Syria to the Roman Imperial Army. In D.H. French and C.S. Lightfoot eds. The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire (Proceedings of a Colloquium Held in Ankara, September 1988) (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 11; BAR Int. S. 553). Oxford. Pp. 235–246. Klein S. 1934–1935. The Cities of the Priests and Levites and the Cities of Refuge. Journal of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 3:81–107 (Hebrew). Mann J.C. 1983. Legionary Recruitment and Veteran Settlement during the Principate (Institute of Archaeology Occasional Papers 7). London. Ma‘oz Z.U. 1983. The Hellenistic Fortification System on the Golan and the Conquests of Jannaeus. Eretz Hagolan 81:14–17 (Hebrew). Ma‘oz Z.U. 1995. Ancient Synagogues in the Golan: Art and Architecture. Qazrin (Hebrew). Meyers E.M. 1976. Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical Reconstruction. BASOR 221:93–101. Meyers E.M. 1985. Galilean Regionalism—A Reappraisal. In W.S. Green ed. Approaches to Ancient Judaism V. Atlanta. Pp. 115–131. Olami Y. 1989. The Lithic Assemblages from the Early Bronze Age Layer at Gamla. Mitekufat Haeven, Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 22:115*–128*. Osband M. 2007. Production and Distribution in Early Roman Golan—A Case Study. M.A. thesis. Bar-Ilan University. Ramat Gan. Paz Y. 2003. The Golan ‘Enclosures’ and the Urbanization Process in the Central and Southern Golan during the Early Bronze Age. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew; English summary, pp. b–h). Peleg-Barkat O. 2010. Architectural Decoration. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Pp. 159–174. Rappaport U. 1989. The Jews between Rome and Parthia. In D.H. French and C.S. Lightfoot eds. The Eastern Frontiers

of the Roman Empire (Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Ankara, September 1988) (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 11; BAR Int. S. 553). Oxford. Pp. 373–381. Rappaport U. 1992. How Anti-Roman Was the Galilee? In L.I. Levine ed. The Galilee in Late Antiquity. New York– Jerusalem. Pp. 95–102. Rappaport U. 2007. Who Minted the Jewish War’s Coins? INR 2:103–116. Shatzman I. 1991. The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod: From Hellenistic to Roman Frameworks (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 25). Tübingen. Smith R.H. 1990. The Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period. Levant 22:123–130. Stern M. 1982. The Suicide of Eleazar Ben-Jair and His Men at Masada, and the ‘Fourth Philosophy’. Zion 47:367–397 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XXI). Stiebel G.D. and Magness J. 2007. The Military Equipment from Masada. In Masada VIII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem. Pp. 1–94. 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. 2010. The Identification of Gamla. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Pp. 1–12. Syon D. and Yavor Z. 2005. Gamla 1997–2000. ‘Atiqot 50:37–71. Syon D. and Yavor Z. 2010. Gamla II: The Architecture. The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Terem S. 2007. The Oil Lamps from the Excavations at Gamla. MA thesis, Bar-Ilan University. Ramat Gan. Terem S. and Adan-Bayewitz D. Forthcoming. Gamla IV: The Oil Lamps; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports). Yavor Z. 2010a. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Eastern and Western Quarters. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Pp. 13–112. Yavor Z. 2010b. Building Techniques and Urban Planning. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor, Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Pp. 153–157.

Chapter 2

Arrowheads and Projectile Points Jodi Magness

Hundreds of arrowheads and projectile points were recovered at Gamla, the majority of iron, and the rest, of bronze. This discussion follows the typology developed by the excavators, according to which the arrowheads and projectile points are classified as Types A, B, C, D, E, and S (Fig. 2.1).1 Type A, representing the barbed iron trilobate arrowheads with tang characteristic of the Roman Imperial period, is by far the most numerous; Type E is a smaller variant of Type A, with strongly hooked barbs. Type B represents tanged iron arrowheads or spearheads with a flat, leafshaped head, Type C refers to socketed iron catapult bolts, Type D describes tanged iron points with a solid, pyramidal head, and Type S groups together miscellaneous arrowheads.

Types A and E (Fig. 2.2) Approximately 1200 arrowheads of Type A were found in the Gamla excavations, and about 100 arrowheads of Type E.2 Both Types A and E are tanged iron arrowheads (see Fig. 2.2:1–18, Type A; Fig. 2.2:19–26, Type E). The head is trilobate in section and has three barbed wingtips. Type E arrowheads are generally smaller in

B A

A

E

C

D 0

10

D

Fig. 2.1. Selected arrowhead and catapult bolt types.

size than Type A and are distinguished by their very strongly barbed wingtips. Zanier has established a typology of barbed, iron, trilobate arrowheads with tang based on the profile of the wingtips (Zanier 1988: Ill. 1). The Gamla Type A arrowheads matches his Types 1–3, while Gamla Type E matches his Type 1a. However, this typology cannot be used when the wingtips are broken, as is often the case. In addition, the typology does not seem to have chronological significance. It seems that the variations—head size, relation of head length to maximum head width (at the tip of the barbs), the length and form of the barbs and the length of the tang—should be attributed to the fact that the arrowheads were individually forged and not manufactured in molds (Knox et al. 1983:100). Most of the Type A arrowheads weigh between 2 and 5 g, though the heavier specimens weigh as much as 8 g, and the heaviest examples, between 10 and 10.5 g (Fig. 2.3). Most of the Type E arrowheads also weigh between 2 and 5 g, though the heaviest specimens weigh as much as 8 g. In terms of length, the Gamla Type A arrowheads correspond with Zanier’s Types 1–4, being between 2.3 and 4.0 cm long, not including the tang. Most are between 1.0 and 1.6 cm wide, though larger specimens can be up to 2 cm wide (Zanier 1988:6). However, Gamla Type E arrowheads average up to 1 cm more (some, even longer) than the 1.8–2.3 cm range of Zanier’s Type 1a (Zanier1988:6), including the wingtips. Barbed iron trilobate arrowheads with tangs are recorded at Roman sites (especially forts and military camps) throughout Europe (Erdmann 1976; Davies 1981; Coulston 1985:264–270; Zanier 1988). Although this type of arrowhead first appeared prior to the Roman Imperial period, it was most common during the time of the Empire. In Israel, hundreds of arrowheads corresponding with Gamla Type A have been found in contemporary contexts at Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007). Other arrowheads of this type come from caves in the Judean Desert, which

22

Jodi Magness

1

2

7

8

13

19

3

9

14

20

15

21

4

5

6

10

11

12

16

22

23

0

17

24

2

Fig. 2.2. Types A and E, arrowheads.

18

25

26

Chapter 2: Arrowheads and Projectile Points

23

3Fig. 2.2 No.

Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Arrowhead No.

1

A

E

1651

5928

33

2

A

G

1505

5060

1470

3

A

G

1501

6793

709

4

A

G

1507S

6871

109 426

5

A

E

Sq A9

5740

6

A

G

1704

6306

218

7

A

M

Sq A17/18

2334

298

8

A

E

Sq A9

5735

421

9

A

M

Sq A17/18

2347

244 425

10

A

E

Sq A9

5739

11

A

A

1030E

963

25

12

A

G

1507

6776

788

13

A

G

1507S

6873

111

14

A

E

1092

5877

502

15

A

G

1501

6826

742

16

A

G

1501

6847

763

17

A

E

Sq A9

5744

430 140

18

A

A

1419

945

19

E

L

1682

5509

803

20

E

G

1505

6376

521

21

E

G

1501

6798

714

22

E

T

4034

1017

1366

23

E

L

Sq A16/7

5482

802

24

E

A

1092

5880

505

25

E

A

1092

5844

481

26

E

M

Sq A17/18

2402

360

0

1

Fig. 2.3. Uncorroded Type A arrowhead from Area M.

were occupied at the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Aharoni 1961:19–20; Avigad 1961:10, 1962:178; Yadin 1963:91). Sixty Gamla Type A arrowheads were found at Horbat ‘Eqed, in contexts dating from the late Hellenistic period to the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Gihon and Vitale 1991). Barbed iron trilobate arrowheads with tangs occurred alongside socketed

iron arrowheads at Dura Europos in the third century CE (Hopkins 1932:79; Brown 1936:453–454; James 2004:202–204). Zanier attributes the concentration of barbed iron trilobate arrowheads with tangs found at sites in northwestern Europe to better publication and to the fact that arrowheads were effective against unarmored targets, such as the Germans (Zanier 1988:8–9, 14; Ill. 2). Arrowheads are weapons characteristic of auxiliary archers, most of which were of Eastern origin, though some non-sagittarii auxiliaries and legionaries were trained in archery (Davies 1981:265–266; Coulston 1985:282–283, 285; Zanier 1988:9–14; and see Josephus War 3.68). Zanier has suggested that his Type 1a (Gamla Type E) arrowheads could have belonged to

24

Jodi Magness

certain troops, or, may represent the output of different workshops (Zanier 1988:6). The similar distribution pattern and proportional distribution of Type A and E arrowheads at Gamla make it difficult to associate them with certainty with specific troops (see Table 2.1). The Jews were as skilled in archery as other peoples of the Roman East, and Jewish cavalry archers served in Herod’s army (Coulston 1985:295; Gihon and Vitale 1991:252–253; Shatzman 1991:215). Figure 2.4 shows a Gamla Type A arrowhead in situ at the base of the city wall.

Table 2.1. Distribution of Type A and E Arrowheads at Gamla Area A

Type A 57

Type E 3

B

14

5

C

10

0

D

0

1

E

376

32

G

342

38

M

289

9

R

5

1

S

18

1

T

66

6

Fig. 2.4. Type A arrowhead in situ at the base of the city wall.

Type B (Fig. 2.5) These are iron arrowheads or spearheads with a flat, solid, leaf-shaped head and a long, rounded tang. Some of the heads have traces of a slight midrib on one or both sides. The better-preserved specimens have

squared wingtips and a thickened, inverted triangularshaped transition from the base of the head to the tang. The tips of some of the heads are bent, apparently from the force of impact (see Fig. 2.5:1, 4). The heads range from 3.0 to 4.7 cm in length and 1.2 to 2.0 cm in width (at the base of the head). The bestpreserved examples have an overall length of 8.7 to 12.0 cm, with many averaging about 10 cm. The bestpreserved examples weigh between 11 and 16 g. Erdmann (1977:36–38) provides a list of parallels from Palestine, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Cyprus, Rhodes and Greece. This type has a long history in the Eastern Mediterranean, first appearing in Asia Minor in the Late Bronze Age (1400–1200 BCE; Erdmann1977:35). The characteristic features of the arrowheads described by Erdmann correspond with the Gamla examples, including the occasional presence of a slight midrib, and/or the presence of a thickened transition from the head to the tang (Erdmann 1977:35). The Palestinian parallels listed by Erdmann (1977:36–37) come from ‘Atlit (Johns 1933: Fig. 14:a; Pl. 20:504), Samaria (Kenyon 1957: Fig. 111:1–15), Tell en-Nasbeh (McCown 1947:263, Fig. 71, Pl. 104), Gezer (Macalister 1912, Pl. 215), Lakhish (Ussishkin 1982:54–55, Fig. 46) and Gerar (Petrie 1928: Pl. 29:29–70), mostly in contexts dating to the Iron Age and Persian period. The latest examples from these sites consist of isolated specimens from Samaria and Gezer. Another parallel from a Hellenistic context is published from Jerusalem (though it differs in having barbed wingtips; Johns 1950:130; Fig. 7:5). Erdmann noted that even in antiquity, the distinction between arrowheads and spearheads was not always clear. She defined arrowheads as objects less than 10 cm in length that originally weighed no more than 12 g (Erdmann 1977:4–5). The difficulty in distinguishing between them is reflected by the fact that both terms (arrowheads and spearheads) are used in the literature to describe these objects, although arrowhead seems to be the more common designation. The bent tips of some suggest that they were shot or thrown rather than thrust. Though the parallels point to an Eastern origin for this type, it is impossible to make a specific ethnic association. At Gamla, the contexts do not provide a basis for determining whether these arrowheads were employed by auxiliary troops of Eastern origin or belonged to old stores of weapons used by the defenders during the siege. The large concentration of these arrowheads (53) in Area M, which is one of

25

Chapter 2: Arrowheads and Projectile Points

1

2

3

0

5

2

4

Fig. 2.5. Type B arrowheads. No.

Type

Area

Square/Locus

Reg. No.

Arrowhead No.

1

B

G

1507

6692

766

2

B

G

1507

6785

769

3

B

M

Sq A17/18

2314

10

4

B

M

Sq U/A 17/1

1503

924

5

B

M

Sq A15/16

2258

209

the points where the attackers apparently succeeded in penetrating the defenses of the city, favors the former possibility. It is interesting to note that no arrowheads of this type were discovered at Masada or in the Judean Desert caves occupied at the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt.

Type C (Fig. 2.6) These are socketed iron catapult bolts with an elongated, pyramidal (four-faceted) head. The Gamla

examples are nicely paralleled by those in the Durden Collection (see especially Manning’s Type I; Manning 1985:170–171). All of the well-preserved examples he studied are between 6.0 and 9.5 cm long, with the majority between 6.8 and 8.1 cm long. Manning did not believe that the existence of two peaks within this group, at 6.8/7.0 and 8.1 cm, necessarily reflected the use of weapons of different calibers. Given the power of the catapult machines used, with a range of 300– 400 m, and the fact that they were not standardized, relatively minor variations in the size of the head were

26

Jodi Magness

4

1 2 3

5

6

7

8

9 10

13

12

11

14 15 0

2

Fig. 2.6. Type C arrowheads.

Chapter 2: Arrowheads and Projectile Points

27

3Fig. 2.6 No.

Area

Square/Locus

Reg. No.

Arrowhead No.

1

T

4026

1857

951

2

M

Sq U/A 17/1

1587

875

3

T

4019

1953

952

4

T

4027

1839

1011

5

T

Sq P18

1104

900

6

T

4020

1826

1007

7

R

5012

6047

1406

8

E

1092

5797

117

9

E

1092

5888

79

10

M

Sq U/A 1

1765

898

11

E

N/A

N/A

1545

12

E

Sq A9

5775

407

13

A

1071

5705

67

14

R

5022

7280

1413

15

E

1091

6725

60

unlikely to be critical (Marsden 1969:86–90; Manning 1985:170–171). Unfortunately, Manning does not provide the weights of the catapult bolts from the Durden Collection, apparently due to the degree of corrosion (Manning 1985:171). He notes, however, that the diameter of the mouths of their sockets shows far less variation, with the majority lying within 1 mm of 1 cm in diameter. This presumably reflects the diameter of the end of the shaft onto which they were fitted. The proportions of the heads display a great deal of variation, from a well-made pyramid with sharp shoulders to a rough diamond-shape. Similarly, the sockets vary from closed, to split slightly, to wide open (Manning 1985:171). Manning’s observations regarding the catapult bolts from the Durden Collection are applicable to those from Gamla. The Gamla heads display the same variations in proportion, and the sockets, the same degree of difference in the size of the opening of the seam as described by Manning. Most of the sockets of the Gamla examples are between 1.0 and 1.5 cm in diameter, though the largest specimen has a diameter of 2.7 cm. The strongly bent or flattened tips of many of the Gamla heads, and the manner in which some of the sockets are folded and split attest to the force of impact. Three specimens still have a nail embedded in the lower part of the socket for attachment to the shaft (Fig. 2.6:1, 7, 8); one specimen has a hole where the

socket was pierced by a nail; and another has traces of the wooden shaft inside the socket. All but 5 of the 51 well-preserved catapult bolts from Gamla are between 5.5 and 9.9 cm in length; the exceptions are 4.6, 10.4, 11.3, 13.7, 13.9 and 17.3 cm long (see Fig. 2.6:6, 13, 15). The most complete specimens weigh between 12 and 44 g and only three are heavier, weighing 86, 95 and 160 g respectively; most weigh between 15 and 30 g. The discovery of catapult bolts in the excavations at Gamla accords well with Josephus’ description of the siege: ...but when those machines threw darts and stones at them, they retired into the city; then did the Romans bring battering rams... (War 4.19–20).

Marsden (1969:185) noted that “artillery appears fairly prominently in fighting during the first century CE, particularly, as usual, in sieges, where it was always useful for providing covering fire.” Josephus’ description of the siege of Gamla makes it clear that the catapults were used to keep the defenders’ heads down, thereby facilitating the approach of siege-engines and assault-works (in this case, battering rams; Marsden 1969:186). The shooting range of Roman artillery depended upon the size of the machine, the recoil angle of the arm and

28

Jodi Magness

spring and the materials used for the springs (sinew or hair). Marsden concluded that catapults normally had a range of up to 400 yards (366 m), though powerful machines could attain a range of up to 500 yards (457 m). A greater range could be achieved by Roman catapults, but their effectiveness was dependent on the angle of the trajectory, which could not be too high: the more horizontal the bolt’s trajectory the shorter its range. Marsden estimated that a bolt shot at an angle of 20º by a three-span catapult (which had the longest range) would travel about 400 yards (366 m; Marsden 1969:86–89). The fact that the largest concentrations of catapult bolts at Gamla were found in Areas E (36) and T (29 or 30) presumably reflects the placement of artillery machines at corresponding points within a distance of 366 m to the east of the city wall. The bolts from Areas R (9) and S (8) must have been fired by machines placed closer to the wall, perhaps during the final phases of the siege. Marsden estimated that by 66 CE, legions possessed approximately one artillery machine per century. He concluded that artillery was confined to the legions because the citizen legionaries had a greater ability to manufacture and operate machinery than the nonRoman auxiliaries, and because the possession of such machinery enhanced the prestige of the legions (Baatz 1966; Marsden 1969:184). This conclusion has been challenged by Shatzman, who suggested that auxiliary units and even Jewish rebels could have been equipped with and operated artillery (Shatzman 1989:475). Much of this debate has centered on Masada, where scholars disagree about whether artillery was utilized by the Jewish rebels (Shatzman 1989:474–475; Holley 1994:360–362; and see Holley, Chapter 3). In the case of Gamla, the concentration of bolts at points along the city wall and the testimony of Josephus suggest that the catapults were employed mainly if not exclusively by the besiegers instead of the besieged. It is impossible to determine whether these machines were operated by legionaries or auxiliaries. The placement of the artillery machines at Gamla was undoubtedly dictated largely by local topographic conditions. However, the concentration of bolts in Areas E and T might also reflect the deployment of the legionary forces outside the city wall, as described by Flavius Josephus: In the eastern part of the ridge where rose the highest of the towers the construction was done by the Fifteenth Legion,

the Fifth worked opposite the middle of the town, and the filling in of the trenches and ravines was undertaken by the Tenth (War 4.13).

According to Josephus, the Romans battered the wall at three points, using catapults and ballistas to provide shooting support (see above). For other aspects of the siege, see also ‘Chapter 1: Vespasian's Siege and the Fall of Gamla’.

Type D (Fig. 2.7:1–8) Type D features iron arrowheads or projectiles with a solid, pyramidal (four-faceted) head and a relatively short, round tang that narrows to a point. On some specimens, the tip of the head is bent or flattened from impact (for example, Fig. 2.7:1–3, 6); in most cases the tang is broken. These points can be divided into two groups based on size. The eleven smaller specimens have a head that ranges from 2.2 to 3.2 cm in length and 0.5 to 1.1 cm in width (most are about 0.6 cm; for example Fig. 2.7:4–7). Those with complete or almost complete tangs reach a total length of 3.7 to 5.0 cm. All weigh between 4 and 6 g except for one specimen, weighing 8 g. The larger examples of this type include six poorly preserved, very corroded specimens, five from Area G and one from Area R (their identification numbers on their tags were confused during processing). They have a relatively elongated, narrow head and a thick, round tang. The most complete examples have heads ranging from 4.2 to 6.5 cm in length. The best-preserved example (Fig. 2.7:2) has a tang 3.5 cm long, bent at an angle from the head. The heads range in width from 0.6 to 1.0 cm, with the best-preserved specimens weighing 7, 9 and 19 g (the last, the well-preserved specimen described above). Another iron point (Fig. 2.7:8) that might belong to this type has a solid pyramidal (four-faceted) head 3 cm long and 1 cm wide, and is distinguished from the others by its round shaft, 1.8 cm long and 0.8 cm wide, below the head. A tang 1.4 cm long projects from the base of the shaft. This object weighs 16 g. As no parallels for it were found, it is not clear whether it should be identified as a piece of military equipment or a tool, though its provenience in Area E favors the former possibility.3 It is excluded from the rest of this discussion. Iron points with a solid, pyramidal head and a round tang, variously identified as arrowheads, spearheads or

29

Chapter 2: Arrowheads and Projectile Points

1

2

3

6

5

4

8

7 0

9

2

Fig. 2.7. Type D and S arrowheads. No.

Type

Area

Square/ Locus

Reg. No.

Arrowhead No.

1

D

S

1918

7570

1492

2

D

G

1501

6533

191

3

D

R

5052

6390

1409

4

D

M

Sq A15–A18

2302

345

5

D

T

4034

2009

978

6

D

G

1501

6790

706

7

D

E

1092

5842

479

8

D?

E

1092

5903

64

9

S

S

2025

3895

1395

Remarks Identified as Type P in the records

Identified as Type E in the records

30

Jodi Magness

javelin heads, and catapult bolts (or projectile points), have been found at sites throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East. In her study of examples from Old Paphos, Erdmann used weight as the main criterion for distinguishing between arrowheads and spearheads, accordingly identifying those weighing less than 12 g as arrowheads and the rest as spearheads. However, this can lead to inaccuracy as, due to corrosion, the current weight is often up to 20% less than the original weight (Erdmann 1977:32–35, 41–46; 1982:6). Many examples of pyramidal iron points with tangs were found in the excavations at Olynthus, where they were classified as ‘Type E’ arrowheads and dated to 348 BCE (Robinson 1941:392–397, Pls. 123–124). Robinson noted that the type is sometimes described as “Cyprian” (i.e., Cypriot), but the distribution of parallels listed by Erdmann indicates that they were common throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East (especially in Asia Minor, Syria-Palestine and Cyprus; Robinson 1941:392; Erdmann 1977:34–35). Petrikovits noted that these points are often mistaken for pila. The examples that he described have heads that are 3 to 6 cm in length, but range in weight from 15 to 51 g. According to Petrikovits (1950:206–208), arrowheads weighing less than 25 g, e.g., heavier specimens, must represent catapult bolts. Finally, Baatz estimated the maximum weight of arrowheads at 30 g. He identified a group ranging in length from 6 to 13 cm and weighing between 25 and 75 g, including tanged specimens with pyramidal heads, as spearheads that were used by light cavalry (Baatz 1966:204–206). Two tanged pyramidal iron points in an excellent state of preservation and the wooden foreshaft of a projectile were found in the excavations at Qasr Ibrim, Egypt

(James and Taylor 1994). These objects were dated by the excavators to 23–21 BCE. In size and weight they are comparable to the larger points from Gamla. The heads of the points are 4.7 and 4.8 cm long and their total length including the tang is about 9 cm; they weigh 10.25 and 16.00 g respectively. The excavators identified them as catapult bolts (projectile points). Finally, parallels from Palestine include one example from Samaria (Kenyon 1957: Fig. 111:20); one dating to the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt from the Cave of the Pool in Nahal David, which was embedded in the rocky ceiling of the cave (Avigad 1961:10; Pl. 3:8); and one found in the first-century CE Sea of Galilee boat (Syon 1990; Wachsmann 2000:183–184, 187). Some tanged iron points with pyramidal heads functioned as drill-bits (see Brailsford 1968: Fig. 58:B1a; Manning 1985: Pl. 11:B52, B54). However, drill bits are distinguished by the flattened tip at the end of the tang. In addition, the context in which the Gamla examples were found, as well as the bent tips on some of them, point to a military use.4 Fourteen of the seventeen examples come from Areas G and E, along the wall. The main problem is determining whether the objects from Gamla represent arrowheads, spearheads or javelin heads, or catapult bolts. According to the criteria set by all the scholars cited above, the smaller, lighter Type D points from Gamla should be identified as arrowheads. They are paralleled in size and weight by the arrowheads discussed by Erdmann (1982: Ill. 1:1–3). The heavier specimens should probably be identified as catapult bolts, though the possibility that they were spearheads or javelin heads cannot be ruled out (see Table 2.2).

Table 2.2. Distribution of Type B, C and D Arrowheads at Gamla Area

Type B

Type C

Type D

A

0

8

0

B

8

0

1

0 (+1 uncertain)

0

C

1

E

12 (+1 uncertain)

36

G

6

17

7

8

H

1

0

0

L

0

0

0

M

53

6

1

R

2

9

0

S

4 (+1 uncertain)

8

0

T

5 (including 1 uncertain)

29 (including 1 uncertain)

1

Chapter 2: Arrowheads and Projectile Points

Type S Type S refers to arrowheads of miscellaneous types. Foremost among these are four tanged bronze arrowheads with a flat, leaf-shaped head and strongly barbed wingtips. Three of these arrowheads (two from Area M and one from Area B [Fig. 2.8]) are very similar, with a slight midrib; two of these also have a circular protruding disc at the junction of the head and tang. All three appear to have similar dimensions, though only one was measured and weighed (from Area M; Reg. No. 1508, Arrowhead No. 835; Fig. 2.8). It has a 4 cm long head; a 2.3 cm long tang (which appears to be completely preserved), and a maximum width of 1.5 cm; its recorded weight is 13 g. The fourth arrowhead of this type, from Area S, differs in having a thicker tang (Fig. 2.7:9) and its leaf-shaped head is 4.1 cm long and 1.8 cm wide with a central midrib and two angular barbed wingtips. The thick, solid tang is broken and the tip of the head is flattened; its recorded weight is 16 g. Although tanged, bronze arrowheads with a leaf-shaped head and two barbed wingtips were used from c. 700 BCE to Roman times,

31

they seem to have been most common from the fifth century BCE through the Hellenistic period (Kenyon 1957:453; Erdmann 1973:36). Numerous examples have been found at Marathon (Erdmann 1973:32–36, Type A), Olynthus (Robinson 1941:387–91, Type D1), and elsewhere in Greece, Syria-Palestine, Asia Minor, and Cyprus (Snodgrass 1964: Fig. 9, Type C:2, 3; Erdmann 1973:32–33). Arrowheads identical to those from Gamla have been found at Samaria (Kenyon 1957: Fig. 110:15–17) and others, of the same general type, have been found in Jerusalem (Johns 1950: Fig. 7:3–4), mostly in Hellenistic contexts. Since only four arrowheads of this type were found at Gamla, it is reasonable to assume that they belonged to an earlier store of weapons used by the besieged. The last objects of Type S are two iron points, which might be arrowheads. One comes from Area E (L1655, Reg. No. 5310, Arrowhead No. 1245), the other, from Area S (L1903, Reg. No. 6771, Arrowhead No. 1500). Both have flat, leaf-shaped heads with two barbed wingtips. The one from Area E, which has a broken tang, has a head 3 cm long, is 2 cm wide and weighs 4 g. The other, its head 4 cm long, is 1.8 m wide and weighs 5 g; there are no remains of a tang.

Conclusion 0

1

Except for arrowheads of Types A and E, none of the above types were found in the excavations at Masada. It is unclear whether this is because Types B and D were used at Gamla by auxiliary troops that were not present at Masada, or because they belonged to earlier stores of weapons used by the besieged at Gamla, or both. The absence of catapult bolts (Type C) at Masada may be due to the steep slope of the ramp, which would have made the firing trajectory too high.

Fig. 2.8. Bronze arrowheads. Top: Area M, Sq U/A 17–1, Reg. No. 1508; bottom: Area B, L1284, Reg. No. 2106.

Notes 1

These letters differ from those in Gutmann 1994:96–97. I have followed the excavators’ terminology (Types A, B, C, D, E, S) because this is how the arrowheads and projectile points are listed in the excavation records (although I have combined Types A and E, which represent the same type). The weights and measurements of the arrowheads were recorded at the time of the excavations or shortly thereafter. Because some have since broken or separated from their tags,

I have not changed any of the original measurements, though I visually examined all of the objects that could be found. I wish to thank Danny Syon, Liviu Petculescu, Andrew Holley and Guy Stiebel for their assistance and advice. This report was written and submitted for publication in 1996. 2 According to my count, there are 1187 examples of Type A arrowheads and 97 examples of Type E. According to Gutmann (1994:97), there are 1249 examples of Type A

32

Jodi Magness

arrowheads, and 106 examples of Type E. Either way, the counts of the various types of arrowheads and projectile points are suggestive rather than definitive. This is indicated by the fact that some of the pieces are catalogued with an incorrect type number (for example, Fig. 7.2:6 is catalogued as Type E instead of Type B; Fig. 7.2:26 is catalogued as Type A instead of Type E; and the locus number of Fig. 7.2:2 [a Type A arrowhead] does not correspond with its individual registration [N] number).

3 Liviu Petculescu has suggested to me the possibility that this is a medieval crossbow bolt head. However, this seems unlikely because there is no other evidence for medieval military activity (or any other later activity) at Gamla. 4 James and Taylor noted that objects such as pilum heads and drill bits have often been misidentified as catapult bolts (1994:96, n. 24).

R eferences Aharoni Y. 1961. The Expedition to the Judean Desert, 1960: Expedition B. IEJ 11:11–24. Avigad N. 1961. The Expedition to the Judean Desert, 1960: Expedition A. IEJ 11:6–10. Avigad N. 1962. The Expedition to the Judean Desert, 1961: Expedition A—Nahal David. IEJ 12:169–185. Baatz D. 1966. Zur Geschützbewaffnung römischer Auxiliartruppen in der frühen und mittleren Kaiserzeit. Bonner Jahrbücher 166:194–207. Brailsford J.W. 1968. Bronze Objects from the Roman Fort and Iron Objects from the Roman Fort. In I.A. Richmond ed. Hod Hill. London. Pp. 113–116. Brown F.E. 1936. Arms and Armour. In M.I. Rostovtzeff, A.R. Bellinger, C. Hopkins and C.B. Welles eds. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary Report of the Sixth Season of Work, October 1932–March 1933. New Haven. Pp. 439–466. Coulston J.C.N. 1985. Roman Archery Equipment. In M.C. Bishop ed. The Production and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment (Proceedings of the Second Roman Military Equipment Research Seminar) (BAR Int. S. 275). Oxford. Pp. 220–366. Davies J.L. 1981. Roman Arrowheads from Dinorben and the Sagittarii of the Roman Army. Britannia 12:257–270. Erdmann E. 1973. Die sogenannten Marathonpfeilspitzen in Karlsruhe. Archäologischer Anzeiger 88:30–58. Erdmann E. 1976. Dreiflügelige Pfeilspitzen aus Eisen von der Saalburg. Saalburg Jahrbuch 32:5–10. Erdmann E. 1977. Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern 1, I: Nordosttor und persische Belagerungsrampe in AltPaphos: Waffen und Kleinfunde. Konstanz. Erdmann E. 1982. Vierkantige Pfeilspitzen aus Eisen von der Saalburg. Saalburg Jahrbuch 38:5–11. Gihon M. and Vitale M. 1991. Arrow-Heads from Horvat ‘Eqed. IEJ 41:242–257. Gutmann S. 1994. Gamla—A City in Rebellion. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Holley A.E. 1994. The Ballista Balls from Masada. Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports. Jerusalem. Pp. 347–365. Hopkins C. 1932. Armor. In P.V.C. Baur, M.I. Rostovtzeff and A.R. Bellinger eds. The Excavations at Dura-Europos:

Preliminary Report of Third Season of Work, November 1929–March 1930. New Haven. Pp. 78–82. James S. 2004. The Excavations at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters 1928–1937; Final Report VII: The Arms and Armour and Other Military Equipment. London. James S.T. and Taylor J.H. 1994. Parts of Roman Artillery Projectiles from Qasr Ibrim, Egypt. Saalburg Jahrbuch 47:93–98. Johns C.N. 1933. Excavations at ‘Atlīt (1930–1): The SouthEastern Cemetery. QDAP 2:41–104. Johns C.N. 1950. The Citadel, Jerusalem: A Summary of Work since 1934. QDAP 14:121–190. Kenyon K.M. 1957. Miscellaneous Objects in Metal, Bone and Stone. In J.W. Crowfoot, G.M. Crowfoot and K.M. Kenyon. Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria. London. Pp. 439–468. Knox R., Maddin R., Muhly J.D. and Stech T. 1983. Iron Objects from Masada: Metallurgical Studies. IEJ 33:97– 107. Macalister R.A.S. 1912. The Excavation of Gezer, 1902– 1905 and 1907–1909 III. London. Manning W.H. 1985. Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools, Fittings and Weapons in the British Museum. London. Marsden E.W. 1969. Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development. Oxford. McCown C.C. 1947. Tell en-Nasbeh I: Archaeological and Historical Results. Berkeley–New Haven. Petrie F. 1928. Gerar (British School of Archaeology in Egypt XLIII). London. Petrikovits H. von. 1950. Eine Pilumspitze von der Grotenburg bei Detmold. Germania 29:198–210. Robinson D.M. 1941. Excavations at Olynthus X: Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds; An Original Contribution to Greek Life (The John Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology 31). Baltimore. Shatzman I. 1989. Artillery in Judaea from Hasmonean to Roman Times. In D.H. French and C.S. Lightfoot eds. The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire (Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Ankara in September 1988) (British

Chapter 2: Arrowheads and Projectile Points

Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 11; BAR Int. S. 533). Oxford. Pp. 461–484. Shatzman I. 1991. The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod: From Hellenistic to Roman Frameworks. Tübingen. Snodgrass A. 1964. Early Greek Armour and Weapons: From the End of the Bronze Age to 600 B.C. Edinburgh. Stiebel G. and Magness J. 2007. The Military Equipment from Masada. Masada VIII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports. Jerusalem. Pp. 1–94.

33

Syon D. 1990. The Arrowhead. In S. Wachsmann. The Excavation of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret) (‘Atiqot 19). Jerusalem. Pp. 99–100. Wachsmann S. 2000. The Sea of Galilee Boat: A 2000 Year Old Discovery From the Sea of Legends. Cambridge, Mass. Yadin Y. 1963. The Finds from the Bar-Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Jerusalem. Zanier W. 1988. Römische Dreiflügelige Pfeilspitzen. Saalburg Jahrbuch 44:5–27.

34

Jodi Magness

Chapter 3

Stone Projectiles and the Use of Artillery in the Siege of Gamla Andrew E. Holley

Introduction Josephus’ account of the siege of Gamla in 67 CE (War 4.1 [1–83]) mentions the use of both catapults and stone-throwing engines by the Romans. During the excavations at Gamla, hundreds of stone balls were uncovered. This report has the following purposes:1 (1) to determine if any of these stones can be firmly identified as artillery projectiles; and (2) to examine what an analysis of the stones can reveal about the siege of Gamla and artillery at the time of the Jewish War. The author has adopted a very similar approach to the report in which he examined the stone projectiles found during the excavations at Masada (Holley 1994).

Methodology Unfortunately, a single methodology for examining the stone balls was not used during the excavations. The stones were weighed in kilograms, with the exception of a few large specimens, and measured in millimeters along the diameter using calipers. In most cases, the maximum diameter was recorded (D. Syon, pers.

Fig. 3.1. Stone broken in three pieces, possibly as a result of impact damage.

comm.). The author attempted to interpret the stones by drawing graphs using weights and diameters as the axes, similar to the approach adopted for the Masada ballista balls (Holley 1994:355–356). However, this exercise proved unsuccessful due to the large number of stones found at Gamla; the graphs produced were too cluttered to provide any useful interpretation of the evidence. Consequently, diameters have not been considered in the interpretation of the material. Some excavators appear to have simply weighed and measured the stones, whereas others also recorded whether they were broken, were of an irregular shape, etc. A number of stones were found broken (Figs. 3.1, 3.2).2 This may be evidence of impact damage (e.g., when a ballista ball hit the wall). Sixty-seven of these broken stones had a half missing. Given these restrictions, the author has attempted to determine whether any stones can be classified as ballista shot. This is difficult because it is hard to identify which stones were made to be shot by artillery and which were hand-thrown projectiles. For example, the ballista stones from Tel Dor are spherical in shape

Fig. 3.2. Broken stone reassembled; the total weight is 5.8 kg.

36

Andrew E. Holley

and appear to have been carefully formed even if they are not perfect spheres (Shatzman 1995:60). The stone projectiles found at Masada were also carefully worked (Holley 1994:352). In comparison, most of the Gamla stones are spherical or ovoid (Fig. 3.3), but do not appear as carefully crafted as those from Masada or Tel Dor. This may be due to the differences in the types of stone used. The Tel Dor stones are limestone and the Masada stones are limestone and dolomite, whereas most of the Gamla stones are basalt. Since basalt is a much harder rock to work than limestone, this may account for the Gamla stones being more roughly shaped (G. Davies, pers. comm.). Possibly, there was also a greater emphasis at Gamla on the production of a large number of projectiles in a short period rather than on carefully shaping them. A few of the stones are ‘triangular’ in shape, while others are spherical but have one flat side (Fig. 3.4); these are examined later in the report. There are two main issues to consider in the analysis of the stones. First, whether it is possible to classify any of the stones as ballista shot. Secondly, whether the weights of the shot, and hence the calibers of the ballistae, were calculated using Greek or Roman weights. As with the analysis of the Masada projectiles, the author looked for weight clusters in the data that could be compared with finds of ballista stones from other sites and the lists of calibers in ancient artillery manuals. The following categories of stone were filtered out in the analysis of potential ballista shot: one side flat, limestone pebbles, ovoid, triangular, broken

Fig. 3.3. Five stones of different weights found in Area G. The weights are (from left): 13.1 kg, 8.6 kg, 5.2 kg, 2.5 kg, 1.1 kg.

and irregular. The remaining stones were classified as ‘condition fine’ and were analyzed in detail. Unfortunately, limitations of space have prevented the inclusion of a complete listing of all the stones found on the site. However, Table 3.1 provides a breakdown of all possible ballista stones in kilograms, using the

Fig. 3.4. Stone with one side flat, which might be the result of deliberate shaping or impact damage; weight 13.1 kg.

Table 3.1. ‘Condition-Fine’ Stones by Weight Weight (kg)

N

1

99

2

181

3

113

4

128

5

86

6

67

7

53

8

30

9

17

10

9

11

4

12

8

13

5

14

2

15

2

16

1

17

0

18

3

Total

808

Chapter 3: Stone Projectiles and the Use of Artillery in the Siege of Gamla

200 180 160 140

Number

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

Weight (kg)

Fig. 3.5. ‘Condition-fine’ stones by weight.

methodology outlined above. Weights have been rounded up or down to the nearest kilogram. Some large ‘condition fine’ stones were not weighed and have therefore been omitted from this table. Figure 3.5 shows ‘condition fine’ stones by weight.

The Stone Balls A total of 1310 stones were recorded at Gamla. Most were found along the defensive wall and were then grouped together by the excavators (Fig. 3.6). Virtually all the stones are of basalt. Of these, the vast majority were shaped by hand (presumably on site). A few are naturally occurring volcanic ‘projectiles’ (i.e., created during volcanic eruptions and collected for use as missiles during the siege). The limestone finds are, without exception, large natural pebbles that must have been taken from the streambed below Gamla (Fig. 3.7). There are a number of possibilities regarding who manufactured (or collected) the stones and how they came to be deposited in the locations where they were found: (a) they could have been shot into the town by the besieging army; (b) they could have been made by the defenders as ammunition for their own artillery; (c) they could have been projectiles thrown by the defenders from the town wall; and (d) a combination of the above. Although the Romans would have collected any spent arrows and catapult bolts they found after

Fig. 3.6. A group of stones from Area G.

Fig. 3.7. Limestone pebble, possibly used as a projectile during the siege; weight 2.8 kg.

37

38

Andrew E. Holley

the battle for re-use, it is likely that the stone balls found at Gamla represent more or less the complete inventory of stone projectiles used at the siege (see Chapter 1).

Analysis of the Stone Projectiles A number of tables and graphs have been compiled to determine what conclusions, if any, can be drawn from the distribution and weights of the stones from the site. Table 3.2 shows the distribution of all the stones found at Gamla by area.3 The stones were divided into different categories, such as condition fine, ovoid, one side flat, etc. Figure 3.8 shows the total number of stones found in different areas at the site. Most of the stones were found along the stretch of wall near the breach (Areas G and E) and around the miqveh (ritual bath) next to the synagogue (Area A). A significant number were also found in and around the building where the breach is situated. These stones were gathered by the excavators and placed in one of the rooms in the building, referred to as ‘Room near Breach’ in the tables. It corresponds to L1702 in Area G. A few stones were discovered between the two square towers along the stretch of wall south of the breach (Area M, L4020).

These finds are all consistent with Josephus’ (War 4.1.4 [17–22]) account of the first Roman assault, in which he describes how the defenders were driven back inside the wall by artillery missiles shot from Roman engines, the wall was breached by battering rams and the Romans forced their way into the town. Some of the stones in these areas are likely to be ballista projectiles shot against the defenders along the wall and inside the town during the assault, whereas others are probably hand-thrown projectiles used by the defenders. Some ballista stones were undoubtedly re-used as hand-thrown projectiles. A number of graphs were produced to test whether any patterns emerge relating to the weights of the stones as possible indicators of ballista calibers. The stones analyzed are those that have been defined as ‘condition fine’. The weights of the stones have been rounded to the nearest libra or mina, as appropriate. Graphs were generated for the whole site and several areas. Areas A, E and G were selected because they contained the largest concentrations of stones from known locations. There was some uncertainty about whether all the stones gathered in the room near the breach actually came from this location, so this area was omitted. Figures 3.9 and 3.10 show the number of stones in each caliber for the whole site using Roman librae and Attic minae

Table 3.2. Distribution of Stones by Area and Type Area

ConditionFine

A

One Side Flat

Limestone

Ovoid

Triangular

Broken/ Irregular

Total

164

10

5

2

14

86

281

A (C)

19

0

1

0

0

8

28

A (G)

10

0

0

0

0

0

10

9

0

0

0

0

2

11

E

104

5

4

0

2

65

180

G

306

31

6

33

1

88

465

K

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

L

3

0

0

0

0

0

3

M

2

0

0

1

0

3

6

S

3

0

0

0

0

0

3

BA

Road

19

0

0

3

0

5

27

Room near Breach

185

0

7

0

0

59

251

Provenance Unknown

14

8

1

7

1

12

43

54

24

46

18

328

1310

Total

840*

* Weights were available for 808 out of a total of 840 condition-fine stones

Chapter 3: Stone Projectiles and the Use of Artillery in the Siege of Gamla

500 450 400 350

Number

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 A

A (C) A (G)

E

BA

G

K

L

M

S

Area

Road Room Unknown near breach

Fig. 3.8. Total number of stones found by area.

70 60

50

Number

40 30 20 10 0 1

6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

Libra

Fig. 3.9. Number of condition-fine stones for the site in librae.

46

51

39

40

Andrew E. Holley

120

100

Number

80

60 40

20 0 1

5

9

13

17

25

21

37

33

29

41

Mina

Fig. 3.10. Number of condition-fine stones for the site in minae.

9 8 7

Percent

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1

6

11

16

21

31

26

36

41

46

51

Libra

Fig. 3.11. Frequency of condition-fine stones for the site in librae.

respectively and Figs. 3.11 and 3.12 give the number of stones in each caliber for the whole site as a percentage of the total sample using librae and minae respectively. Figures 3.13 and 3.14 provide a comparison of the stones found in Areas A, E and G by percentage using librae and minae respectively.

Based on the results offered in Figs. 3.13 and 3.14, the author has compiled a list of possible calibers in both librae and minae that appeared as peaks in the graphs for Areas A, E and G where the weights were 6% or greater (Table 3.3).

41

Chapter 3: Stone Projectiles and the Use of Artillery in the Siege of Gamla

120

100

Percent

80

60

40 20

0 5

1

9

13

17

25

21

29

33

41

37

Mina

Fig. 3.12. Frequency of condition-fine stones for the site in minae.

14 Area A 12

Area E Area G

10

Percent

8

6

4

2

0 1

4

7

10

13

16

19

22

25

28

31

34

37

40

43

46

49

Libra

Fig. 3.13. Comparison of the frequency of condition-fine stones found in Areas A, E and G in librae.

52

55

42

Andrew E. Holley

16 Area A Area E

14

Area G 12

Percent

10

8

6

4

2

0 1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

39

Mina

Fig. 3.14. Comparison of the frequency of condition-fine stones found in Areas A, E and G in minae.

Table 3.3. Possible Calibers of Ballistae at Gamla in Librae and Minae Based on an Analysis of Stones from Areas A, E and G Librae Area A

Common Calibers* 5

Area E

4

5

6

Area G

4

5

6

7

13

7

13 9

4, 5, 6, 7, 13, (15/16)# 15

13

16

Minae Area A

Common Calibers* 4

5

Area E

3

4

5

Area G

3

4

5

7

9 8

6

9

* Calibers present in at least two of the three areas # (15/16) speculative caliber based on analysis of Fig. 3.13

10

11

10

11

3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 12

41

43

45

43

Chapter 3: Stone Projectiles and the Use of Artillery in the Siege of Gamla

Distribution of Stone Projectiles, Catapult Bolt-Heads and A rrowheads Josephus describes how the Jewish garrison launched an attack from the town against the Romans, who were bringing up the siege engines to assault the wall from the eastern ridge. However, the attackers were beaten back by the missiles shot from catapults and ballistae (War 4.1.4 [19]). The artillery was presumably positioned either on wooden towers or mounds along the palisade. Following the failure of the sortie by the defenders, the Romans assaulted the wall using battering rams and broke into the town. The breach in Area G is still evident today. There are heavy concentrations of stone projectiles in Area G and in Areas A and E (which are adjacent), as well as in and around the building where the breach is situated. This implies that the Romans were concentrating artillery projectiles on this section of the wall and the part of the town immediately behind while they were bringing up the battering rams. The Jewish defenders inside the town mounted stiff resistance to the Romans. It is possible that the concentration of stones in Area A were the result of the Romans bringing up artillery to shoot over the heads of their own troops against the defenders. Another possibility is that the concentration may simply be due to projectiles that had overshot their intended targets on the wall (G. Davies, pers. comm.). However, it is highly likely that some of the stones in these areas are hand-thrown projectiles used by the defenders against the Romans (although they could also have re-used ballista stones shot into the town). In the synagogue hall itself, 157 balls were collected; near the round tower, about 130 stones were recovered; while near the entrance just above the synagogue (L1040), about 100 were found (see Chapter 1). This first major assault failed and the Romans were driven out of Gamla with heavy losses (War 4.1.4–5 [25–30]). The second major assault followed the undermining of the round tower by soldiers from the legio XV Apollinaris (War 4.1.9 [63–65]). However, according to Josephus, this time the Romans entered the town by stealth and the Jews did not defend the wall. Instead they mounted their final stand on the crest of the ridge at Gamla. Comparing these two accounts, it is likely that the majority of stone projectiles were used in the fighting immediately before and during the first assault on the

town. Davies (pers. comm.) has suggested that the Romans would have used their artillery to provide suppression while the assault preparations were being made (i.e., when the obstacle ditch was filled in and the earthen ramp for the battering rams was prepared). Shooting in support would presumably have continued while the Romans were bringing the battering rams up to the wall. Consequently, much of the shot may have been fired in the pre-assault phase of the operation. However, the Romans would presumably have continued to shoot at any targets visible along the town wall during ‘quiet’ periods of the siege as well. Magness (see Chapter 2) examined the arrowheads and projectile points from Gamla and identified a number of these finds as socketed iron catapult boltheads. There were significant concentrations of boltheads in Areas E and T (near two of the presumed breaches in the wall). She suggests that these finds reflect the placement of catapults at corresponding points within a distance of 366 m to the east of the town wall. Magness suggests that the bolt-heads found in Areas R and S were shot by catapults placed closer to the wall, perhaps during the final phase of the siege. Table 3.4 shows the distribution of stones, catapult bolt-heads and the most common arrowhead types from different areas. The largest concentration of stones was found in Area G, with other large finds were in Areas A, E and the room near the breach. The largest concentration of bolt-heads in this part of the site was in Area E, with smaller numbers in Areas A and G. Large numbers of arrowheads were found in Areas E and G, with a smaller concentration in Area A. The other suggested breaches in the wall were in Areas M and T. Area M had a large concentration of arrows, but a small concentration of bolt-heads and Table 3.4. Distribution of Stones, Bolt-Heads and Arrowheads Areas

Stones

A

281

C

Bolt-Heads 8

Arrowheads 60

1

11

E

180

36

427

G

465

7

405

M

6

6

352

R S

3

T Room near Breach

251

9

8

8

24

28

78

44

Andrew E. Holley

stones. No stones were found in Area T, although there were significant numbers of bolt-heads and arrowheads.4 Inside the town, a small number of boltheads and arrowheads were found in Areas R and S, along with three stones in Area S. The three stones were very small, weighing 0.9 kg, 0.95 kg and 1.25 kg respectively. If these stones were artillery projectiles, they must have been shot by small ballistae. The publication of finds from the mid-third-century CE siege at Dura-Europos in Syria includes a large number of stone balls (James 2004:230), bolt-heads (James 2004:216–220) and bolt-bodies (James 2004:221–229). The bolt-heads appear in a similar range of types to those found at Gamla. The wooden bodies are a unique survival at the site and probably rather different from the longer, more arrow-like shafts that would have been used with first-century CE engines. The Dura-Europos stones were not properly recorded so no analyses of weights etc. could be undertaken.

The Construction of Artillery in the MidFirst Century CE

Fig. 3.15. A ballista (drawing by S. Koren).

At the time of the siege of Gamla, the artillery in use were ballistae—two-armed stone-throwing engines (Fig. 3.15), and catapults—two-armed bolt-shooting engines (Fig. 3.16). An outline of the development of Greek and Roman artillery, as well as translations into English of the technical treatises that deal with the construction of ancient artillery, has been provided by Marsden and others (Marsden 1969, 1971; Sáez Abad 2005:55–63; Bishop and Coulston 2006:58–61, 88–89; Rihll 2007:197–208), so it would be superfluous to give more than a brief summary here. This being said, there are difficulties relating to the interpretation of ancient weights and measures.5

The artillery in use in the first century CE had two wooden frames (instead of the single bow of the earliest machines), around each of which were wrapped strands of cord made from hair or sinew. These cord bundles formed the torsion-springs, and into each of these was inserted a wooden arm (see Holley 1994:351, Fig. 3). An iron tightening lever was inserted between the layers of sinew and the hole-carriers at the top and bottom of the frame. Each of these was attached to the frame by a washer. Before release, the washers would be turned to adjust the pre-tension of the torsion-springs; after tightening, the washers were held in place by retaining pins.

Fig. 3.16. A catapult (after Marsden 1969: Fig. 1.21).

Chapter 3: Stone Projectiles and the Use of Artillery in the Siege of Gamla

The dimensions of these engines were in proportion to the diameter of the torsion-springs; this measurement is referred to as the module, and was equal to the inner diameter of the washer that contained the torsionspring. The spring-diameter for a ballista can be calculated using the formula: D = 1.13 (100 M )

D represents the diameter of the spring in dactyls (one Attic dactyl equals approximately 19.3 mm). M represents the weight of the shot that the engine was intended to shoot in minae. The above formula is provided by the Hellenistic writer Philon (Belopoeika 51–52), who also lists some of the most common artillery calibers with their respective spring-diameters. The Roman writer Vitruvius (De architectura X:11.3) almost certainly used the Greek formula to calculate his list of calibers and spring-diameters; see Table 3.5. Different mina weight standards were used throughout the Hellenistic world and unfortunately, Philon does not specify which one he uses in his formula. However, the Attic-Euboic mina appears to have been the most common.6 Archaeological finds of ballista stones from Rhodes and Tel Dor (Shatzman 1995:56–61) imply that at least some armies of the Hellenistic era used the Attic-Euboic mina as the weight standard for their ballistae. Philon studied artillery practice at Rhodes and Alexandria (Marsden 1969:3) and the stone shot

found at Rhodes appear to have been made using the Attic-Euboic mina (Marsden 1969:82–83). Marsden believed that the Attic-Euboic mina was probably the common weight standard used by Greek artillerymen, which he defined as being equal to 0.4366 kg (Marsden 1969:xix). Ballistae of different sizes are distinguished by the weight of the shot they release. Once the spring diameter had been calculated, the dimensions of the rest of the engine could be worked out by consulting the appropriate list of dimensions, which supplied measurements for the other parts in terms of the module. Philon (Belopoeika 55) and Vitruvius (De architectura X:10–11) both supply lists of dimensions for artillery engines in Greek and Roman measurements respectively; these are reproduced in English by Marsden (1969:44–47).

The Besieging Army at Gamla The Army of Agrippa II Josephus (War 4.1.2 [10]) records that King Agrippa II had sent a force to besiege Gamla. This army had been in position for seven months before the arrival of Vespasian, but had not made any headway against the defences of the town. It is possible that Agrippa’s army would have had some artillery of its own (G. Davies, pers. comm.), but as Josephus does not describe the siege of Gamla before the arrival of Vespasian, there is

Table 3.5. Calibers of Ballistae according to Philon and Vitruvius Philon (Belopoeika 51:21, ff.)

Vitruvius (De architectura X:11.3) 2 libra (0.655 kg) 4 libra (1.310 kg) 6 libra (1.965 kg) 10 libra (3.275 kg)

10 mina (4.366 kg) 15 mina (6.549 kg)

20 libra (6.549 kg) (15 mina)

20 mina (8.732 kg) 30 mina (13.098 kg)

40 libra (13.100 kg) (30 mina) 60 libra (19.650 kg)

1 talent (26.196 kg)

80 libra (26.200 kg) (1 talent) 120 libra (39.300 kg)

2 talents (52.392 kg)

45

160 libra (52.400 kg) (2 talents) 180 libra (58.950 kg)

2.5 talents (65.490 kg)

200 libra (65.500 kg) (2.5 talents)

3 talents (78.588 kg)

240 libra (78.600 kg) (3 talents) 360 libra (117.900 kg)

46

Andrew E. Holley

no written evidence for this theory. However, artillery had been used in siege operations in Judea since the time of Judas Maccabeus (d. 160 BCE) (Shatzman 1989:461–2). The army of Herod the Great may have had some sort of artillery corps (Shatzman 1989:466) and some fortresses such as Machaerus and (probably) the Antonia fortress in Jerusalem were equipped with artillery during Herod’s reign (Shatzman 1989:467–8). With these precedents, the use of artillery by Agrippa’s army at Gamla is a possibility. Whether any engines in this army were built and operated by troops loyal to Agrippa II, mercenaries or Roman ‘military advisers’ cannot be determined. It would be very difficult to take a strongly defended town like Gamla without the use of artillery and other siege engines, unless Agrippa’s intention was to starve the town into surrender rather than to take it by assault. Since Greek weight standards were commonly used across the Hellenistic world, it is likely that any ballistae in the army of Agrippa II at Gamla would have shot stone projectiles measured in mina, possibly using the Attic-Euboic standard. The Roman Army Josephus states that Vespasian commanded three legions at the siege of Gamla: V Macedonica, X Fretensis and XV Apollinaris. He had the same three legions under his command at the siege of Yodefat (Jotapata), where the Romans deployed 160 artillery engines (War 3.7.9 [166]). According to Vegetius (Epitoma rei militaris II:25), admittedly a much later source, each legion had 10 stone-throwing engines and 55 bolt-shooting engines, implying that an army of three legions should have deployed 195 artillery engines. Shatzman (1989:471) plausibly explains that the difference may be a normal and reasonable gap between the standard allocation and actual forces on the battlefield. Based on this evidence, it seems likely that the Romans could have deployed about 160 artillery engines at the siege of Gamla. If Vegetius is correct, the majority of these engines would have been catapults. Legio X Fretensis had been stationed in the East since the reign of Augustus (Ritterling 1924:1671–1672);7 V Macedonica, in Moesia until 62 CE, when it was transferred to the East to strengthen Roman forces in the region (Ritterling 1924:1574); and XV Apollinaris, also based on the Danube, in Pannonia, until 62 CE, after which it was moved to the East to serve under the

Roman general Corbulo in his campaign against the Armenians (Ritterling 1924:1750). Both the V and XV legiones remained in the East until the start of the Jewish War in 66 CE. Therefore, V Macedonica and XV Apollinaris were based in the western, Latin-speaking part of the Roman Empire until four years before the outbreak of the Jewish War. The limited information available about legionary recruitment at this time indicates that Italy and Narbonensis were the main sources of recruits for legions stationed in Moesia, with a few recruits from Asia Minor and nearby provinces such as Macedonia and Dalmatia (Mann 1983:36). The recruiting pattern in Pannonia was very similar, with Italy and Narbonensis again the main sources (Mann 1983:31). Most soldiers in these legions would have spoken Latin rather than Greek and (by implication) would have used the Roman weights and measures system. However, X Fretensis had been stationed in Syria for many years and, like the other legions in the East, most of its soldiers would have been recruited from the inhabitants of the eastern provinces (Speidel 1984:61–62; Kennedy 1989:236). There appears to have been a far greater readiness to enroll men in the eastern legions who were not Roman citizens (Kennedy 1989:236). In Syria, legionaries were probably largely drawn from the urban centers of the Phoenician coast and the ‘Greek’ cities of the interior (Kennedy 1989:237). Many of these legionaries would have spoken Greek and would have been (by implication) more comfortable using Greek weights and measures, such as the Attic-Euboic mina. This hypothesis is implied by the analysis of the ballista stones from Masada, which were shot by engines built by X Fretensis. These projectiles appear to have been made using the Attic-Euboic mina rather than the Roman libra (Holley 1994:353–359). Legionaries are usually assumed to have built and operated artillery. However, it now seems probable that at least some auxiliary units were equipped with artillery for defensive purposes, such as the cohort stationed in the Antonia fortress in Jerusalem (Shatzman 1989:472). Whether auxiliaries built and operated artillery in offensive operations is unknown at present.

Possible Calibers of Ballistae at Gamla As outlined earlier, the analysis of the stones is problematic because they are almost certainly a mixture of ballista shot and hand-thrown projectiles. However,

Chapter 3: Stone Projectiles and the Use of Artillery in the Siege of Gamla

broken and irregular stones have been filtered out in an attempt to identify possible ballista shot, as outlined in the Methodology section above. In addition, there is the possibility that different weight standards might have been in use by artillerymen from the two western legions (V Macedonica and XV Apollinaris) and the eastern legion (X Fretensis). The army of King Agrippa II may also have contained artillery, which presumably would have used shot in minae. Consequently, the author has considered possible calibers in both librae and minae when examining the stones. For the purposes of this report, and following Marsden (1969:xix), the Attic-Euboic mina has been used, counting one mina as being equal to 0.4366 kg (see n. 5). Figures 3.9–3.14 show a number of peaks relating to particular calibers and Table 3.3 provides a list of these possible calibers, based on the three largest provenanced finds of stones (Areas A, E and G). Table 3.6 compares the possible calibers of ballistae at Gamla with finds from Masada and the evidence from Josephus. Josephus mentions the use of one-talent ballistae at the sieges of Yodefat and Jerusalem. One talent is equivalent to 60 minae or 80 librae. Since Josephus was writing in Greek, it is impossible to determine whether he translated a Latin weight into a Greek equivalent or if the original engines were constructed (and therefore projectiles measured) using minae. Due to the problems outlined above, the author is reluctant to draw any firm conclusions as to whether a particular weight standard was used for the ballista shot. Certainly the most common calibers in librae do not appear to relate to Vitruvius’ list (Table 3.5), although it is impossible to determine the extent to which this was an accurate reflection of Roman artillery practice in the field. Interestingly, the 10 mina caliber is mentioned in Philon’s list (Table 3.5), while

5 and 10 mina stones are present amongst finds of Hellenistic artillery projectiles from Rhodes and Tel Dor (Shatzman 1995:57; 61). Based on a study of the common calibers listed in Table 3.3, the author tentatively suggests the following two models of possible ballista calibers in use at Gamla: Model 1: Librae 4/5 6/7 12/13 15/16 Model 2: Minae 3/4/5 9/10/11 These models are, of course, conjectural given the uncertainty over the weight standard (or standards) used by the artillerymen and the probable inclusion of some hand-thrown projectiles with the ballista stones. It is possible that some artillery engines at Gamla were built using librae and others, minae, depending on the origin of the soldiers of the legion that constructed them.

The Siege Tactics at Gamla Josephus (War 4.1.3 [12]) describes how the terrain around Gamla made it impossible for Vespasian to undertake the complete investment of the town. Instead, he occupied the mountain that commanded the town and posted sentries where practicable elsewhere (presumably along the far sides of the north and south canyons). Josephus states that legio XV Apollinaris built earthworks on the eastern part of the ridge opposite the town’s highest tower; legio V Macedonica undertook similar work facing the center of the town, whereas

Table 3.6. Comparison of Possible Gamla Calibers with Other Evidence of Ballista Calibers from the First Jewish Revolt Gamla Calibers

Masada Calibers

Masada Calibers (Adjusted)

Jotapata Caliber

Jerusalem Caliber

Libra

4, 5, 6, 7, 13, (15/16)

2/3, 5, 7, 9

N/A

[80 librae]*

[80 librae]*

Mina

3, 4, 5, 9, 10,11

2, 3/4, 6, 9

2, 4, 6, 10

1 talent (= 60 minae)

1 talent (= 60 minae)

Source

Table 3.3

Holley 1994:357

Holley 1994:359

Josephus (War 3.7.9 [167])

Josephus (War 5.6.3 [269–270])

* One talent (60 minae) is the equivalent of 80 librae

47

48

Andrew E. Holley

legio X Fretensis filled in the trenches and ravines. The exact nature of the earthworks is unclear. However, assuming that Vespasian was following standard Roman siege tactics, the legions would have dug a ditch along the eastern part of the ridge and the earth would have been used to build a rampart. If sufficient timber was available locally, the Romans would probably have constructed a wooden palisade on top of the rampart. If not, then it is likely that they would have built a wall of stone rubble (G. Davies, pers. comm.), similar to the wall circumvallation at Masada. However, no archaeological evidence of either method has been identified at Gamla. After constructing the earthworks, the Romans assaulted the town from this eastern ridge using battering rams in an attempt to breach the wall. It is likely that the artillery mentioned by Josephus was placed in towers or emplacements along these defenses. Marsden (1969:91) estimated that ancient artillery had an effective range of between 400 to 500 yards (366 to 457 m). Josephus (War 5.6.3 [270]) records that one-talent projectiles shot by ballistae at the siege of Jerusalem travelled two stades (370 m) or more. Allowing for the topography of the site and the effective range of artillery, it is likely that the earthworks were placed within 300 m of the town wall. In a cut made in the hillside during the construction of the service road to the archaeologists’ expedition camp, a large pile of stone balls was discovered; this location was about 300 m from the wall, so it could be the site of a ballista emplacement or a spot were balls were manufactured from locally collected basalt (see Chapter 1). Archaeological fieldwork has failed to locate any relevant Roman installations at the site. Unfortunately, the obvious location for the legionary encampments on the plateau spur to the east (Deir Qruh) does not display any overt signs of Roman activity. Syon (see Chapter 1) believes that the camps and sentry posts would have been made of wood, which would not have survived in the archaeological record. Davies (2001) and Syon (see Chapter 1) both suggest that the agricultural activity of the nearby Byzantine settlement would have obliterated or obscured any traces of these possible encampments. It is possible that the Romans positioned artillery in the southwestern corner of the plateau to attack the walls and the upper town immediately behind them. Syon (see Chapter 1) has suggested that a depression parallel to the course of the wall is probably the trench

referred to by Josephus, which the inhabitants dug across the eastern saddle and down the slope. This feature is still prominent in the landscape, although it was not excavated systematically. The Romans had to fill in the ditch before their battering rams could approach the wall. Syon (see Chapter 1) states that the top of this trench, where it should have crossed the crest of the saddle, is filled up to an unknown depth and that this is probably the remains of an earthen ramp, constructed by the Romans. This spot, consisting of the flat space stretching from below the round tower to the nearest cliff, some 30 m to the east, was the only logical choice for a siege ramp, due to the topography of the site. Many stone projectiles were found on the surface in this area, although it was not formally excavated. According to Josephus (War 4.1.4 [20]) the Romans applied the battering rams at three different places. However, the excavators identified only one definite breach: in a building in Area G below the synagogue. Another possible breach is located about midway along the wall, where a small concentration of arrowheads was found in front of a 3.5 m wide section where the wall was missing. A third possible breach is situated just above the synagogue, where a patched-up passage through the wall was found as well as about 100 stones; it may have been closed by the defenders after the first attack (see Chapter 1). For other suggestions see Yavor 2010:14–39. Davies (2001) visited the site and examined the siege tactics at Gamla, leading him to tentatively identify certain features, such as rubble scatters and traces of walls, which may have been connected with the Roman military operation. Davies’ sketch map of the site (Davies 2001: Fig. 59) suggests that the Romans may have constructed several small forts on the southern slopes of Nahal Daliyyot and the northern slopes of Nahal Gamla. He is of the opinion that Vespasian would have had to position a blocking force to police the valleys of these streams in order to prevent a serious breakout to the west by the Jewish garrison. Davies also speculates that there may have been an artillery position on Nahal Daliyyot’s southern slopes that would have hindered any escape attempt by people from Gamla along the stream. He believes that the positioning of artillery along the northern slopes of Nahal Gamla would have been much less likely, because the northern flank of Gamla Hill had no real tactical importance.

Chapter 3: Stone Projectiles and the Use of Artillery in the Siege of Gamla

However, Syon (pers. comm.) believes that the rubble scatters seen by Davies are natural and the traces of walls are the remains of modern cattle corrals. Even so, there remains the possibility that Gamla may have been surrounded by more than the cordon of sentries mentioned by Josephus. Further survey work is needed to determine whether any of the remains along the two canyons signify Roman military activity.

Use of Artillery by Jewish Forces in the Jewish War The use of artillery by Jewish forces during the Jewish War is a difficult issue, requiring some background information relating to the time of Herod the Great. Josephus (War 7.6.2 [171–7]) mentions that the fortress at Machaerus was equipped with artillery by Herod the Great. Shatzman (1989:475) concludes that the Herodian fortresses at Jerusalem (the Antonia), Machaerus and Masada were all equipped with artillery, which was taken over by the Roman auxiliary garrisons after the establishment of the province of Judea. Evidence for the stationing of artillery at the Antonia fortress is implied by the design of the towers, which follow the standard Hellenistic design for artillery platforms (Shatzman 1989:468). The Antonia was equipped with artillery at the outbreak of the Jewish War, when these engines were captured by the insurgents (Josephus, War 5.6.3 [267–8]). Whether the Romans maintained artillery at Machaerus and Masada is more conjectural and further research is needed in this area. There is strong evidence for the use of artillery by some Jewish forces during the Jewish War. Josephus records how the Jews captured artillery from the army of Cestius Gallus after his abortive assault on Jerusalem (War 2.19.9 [553]). This artillery was later used by the Jewish defenders against the Romans during the siege of Jerusalem along with the engines from the Antonia (War 5.6.3 [267–268]). However, Gamla was not a former Herodian fortress and appears to have had little military importance in the period immediately before the outbreak of the Jewish War. Many of its citizens were merchants in the olive-oil trade and their families. However, many refugees from the fighting in Galilee had fled to Gamla, causing the city to join the rebellion. Even so, it is highly unlikely that the defenders of Gamla, including the refugees, would have had access to engines or the expertise to build and operate them. The captured artillery in Jerusalem was operated by

49

defenders trained by Roman deserters (War 5.6.3 [267– 268]). The situation at Gamla was very different. It therefore seems safe to assume that any ballista stones found at Gamla were fired by the besieging army rather than by the defenders.

Use of Hand-Thrown Projectiles Stone projectiles thrown by hand were an important defensive weapon in siege warfare (Baatz 1983:136). Stones could be thrown with one hand or dropped over the side of the wall with both hands (Baatz 1983: Fig. 121). Josephus mentions the use of the latter at the siege of Yodefat (War 3.7.8 [165]). It is highly probable that at least some of the stones found at Gamla are projectiles that were thrown from the wall by the defenders as the Romans attacked. Prof. D. Baatz (pers. comm.) has suggested that it is not possible to distinguish between hand-thrown projectiles and ballista stones. Vegetius (Epitoma rei militaris 2:23) describes how legionaries used to practice throwing stones weighing up to one libra (0.3275 kg) by hand. These were presumably thrown with one hand and may give an indication of the possible weight of smaller handthrown projectiles. Excavators found a concentration of several dozen stone balls in L4019 (Area T; Yavor 2010:27), just inside the town wall. Syon believes that these may have been ballista stones that fell within the city and were gathered at night by the defenders to be thrown back by hand at the Romans the following day (see Chapter 1). It is also possible (although unlikely) that they are an indication of the use of a ballista by the defenders. Several architectural elements, mainly rounded ones, such as roof-rollers and millstones, were found at the foot of the wall (see Chapter 1). These may have been rolled down from the wall by the defenders onto the Romans. A number of stone balls were found in excavations at Old Paphos on Cyprus (Erdmann 1977:80–81), retrieved from the Persian siege ramp built during the siege of 498/7 BCE. However, these cannot be ballista stones, because artillery was not invented until the following century. All the stones are flat on one side and many are flat on both top and bottom. This may have been to enable them to be stacked easily or so that the smaller ones could fit into the palm of the hand when they were thrown. The majority of the stones weighed less than 12 kg and were presumably

50

Andrew E. Holley

thrown down by the defenders at the Persians as they attacked the walls. The small size of the stones indicates that they were intended to be thrown by a single defender using either one or both hands (as opposed to a group of defenders throwing a large stone over the ramparts). However, it is possible that some of the smaller stones were thrown upward with one hand by the attackers. Small stone balls were found during the excavation of the North Gate of Hatra, coming from the ditch outside the defences (D. Baatz, pers. comm.). The stones were deposited there during the last siege of the town in the mid-third century CE. One alabaster stone weighed 0.375 kg and had a maximum diameter of 7.4 cm; it had one flat side, like the stones from Old Paphos. Table 3.7 lists the stones found at Gamla having one flat side; weights were rounded to the nearest kilogram. Virtually all these stones weigh less than 12 kg and 77% of them are 5 kg or under. Therefore, there is at least a possibility that these stones, like those from Old Paphos, were intended to be thrown by hand. An alternative interpretation is that they had one flat side to enable them to be placed on the slider of the ballista with less chance of rolling off, particularly if the shot was going to be fired at a higher angle than usual. However, it is also possible that some might have one side flat as the result of impact damage. Unfortunately, the author did not have the opportunity to examine many of the stones in the preparation of this research. Since most basalt balls show the chipping marks made during manufacture, a more detailed examination of the stones would indicate whether the flat side showed marks, meaning it was made flat intentionally; if not, Table 3.7. Stones with One Flat Side Weight (kg)

N

and the rest of the stone displayed marks, it was due to impact damage (D. Syon, pers. comm.). A few triangular-shaped stones were found at the site (Table 3.8); weights were rounded to the nearest kilogram. These stones weigh 6 kg or less. They are unlikely to have been used by conventional ballistae and are probably hand-thrown projectiles or simply just building materials. Hand-thrown projectiles may have been purposely given this shape to cause them to roll erratically down a slope, thereby preventing the enemy from anticipating their course and dodging them (D. Syon, pers. comm.). Alternatively, they were intended for shooting by onagri (one-armed stone-throwing engines). Although one-armed stone-throwers are mentioned by Philon (Parasceuastica et poliorcetica 91.36), they are usually associated with the artillery of the Later Roman Empire. Given the date of the siege, it is unlikely that they were used at Gamla (G. Davies, pers. comm.), although this possibility cannot be completely discounted. According to Josephus’ account of the siege, slingers were present among the garrison of the town. King Agrippa II was wounded by a stone shot by a slinger as he attempted to negotiate with the defenders (War 4.1.3 [14]). Roman slingers are mentioned at the siege of Yodefat (War 3.7.9 [168]), so it is probable that they were also present at Gamla. However, there is little evidence of stone slingshots from the site. Slingshots were usually made of baked clay or lead (Bishop and Coulston 2006:58, 88), although some stone examples have been found (Densem 1976:79–80). The largest stone slingshots from Britain weigh about 200 g (Densem 1976:80). The smallest complete stone found at Gamla weighed 325 g and had a diameter of 7 cm. This can be compared with three ovoid stone slingshots found at Cremna in south-central Turkey (Mitchell 1995:184), which, though not weighed, were very small (the largest measured 4.2 × 2.8 cm). Consequently, it seems probable that the Gamla stones

1

9

2

6

3

11

4

7

5

8

6

4

Weight (kg)

N

7

3

2

1

8

3

3

4

9

1

4

3

10

1

5

6

17

1

6

4

Table 3.8. Triangular Stones

Chapter 3: Stone Projectiles and the Use of Artillery in the Siege of Gamla

are either ballista balls or hand-thrown projectiles. The slingers at Gamla probably used pebbles, which were plentiful at the site (D. Syon, pers. comm.), rather than baked clay or lead bullets. Pebbles are found in the stream and are also embedded in the natural soft chalk of the hill. Slingers from both sides probably gathered these for use as missiles.

Use of Artillery in the Siege In light of the above evidence, the author proposes the following hypothesis for the use of artillery by the Roman army at Gamla. Following Gutmann (1994:68), it is suggested that XV Apollinaris attacked the highest part of the town (around the breach in Area G), whereas V Macedonica assaulted the section of wall protecting the middle of the town (Areas M and T). It would make sense for each legion to attack a separate stretch of wall and would be consistent with Josephus’ account of the deployment of Roman legions at Gamla. However, the heavy concentration of stones and bolt-heads in Areas A, E and G (as well as the stones that were collected in the room near the breach) may indicate that the bulk of the artillery from both these legions was concentrated opposite the highest part of the town, where the main focus of the first assault was directed. This would have been sensible tactics, for if the focus of the assault had been lower down the hill, the Romans would then have had to fight their way uphill through the town once they had breached the walls (G. Davies, pers. comm.). Vespasian may also have deployed artillery from X Fretensis opposite the upper town, even if the rest of the legion was stationed elsewhere. It is likely that some of the stones in Areas E and G were projectiles thrown by the defenders as the Romans attacked the wall with battering rams. The Romans also appear to have deployed a significant number of archers to support the assault. It is also possible that the Romans placed artillery in the southwestern corner of the Deir Qruh plateau, overlooking the town, which would almost certainly have been within effective range of the defenses. Any engines positioned here would have been ideally situated to bombard the walls and the upper town immediately behind in the preparations for the first assault. Therefore, some of the stones found in Areas A, E and G could have been shot from this position.

51

Smaller assaults took place against the sections of wall in Areas M and T. The attack on Area M was mainly supported by archers, with only a few ballistae and catapults present. No ballistae were used in the attack on Area T, although catapults and archers were in action. It is likely that these engines were operated by legionaries from V Macedonica: according to Josephus (War 4.1.3 [12]), this legion was deployed opposite the town’s center, the location of Areas M and T. Perhaps these attacks were secondary to the main assault on the breach in Area G (or even diversionary to draw defenders away from the upper section of the wall). The finds of projectiles in Areas R and S probably come from the final phase of the siege, when the Romans brought up archers and possibly a few small catapults and ballistae to support their assault on the crest of the ridge, where the garrison mounted its last stand. However, it is also is possible that these projectiles were shot into the town by artillery engines and archers on a siege tower brought up to the wall during the unsuccessful first assault (G. Davies, pers. comm.). The use of missiles by the defenders is more difficult to ascertain. Undoubtedly, some of the arrowheads found along the wall were shot by the defenders at the Romans as they attacked. No stone slingshots have been identified, although slingers were present at the siege. It is highly probable that some of the stones found at the site were hurled from the wall by the defenders as hand-thrown projectiles. However, it is interesting that so few stones have been found in Areas M and T, implying that neither side used stone projectiles to a significant extent along this section of the wall. The artillery were probably deployed on towers and artillery platforms along the earthworks built on the eastern ridge opposite the town, although a few small engines may have been moved close to the wall in the final stage of the siege. In addition to the catapults and ballistae deployed to support the assault on Gamla, it is also possible that the Romans placed small forts and artillery platforms at strategic locations around the town to hinder any attempt by the garrison to break out to the west (Davies 2001). Assuming that Josephus’ account of the deployment of Roman forces is correct, any artillery placed in these positions would presumably have been operated by legionaries from X Fretensis. Josephus describes the use of one-talent (26.2 kg) shot by ballistae at the sieges of Yodefat (War 3.7.9 [167]) and Jerusalem (War 5.6.3 [269–270]). This is the only caliber that he specifically mentions in

52

Andrew E. Holley

his history of the Jewish War. At Yodefat, Vespasian deployed his artillery in a ring around the town with instructions to bombard the men on the wall and the area immediately behind the defenses (War 3.7.9 [166]). However, Josephus also mentions a ballista that he refers to as ‘the engine’; this appears to have been an exceptionally large machine capable of shooting projectiles that carried away battlements and knocked off the corners of towers (War 3.7.23 [243]). The large engines deployed by the Romans at Yodefat were clearly intended to demolish the walls as well as kill defenders inside the town. At Jerusalem, the one-talent shot was loosed against the defenders as they made sorties against the Roman siege works and many people could be killed with a single projectile (War 5.6.3 [270]). However, it is highly probable that the Romans had other calibers of artillery present at Yodefat and Jerusalem. Most of the 27 complete stone projectiles that were excavated at Yodefat during the 1992–1996 seasons weighed 2 kg or less (Table 3.9 lists the stones found at Yodefat).8 Perhaps Josephus mentioned the largest caliber available to stress the power of the Roman artillery (and by implication the power of the Roman army itself). In comparison, most of the ballistae at Gamla were small-caliber engines (see Table 3.6). Perhaps the nature of the terrain—the limited amount of space available for the deployment of the army along the eastern ridge, opposite the town—influenced Roman artillery tactics here. The Romans may have decided to use small-caliber engines because they could deploy more of these along the key sections of wall; this might indicate a tactical decision to prioritize a larger number of small engines over a smaller number of more powerful machines. If this was the case, perhaps the rate of shooting was more important to the attackers than the size of the projectile (the larger ballistae would presumably have taken longer to release because of the time taken to winch back the arms and load the heavier shot). There are similarities with the use of ballistae at Masada, where the Romans used small-caliber engines that were mounted on the siege tower and ramp (Holley 1994:360–363). Most of the complete ballista stones from Masada weigh 5 kg or less (Holley 1994:364). The majority of the complete stone projectiles from Gamla are also small: 75% weigh 5 kg or less. However, 22% of the stones weigh between 6 and 10 kg, which may indicate that some larger-caliber engines were used at the siege. Given the topography of the site, it may have been too difficult to haul the

largest engines to Gamla, even in pieces (D. Syon, pers. comm.). It might also be worth considering artillery projectiles found at Cremna. These probably date from a siege of the town by a Roman army in 278 CE following a rebellion by the Isaurians (the highland peoples of the Taurus mountain chain). A surface survey has revealed siege works and the city’s fortifications (Mitchell 1995). The archaeologists identified a number of watch towers/artillery platforms, situated about 150 m from the city wall (Mitchell 1995: Fig. 49). Broken fragments of five large stone balls were found inside the city (Mitchell 1995:183). The excavators have identified these as artillery projectiles, about 25 cm in diameter and with estimated weights of 25 kg. They draw comparisons with the one-talent (26.2 kg) shot mentioned by Josephus at the siege of Jerusalem. Given the date of the siege, it is likely that the projectiles from Cremna were loosed by onagri rather than the ballistae used at the siege of Gamla. The excavators suggest that this heavy shot was intended to damage tower or wall masonry, and, for this purpose, the engines were therefore sited about 150 m from the city wall in order to be within effective range (Mitchell 1995:184). The account of the use of artillery at Gamla provided by Josephus and the weights of the stone projectiles indicate that the Romans used ballistae to suppress missiles shot from the wall and to break up sorties by the defenders against the Roman lines. Perhaps smaller ballistae were deployed at Gamla than at Yodefat and Jerusalem because it was impractical to transport the larger engines down the canyons into position opposite the town wall. The actual number of artillery engines used in the siege cannot, of course, now be determined. It is possible that many of the artillery pieces deployed at Gamla were also used at the siege of Yodefat shortly before. Assuming that the artillery from Yodefat were transported to Gamla in the baggage train of the army, there would have been around 160 machines available for deployment there. However, it is apparent that the majority of the ballistae deployed opposite the town wall were small-caliber engines. This raises the question of what happened to the one-talent engines deployed at Yodefat. There are three possibilities: they were destroyed after the siege of Yodefat; they were sent back to Caesarea; or they were taken to Gamla in the baggage train of the army but were not assembled.

Chapter 3: Stone Projectiles and the Use of Artillery in the Siege of Gamla

53

Table 3.9. Stone Projectiles from Yodefat Season

Area

Square

Locus

1992

Surface

Surface

Surface

750

1996

Surface

Surface

Surface

1200

1994

VII

P4

003

650

1993

XI

O3

013

1700

1992

XI

P2

998

700

1993

XI

P3

007

500

1997

XI

Q13

016

800

1995

XI

Q15

003

1800

1993

XI

Q3

010

1750

1994

XI

Q3

013

1000

1994

XI

Q3

014

1850

1996

XI

R16

000

1000

1992

XIV

T11

000

300

1992

XIX

B2

003

1150

Coarsely done

1992

XIX

B2

003

550

Coarsely done

1992

XIX

B2

004

1100

1992

XV

A11

004

350

1992

XV

A11

004

650

1993

XV

B14

001

700

1/2 stone

1992

XV

C18

000

500

1/2 stone

1996

XV

D15

002

1625

1996

XV

D15

002

700

1996

XV

D15

003

800

1993

XV

D16

002

>2000

1993

XV

E17

000

900

1993

XV

E17

001

1800

1993

XV

E17

002

750

1993

XV

F19

Surface

1000

1996

XV

H20

006

1000

1996

XV

H20

010

1600

1993

XVI

G15

000

1900

1993

XVI

K16

000

900

2/3 stone

1993

XVI

K18

001

150

?

1993

XVI

M15

002

450

1993

XVI

M15

002

1000

Two parts of the same stone, together 1450 g

1993

XVI

M15

998

370

Conclusions The large number of stone projectiles found during excavations at Gamla provides strong evidence for the intensity of the fighting at key points along the town wall. It is likely that these projectiles are a mixture of ballista stones and hand-thrown projectiles. Slingers

Weight (g)

Notes

Quartz geode

Shaped quartz geode

Oolithic limestone Small piece

1/2 stone

1/2 stone

probably used pebbles collected from the stream and the natural soft chalk of the hill. Most of the ballistae appear to have been concentrated opposite the upper section of the town wall. There may also have been artillery positions at other points around the town to hinder a breakout by the garrison. The calibers of the engines were much smaller than

54

Andrew E. Holley

those described by Josephus at Yodefat and Jerusalem, but larger than those at Masada. However, it was not possible to determine whether the ballistae (and the shot they released) were made using librae or minae, although models using each weight standard have been suggested.

The author realizes that there is a degree of conjecture about the suggested artillery deployment at the siege of Gamla and the calibers of the ballistae. However, he hopes that this discourse will add to the continuing debate about the use of artillery in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds and will act as a stimulus for further research.

Notes 1

I would like to thank all who helped with this project, although, of course, the opinions expressed in the report are mine alone. First, special thanks go to Claire Thornton for helping to develop the statistical analysis of the stones and the graphs. The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem awarded me a grant to research the ballista balls from Gamla. Jodi Magness was kind enough to take time off from her own research on the Gamla material to assist me and established contact on my behalf with archaeologists in the Golan. She also sent me a draft of her report for this volume on the arrowheads and projectile points from Gamla. I would like to thank Danny Syon for his considerable advice and support in the preparation of this report and for weighing and measuring additional material that was found subsequent to my visit to Gamla in 1994. Dietwulf Baatz took the time and trouble to write me a lengthy letter about the difficult issue of distinguishing ballista balls from hand-thrown stones. He also sent me articles about Roman artillery and stone projectiles from Old Paphos and drew my attention to an unpublished find of stones from Hatra. Israel Shatzman was kind enough to send me his article about artillery in Judea, which I found very helpful in the preparation of this report. I am grateful to Moti Aviam for providing me with information about finds of stone projectiles from Yodefat, which I have reproduced in Table 3.9. Tracey Rihll from University of Wales Swansea was kind enough to comment on a draft and to point out Philon’s reference to one-armed stone throwers and some issues relating to weight standards. I would also like to thank Zvi Ma‘oz, and Moshe Hartal of the Israel Antiquities Authority, who kindly provided me with access to IAA facilities in the Golan. I am particularly indebted to Erez Këlmachter and Aharon Elrom from the IAA Golan survey team, who spent two days at Gamla in the height of summer helping me to weigh and measure hundreds of stones. I am particularly grateful to Gwyn Davies from Florida International University for sending me information about Gamla from his Ph.D. dissertation and for his comments on the draft, especially regarding the use of artillery in the siege. Finally, I would like to thank Mark Hassall, who inspired my interest in ancient artillery when I was a student and gave me some very useful references for finds of ballista stones that have helped me with this current research. 2 Photographs are by the author; scale = 10 cm. 3 For a description of the relevant excavation areas, see Yavor 2010. 4 Except for a concentration of several dozen stones in Area T, L4019, mentioned on p. 49. These stones do not appear

in the statistical data from the site, so the author believes that they were probably separated from their context postexcavation, and are classified under Provenence Unknown (see Table 3.2). 5 Two different weight standards are used here: the AtticEuboic mina and the Roman libra. The Attic-Euboic mina seems to have been the standard measure of weight in the Hellenistic world; it was used in the states of Macedon, Pergamum, Bithynia, Bactria and the Seleucid kingdom, in addition to local weights. Therefore, it seems likely that when writers such as Philon refer to minae they are using the Attic standard. The weights of the marked ballista balls found at Rhodes are almost certainly in Attic minae (Holley 1986:16–17; Table 4). The Roman pound (libra) was threequarters the weight of the Attic-Euboic mina from which it was derived. However, as in practice there were no uniform weight standards in the ancient world, the figures given below should only be regarded as approximations. 1 Attic-Euboic mina = 0.4366 kg 60 minae = 1 talent 1 Roman pound (libra) = 0.3275 kg It is likely, although difficult to prove for certain, that Attic measurements were used in the manufacture of Hellenistic artillery (Holley 1986:7). 1 Attic dactyl = 19.3 mm For further information on the difficult subject of ancient weights and measures, the reader is advised to consult Hultsch (1971) and Griffin and Reifler (1984). 6 See n. 5. 7 See Farnum (2005) for a more recent examination of the deployment of the Roman legions. 8 It is interesting to note the small weights of the stones compared to the one-talent (26.2 kg) ballista shot mentioned by Josephus at the siege of Yodefat (War 3.7.9 [167]). However, only a small section of the town has been excavated thus far, so it is perhaps too early to determine whether this sample of stones is representative of the projectiles that were used in the siege. As with the Gamla stones, it is highly likely that at least some of the projectiles were intended to be thrown by hand. For a preliminary report of the 1992–1994 excavations at Yodefat see Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam 1997. An examination of the archaeology of the siege in 67 CE is provided in Aviam 2002.

Chapter 3: Stone Projectiles and the Use of Artillery in the Siege of Gamla

55

R eferences Adan-Bayewitz D. and Aviam M. 1997. Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary Report on the 1992–94 Seasons. JRA 10:131–165. Aviam M. 2002. Yodefat/Jotapata: The Archaeology of the First Battle. In A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman eds. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology. London–New York. Pp. 121–133. Baatz D. 1983. Town Walls and Defensive Weapons. In J. Maloney and B. Hobley eds. Roman Urban Defences in the West (Council for British Archaeology, Research Report 51). London. Pp. 136–140. Bishop M.C. and Coulston J.C.N. 2006. Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome (2nd ed.). Oxford. Davies G. 2001. Roman Offensive Siege Works. Ph.D. diss. University College London. London. Densem R.G. 1976. Roman Military Spearheads and Projectiles from Britain. B.A. thesis. University of London. London. Erdmann E. 1977. Ausgrabungen in Alt-Paphos auf Cypern 1, I: Nordosttor und persische Belagerungsrampe in AltPaphos: Waffen und Kleinfunde. Constance. Farnum J.H. 2005. The Positioning of the Roman Imperial Legions (BAR Int. S. 1458). Oxford. Griffin H.J. and Reifler E. 1984. A Comparative History of Metrology. London. Gutmann S. 1994. Gamla—A City in Rebellion. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Holley A.E. 1986. Ancient Artillery Projectiles. B.A. thesis. University of London. London. Holley A.E. 1994. The Ballista Balls from Masada. In Masada IV: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports. Jerusalem. Pp. 347–365. Hultsch F. 1971. Griechische und römische Metrologie (2nd ed.). Gratz. James S. 2004. Excavations at Dura-Europos 1928–1937; Final Report VII: The Arms and Armour and Other Military Equipment. London.

Kennedy D. 1989. The Military Contribution of Syria to the Roman Imperial Army. In D.H. French and C.S. Lightfoot eds. The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire (Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Ankara in September 1988) (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 11; BAR Int. S. 553). Oxford. Pp. 235–246. Mann J.C. 1983. Legionary Recruitment and Veteran Settlement during the Principate (Institute of Archaeology Occasional Papers 7). London. Marsden E.W. 1969. Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development. Oxford. Marsden E.W. 1971. Greek and Roman Artillery: Technical Treatises. Oxford. Mitchell S. 1995. Cremna in Pisidia: An Ancient City in Peace and in War. London. Rihll T. 2007. The Catapult: A History. Yardley, Penn. Ritterling E. 1924. Legio. In Pauly-Wissowas Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, XII:1211–1837. Sáez Abad R. 2005. Artillería y poliorcética en el mundo grecorromano (Anejos de Gladius 8). Madrid. Shatzman I. 1989. Artillery in Judaea from Hasmonaen to Roman Times. In D.H. French and C.S. Lightfoot eds. The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire (Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Ankara in September 1988) (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 11; BAR Int. S. 553). Oxford. Pp. 461–484. Shatzman I. 1995. Stone-Balls from Tel Dor and the Artillery of the Hellenistic World. Scripta Classica Israelica 14:52– 72. Speidel M.P. 1984. Legionaries from Asia Minor. In M.P. Speidel ed. Roman Army Studies I. Amsterdam. Pp. 45–63. Yavor Z. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Eastern and Western Quarters. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Jerusalem. Pp. 13–112.

56

Andrew E. Holley

Chapter 4

Military equipment Guy D. Stiebel

Introduction Until recently, there was a marked gap in knowledge concerning the military equipment (militaria) from the Roman east in scholarly literature dedicated to the martial material culture of the early Principate (Bishop and Coulston 2006:28). However, a growing number of studies in recent years has revealed the existence of this material from over 70 sites throughout Palestine (synthetic study: Stiebel 2007). Outstanding among these sites is the assemblage of military fittings and weapons from Gamla,1 which appears to be the largest yet found in Israel. Indeed, some categories, such as iron arrowheads (see Chapter 2) and ballista balls (see Chapter 3), are represented in far greater numbers at Gamla than at any other contemporary conflict site within the Roman Empire.2 In diversity, this assemblage appears to be second only to Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007) and provides us with much new data regarding issues of identity, most notably the image presented by Roman legionaries. The importance of the finds from Gamla goes beyond their contribution to our typological knowledge of militaria from Early Roman Palestine. To begin with, the extent of the assemblage enabled us to conduct a spatial distribution study, the results of which shed new light on the battle that raged in this location at the end of 67 CE. In concert with Flavius Josephus’ eyewitness testimony of the battle (War 4.1 [1–83]), these data grant us a unique opportunity to gain a better understanding of the course of the battle and the tactics employed in the fight.

Miltaria and the Conflict Land of Gamla Recently, I discussed the management of sieges in Roman Palestine (Stiebel 2005). The geographical deployment and belligerent actions of the assaulting Roman army in light of the archaeological finds were eaxmined, and several circles of activity in

the siege battlefield space operating concurrently (Stiebel 2005:99–103) were identified. The external circle included the siege camps, circumvallation, construction and logistic areas and the heavy torsion artillery machinery. In the second circle, the Romans operated lighter artillery engines, slingers and archers. Still closer to the wall one would have met with the infantry besiegers, who were engaged in the construction of ramps and siege towers in order to break into the city, whether by breaching the wall or by going under or above it. As most of the artifacts discussed were uncovered in the immediate vicinity of the wall and within the city boundaries, the following section is devoted to the less-explored aspect of these circles of activity—the urban fighting. Urban fighting was the stage that followed the attackers’ successful penetration of the city walls; it presented the assailants with a sharp change in combat environment, from a relatively defined and controlled extramural zone into a densely built-up sphere. One of the major complications of FIBUA (Fighting in Built Up Areas)3 is operating in a threedimensional environment with limited fields of view for shooting. The positions of the attackers were generally inferior, as they were exposed to the missiles of the defenders, who controlled the higher elevations, such as roof tops. Lack of orientation was a further difficulty. Unless they possessed information extracted from captives, deserters or spies, intramural-fighting required advancing into unknown territory, facing the grave danger of getting lost in the maze of streets that characterized many Levantine cities. The failed first Roman attack at Gamla vividly portrays these dangers; it resulted in numerous casualties on the Roman side due to the collapse of buildings in the town: The Romans, unable either to repel the enemy above them or to force their way back through their comrades pressing forward behind, took refuge on the roofs of the enemy’s houses, which came close to the ground. These, being

58

Guy D. Stiebel

crowded with soldiers and unequal to the weight, soon fell in; one house in its fall brought down several others beneath it and these again carried away those lower down. This disaster was the ruin of the multitudes of Romans; for, having nowhere to turn, although they saw the houses subsiding, they continued to leap on to the roofs. Many were buried by the ruins; many in trying to escape from under them were pinned down by some portion of their persons, and still more died of suffocation from the dust. Seeing in this the interposition of divine providence, the men of Gamla pressed their attack regardless of their own casualties; they forced the enemy, stumbling in the steep alleys, up on to the roofs and with a continual fire from above slew any who fell. The debris supplied them with boulders in abundance and the enemy’s dead with blades; for they wrested the swords from the fallen and used them to dispatch any still struggling in death. Many flung themselves from the houses when in the act of collapsing and died from the fall. Even those who fled found flight no easy matter; since through their ignorance of the roads and the dense clouds of dust they failed to recognize their comrades and in their bewilderment fell foul of each other (War 4.1.4 [23–29]).

During the 1982 season, the remnants of an entire set of equipment of a Roman legionary of legio V Macedonica were found in a narrow alley near a wall (Area T, L4019), covered by a collapse of stones (Fig. 4.1). The assemblage comprised a complete cheekpiece, parts of the upper unit of a lorica segmentata armor,4 the handle of a pugio, the silver-plated tip of the gladius’ scabbard chape, a strengthening bar of a scutum and an ownership tag. As not all parts of the panoply were present and the soldiers’s bones were not found, it seems most likely that he was either dragged wounded from the collapse, or that his body was cleared by the rebels after the attack, leaving behind part of his gear. The assemblage is highly interesting, for it reflects the actual combat panoply of a soldier who fought in Judea in 67 CE. Moreover, the equipment shows signs of battle damage and unique variations. Excavations of the city’s remote quarters revealed a small number of ballista balls, catapult projectiles and trilobate arrowheads. This assemblage may represent looted Roman militaria that fell into the hands of the defenders, but one should not overrule the possibility

Fig. 4.1. Area T, L4019, during excavation.

59

Chapter 4: Military equipment

that the torsion artillery projectiles that comprise this group of finds represents Roman incoming missiles that were shot from the wall, a distance of c. 350 m, in support of the assailing Roman soldiers. In addition, the presence of arrowheads at this location may be accounted for by close-range urban fighting, possibly during the second Roman attack (War 4.1.10 [76]; cf. Lee 2001). In light of their diminutive number, and that they were isolated finds rather than complete equipment, I prefer to interpret these fittings as ‘lost in battle’, i.e., a reflection of Roman military activity in these areas, presumably during the second attack. The most prolonged urban fighting campaign in Roman Palestine took place in 70 CE Jerusalem (War 5–6), dramatic indications for which were uncovered by Avigad during the excavation of the ‘Burnt House’ (Area B) in the Upper City (Avigad 1983:137; War 6.8–10). Intramuralis fighting is further indicated by the group of five arrowheads uncovered on the floor of the ‘frescoed room’ at Yodefat (Jotapata; Aviam 2002:128).

The Roman Legionary Many scholars have discussed the question of whether there was standard ‘legionary’ equipment (Bishop and Coulston 2006:254–259 and references therein). In the Roman East, so far we have dependable data regarding legionary equipment only from Dura-Europos (although by the second century CE distinctions in equipment were breaking down; James 2004:168–169). As far as Early Roman Judea is concerned, Josephus provides first-hand testimony, in which he describes the equipment of the legionaries as follows: The infantry are armed with cuirass and helmet and carry a sword on either side; that on the left is far the longer of the two, the dagger on the right being no longer than a span... the regiments of the line have a javelin and oblong buckler (War 3.5.5 [93–95]).

The dramatic discovery of Roman panoply at Gamla enables us to reconstruct the image of one legionary, L. Magus, nearly to its full extent in 67 CE (Stiebel 2008). Wearing a tinned Haguenau (Coolus) type helmet, L. Magus was clad in lorica segmentata armor, the plates of which were laced to each other through riveted tieloops (Nos. 32–43), and a sliding rivet mechanism on

its back-plate. His right hand was seemingly protected by a tinned copper-alloy manica (No. 55). The soldier’s gladius was sheathed in a copper-alloy scabbard that was decorated with an eagle emblem (Nos. 74–75), executed in a somewhat provincial way, with palmette designs (Nos. 85–88), and this terminated in a silverplated tip (No. 72). In addition, he carried a pugio (No. 70) and on his belt were mounts with a central rosette decoration (No. 97). The soldier was further furnished with a pilum (Nos. 104, 105) and a scutum that was reinforced with flat iron bars (No. 62) and framed by U-binding (Nos. 13, 15). Two tabulae ansatae that flanked the umbo bore his name and that of his officers (No. 66). He wore typical nailed caligae (Nos. 56–59). The assemblage of personal military equipment from Gamla is presented here according to two major sections: (I) protective equipment; and (II) offensive equipment. The first consists of head-gear fittings, armor, limb defenses, footwear and shields, and the second, edged weapons, belts, shafted weapons, siege equipment, sling and riding equipment.

The Assemblage Protective Equipment Helmets (Figs. 4.2, 4.4, 4.5) Several artifacts that relate to headwear were uncovered at Gamla, most notably a tinned cheek-piece directly associated with L. Magus’ panoply and a brow-guard, found outside the city’s wall, which exhibits battledamage marks.5 Infantry Helmets Josephus refers to the κράνη of the Roman infantry (War 3.5.5 [93, 97]). A clear case of a legionary’s helmet is that belonging to L. Magus from Gamla, a soldier of the legio V Macedonica.6 The striking resemblance between the Coolus-type cheek-piece from Gamla and the examples from Schaan, Lichtenstein (Fig. 4.3; Robinson 1975:29, 31, Pls. 41–43) may hint at a common production tradition or even similar workshops. This resemblance also appears to undermine the typology of helmets of the early Principate, suggesting a more heterogeneous assemblage, in which long-lasting designs continued in use along with newer types.

60

Guy D. Stiebel

1

2 0 0

2

Fig. 4.2. Helmet parts.

1

Chapter 4: Military equipment

Fig. 4.3. ‘Coolus C’-type helmet from Schaan (courtesy Liechtensteinisches Landesmuseum).

1. Cheek-Piece (buccula) (Fig. 4.2:1) Area T; L4019; Reg. No. 1937/1; IAA No. 1990-3018. W 113 mm, H 142 mm (153 mm with hinges), Th 7 mm, D of hinges 8 mm, D of hinges’ holes 2 mm, D of head of rivet on front 12 mm, L of bent rivet shank 10 mm, D of heads of rivets on rear 6–7 mm, Wt 213.5 g. 2. Brow-Guard (Fig. 4.2:2) Area T; Sq U11, outside the wall;7 Reg. No. 1546. Max. W of object 232 mm (inner W 193 mm), W 19– 21 mm, H 12 mm, H at ends 13 mm, Th at end 7 mm, D of holes 3 mm, D of securing rivet head 10 mm, Th of head 1.5 mm, Wt 105.4 g. The assemblage from Area T retained, among other items, two exquisitely well-preserved helmet parts: a cast copper-alloy right cheek-piece and a browguard. They both belong to the Coolus type (Robinson 1975:26–41), also referred to as the Haguenau type (Feugère 1994:81–85). The faces of the fine-quality fittings are both tinned,8 exhibiting the Roman fondness for glittery and showy appearance. The cheek-piece from Gamla bears a striking resemblance to those of two near-identical helmets from Schaan (Lichtenstein). Based on stylistic

61

considerations, this pair of helmets, one now lost, was claimed to date from the late first century BCE–early first century CE (Robinson 1975:29, 31, Pls. 41–43). As noted above, however, the well-dated context of the Gamla specimen suggests that Robinson’s typology of the Coolus type is too rigid. The design of the cheek-piece (buccula) follows the line of the jaw on the rear and lower edges. Semicircular cut-outs for the mouth and eyes enabled the wearer to converse freely and improved visibility. An embossed border defines the rear and lower edges in addition to the cut-outs and is emphasized by a 2 mm wide groove, while the upper edge has a slightly protruding border. The two parts of the hinge jut out from the upper edge. The cheek-piece was attached to a wide hinge plate (41 mm) that was riveted to the bowl (not preserved). Ten holes (2 mm in diameter) are spaced along the buccula perimeter; most of these were clearly intended to secure its lining. Leather is commonly noted as the material used to line the inner face of the protecting devices. Indeed, a leather lining of a greave was found at Vindonissa, Switzerland (Gansser-Burckhardt 1942: Ill. 23). Nevertheless, leather had its disadvantages, being very uncomfortable when wet. It seems that textile and vegetal materials were used for lining more than has hitherto been appreciated (Robinson 1975:144).9 One large, tinned flat-headed rivet survived on the upper edge. The large hole (4 mm in diameter) toward the mouth cusping was intended for the fastening that secured the helmet below the chin. Cheek-pieces were fastened by a chinstrap or tie, in order to prevent them from flapping on the soldier’s face. The complete examples from Schaan shed light upon the method that was employed at Gamla. A leather strap seems to have been suspended from a ring, which was riveted to one cheek-piece. It was laced onto a pointed mushroom-like feature that protrudes from the other (Robinson 1975: Pls. 41–43). The large hole located precisely at the same point as on the Schaan examples either held the ring or the flange, remarked upon above.10 Helmet cheek-pieces )‫ )לחיים‬are explicitly noted in the Mishnah: “A helmet is susceptible to uncleanness but the cheek-pieces are not susceptible; but if they have a cavity that will hold water they are susceptible” (M. Kelim 11.8). The slightly concave surface of the Gamla example illustrates the conclusion of the halakha that discusses the purity of cheek-pieces. The usually flat design of a cheek-piece implied its

62

Guy D. Stiebel

pure status, for it was not a receptacle. However, if its construction allowed it to hold even a slight amount of water, it was deemed impure. The tinned brow-guard acted as a reinforcing element of the copper-alloy bowl, protecting the helmet against cuts to the front. It was riveted at each end to the side of the bowl. The object has a right-angled section and tapers to the points of attachment, exhibiting triangular ends. Robinson suggested that brow-guards of rightangled outlines were produced in Italy (Robinson 1975:26, 31). Unlike the great resemblance to the cheekpieces of the so-called Coolus C, the construction of the type’s brow reinforcement differs from the Gamla specimen. It is very close to the reinforcing bars of the Coolus D and E (Robinson 1975: Pls. 46–47, 49, 59–61). The added protection was seemingly intended to enforce the relatively weak structure of the bowls that were produced in spinning technique (Bishop and Coulston 2006:242). Examination of the brow-guard from Gamla showed that it was deformed, exhibiting a swell with a marked ‘scar’ that runs obliquely left to its midpoint (Fig. 4.2:2a). The cause for this twist was clearly a blow of an edged arm that came from above and left and was absorbed by the brow-guard. This relic from the fight that raged at Gamla concords well with the skeletal finds from Wisby, which exhibit distinct dominancy to cuts to the top left of the skull (Goldsworthy 1996:220–221; on head injuries, see Salazar 2000:13– 15). Indeed, many of Rome’s opponents used slashing, rather than thrusting, blows, which were practiced by the Roman army and presented optimal utilization of the two-edged sword with its prominent point (Veg. 1.12; cf. Goldsworthy 1996:217). Three scenarios may explain the existence of this type of helmet at Gamla in the Jewish War. If we accept Robinson’s classification, the cheek-piece and brow-guards may have furnished a later Coolus-type helmet, i.e., Type D (Robinson 1975:31, Pls. 46–53). Indeed, the brow-guard of this type is similar to the right-angled Gamla specimen. Can the cheek-piece from Gamla be the missing link, filling in the gap in our knowledge concerning the shape of Coolus Type D’s cheekpiece? The second scenario challenges Robinson’s typology, and, following Feugère, suggests a less rigid chronological typology (Haguenau type; Feugère 1994:81–86). If we accept, on the other hand, the early dating of the parallels from Europe, the find from Gamla provides further illustration

for the residuality of equipment, most notably that of helmets. This phenomenon is exemplified by the multitude of ownership inscriptions that are found on individual Roman helmets in the West. A copper-alloy tabula ansata that was found in direct association with the panoply notes the name of its owner and his units (below, No. 66). The tag was attached to the soldier’s shield. Helmets do exhibit owner inscriptions, but, in such cases, they were inscribed, commonly punched, directly upon the helmet rather than on tags. 3. Helmet Edge-Binding (Fig. 4.4:3) Area T; L4031; Reg. No. 1970/1. L 250+ mm; W 3 × 3–5 mm; Th 0.5 mm. Three copper-alloy fragments of U-guttering edgebinding. The binding of both the cheek-pieces and the neck-guard became commonplace from the second quarter of the first century CE. The perimeter of the complete infantry helmet from the Hebron district, dated to the Second Revolt (Bar-Kokhba Revolt, 132–135/6 CE), is entirely edged with U-guttering (Robinson 1975: Pls. 176–178). The curved outline of one of the fragments from Gamla indicates it either sheathed the lateral edge of a neck-guard or the lower front part of a cheek-piece. Additional flattened fragments found in this locus (see No. 4) may be similarly identified, although they could just as well be classified as U-binding of swords’ scabbards. A tiehoop (No. 44) was uncovered in this locus. 4. Helmet Edge-Binding (not illustrated) Area T; L4031; Reg. No. 1970/2. L 237+ mm; W 5–6 mm; Th 0.5 mm. See No. 3, above. Ear-Guards Unlike parts of specimens of the Coolus/Haguenau type that had large, nearly square, cheek-pieces covering the ears, the outlines of the subsequent Weisenau or the Imperial-Gallic and Imperial-Italic types show a clear trend toward enhancing the soldier’s hearing— they left the ears exposed (Robinson 1975:45–74; Feugère 1994:88–97). Ear-guards were fitted between the cheek-pieces and the neck-guard to protect the ears from slashing blows.11 Both plain and ribbed examples are documented (Ulbert 1969a:42, Nos. 2–6, Table 30). The ear-guard from Gamla was seemingly soldered to the bowl, though ear-guards were commonly riveted.

63

Chapter 4: Military equipment

5

6

3

8

7

10

9

0

1

Fig. 4.4. Helmet fragments and fittings.

64

Guy D. Stiebel

H 31 mm; W 48.5 mm; Th 3 mm. Rhomboid-sectioned carrying handle, tapering to looped ‘acorn’ terminals. The handle is slightly distorted. Parallels: Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:14–16, Pl. 11:3–10), with ample bibliography; Jericho (Stiebel 2007: I.4/A.1); H. Qumran (Stiebel 2007: III.17/A.1); and Legio (Stiebel 2007: V.3/A.1). 7. Carrying Handle? (Fig. 4.4:7) Area B; L1295; Reg. No. 271; IAA 1992-1044. H 60 mm; W 103 mm; Th 6 mm. Rhomboid-sectioned carrying handle, tapering to looped ‘acorn’ terminals. The handle is rather large, and therefore, should not necessarily be identified as a helmet’s carrying handle. See previous item. The object was found in Area B, in a first-century BCE context. Fig. 4.5. Sports helmet from Theilenhofen (courtesy Dr. Bernd Steidl, ©Archäologische Staatssammlung München; photograph, Manfred Eberlein).

5. Ear-Guard (Fig. 4.4:5) Area P; L3500, Reg. No. 1005. L 50+ mm; W 36 mm; H 18 mm; Th 0.5 mm. Plain ear-guard. This tinned object was cut from a copper-alloy sheet and then hammered to the desired shape. No attachment holes appear to have existed, and though both its ends are partly damaged, it seems that the ear-guard was soldered to the bowl. It was found on the summit of the ridge. Parallels: Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 590, 595, Table 28, and see references on p. 28). Carrying Handles(?) Carrying handles appear on helmets’ neck-guards from the early Principate (Robinson 1975:47, 51, Figs. 76–80). Commonly identified as helmet handles (e.g., Allason-Jones and Miket 1984:164, 166), the finding of isolated handles, particularly as they have no direct military association, may be misleading and may not necessarily indicate militaria. This interpretation is based upon the fact that this type appears on domestic utensils such as jewelry boxes (Edelstein 2002a:93*, Fig. 25:4, 6–7; 2002b:103*, Fig. 5), medical boxes, mirror cases and cupboards drawers (Manning 1985: Pl. XVI). 6. Carrying Handle (Fig. 4.4:6) Area T; Sqs T9–10; Reg. No. 1000/3.

Sports Helmets Two complete examples of Roman sports helmets are known from local contexts—Hebron (Garbsch 1978:59, L1, Pl. 14; Weinberg 1979) and the Qidron Valley (Baur and Rostovtzeff 1931: Pl. XXIII; Bottini et al. 1988:534–536, Ill. K 117a–b, d; Stiebel 2007:24– 25). To this group we may add the specimen from Jerusalem (Warren’s excavations), now in the PEF collection (James 1986), and possibly also a minute embossed fragment from Gamla (No. 8) that bears resemblance to the Guisborough type, in particular the helmet from Theilenhofen (Germany) (Fig. 4.5; Garbsch 1978:55–56: F 1, Pl. 10). Eastern parallels may be found in the example seemingly from Zeugma (Kennedy and Bishop 1998:135, Fig. 8.13) and in the possible fragments of a sports helmet from DuraEuropos (James 2004: No. 377, Fig. 50). 8. Fragment of Sports Helmet(?) (Fig. 4.4:8) Area S; L1918; Reg. No. 7523; IAA 1997–4287. H 42 mm. A copper-alloy fragment with three embossed registers. The largest of the three exhibits a recurring scale-like pattern with arched edges divided by vertical lines. Two holes (for attachment?) are pierced in the fragment’s body. A flat blank register divides the latter from a third register with recurring relief of crescent pattern. It is difficult to offer a clear identification for this fragment. Nevertheless, the patterns described above are very akin to those displayed on sports helmets (see Fig. 4.5,

Chapter 4: Military equipment

with arrows pointing to the presumed location of the fragment). It should be noted that sports helmets are not unknown at siege sites—a fragment of a cheekpiece was uncovered at Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:12–13, Pl. 10:5).

65

central attachment hole. A cable-like feature decorates the perimeter of the domed surface. Parallels: Robinson 1975: Figs. 83, 85, 89, Pls. 106, 111, 112, 117, 126–128.

Armor Helmet Fastening Loops? 9. Helmet Fastening Loop(?) (Fig. 4.4:9) Area M; Sqs A17–18; Reg. No. 2278/2. D of loop (ext.) 15 mm; Th of loop 1 mm; L of band 23 mm; W of band 8–9 mm; Th of band 1 mm; D of hole 2 mm. A copper-alloy ring held by a rectangular plate folded in two around the ring, with its halves secured by a rivet, now lost. Similar objects functioned as cheekpiece fastening devices, as demonstrated by numerous helmets (Imperial-Gallic and Imperial-Italic types, according to Robinson’s typology). A pair of loops from Vindonissa was recently published under this category, while two more loops attached to fragmented cheekpieces come from that site (see below). However, such loops also occur as crest fasteners on Imperial-Gallic helmets on the inner side of the neck guards as well as above the neck guard and the forehead (for early examples cf. Feugère 1994:70–71; for Early Roman occurrences cf. Robinson 1975: Figs. 28, 37; Pls. 118, 119, 134, 135, 194, 209, 217, 225, 230; Feugère 1994:83, 86). In addition, similar loops were placed along the edges of greaves (Robinson 1975: Pls. VIII, 506, 507, 523, 527; Garbsch 1978: Ill. 5 and Nos. Q5, Q15). Two such loops were found at Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:14, Pl. 11:1, 2). The multiple uses of these objects, as detailed above—and these are only the uses of a military nature—signifies that their identification as helmet fastening loops is not secure. Our example was found together with a silver-plated frog (below, No. 101). Parallels: Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 584, 585; for attached loops cf. Nos. 571, 572. 10. Cheek-Piece Floral Washer (Fig. 4.4:10) Area M; Sqs A17–18; Reg. No. 2340. D 23 mm; D of hole 2 mm; Th of body 1 mm. A copper-alloy floral washer appears to be part of a cheek-piece decoration. Similar washers functioned as decorative elements in lorica segmentata. This small circular item has a domed face and was fixed through a

One of the advantages the Roman soldier had over his opponents was the superiority of his equipment. Substantial remains of lorica segmentata armors were found at Gamla, the most significant of which are those that were part of the panoply of the legionary L. Magus. In addition to the fragments of iron plates, a large group of armor fittings was also found. Few isolated finds of copper-alloy scales were discovered, presumably as a result of attrition wear. The large iron scales that were unearthed may originally have belonged to horse armor. Segmental Armor (Figs. 4.6–4.13) Roman segmental armor appears to have had its roots in Hellenistic and Eastern traditions (Bishop 2002:18– 21).12 Recently, a possible prototype was identified at Pergamon, Turkey (Bishop 2002:18, 20). Segmental defenses are attested in the East at Aï Khanoum, Afghanistan. Additional evidence for early segmental defensive equipment comes from Gamla, where a segmented thigh guard was unearthed in the context of the second half of the first century BCE (below, No. 54). Roman segmental armor, commonly referred to as lorica segmentata, has been the subject of several studies, the most authoritative of which is that of Bishop (2002), accompanied by a catalogue (Thomas 2002). Thus, the aim of the following discussion is to add the archaeological information from Palestine without repeating information presented there. In general, plate armor was articulated on internal leathers, made up of four units: two upper units, each comprising a breastplate, back-plates, upper shoulderguards and four lesser shoulder-guards, as well as two lower units that consisted of six to eight girth hoop halves (Bishop 2002:99–102). Several battle sites from the Jewish War have yielded remains of lorica segmentata (Masada—Stiebel and Magness 2007:2– 3, Pl. 3:1–5; Jerusalem—Stiebel 2007: III.10/B.1 and III.12/B.1, 2 and compare to Samaria—Stiebel 2007: I.6/A.1; H. Qumran—Stiebel 2007: III.17/B.1; Legio: Stiebel 2007: V.3/B.2), all belonging to the Corbridge

66

Guy D. Stiebel

25

20

Overall

Area M

Area T

Areas S+R

Area G

Unknown Provenance

Number

15

10

5

0 Armor Fragments (Baskets)

Tie-Hoops

Washers Fitting Types

Lobate Hinges

Hinged Buckles and Straps

Fig. 4.6. The distribution of lorica segmentata fittings at Gamla.

type, and among which the most significant find is the remains of the legionary L. Magus. The most frequent finds are copper-alloy fittings. As at other military sites, tie-hoops are the prominent group. This bias in the archaeological record is accounted for by the chemical reaction between the iron plates and the copper-alloy fittings—bimetallic corrosion13—that caused their weakening and ultimate detachment (Bishop 2002:80; Bishop and Coulston 2006:27 and n. 11). Furthermore, the multipartite construction destined this type of armor to be prone to failure and, more significantly from an archaeological point of view, to the loss of parts. In addition, the archaeological record seems to suggest that in Palestine, iron was more prone to corrosion in comparison to copperalloy in the post-depositional process. At Masada, a lobate hinge, three tie loops and two buckle hinge plates were uncovered (Stiebel and Magness 2007:2– 3, Pl. 3:1–6), while two D-shaped buckles were found in the Jewish Quarter excavations (Stiebel 2007: III.12/B.1–2) and a tie-hoop, at Samaria (Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924:363, XIV:4a, Fig. 237). An exceptional collection of armor fragments and fittings was uncovered at Gamla: plate fragments, 8 lobate hinges, 3 floral washers, 4 D-shaped buckles and 21 tie-hoops. Interestingly, the majority (75%) of the lorica segmentata plates and fittings were unearthed in Area T—34 of the reported 45 artifacts (Fig. 4.6).14 Whether this clustering reflects the course of the battle is hard to assess. Yet, an intense face-to-face

battle, which evidently raged in this sector, would have indeed produced such finds. The Armor of L. Magus Examination of the photographs of the in situ finds in L4019 indicated that parts of the plates were complete and still attached upon discovery (Fig. 4.7). Unfortunately, they were removed in pieces, and underwent a process of conservation and restoration. Nonetheless, even in its present condition, this find is of great interest, as its unique technical traits go beyond the marked significance of the historical circumstances of its deposition. As no girth hoops were identified and no tie-hoops are directly associated with this find, the remains appear to belong to the upper unit alone of the Corbridge type (Bishop 2002:31–45). This assemblage, which clearly belonged to one soldier, comprises what seems to be the right section of the back-plates and parts of the shoulder-guards. The composition of this find appears to reinforce our suggestion that the equipment detached from a soldier who fell from an upper position down to the alley’s floor. The parts that belong to the shoulder-guards are evidently more prone to detachment than the girth hoops, which were fitted more closely to the body of the wearer. The position of some of the lobate hinges indicates that parts of the shoulder-guards were bent and consequently detached, seemingly following the fall of the soldier from a nearby roof (cf. Josephus, War 4.1.4 [24]).

Chapter 4: Military equipment

Oxidized remains of the internal leathers are visible on the faces of several plate fragments. The near complete section of the back-plates of L. Magus’ armor is of particular interest. Bishop notes that “one of the weaknesses of the Corbridge type of armor was the use of three overlapping back-plates and modifications were evidently made” (Bishop 2002:43). He further notes that “modern reconstructions of the Corbridge armor are also prone to this same problem.” Indeed, the order of the back-plates of the Gamla specimen is reversed (Fig. 4.8:11b, 11c), similarly to the back-plate fragment from Corbridge (Cuirass 5; Bishop 2002: Fig. 5.13). Moreover, a unique sliding loop device was observed on the inner side of the large fragment of three back-plates that replaced some of the internal leather straps, the rivets of which are still visible. The three plates had four oval iron rings on their back face, 51 mm long and 22 mm wide. The flat rings, 2 mm thick, slid upon the flat rivets’ shanks. The flat circular heads of these rivets were 12–14 mm in diameter (Fig. 4.8:11c). The principal device comprised two loops and three rivets. Each loop was attached to two rivets, which in turn were fastened to two different plates (the upper and bottom back-plates). Every pair of loops was attached to a rivet that was fastened to the third, middle, back-plate. The central rivet, which had two sliding loops attached, formed a constraint upon movement of the triple plates, whose maximum dimensions were 15–20 mm. No parallel has yet been attested to this device in the Roman world, which may indicate that the Gamla specimen was a local innovation. Sliding mechanisms are found on medieval suits, an example of which is seen on the armor thought to have belonged to Wladislas, King of Bohemia (c. 1510 CE), in the Wallace Collection, London; Bishop 2002:81, 93; and pers. comm.). Among the more fragmentary plate remains is a fragment of a collar plate with a turned-over rim (Fig. 4.8:11d). The plates are 2–3 mm thick. Some of the plates feature the typical cut corners, others are angular, while others have rounded corners (Fig. 4.8:11e, 11f). The armor was decorated with circular floral washers, one example of which is discernible on the face of an armor plate just next to a lobate hinge, clearly identifying it as a shoulder-guard (Fig. 4.9:17a). Two pairs and four single lobate hinges were associated with this example. Most interestingly, the multiple forms of the lobate hinges that occur concurrently on the same armor indicate recurrent repairs. The two pairs are fully lobate, the volutes at

67

the top present outside positions, but with no central fret in the plate (Fig. 4.9:17b–c; Thomas 2002:65– 71, Category F, Type iv). The pair of lobate hinges represented in Fig. 4.9:17c is bent upward in a similar manner to lobate hinges from Chichester, England (Down 1978:299, Fig. 10.36: No. 85Bi; Thomas 2002:121:7), Verulamium, England (Frere 1984:35, No. 77, Fig. 11) and Rheingönheim, Germany (Ulbert 1969a: Pl. 33:4, 7). Of the four additional hinges, two presumably represent another pair that belongs typologically to an intermediate type, somewhat similar to the ‘Newstead’ type (Fig. 4.9:17a). They feature angular volutes but lack the typical triangular fret (Thomas’ Category F, Type viii). The fourth hinge, which possibly reflects the last repair, is merely a crude rectangular plate that was fastened by four rivets, resembling the sub-lobate hinges of the Kalkriese-type fitting (Fig. 4.9:17d). At least three plate fragments exhibit what appears to be battle damage (Fig. 4.8:11g). These severe dents are similar to damage patterns visible on the Bank of England breastplate and the mid-collar plate

Fig. 4.7. Two views of L. Magus’ cuirass in situ (Area T, L4019).

68

Guy D. Stiebel

of Cuirass 4 from the Corbridge hoard, which, it has been suggested, reflect the impact of substantial blows (Bishop 2002:83–84, Figs. 9.7, 9.8). The bentover edge of the back-plate seems to be the cause of its collapse, rather than battle damage (Fig. 4.8:11c). Further battle damage was observed on the brow-guard from Gamla (see No. 2, above). Corbridge Type Segmental Armor Remains of the lorica segmentata, Corbridge type, were uncovered at Gamla, Masada, Samaria and seemingly, Jerusalem, with the largest collection originating from Gamla. In addition to the lorica of L. Magus (above), fragments of both plates and fittings (fragmented plates, one lobate hinge, two floral washers and as many as twenty-one tie-hoops) were uncovered. Thirteen copper-alloy fittings from Gamla of the Corbridge type were analyzed: eleven tie-hoops, one tie-hoop rivet and one decorative washer. The composition of the fittings corresponds well with that of the Western Roman examples (Ponting 2002). Plates Information concerning this feature in Israel derives mainly from Gamla. The assemblage comprises fragmentary collar plates, back-plates and shoulderguards. One near-complete back-plate unit of L. Magus’ armor exhibits a sliding rivet mechanism. Very scant corroded remains of an iron plate still adhere to a lobate hinge from Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:2–3, Pl. 3:4).

Bishop 1988: Fig. 24). This locus yielded a tie hoop (No. 32) and a caliga nail (No. 57). 13. Fragment of lorica segmentata (not illustrated) Area T; L4027; Reg. No. 1902. L 48+ mm; W 21+ mm; Th 1 mm; D of rivet head 8 mm. Small fragment of a straight-edged iron plate with a leathering rivet and a flat circular head. Two additional small, irregularly shaped fragments were found in this basket. This locus also yielded a decorated washer (No. 46), a scabbard mount (No. 77) and a fragment of scabbard binding (No. 81). 14. Fragment of lorica segmentata (not illustrated) Area M; Sqs A15–18; Reg. No. 2305/2. L 58+ mm; W 53+ mm; Th 2 mm. The remains consist of two very small fragments (33 × 20 mm, 23 × 16 mm) and a relatively large one (53 × 58 mm). The body of the latter, of which two perpendicular edges have survived, is slightly curved. Also uncovered in this square were a fragment of lorica segmentata (No. 9), a tie hoop (No. 35), shield binding (No. 64) and scabbard fittings (Nos. 85, 88, 90). 15. Fragment of lorica segmentata(?) (not illustrated) Area R North; L5161; Reg. No. 5903/1. L 40+ mm; W 34+ mm; Th 1–3 mm. Much-corroded flat, thin iron plate, lacking a defined edge. It may be a fragment of lorica segmentata, although its origin in the Western Quarter might suggest a different use.

11. Armor Fragments of lorica segmentata (Figs. 4.7, 4.8) Area T; L4019; Reg. No. 1938. See discussion above.

16. Fragment of lorica segmentata(?) (not illustrated) Area G; L1704; Reg. No. 6184/1. L 46.5+ mm; W 34+ mm; Th 1–2 mm; Wt 10 g. Corroded fragment of an iron plate. The sloping edge suggests it may be identified as a fragment of an upper girth hoop.

12. Fragment of lorica segmentata (not illustrated) Area T; L4033; Reg. No. 2030/2. L 98 mm (c. 93 mm curved); W 57–58 mm; H 2 mm; D of flat head 7 mm; L of rivet shank 10 mm; W of shank 3 mm. Iron fragment of a seemingly small plate of a lesser shoulder-guard. The curved plate has a lateral oblique and a raised perpendicular edge, features that characterize Corbridge’s Type C (Allason-Jones and

Lobate Hinges (Fig. 4.9) Several examples were found in Palestine, mostly at Gamla (Nos. 17, 18) and half a lobate hinge was found at Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:2–3, Pl. 3:4); see the X-ray images of examples from Gamla for the hinges’ construction (Fig. 4.9:17a, 17b, 17d). Interestingly, there are several types of lobate hinges (two pairs and three halved examples), including two fully lobate pairs with no discernible central fret

69

Chapter 4: Military equipment

11a

11c

0

11b

2

0

11d

11e

11f

11g

0

1

Fig. 4.8. Armor parts: plates.

4

70

Guy D. Stiebel

17a

17c

17b

17d

18 0

2

Fig. 4.9. Armor parts and fittings: hinges and washers.

(Fig. 4.9:17b, 17c; Thomas 2002:65–71; Category F, Type iv). Another half-hinge seems to belong to an intermediate type, akin to the ‘Newstead’ type (Fig. 4.9:17a; Thomas’ Category F, Type viii), while crude rectangular plates (Fig. 4.9:17d, 18) resemble the sublobate hinges of the Kalkriese-type fitting (Thomas’ Category F, Type ii). This diversity seems to reflect several rounds of repair of the armor. 17. Four Lobate Hinges Area T; L4019. The remains of L. Magus’ armor consist of two pairs of copper-alloy lobate hinges and three halved examples (see above, The Armor of L. Magus). 18. Lobate Hinge Area T; L4189; Reg. No. 1200. 37 × 37 mm; Th 0.5 mm; D of rivet heads 7–8 mm; L of rivet shank 10 mm; W of central tube 7 mm; W of sides tubes 8 mm. A copper-alloy lobate hinge of a lorica segmentata cuirass, found outside the wall of the city. The hinge is made from three tubes, of which only part of the central tube has survived; its very crude outlines follow the general lobate shape. The opposite edge exhibits the

typical three lobes, irregularly secured by two rivets rather than three. The remains of the iron shoulder plates are still visible on its back face, gripped by the bent rivets. Compared with the more standardized forms of the lobate hinge (Robinson 1975: Fig. 182), the crude craftsmanship of the Gamla example suggests it was a makeshift repair. Parallels: Rheingönheim, Germany (Ulbert 1969a: Pl. 33, 17)—crudely made. Hinged Buckles (D-Buckle) (Figs. 4.10, 4.11) Attached to either the top back-plate or the breastplate of the armor, the D-shaped buckle is a common find in Palestine, e.g., at Gamla (Nos. 19, 20), Jerusalem (Bliss and Dickie 1898:267; Pl. XXVIII: No. 63; Stiebel 2007: III.12/B.1, 2) and Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:3). The armor of L. Magus (Fig. 4.10) furnishes a fine example. It is manufactured of a thin sheet of copper alloy and fastened to the armor by means of a hinge. This buckle’s frequency in the archaeological record is due to its hinged construction, which made it prone to detachment in the course of battle. There are hinged (Thomas 2002:6–20) and detached (Thomas 2002:56–61) variants.

Chapter 4: Military equipment

0

71

1

Fig. 4.10. D-shaped buckle (Area T, L4019).

19. Hinged Buckle (not illustrated) Area M; Sqs UA24–26; Reg. No. 1494; IAA 2008-1305. Total L (bent) 29+ mm; L of plate (bent) 27+ mm; Th of plate 1.5 mm; D of rivet head 9–10 mm; L of rivet 3.5 mm; D of buckle 16 × 18 mm; D of hinge’s pin 3 mm; L of tongue 18 mm; Th of buckle: 2–3 mm. A hinged copper-alloy (see Chapter 21, Sample No. 16) D-buckle was attached to a leather strap that was sheathed by the folded-over plate and secured by one flat-headed rivet. The buckle is bent over, a common occurrence attested, for example, at Masada and Jerusalem (Bliss and Dickie 1898:267; Pl. XXVIII:63). It was uncovered outside the wall, on the surface, some 50 m south of the synagogue. Parallels: Thomas 2002: Type A. 20. Buckle Hinge Plate (not illustrated) Area S; L5003; Reg. No. 6176. 25.0 × 22.5 mm. D-shaped copper-alloy buckle loop. Parallels: Thomas 2002:56–57, Type Eii. Hinged Strap Fittings (Fig. 4.11) Corbridge Type A armor included hinged straps (Thomas 2002:21–32), of which two examples are documented at Gamla (Nos. 21, 22). The plates of the latter exhibit the frequently embossed concentric circles motif (see above). 21. Hinged Strap Fitting (Fig. 4.11:21) Area T; Sq E22; Reg. No. 1048.

13 × 20 mm; D of rivet heads 5 mm; Th of folded plate 2 mm; L of rivets 5 mm; Th of strap 1 mm; D of hinge (ext.) 3 mm; D of circular stamp 8 mm. Hinged copper-alloy (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 24) plate with two dome-headed rivets. Encircled by two incised concentric rings. Apparently, the leather strap was 2 mm thick. The fitting was either part of a straphinged plate or of a buckle. Parallels: Thomas 2002: Categories A, B. 22. Hinged Strap Fitting (Fig. 4.11:22) Area T; L4021; Reg. No. 1876/1. 29 × 18 mm; Th of plate 1 mm; D of rivet heads 6 mm; L of rivets 3 mm; Th of rivet 3 mm. Elongated copper-alloy plate of strap fitting was folded over and reinforced with two flat-headed rivets; damaged hinge. It was uncovered in the collapse of the building behind the eastern wall of Corridor 4019. A tie-hoop (No. 24) and a suspension loop (No. 89) were found in this locus. Tie-Hoops (Figs. 4.11, 4.12) One of the largest groups of military fittings at Gamla is that of tie-hoops. Some 21 specimens were uncovered, 15 in Area T. This exceptional occurrence is welldocumented at sites of a military nature throughout the Empire, apparently the result of bimetallic corrosion (Bishop 2002:80; Bishop and Coulston 2006:27, 244). All the tie-hoops unearthed in Palestine were hammered. For the Western types of this fitting see Bishop 2002:37–38, Fig. 5.6; Thomas 2002:91–108).

72

Guy D. Stiebel

22

21

23

24

26

25

31 27

28

30

32

29

33

34 39

35 36

40

38 37 0

1

Fig. 4.11. Armor fittings: hinges and tie-hoops.

41

Chapter 4: Military equipment

However, the finds from Gamla indicate the existence of previously unattested types. Many loops of the 21 tiehoops were riveted, a strengthening element that was aimed at solving a common problem—the undesired opening of the loop. The dominance of this feature at Gamla seems to reflect a common convention among the attacking legions; whether this was confined to a specific force is hard to assess at present. A commonly attested feature is the pair of stamped concentric circles around the fastening holes, also attested on hinge plates (Bishop 1987:120, 122). The latter may be the impression made by the tool used to pierce the holes, rather than a decorative element (or alternatively, a combination of the two). As the hoops were made of a relatively thin metal and since the holes were presumably executed at the last stage of production, there was a need to hold the small object very firmly to prevent it from folding over during the piercing. For this reason, I presume the repeating motif of double circles is actually a reflection of the piercing tool—an ancient variant of the modern hole-punch (Stiebel 2007: Fig. 6:5). Type A Simple loop, the body pierced by two rivets with a tapering or straight end. 23. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:23) Area T; L4020; Reg. No. 1807/1. 12 × 25+ mm; D of loop (ext.) 11 mm, W of loop 3 mm; Th of loop 1 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm. Copper-alloy (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 29) tiehoop, with tapering shoulders. The loop is open and the object was broken on the line of the first rivet, the hole of which is visible. The provenance is the floor of the opening in the city’s wall, between the two towers in Area T; the basket also contained a scabbard ornament (No. 76), a scabbard edging (No. 79) and a scabbard chape bearing palmette-end decoration (No. 87). 24. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:24) Area T; L4021; Reg. No. 1845/1. 11 × 18+ mm; D of loop (ext.) 12 mm; W of loop 3 mm; Th of loop 2 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm. Copper-alloy tie-hoop with rounded shoulders. The loop is bent and the object was bent sidewise, causing the break in front of the first rivet. It was uncovered in the collapse of the building behind the eastern wall of Corridor 4019. Also found in this room were a

73

decorative washer (No. 46), a hinged strap fitting (No. 22) and a suspension loop (No. 89). 25. Tie-Foop (Fig. 4.11:25) Area T; Sq C14; Reg. No. 1081. 15 × 17+ mm; D of loop (ext) 10 mm, Th of loop 2 mm; W of loop 3 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm. Copper-alloy tie-hoop, with rounded shoulders. The loop is bent and the object was bent on line with the first rivet, the hole of which is visible. 26. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:26) Area T; L4029; Reg. No. 1905/1. 15 × 21+ mm; D of loop (ext.) 11 mm; Th of loop 1 mm; W of loop 3 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm. Brass (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 28) tie-hoop, with rounded shoulders. The loop is bent and the object was bent on line with the first rivet, the hole of which is visible. A grooved circle encircled the hole. 27. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:27) Area M; L4151; Reg. No. 2491/1. 20 × 15+ mm; D of loop (ext.) 11 mm; Th of loop 2 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm. Brass (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 25) tie-hoop with tapering shoulders. The object was bent in the line of the first rivet, the hole of which is visible. The hole is encircled by a concentric grooved circle. 28. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:28) Area T; L4018; Reg. No. 1819. 9+ × 19+ mm; D of loop (ext.) 12 mm, Th of loop 3 mm; W of loop 2 mm; Th of plate 1 mm. Corroded copper-alloy tie-hoop. The plate is twisted and most of it is missing. 29. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:29) Area S; L1904; Reg. No. 6802. 10 × 35+ mm; D of loop (ext.) 10 mm, Th of loop 2 mm; W of loop 2 mm; Th of plate 0.5–1.0 mm; D of holes 2 mm. Complete copper-alloy tie-hoop with a slightly raised loop. No rivets survived. The rivet holes are encircled by a grooved concentric circle. 30. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:30) Area T; L4036; Reg. No. 2049. 9+ × 17 mm; D of loop (ext.) 12 mm; Th of loop 2 mm; W of loop 2 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm.

74

Guy D. Stiebel

Copper-alloy tie-hoop with rounded shoulders. The loop is slightly bent and the object broke in front of the first rivet. An additional tie-hoop was found in this locus (see below, No. 31). 31. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:31) Area T; L4036; Reg. No. 2072/2. 8 × 16+ mm; D of loop (ext.) 11 mm; Th of loop 1 mm; W of loop 3 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm. Copper-alloy tie-hoop with tapering shoulders. The loop is slightly bent and the object broke in front of the first rivet. An additional tie-hoop was found in this locus (see above, No. 30). Type B Riveted loop, the body pierced by two rivets, often with an expanding end. To the best of my knowledge, no parallels are reported for the riveted loop tie-hoop. 32. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:32) Area T; L4033; Reg. No. 2030/1. L (damaged) 42.5+ mm; Max. W 18 mm; D of hole 2 mm; Th less than 0.5 mm. Broken copper-alloy tie-hoop, lacking its loop. The elongated body widens and is slightly concave in section; it is pierced by an attachment hole. A fragment of segmental armor plate (No. 12) and a caliga nail (No. 57) were reported from this locus. 33. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:33) Area T; L4181; Reg. No. 1096/1. L 46+ mm; loop (ext.) 15 × 12 mm, Th of loop 1 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm. Brass (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 23) tie-hoop with a riveted loop, the rivet now lost. The loop is uniquely square, and a groove runs along the center of its outer face (compare with No. 34, below). The loop is slightly twisted to the side, while the body is missing its wider end, which presumably retained an additional fastening hole. The object was found outside the wall, in front of the two towers. 34. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:34) Area G; L1506; Reg. No. 6614/3. 11 × 9 mm (damaged); W of loop 3 mm; Th of loop 1 mm. Copper-alloy tie-hoop. Only its loop, of square outlines, is preserved. Based on the broken edges of both body and loop, the later was secured to the body with a rivet.

35. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:35) Area M; Sqs A17–18; Reg. No. 2346/1; IAA 1997-4248. L 44 mm; W 11+ mm; D of loop (ext.) 12 mm; Th of loop 2 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm; D of rivet 4 mm. Riveted copper-alloy loop, rivet missing. The loop is bent aside. The other, expanding, end is partly damaged. It still retains a dome-headed rivet. A fragment of lorica segmentata (No. 9), shield binding (No. 64) and scabbard fittings (Nos. 85, 88, 90 were also found in this area. 36. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:36) Area T; L4028; Reg. No. 1886/1. L 43 mm (twisted); W 10 mm; D of loop (ext.) 4 mm, Th of loop 2 mm; Th of plate (max.) 1 mm; D of rivets’ heads 7 and 10 mm. Riveted copper-alloy (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 21) loop. The loop is bent to the side; the other end is partly damaged and slightly expanded. Both flat-head rivets survived, the body of the plate is twisted. This item was uncovered in a room north of the northern tower, opening onto Corridor 4019. Two additional very large tie-hoops were found in this locus (see below, Nos. 37, 38). 37. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:37) Area T; L4028; Reg. No. 1954/1. L 72 mm; W of plate 13 mm; D of loop (ext.) 14 mm, Th of loop 2 mm; Th of plate 1 mm; D of dome-headed rivet 3 mm. Very large riveted brass (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 27) loop tie-hoop 72 mm long. The loop is bent to the side, the rivet missing. The other end retains a domeheaded rivet. It was uncovered in a room north of the northern tower, opening on to Corridor 4019. Another large tie-hoop (see below No. 38) and a riveted loop tie-hoop (see above, No. 36) were found in this locus. 38. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:38) Area T; L4028; Reg. No. 1954/2. L 68 mm (stretched loop); Th of loop 2 mm; D of hole of rivet 3 mm. A fragment of a riveted copper-alloy loop tie-hoop. The fully stretched loop of a large tie-hoop (see previous item); the plate is missing. This locus yielded two additional tie-hoops (above, Nos. 36, 37). It was uncovered in a room, north of the northern tower, which opened onto Corridor 4019.

75

Chapter 4: Military equipment

39. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:39) Area T; L4189; Reg. No. 1182. L 19+ mm; W of plate 12 mm; D of loop (ext.) 18 mm; Th of loop 3 mm; Th of plate 0.5 mm. Only the loop and a small part of the body have survived. The loop is partly bent to the side. The fragmentary copper-alloy tie-hoop was found outside the wall. This locus also yielded a lobate hinge (No. 18).

Broken copper-alloy tie-hoop, lacking its loop. The elongated body widens, and is pierced by a flat head rivet. The same locus yielded a belt mount (No. 94). 43. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.12:43) Area T; L4185; Reg. No. 1115. L 32+ mm; W 17 mm; D of hole 2 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm. Broken brass (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 30) tiehoop, lacking its loop. The elongated body widens and is pierced by an attachment hole.

40. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:40) Area T; Sq C18, Reg. No.1074. L 19+ mm; W of plate: 10+ mm; D of loop (ext.) 12 mm; Th of loop 2 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm. A fragmentary copper-alloy tie-hoop. The loop and merely a small part of the body survived. The loop is partly bent to the side.

Type C Simple loop, the body pierced by one rivet whose body expands toward the end. 44. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.12:44) Area T; L4031; Reg. No. 2041/1. L 39 mm; W of plate 11 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm; W of loop 3 mm; Th of loop 1 mm; D of rivet head 7–9 mm; Th of head 1 mm. A simple tapering brass (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 26) strap. The thin end curls to form the loop and the body has a single, flat rivet. The crude nature of the body and rivet-head might indicate a hasty repair. Fragments of U-guttering edge-binding were uncovered in this locus (see above, Nos. 3, 4). Parallels: Vechten, the Netherlands (Kalee 1989:217, No. 20, Fig. 20).

41. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.11:41) Area T; L4032; Reg. No. 2059/1. 11 × 18+ mm; D of loop 11 mm; Th of loop 1 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm. Copper-alloy tie-hoop. Only the circular loop (of the rectangular section) and a small part of the plate have survived. Its distorted position indicates that the tiehoop was torn from the lorica’s plate. 42. Tie-Hoop (Fig. 4.12:42) Area T; Sqs B4–6; Reg. No. 1411/1. L 35 mm; W 14 mm; Th of plate less than 0.5 mm; D of rivet 70 mm.

42

43

44

0

45

47

1

48

Fig. 4.12. Armor fittings: tie-hoops, washers and a leathering rove.

76

Guy D. Stiebel

Decorated Washers (Fig. 4.12) During the early Principate, floral washers decorated helmets and articulated armor. In Palestine, decorative washers (three examples) are attested only at Gamla. This example exhibits the typical floral design, and it is difficult to differentiate between the washers that decorated helmet cheek-pieces and lorica segmentata plates, though one washer from Gamla is still attached to the plate beside a lobate hinge (Fig. 4.9:17a). Thomas has collected evidence for three subtypes (Thomas 2002:114–117, Type Ji–iii). An X-ray exposure of a plate fragment from Gamla demonstrates the attachment technique (Fig. 4.9:17a). 45. Decorated Washer (Fig. 4.12:45) Area T; Sq C18; Reg. No. 1164; IAA 1997–4270. D (estimated) 42 mm; D of central hole 3 mm; Th 0.5 mm (and less); Wt 0.9+ g. A copper-alloy washer embossed in a rosette design. The embossed petals are spaced around the central attachment hole, and vertical lines divide the spaces between the petals. The petals are circumscribed with three circles: the outer two are comprised of dots (1.5 mm each) and the inner circle is composed of embossed vertical lines (2 mm long). The object is very flimsy and part of its perimeter is missing. Such washers decorated the breast and shoulder plates of the lorica segmentata, and constitute a very common find in the militaria assemblages unearthed throughout the Empire. Parallels: Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Pl. 31:637–657, mainly 641 with references); Longthorpe, England (Dannell and Wild 1987:89:22, Fig. 21 with references therein). 46. Decorated Washer (not illustrated) Area T; L4027; Reg. No.1831/2–3. D 23 mm; D of hole: 4 mm; Th 0.5 mm (and less). Decorative copper-alloy rosette boss with a central attachment hole, in two matching parts. The design of external and internal circles with raised radial lines was embossed on a sheet, its circular outlines roughly cut. Part of its perimeter is damaged. The object was uncovered in the collapse of the building behind the eastern wall of Corridor 4019, where a fragment of segmental armor (No. 13), a scabbard mount (No. 77) and scabbard binding (No. 81) were found. Parallels: see above, No. 45.

47. Decorated Washer (Fig. 4.12:47) Area T; Sq R6; Reg. No. 1339/1. D of washer 33 mm; W of flange 2 mm; H of washer 5 mm; Th less than 0.5 mm; D of central hole 5 mm. Embossed brass washer (see see Chapter 21: Sample No. 14). The ornamental boss has a cable-like perimeter and floral pattern. Only half of the object survived. Parallels: see above, No. 45. Leathering Roves 48. Leathering Washer/Rove (Fig. 4.12:48) Area M; Sqs UA1–2; Reg. No. 1660/1. 16 ×17 mm; Th 1 mm; D of hole 2 mm. A square copper-alloy plate with a single fastening hole. Leathering rove of segmental armor. Parallels: Thomas 2002:118–119, Type Ki. Scale Armor (lorica squamata) (Fig. 4.13) The mid-rib is a very prominent feature in the structure of scales from Palestine, in distinct contrast to the situation in the West, where the mid-rib is very rare and appears mainly on sculpted monuments.15 This element contributed to the scale’s sturdiness, especially in the case of copper-alloy scales (particularly brass). In addition, the mid-rib provided an enhanced adjustment for the overlapping scale with its adjacent scales (an adjustment that theoretically may have reduced the pressure from the linking wires and in the long run diminished the attrition of the cuirass). The mid-rib is typical of the late first century BCE–first century CE and seems to have disappeared by the second century, as none of the Second Revolt scales exhibit it. Copper-Alloy Scales 49. Copper-Alloy Scale (Fig. 4.13:49) Area T; Sq C19; Reg. No. 1082; IAA 1990-3017. L 28 mm; W 13 mm; Th 1 mm; D of holes 1.5–2.0 mm. Single copper-alloy (brass?) scale, long with embossed rim and mid-rib and four small attachment holes in the upper center. It belongs to Type 1 (Stiebel 2007:47). The scale was tinned and not silver-plated as claimed by Gutmann (1994:74, bottom). It was found near the surface, outside and opposite a massive part of the southern wall. Parallels: Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:1–2).

77

Chapter 4: Military equipment

49

51

50

52

53 0

1

Fig. 4.13. Armor scales.

50. Pair of Copper-Alloy Scales (Fig. 4.13:50) Area S; L5022; Reg. No. 7552; IAA 1099-3016. L 32 mm; W 16 mm; D of holes 1 mm. Fastened pair of copper-alloy scales (Type 7; Stiebel 2007:47) with four attachment holes in the upper central part of the scale and two pairs of lateral fastening holes. A mid-rib runs along their vertical axis. The scales are attached by a thin copper-alloy wire. They were unearthed in an undefined area above the oil-press complex in the Western Quarter, far from the wall. Interestingly, the mid-rib was not used as a divider—the edge of the overlapping scale does not reach it, confirming the notion that the mid-rib functioned primarily as a strengthening feature (Stiebel 2007:48). Parallels: Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:1–2). Iron Scales Iron scales are not a common find in Israel, unlike the Roman West. To date, they have been reported from Herodian Jericho (Stiebel 2007:I.4/B.1, 2), from Masada in the context of the Jewish War—a single scale (Stiebel and Magness 2007: Pl. 2:3)—and at Sepphoris—a complete iron scale cuirass (Stiebel 2007: III.6/B.1). Ferrous scales were reported from the hoard of weapons allegedly found in a cave near

Hebron (Weinberg 1979; Stiebel 2007: V.31/B.2, 3) and from Tell ‘Azeqa (Bliss and Macalister 1902:150), in both cases dated to the Second Revolt. The large iron scales from Gamla (Type 12; Stiebel 2007:47) may have been part of horse armor; they are of special interest as presumably, they reflect Asiatic, or, more precisely, Parthian influence, which is noticeably represented in the Durene sets of horse armor (Mielczarek 1993; James 2004:113–114). 51. Iron Scale (Fig. 4.13:51) Area T; L4002; Reg. No. 1054. L 33 mm; W 23 mm; Th 1 mm; D of hole 2 mm. Corroded iron scale, right upper corner missing. Its lower end was cut into a sharp point, whose tip is slightly off axis, and two fastening holes are visible along its upper end. A pair of holes is spaced in the middle of the left edge; the parallel pair on its right edge is missing due to corrosion. The upper part of the body is flat, while the lower half is slightly convex. This feature is also attested at Tell ‘Azeqa (Bliss and Macalister 1902:150) and in the West (Robinson 1975:154, Pls. 436, 439, 441) and may have had functional advantages, as it strengthens the scale’s structure and thus assisted in deflecting incoming missiles.

78

Guy D. Stiebel

Parallels: von Groller 1901: Pl. XV, No. 22. In Palestine, from Sepphoris (Stiebel 2007: III.6/B.1); Herodian Jericho (Stiebel 2007: I.4/B.1–2); Tell ‘Azeqa (Bliss and Macalister 1902:150, Fig. 62); and Hebron (Weinberg 1979). 52. Iron Scale (Fig. 4.13:52) Area T; Sqs R4–6; Reg. No. 1223. L (upper end damaged) 51+ mm; W 35 mm; Th 1 mm; D of holes 3–4 mm; H of curve 5 mm. Large, corroded iron scale, convex along its centerline. Its upper end, chipped, was originally straight. A vertical pair of fastening holes is pierced at its left upper end. An additional vertical pair may have been pierced at its right upper end, of which only the lower hole remains. There appear to be two pairs of pierced vertical fastening holes and an additional hole between these two pairs. A single hole is visible at the lower right end. The lower end was cut to an angular point, damaged by a 10 mm slice. The scale’s size may indicate it was part of a horse’s scale-armor. 53. Iron Scale? (Fig. 4.13:53) Area S; L2025; Reg. No. 3832. L (chipped) 39+ mm; W of lower end 36 mm; W of upper end 19 mm; Th 1 mm; D of rivets 3–4 mm; L of central rivet 6 mm. This flat iron scale-like object has a trapezoidal outline and a curved lower edge. Three holes were spaced at its upper end and still retain their short rivets. No exact parallels are known, and the fastening rivets, instead of the usual wires, hinder its identification as a scale. However, irregularly-shaped scales are reported, some of them bearing a resemblance to the outline of this object; see e.g., scales from Volubilis and Thamusida, Morocco (Boube-Piccot 1994:54, Nos. 23–25, Pl. 2). It was found in the Western Quarter, far from the wall.

Limb Defenses (Figs. 4.14–4.18) Analysis of the skeletal remains found in Maiden Castle and Wisby indicated that the limbs are the most vulnerable part of the warrior’s body in face-to-face combat (Goldsworthy 1996:219–221), particularly the right hand and legs (mainly the left leg, which was closer to the enemy). The standard protective Roman gear included a helmet, armor that covered the torso and shoulders and a large shield. This gear left the limbs exposed, mainly to slashing injuries. Thus, well-

protected as he was, the Roman soldier was far from being invulnerable. An occurrence during the siege of Jerusalem illustrates the dangers that faced the armored Roman soldier (Josephus, War 6.1.6 [63–66]). The emphasis placed on shielding the limbs, common during the Republic, declined in the early Principate, only to be revived again in the early second century CE. These changes were not merely fashion trends but were a response to the enemies that the Romans encountered (Robinson 1975:186; Goldsworthy 1996:221). The protective elements follow two types of construction: articulated plate guards and solid guards (see below). Although most of the protective devices reported were made of metal, wide use was apparently made of leather and cloth elements, for padding and as defenses in their own right. Such protective equipment was frequently employed in gladiatorial games (Junkelmann 2000), while a leather thigh guard is known from DuraEuropos (James 2004:113, Nos. 441, 442). Articulated Plate Defenses The use of laminated plate limb defenses is documented in Hellenistic armies. The weapon frieze reliefs from Pergamon depict laminated armguards that were presumably used in conjunction with the muscled cuirass (Bar-Kochva 1980:22, 43, 189). According to Bishop (2002:18, 20, Fig. 4.4), fragments of Hellenistic laminated iron armor from Pergamon may be the prototypes for the Roman laminated armor. A thighdefense was unearthed at ‘Aī Khanoum (Bernard et al. 1980:60–63, Pl. XXXVIa), as well as an armguard (Bernard 1980:452–457, Fig. 11; Bishop 2002:18, Fig. 4.3). Thigh Guard The Near East had a prolonged tradition of laminated armor that was particularly developed among the armored cavalry of the Parthians, and which also influenced the Sarmatians (Robinson 1975:186). A depiction of thigh-guards is found on a denarius of Augustus from 20 BCE, in which a Parthian is seen returning one of the legionary standards lost by Crassus.16 The thigh guard was of great value to the cavalryman, protecting his most vulnerable upper thighs (Bishop 2002:73–75). 54. Thigh Guard (Cuisse) (Figs. 4.14–4.17) Area B; L1296; Reg. No. 3134.

Chapter 4: Military equipment

79

Fig. 4.14. Thigh guard; note the plates and organic remains. Fig. 4.16. Thigh guard, detail; note the rivet and organic remains.

Fig. 4.15. Thigh guard, detail; note the organic remains of the leather strapping.

Fragmentary iron plates from a thigh guard. This rare example of a thigh defense is dated to the second half of the first century BCE. The device was clearly curved. The length of the upper plate is at least 300 mm; none of its side edges has been identified as yet. The width of the plates ranges between 40 mm and 50 mm and the thickness is 2–3 mm. The lower plates exhibit straight side edges. The lengths of the plates apparently shorten down the thigh; one side revealed a difference of 10 mm. The overlapping iron plates were secured by copper-alloy rivets to leather straps that ran on the backs, the oxidation residues of which are still visible on the plates (Figs. 4.15–4.17). Differing from the round and flat terminals of the manicae rivets, the attachment rivets of the thigh guard are bent at a rightangle (Fig. 4.17). The bent shanks indicate the inner face of the plates, implying that, like the manica, the thigh guard’s plates overlapped upward (Figs. 4.15,

Fig. 4.17. Thigh guard, detail; note the bent rivets and organic remains.

4.16; Bishop 2002:69). The inner leathers were 3 mm thick, as the bent shanks testify. The diameter of the flat-headed rivets is 7 mm. The perimeter of the upper plate is perforated, 6 mm from the edge, and holes 2 mm in diameter are spaced consecutively 10–11 mm from each other. An additional series of holes is spaced 13 mm from the edge. The oxidation of the leather straps suggests that the upper edge of the upper plate was bound by a 10 mm strap on both the outer and inner faces. The internal leathers were arranged along both the long and short axes. The lateral straps protected the inner edges, while the longitudinal straps provided added strength to the articulated plates. This notion is supported by the alternating right-angled arrangement of the rivets (Fig. 4.17), some of which are bent horizontally, while others are bent vertically. This arrangement indicates that the rivets were seemingly bent along the axis of the straps.

80

Guy D. Stiebel

Two possible instances of battle damage are visible on the plates of the thigh guard from Gamla, both the result of blows from an edged weapon(?), which caused their distortions. Battle damage was observed on the brow-guard from Gamla (No. 2) and on three fragments of laminated armor plates (cf. Bishop 2002:83–84). In the East, the thigh guard was evidently in use during the Late Roman period. James reports the discovery of the lower end of a thigh guard of laminated iron armor in the necropolis of Dura-Europos (James 2004: No. 446, Figs. 71 [upper], 72). Two leather thigh guards were uncovered in the collapsed Tower 19 (James 2004: Nos. 441, 442, Figs. 64–67).17 A graffito from Dura-Europos (third century CE) depicts a clibanarius with arm and leg guards (Dixon and Southern 1992: Fig. 10), and illuminations in the Notitia Dignitatum manuscripts suggest that such devices were still employed in the fifth century CE (Not. Dig. Or. XI.2; Not. Dig. Occ. IX.2; Figs. D:3–4).18 Armguard (Manica) It is commonly accepted that only in the early second century CE did Roman soldiers re-equip themselves with limb defenses. The arms of the legionaries on the Adamklissi monument are protected by manicae, possibly against the Dacian falces (Florescu 1965: Figs. 189, 190, 195, 197–201, 204, 212, 217, 221). Nevertheless, as indicated by funerary art (Selzer 1988: No. 59), Bishop and Coulston (2006:98–100) have argued that the employment of manicae was more extensive in the Roman military and that their appearance should not necessarily be confined to Trajan’s campaigns. A comprehensive review of the segmental armguard has been published (Bishop 2002:68–71). Shoulder-Guard (Galerus) 55. Shoulder-guard of a manica? (Fig. 4.18:55) Probably Area T, L4019. L 80 mm; W 132 mm; H of curved cross-section 15 mm; D of holes 3 mm; D of rivet heads (imprint) 11–12 mm; Th of rivet shanks 2 mm; L of preserved shanks 6 mm; Wt 44.69 g. This peculiar object from Gamla may add further evidence for the early introduction of the armguard. It was found in one of the boxes containing parts of the panoply of L. Magus; hence, it may have originally been part of this assemblage. The semicircular metal article

has a curved cross-section. Its front face is tinned and the perimeter is perforated with fifteen holes (2–3 mm in diameter). The latter indicates that it was originally mounted on a leather(?) lining, the scanty remains of which are visible on the inner face. The delicate circles visible around some of the holes may indicate the use of domed-head rivets. Its outline bears a considerable resemblance to the shoulder plate (galerus) of the manica of a secutor statuette from the Musée de l’Arles Antique, France (Junkelmann 2000: Fig. 62). If this correlation is correct, it leads to the suggestion that legionaries were equipped with armguards as early as the second half of the first century CE, as implied by the tombstone of Sex. Valerius Severus (Selzer 1988: No. 59). These few examples seem to be in accordance with the date suggested by Robinson for the adoption of armguards by gladiators in the late first century CE (Robinson 1975:186).19

Military Footwear Caliga Hobnails 56. Caliga Hobnail (Fig. 4.18:56) Area R north; L5101; Reg. No. 4044/1. D of head 11 mm; H of head 6 mm; L of shank (bent) 12 mm; Th of shank 3 mm. Dome-headed iron caliga nail with a square bent crosssectioned shank. The head is damaged by corrosion. It was found near the living level of the room together with a pommel fitting (No. 71) and an iron U-guttering sheath (No. 78). Parallels: Siege camps—Masada (Gutmann 1964: 115), Herodium (Stiebel 2003: No. 1, 223, Fig. 7: upper), Samaria (Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924:350:5, Pl. 82:k10); H. ‘Itri (Bordowicz 2001:45–48), Ketef Hinnom, Jerusalem (Bordowicz 2001:43–44), H. Salit (Kh. Salantah; Stiebel 2007:V.32/D.1–3), Kh. Hilal (Stiebel 2007:V.34/D.1–2), Abi’or Cave (Eshel 1988; Eshel and Zissu 1998:142–143, Fig. 27; Bordowicz 2001:45–48), Cave of the Sandal (Stiebel 2007:V.14/D.1), Cave el-Jay (Eshel, Zissu and Frumkin 1998:98, Pl. 2:4) and Kfar el-Maker (Shaked 1997:26). 57. Caliga Hobnail (not illustrated) Area T; L4033; Reg. No. 2030/3. D of head 11 mm; H of head 6 mm; H 9+ mm; Th of shank 3 mm; Th of head 1 mm.

81

Chapter 4: Military equipment

0

55

56

2

58 59

0

1

Fig. 4.18. Limb defense and Caliga hobnails.

Iron caliga nail with pointed domed head. This locus yielded a fragment of lorica segmentata (No. 12) and a tie-hoop (No. 32). Parallels: see above, No.56. 58. Caliga Hobnail (Fig. 4.18:58) Area S; L1921; Reg. No. 8230. D of head 11 mm; H of head 5 mm; H 11 mm. Dome-headed iron caliga nail; broken stem. Parallels: See above, No. 56. 59. Caliga Hobnail (Fig. 4.18:59) Area R north; L5153; Reg. No. 5300. D of head 13 mm; H of head 4+ mm. Dome-headed iron caliga nail with bent squaresectioned shank.

Shields Josephus, in his description of the first Roman attack on Gamla, notes the employment of the testudo maneuver

that saved the life of Vespasian (War 4.1.5 [33–34]). The assemblage from Gamla comprises most of the non-organic components of the Roman shield: bosses, iron handgrips or reinforcing strips, copper-alloy binding and a rare group of ownership tags. Bosses (Umbones) Two identical circular bosses were found at Gamla. This type is traditionally associated with the auxiliary shield (Bishop and Coulston 2006:91, 257). The remarkable resemblance of the decorated bosses appears to suggest the same origin of production, seemingly indicating the owners served in the same unit. Both bosses seem to have been manufactured by spinning technique. Commonly associated with the shield carried by auxiliary forces, this type differs from most of the Western artifactual and sculpted examples that commonly exhibit a wide flange. Nevertheless, examples from Volubilis and Vindonissa suggest that two subtypes of bosses, with wide and narrow flanges, coexisted contemporaneously (Boube-Piccot

82

Guy D. Stiebel

1994:137–138, Nos. 218–221, Pls. 84, 85; Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 566–568, Pl. 27 [iron]). The perimeter of both the Gamla specimens is identically decorated with a running pattern of punched dots, while punched nipples crown the bowls’ centers, indicating, in all likelihood, one workshop. Holes and iron corrosion residues (rust) testify that the bosses were fastened to the shield board by four iron rivets (since perished) that were spaced equidistant around the flanges. This very same arrangement is found on the umbo from Volubilis (Boube-Piccot 1994: No. 218) and is faithfully depicted on one of the Mainz principia pedestal reliefs (Selzer 1988:244, No. 271). 60. Circular Boss (Fig. 4.19:60) IAA 1997-4338; Area R/S, surface; Reg. No. 7794. D of boss approx. 135 mm; D of bowl 70 mm; D of central nipple decoration 11 mm; D of large dots 5–6 mm; D of small dots 1–2 mm; Wt 29.4+ g. A circular copper-alloy boss; some 50% is missing. An embossed nipple decorates its center. Two blows from an edged weapon(?) damaged the center section. A running motif of two interlacing lines of embossed dots decorates the flange’s perimeter, while a second line of larger embossed dots decorates the middle part of the flange. Two attachment holes out of four survived, with traces of iron corrosion. It was found on the surface in the Western Quarter, which is situated below the peak of the hill. An identical boss was found east of the city (see below, No. 61). 61. Circular Boss (Fig. 4.19:61) Survey find. Site 21-25/96/2 (Eastern Cemetery), Permit No. G-28/1997 (information courtesy of Y. Ben-Ephraim and M. Hartal). D 141–142 mm; D of bowl 70 mm; central oval decoration 13 × 16 mm; Wt 59.72+ g. Near complete circular, copper-alloy boss. The boss bears a striking resemblance to the additional boss that was found within the city (see above, No. 60). A small part of its perimeter is now missing. A shallow bowl, decorated with an oval nipple-like element, rises in the boss’ center. The perimeter of the boss features an embossed dot decoration, and an interlacing motif of two lines of small dots adorns its edge, with an additional line of larger dots ornamenting the center. The boss was attached to the shield board with four iron nails, evenly spaced along its perimeter, attested by the four holes, which still retain clear iron corrosion

residues. The boss suffered a blow from a long, thin object, possibly an edged weapon that left its mark on its face.20 Shield Reinforcing Strips/Grips 62. Shield Reinforcing Strip/Grip (Fig. 4.19:62) Area T; L4019. L 300 mm (bent), 360 mm (stretched); W 12 mm. The remains that are associated with the panoply of L. Magus retain an iron strip; both its ends exhibit flat circular terminals. Such objects were used to reinforce the board. Compare with No. 63, below. Parallels: Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:22, Pl. 22:3); Betar (Kirshner 1946:159, Fig. 3, left— third from above). For Western examples: Hod Hill (Manning 1985:147, T9–T10) and Bar Hill (Robertson, Scott and Keppie 1975:100, Figs. 33, 19), England; Strasbourg (Forrer 1927: Pl. LXXIX: E); Bonner Berg (van Driel-Murray and Gechter 1983:59, Pl. 16: 28), Rheingönheim (Ulbert 1969a:52, Pl. 47, 1–4) and Hofheim (Ritterling 1913:144, Pl. XVIII, 1–17), Germany; Carnuntum, Austria (von Groller 1901:106; Pl. IX:30–32. 63. Shield Reinforcing Strip/Grip (Fig. 4.19:63) Area T; Sq C17; Reg. No. 1029/1. Fragment 1: L (curved) 170 mm; W 12 mm; Th 2.5–3.0 mm; W of terminal 16 mm. Fragment 2: L (curved) 155 mm; W 12–14 mm; Th 2–3 mm; W of terminal 17 mm. Two corroded fragments of an iron strip. Both terminate in a bent round element, pierced in its center. While they are surely parts of the same bar, the two fragments do not match due to corrosion. Parallels: See above, No. 62. 64. Shield binding (Fig. 4.19:64) Area M; Sqs A17–18; Reg. No. 2346/2. L 59+ mm; W 17 mm; D of hole 2 mm; Th less than 0.5 mm. Small fragment of brass U-binding (see Chapter 21, Sample No. 22). One hole for attachment is visible on the body, rather than attaching through a lobate, which is typical of the West. A fragment of lorica segmentata (No. 9), a tie-hoop (No. 35) and scabbard fittings (Nos. 85, 88, 90) were found with it. 65. Six fragments of shield binding (not illustrated) Area T; L4019; Reg. No. 1937/2.

83

Chapter 4: Military equipment

60

61

62

63a

63b

0

2

Fig. 4.19. Shield parts and fittings.

64

84

Guy D. Stiebel

Fragment 1: 60+ × 23 mm (unfolded?) with hole. Fragment 2: 60+ × 16 mm. Fragment 3: 36+ × 14 mm. Fragment 4: 39 ×12 mm+ with rivet. Fragment 5: 45+ ×14 mm with two holes. Fragment 6: 23 × 17+ mm with hole. Six small fragments of copper-alloy U-binding associated with the panoply of L. Magus together with four copper-alloy flat-headed attachment rivets, one of which is still fastened to the binding.

the reasons the veles dressed in wolf skins. Germans apparently identified Roman units by their shield devices in the fourth century (Ammianus Marcellinus, Historia Romana 16.12.6; cf. Claudianus, De Bello Gildonico 423), a period of time for which we possess even more explicit testimony. In his description of the ancient legion, Vegetius discusses the practice of marking the name upon the shield: 18. The names and ranks of soldiers are to be written on the face21 of their shields. ...also the name of each soldier was inscribed in letters on the face of his shield, with a note of which cohort or century he was from (Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris 2.18).

Ownership Tags (Fig. 4.20) Among the remains of legionary panoply from Gamla was a tag that provides us with the soldier’s name and his unit. In fact, two more such tags were uncovered at the site. Before discussing these tags, let us review the Roman custom of marking the shield with names. Cassius Dio referred to the introduction of a new regulation by Tettius Julianus during the Dacian War (c. 89 CE): Julianus, who was appointed by the emperor to conduct the war, made many excellent regulations, one being his order that the soldiers should inscribe their own names as well as those of their centurions upon their shields, in order that those of their number who should perform any particularly good or base deed might be more readily recognized (Cassius Dio, Historia Romana 7.67.10.1).

This practice officially institutionalized the common individual effort for prominence on the battlefield in order to win the recognition of the commanders. Polybius (Histories 6.22) notes this ambition as one of

66

Yet, do the small tags from Gamla have anything to do with this practice? Various sculpted monuments clearly indicate that small tabula ansata-shaped notae adorned Roman shields, spaced on both sides of the umbo. Such features decorate the shield of a Roman soldier, depicted on a Flavian stone relief from the praetorium at Mainz (Selzer 1988: No. 259). A funerary monument, which is dated to the first half of the first century CE, depicts the image of Gnaeus Musius, an aquilifer of legio XIV Gemina. In the shield’s center are what appear to be two diminutive items, spaced on both sides of the elaborate umbo. Careful examination reveals that they are both shaped as tabulae ansatae (Robinson 1975: Pl. 468). The very realistic and detailed execution of the overall tombstone adds to the reliability of this testimony, which accords well with the finds from Gamla. Dio Cassius’ reasoning for this practice is clearly not applicable here, for it seems highly improbable

67

68

0

1

Fig. 4.20. Ownership tags.

Chapter 4: Military equipment

for anyone to read the small-sized notae, particularly during the heat of battle. It seems that the answer to the purpose of the Gamla finds is simpler. Numerous unskillfully executed inscriptions on arms, with the formula of the owner’s name and unit, some in the shape of tabula ansatae, have been found (Robinson 1975: Pls. 141, 142; Oldenstein 1976:192–193, 265– 266, Nos. 756–765, Pl. 60; The Roman Inscriptions of Britain 2427.18–20; Macmullen 1960). Such inscriptions were evidently intended to serve as ownership tags, to be used among the soldiers themselves, so that a soldier would not take equipment that was not his, mistakenly or not. This practice probably also prevented more serious misunderstandings, like stealing. The crude technique of the punched letters in the Gamla articles and the cursive script may be a hint that the owners wrote the tags themselves. The three copper-alloy shield tags uncovered share the outlines of a tabula ansata, and lateral attachment holes pierce the thin tags’ ears. All three bore punched inscriptions (punctim).22 66. Ownership tag (Fig. 4.20:66) Area T, L4019; Reg. No. 1937; IAA 2007-3002. 60 × 30 mm; D of attachment holes 20 mm; H of letters 7–8 mm. Tabula ansata tag from amongst the panoply of L. Magus, the Roman soldier found in L4019 (see above), which, in addition to helmet fittings, fragments of a lorica segmentata armor, a gladius scabbard chape and the handle of a pugio, also included a shield’s reinforcement bar. The three-line inscription was punched in dots. Diplomatic Transcript: > MVSI L MAGI > GALLI

Translation: of the century of Mus(us) / Musi (property) of L(ucius) Mag(us) of the century of Gall(us)

The duplication of the centuria is of interest. Judging from the lines’ layout and the spacing on the note,

85

it seems that the original inscription comprised only the second and third lines, and that the somewhat squeezed-in legend, > MVSI, was added later. The association of multiple units with one soldier is not common in ownership inscriptions. However, a Flavian inscription on a circular boss from Zwammerdam (Nigerum Pullum; the Netherlands) mentions both: T VERACIS PVPI and T MANSVETI PVPI (Haalebos and Bogaers 1970), suggesting the soldier Papus either served in two turmae or under two different commanders. Similarly, it seems reasonable to assume that L. Magus either changed centuriae or that his commanders had shifted. Lucius Magus23 was a citizen soldier. If we are to trust Josephus’ account about the deployment of the forces on the battlefield, he did not serve in legio XV Appolinaris, as the latter was positioned in the sector “over against the point where stood the highest tower in the town” (War 4.1.3 [13]), whereas the tag was found in Area T, at the other end of the wall. Thus, he either served in legio V Macedonica, which fought against the “center of the city” (War 4.1.3 [13]), or in legio X Fretensis, that was “employed in filling up the trenches and ravines” (War 4.1.3 [13]). It is commonly accepted that two legions were involved in the actual fighting and that legio X Fretensis was engaged in the trench-works. Therefore, this soldier must be affiliated to legio V Macedonica. However, this interpretation of the topographical deployment of the legions against the city walls, from top to bottom, neglects the sector that consists of the lower part of the wall, near the ravine of Nahal Daliyyot. If legio XV Appolinaris was engaged with a very limited sector of the round tower, it is hard to conceive that legio V Macedonica was fighting against the entire length of the wall, especially in light of Josephus’ explicit words that it was fighting “opposite the center of the city” (κατα μέσην εξειργάζετο την πόλιν; War 4.1.3 [13]). Returning to the Greek text that applies to the tasks of legio X, besides the filling up of the trenches (τας δε διώρυγας άνεπλήρου), Josephus further writes: και τας φάραγγας. Could this apply to the defensive fossa along the wall (War 4.1.1 [6]; see Chapter 1), also in the lower sector of the city, that reached the ravine of Nahal Daliyyot? If so, it would imply that legio X Fretensis took a far more active role in the battle. Josephus refers to a Syrian centurion and his ten Syrian soldiers who were trapped within the boundaries of the city following the first assault (War 4.1.5 [37–38]), a

86

Guy D. Stiebel

fact that accords well with the origin of the soldiers of the X Fretensis. The assignment of Lucius Magus to a legion remains uncertain and the Syrian legion could be one among other options. The officers’ names deserve some thought. The first to be noted is the century MVSI. The standard reading would be Musus, a very rare cognomen. I could not find it in the military nomenclature. A single reference is made to a Greek sculptor, “… whoever this Musus may have been…” (Pausanius, The Description of Greece 5.24.1). We are familiar with the famous lineage of Publius Decius Mus, who, according to legend, sacrificed their lives (fourth– third centuries BCE). The abbreviated version of Mus[... is documented in several military inscriptions (e.g., Suolahti 1955:375, No. 157).24 This cognomen may have stood for Musius; a celebrated example is Gnaeus Musius, an aquilifer of the legio XIV Gemina, Mainz. Since the cognomen Musus is yet unattested, an alternative reading was sought. It appears that Musi may be interpreted as a man who came from Musia or Moesia, similarly to Suri, representing a man of Syrian origin (Lewis and Short 1879 s.v.).25 Thus, this centurion may have been of Moesian origin, which granted him his name.26 In addition, as noted in the third line, L. Magus served under the command of a centurion name Gallus (lit. Gallic), a well-attested cognomen. In a remarkable coincidence, the only centurion name noted by Josephus in his account of the battle at Gamla was that of Gallus (Γάλλος; War 4.1.5 [37–38]). Although very tempting, it seems farfetched to suggest identifying the centurion noted in the ownership inscription with the very Gallus mentioned by Josephus. Nevertheless, be that as it may, it is a vivid relic from the fight witnessed by Josephus during his first steps alongside the Flavians. 67. Ownership Tag (Fig. 4.20:67) Area T; Sqs R/S7–8; Reg. No. 1351. W 25 mm+; H 18.5 mm; D of attachment hole 2.5 mm; H of letters 5.5–6.5 mm; Wt 0.9 g. Tag uncovered near the surface, outside the wall, near the two towers in Area T and close to Corridor 4019. Diplomatic Transcript: C VETỌ[ C · LICI[

Translation: of the century of Veto(nius) (property) of C(aius) Lici(nius) / Lici(nianus)  

The point that follows the letter C in the prefix of the second line suggests the reading of the praenomen Gaius, whereas the letter C in the first line appears to mark the centuria, following the formula of naming both the soldier and the unit. For the cognomen, Licinius, see Kajanto 1965:204. 68. Ownership Tag (Fig. 4.20:68) Area M; Sq A15, Reg. No. 2203; IAA 1997-4245. L 18.5 mm; W 25+ mm; D of hole 2.5 mm; H of letters 5.5–6.5 mm; Wt 0.9 g. Diplomatic Transcript: > PIO

Translation: the century of Pius The cognomen Pio appears as a variation of Pius (lit. pious, dutiful, affectionate, holy).

Offensive Equipment Edged Weapons (Figs. 4.21–4.24) Swords In the narration of the chaos that prevailed in the city after the collapse of the houses’ roofs, during the first Roman attack, Josephus writes: Seeing in this the interposition of divine providence, the men of Gamala pressed their attack regardless of their own casualties; they forced the enemy, stumbling in the steep alleys, up on the roofs and with a continual fire from above slew any who fell. The debris supplied them with boulders in abundance and the enemy’s dead with blades; for they wrested the swords from the fallen and used them to dispatch any still struggling in death (War 4.1.4 [26–27]).

87

Chapter 4: Military equipment

Interestingly, while numerous scabbards’ fittings were uncovered, not a single blade of an edged weapon was found, but one handle of a pugio. 69. Votive Model of a Sword (Fig. 4.21:69) Area B; L1292; Reg. No. 2323. L 101.5 mm; L of blade 59.5 mm; W of blade 14 mm; Th of blade 3 mm; L of pommel 9 mm; D of pommel 11 mm; handgrip 8.0 × 6.5 mm; H of handguard 6 mm; L of handguard 28 mm; Th of handgrip 6 mm. Unique votive model of a sword unearthed in Area B, with pottery from the first century BCE. Though its pommel and handle have been slightly affected by corrosion, the iron sword is in a good state of preservation. The ridged pommel surmounting the handle is decorated by consecutive oblique grooves (cf. handgrip from Dangstetten, Germany; Bishop and Coulston 2006: Fig. 40:2b). The handle is defined by a pair of horizontal grooves and terminates in a reeded handguard; the blade features an oar-like shape.

A possible example of a curved sword was found at Binyane Ha-Uma (Stiebel 2007: V.15/F.1). Votive weapons are well-attested throughout the Roman world (Bishop and Coulston 2006:19, 161). Hilt Fittings 70. Pugio Handle (Fig. 4.21:70) Area T; L4019; Reg. No. 1937/4. L 93 mm; W of handguard 46 mm; W of middle swelling 21 mm; W of handle 12–13 mm; Th 2 mm; D of central rivet head 5–6 mm; L of pommel 23; W of pommel 26 mm; D of holes of pommel 2 mm; D of holes of handguard 2 mm. A typical iron handle of the military pugio belonging to L. Magus. The composite handle had an inverted ‘T’ shape with a central swelling and an additional swelling at the top, which formed a pommel. Two iron faces fastened by copper-alloy rivets sheathed a wooden core (Obmann 1992; Bishop and Coulston 2006: Fig. 43.1),

71

69

70 0

1

0

2

Fig. 4.21. Sword fittings.

0

1

88

Guy D. Stiebel

though only one iron face was found at Gamla. It had a pair of lateral attachments holes in the handguard, two more holes in the pommel’s center and a large rivet in the central swelling. Copper-alloy rivets were used; the central and left rivets of the pommel survived and are still discernible in the X-ray image. Parallels: Obmann 2000: Nos. 1–23; Pls. 30–32; Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 191– 205, Pl. 11, p. 18 and see references therein). 71. Pommel Fitting (Fig. 4.21:71) Area R North; L5101; Reg. No. 4347. H 17 mm; D 30 mm; D of hole 13 mm; Hole for tang 8 × 8 mm. A metal fitting (nietknopf) of a gladius grip that was fixed to the pommel, at the end of the tang. The beveled perimeter of the mushroom-like head is chipped. The object’s base broadens from the ‘leg’, forming a U-guttering that facilitated its mounting to the pommel. The copper-alloy object is heavy; its central hole seems to be lined with lead(?), forming a square hole. Iron rust residues, presumably of the tang, are visible on the white substance. The parallel from Augusta Raurica, Switzerland, is reported to be made of buntmetall (non-ferrous metal). A caliga nail (No. 56) and an iron scabbard (No. 78) were found in this locus. Parallels: Augusta Raurica (Deschler-Erb 1999:25, No. 94, Pl. 8); Rheingönheim, Germany (Ulbert 1969a:44–45, Pls. 32:1, 4; 56: 1). Scabbards (Figs. 4.22, 4.23) A rich assemblage of scabbard fittings was unearthed at Gamla, of both copper-alloy and iron U-guttering. Tinning is amply used, as well as one instance of silverplating, once again illustrating the Roman military fondness for shiny appearance. The iconography of the equipment draws from the common pool of military designs. Hence, two eagle motifs decorate gladius scabbard mounts, manifesting a clear legionary linkage. It is interesting that fittings from both the Mainz and Pompeian types occur concurrently at Gamla. I do not think that this should necessarily undermine the commonly accepted chronological typology but simply exemplifies the use of military equipment over long periods. 72. Scabbard chape (Fig. 4.22:72) Area T; L4019; Reg. No. 1764; IAA 2008-1376.

L (damaged) 42+ mm; W (damaged) 2+ mm; W of U-guttering 9–10 mm; Th of U-guttering 0.5 mm; D of silvered tip 13 mm; H of silvered tip 13 mm; D of nipple 5 mm. The scabbard chape of L. Magus’ gladius, part of his panoply remains. This fragmentary object is constructed of a copper-alloy (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 11) U-guttering edging with the typical knobbed terminal. The silver-plated terminal is crowned with three ridges and there is a nipple-like tip at the center of its knobbed end. Parallels: Gamla (see below, No. 73), Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:9, Pl. 9:1 with references therein); in the West: Verulamium (Webster 1960:90, No. 199, Fig. 7 and references therein); Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 126, 127, 136–140, 172, 173, Pls. 8, 9, and p. 17 for references). 73. Scabbard Chape (Fig. 4.22:73) Area T; L4015; Reg. No. 1332. H 10.5 mm; D 12 mm. Bronze knobbed terminal (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 19). Three joined ridges decorate its face, and the nipple element at the base of the terminal is pierced. It was discovered on the living level of the western room in the building complex, west of the two towers. Parallels: See above, No. 72. 74. Scabbard Mount with Eagle Decoration (Fig. 4.22:74) Area T; L4188; Reg. No. 1150 and L4186, Reg. No. 1108; IAA 1997-4330. 72 × 54+ mm. Copper-alloy scabbard mount. The point of the triangular plate and the upper left quarter are broken. An attachment hole is pierced in the plate’s upper center. The perimeter of the entire plate exhibits a different patina. This feature, 2–4 mm in width, clearly echoes the frame of the scabbard in which the mount was set. The incised image of an eagle, in the center of the plate, is depicted standing, both wings spread, its head turned right; the claws are clearly visible and the tail is depicted pointing down to the right. Although the overall execution is not on a high artistic level, all the feathers, differentiated in their types, are meticulously and naturalistically depicted. The space around the eagle is filled with punched dots. The eagle appears to stand upon a small hill, which explains the different level of the depicted claws. The lower triangular part

Chapter 4: Military equipment

89

73

72

74

76

75

77

0

2

78

0

1

Fig. 4.22. Scabbards and fittings.

of the mount is decorated with rows of rhomboids, alternately decorated with dots and circles. These patterns resemble the ornamentation on a scabbard mount (see below, No. 77). The inferior craftsmanship is reflected in the upper row of rhomboids, as the

two right elements appear to be more like triangles. Interestingly, the artifact was found broken into two large fragments, which were unearthed in two adjacent loci outside the wall, near architectural remains that predate the wall, very close to Corridor 4019.

90

Guy D. Stiebel

75. Scabbard Mount with Eagle Decoration (Fig. 4.22:75) Area T; L4034; Reg. No. 2007/2; IAA 2009-1568. 25 × 35+ mm. Copper-alloy fragment of a gladius scabbard mount. The thin mount exhibits a depiction of an eagle and the openwork technique links the object to the Mainztype. The eagle looks to the left and its curved beak touches the spread wing. Using a crescent-headed awl, the craftsman meticulously produced all parts of the eagle’s wing, as well as its neck feathers. The eye is presented by a punched oval contour and punched circles consecutively decorate the surrounding metal straps. This object was uncovered outside the wall, east of the towers in the collapse heaps of the wall. A similar mount was found at Gamla (see below, No. 76). A circular harness fitting (No. 124) was also found in this locus. 76. Scabbard Mount Ornament (Fig. 4.22:76) Area T; L4020; Reg. No. 1807/2. 34 × 14 mm; Th less than 0.5 mm; W of frame 3–5 mm. Thin copper-alloy fragment of a gladius scabbard mount. It is decorated with tendril and ivy leaf motifs in openwork technique and set in a narrow frame. Ornamentation such as this is typical of the Mainz type. This kind of openwork technique was used on the locket, the central mount and the scabbard chape. A copper-alloy scabbard chape of Mainz type was uncovered at Masada, and this style was replicated in leather on a unique vagina from Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:8, Pl. 7:1). The provenance is the floor of the passage in the wall between the two towers in Area T. A scabbard edging (No. 79), a scabbard chape palmette-end decoration (No. 87) and a tie-hoop (No. 23) were also uncovered here. Parallels: Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 45–47, 48, 50, 53, 54, 57, Pls. 4, 5 and see p. 17 for references). 77. Scabbard Mount with Triangle Ornament (Fig. 4.22:77) Area T; L4027; Reg. No. 1841; IAA 1990-3015. L 110 mm; W 80 mm; D of bulbous tip 10 mm; reeded strap 67 × 12 mm; D of rivets’ head 1.5 mm; U-guttering frame 6 mm; W of plates’ margins 7 mm (left), 9 mm (right) and 5–6 (upper); Wt of plate 5.75 mm; L of plate 91 mm; D of hole in plate 2 mm; W of frame 19.1 g; Wt. of plate 3.8 g.

Complete copper-alloy scabbard chape. The U-guttering frame has a typical bulbous terminal. The frame is reinforced with a transverse mid-ribbed strap, fixed by two pairs of rivets and a copper-alloy triangular plate is set in the frame. In the upper part, slightly off center, is an attachment hole for the organic components of the scabbard. Most of the plate’s front is occupied by an elaborate punched decorative design, except for the side and upper margins. The front plate is divided into six tapering columns; the two central columns are short. The lateral columns are decorated with a consecutive pattern of ten triangles filled with punched dots, separated from each other by a circle topping a line. The main field of four columns is occupied by squares divided into four triangles. The upper and lower triangles are filled with punched dots. Examination of the plate revealed that it was first decorated and then cut to fit the frame, shown by the uneven lateral margins and the fact that the ornamentation was cut away in the lower part. The artifact was recorded as gilded (Gutmann 1994:98 and see photograph on p. 97; Syon 2002:145). The object was examined using 14 kt gold testing solution (#GT 44 of JPS),27 and the results clearly negated this determination. The red and yellow colors are the result of an aggressive chemical cleaning. The back of the plate indicated that, in fact, it was originally tinned. A fragment of segmental armor plate (No. 13), a decorated washer (No. 46) and a copper-alloy U-guttering edging (No. 81) were also uncovered in this locus. 78. Iron U-Guttering Sheath (Fig. 4.22:78) Area R north; L5101; Reg. No. 4044/2. L 57+ mm; D of terminal 9 × 12 mm; Th of guttering 1 mm; W of guttering 6 mm; W of opening of guttering 9+ mm. This rare iron sheath consists of a U-binding that tapers to an oval knobbed terminal. Scant organic remains are visible on the inner face of the guttering. Its narrow dimensions appear to have allowed the accommodation of a dagger’s blade rather than that of a sword. Few iron dagger sheaths are documented in the Roman West (see parallels below), while one example alone has been reported from the East—an iron sheathed dagger from Tell Sheikh Hamad, Syria (Künzl 1998). The rarity seems to be related to the extreme sensitivity to corrosion of ferrous artifacts at Gamla, in comparison

Chapter 4: Military equipment

91

to copper-alloy objects. A caliga nail (No. 56) and a pommel fitting (No. 71) were found in this locus, near the living level of the room. Parallels: Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:3–4, Pl. 4:1), Jericho (Stiebel 2004); Exeter, Dangstetten (Germany), Tarent (Italy) (Obmann 2000: Pls. 27–29).

80 mm. This basket also contained a tinned scabbard plate (below, No. 84). Parallels: Several examples at Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:10, Pl. 9:4–6); Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 80, 81, 83, 86–95, 99–106, 107–110, Pls. 6, 7 and see references on p. 17).

79. Scabbard Edging (not illustrated) Area T; L4020; Reg. No.1807/4. L 46+ mm; W 4 mm; De 4–6 mm; Th less than 0.5 mm. Fragment of copper-alloy scabbard edging. The U-guttering is slightly deformed and broken at both ends. Similar artifacts are reported from the Roman West. The provenance is the floor of the passage through the wall between the two towers in Area T. The object was discovered with a tie-hoop (No. 23), a scabbard decoration (No. 76) and a palmette-end decoration (No. 87). Parallels: Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 165–174, in particular Nos. 170–173).

83. Scabbard Mount (Fig. 4.23:83) Area S; L1920; Reg. No. 8056. L 160 mm; L of reeded part 60 mm; W 9–10 mm; Th 0.5–2.0 mm; D of holes 2 mm. This complete brass mount (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 9) is misshapen, perhaps because it was dismantled from the scabbard. Two pairs of ridges ornament the front face. The dimensions of this part (60 mm) indicate the width of the sword’s scabbard. The rear part of the mount is flat and flanked by two pairs of holes. The same arrangement of holes is found on a mount from Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: No. 96, Pl. 7). The Gamla mount was found in a steep alley in the Western Quarter. Parallels: see above, No. 82.

80. Scabbard Edging (not illustrated) Area S; L1907; Reg. No. 7329. L 69+ mm; W 5 × 6 mm; Th 0.5 mm. Copper-alloy U-guttering edging. Too thin to be identified as a shield edging and too straight to be a helmet’s edge-binding, the artifact appears to be a fragment from a scabbard binding. It was uncovered on ‘the Fourth Terrace’.28 Parallels: See above, No. 79. 81. Scabbard Edging (Fig. 4.23:81) Area T; L4027; Reg. Nos. 1902, 1902/2. L 167 mm+; W 4 × 4 mm; Th 0.5 mm. Copper-alloy U-guttering edging. A scabbard mount (No. 77) was found here. This locus also yielded a fragment of segmental armor plate (No. 13) and a decorated washer (No. 46). Parallels: see above, No. 79. 82. Scabbard Mount (Fig. 4.23:82) Area T; Sqs R4–6; Reg. No. 1226/1. L 163 mm+; H 11 mm; Th 1 mm; D of holes: 2 mm. Copper-alloy scabbard suspension mount with reeded decoration on upper face. A pair of ridges occupies the median of the band. Two attachment holes are spaced at both ends of the object. Its distorted condition suggests that it was torn from the sword’s scabbard. The folding lines of the points of the suspension loops allow an estimate of the original width of the scabbard,

84. Scabbard Plate(?) (not illustrated) Area T; Sqs R4–6; Reg. No. 1226/2. L 83 mm; W 31–33 mm; Th less than 0.5 mm. Triangular plates were set in the edged arms of the scabbards. The thin fragmented copper-alloy plate is slightly tapered and lacks both its upper and lower edges. The front face of the object was tinned. It is noteworthy that this basket contained a sword’s scabbard mount (see above, No. 82). Parallels: Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 123, 124, Pl. 7 and references). 85. Scabbard Chape Palmette-End (Fig. 4.23:85) Area M; Sqs A17–18; Reg. No. 2216. W 14 mm; H (damaged) 23 mm; Th ~0.5 mm; De 4 mm. Fingernail-like feature of the upper end of a Pompeian– type gladius scabbard chape. Faint parallel incisions decorate the object. The upper face of the fragment is silver-plated or tinned. It was found outside the city wall. Parallels: Complete examples: Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:8–9, Pl. 8:1); Pompeii (Ulbert 1969b); Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Pl. 5, No. 62); Mainz (Schoppa 1974: Ill. 1a–b, Pl. 26:1).

92

Guy D. Stiebel

86. Scabbard Chape Palmette-End (Fig. 4.23:86) Area T; L4026; Reg. No. 1859/2. W 14 mm; H (damaged) 19+ mm; Th 1 mm; De 4 mm. A copper-alloy palmette-end of a gladius scabbard chape. Seven lines were incised on its upper surface, where traces of silver, or more likely, tin, are still visible. See below, Nos. 87, 88. Parallels: Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:9, Pl. 9:2); Oberstimm, Germany (Schönberger 1978: Pl. 21:B 130); Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 149–164). 87. Scabbard Chape Palmette-End (Fig. 4.23:87) Area T; L4020, Reg. No. 1807/3. L 20+ mm; W 17 mm; Th 0.5 mm. A copper-alloy palmette-end of a gladius scabbard chape (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 6). Five incised lines radiating from the center form the palmette. The provenance is the floor of the passage through the wall between the two towers in Area T. The chape was found with a tie-hoop (No. 23), a scabbard decoration (No. 76) and a U-guttering binding (No. 79). Parallels: see above, No. 86. 88. Scabbard Chape Palmette-End (Fig. 4.23:88) Area M; Sqs A17–18; Reg. No. 2346/3. Fragmant 1: L 21+ mm; W 3 mm. Fragmant 2: L of 15+ mm; W 3 mm; 3rd fragment 22 × 16 mm. Two copper-alloy scrolled ends of the lower part of the palmette decoration of a scabbard chape. What may be another fragment, of the palmette or a floral ornament of an openwork scabbard, was found in the same basket, outside the wall. Parallels: Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997:7, Nos. 150, 152–154, 156–161, 163–164, Pl. 9 and references therein); Augusta Raurica (Deschler-Erb 1999: Pl. 8, No. 121). 89. Dagger Scabbard Suspension Loop (Fig. 4.23:89) Area T; L4021; Reg. No. 1823. 25 × 17 mm; Th 2.5–3.0 mm; Wt 2.1 g. Tinned copper-alloy fragment of a pugio suspension loop. The bar is rhomboid in section and flattens at both ends. The ends were shaped as scrolls and originally accommodated two studs. The two scrolls were soldered to each other to ensure the loop’s strength; soldering remains are visible near both the external

scroll peaks, the points where it was attached to the embracing flat band that linked the loop to the scabbard. Similar suspension loops of silver constituted part of richly decorated sets that were found at Velsen, the Netherlands (Morel and Bosman 1989:182–183, Figs. 8, 9B) and Mainz (Behn 1935:68, Pl. 6.3; Obmann 2000:24, D 21, Pls. 11–13). The loop was uncovered in the collapse of the building behind the eastern wall of Corridor 4019. A hinged strap fitting (No. 22) and a tie-hoop (No. 24) were also found in this locus. Parallels: Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:10–11, Pl. 9:7, 8); ‘En Gedi (Stiebel 2007: V.22/F.1, 2); Herodium (Stiebel 2003: No. 3a). Ample parallels are reported throughout the empire, e.g., England (Grew and Griffiths 1991:50, Nos. 157–162, Fig. 15); Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997:18–19: 209); and northern France(?) (Feugère 1993:163, upper right). 90. Dagger Scabbard Suspension Loop (Fig. 4.23:90) Area M; Sqs A17–18; Reg. No. 2345; IAA 1990-5061. 23 × 16 mm; Th 2–3 mm. Tinned copper-alloy fragment of a pugio suspension loop; similar to No. 89, above (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 18). It was originally tinned; most of the tin was lost after undergoing chemical cleaning. Parallels: see above, No. 89. 91. Scabbard Suspension Loop (Fig. 4.23:91) Area T; Sq B9; Reg. No. 1338/1. D of loop (ext.) 15 mm; Th of loop 2 mm; W of band (damaged) 15+ mm; L of band 12 mm; Th of band (corroded) 2–4 mm; leather fragment 22 × 26 mm; Th of leather fragment 1.5 mm. Copper-alloy loop with a rhomboid-like section set in a much corroded band of an organic material, seemingly leather. A bone frog (No. 102) was found in the same square, as well as what appears to be a tooled leather fragment of the scabbard’s body, which exhibits an impressed reeded pattern of the scabbard mount (22 × 24 mm). See below, Nos. 92, 93. 92. Scabbard Loop(?) (Fig. 4.23:92) Area T; L4006; Reg. No. 1194/3. D 14 mm; Th 1–2 mm. Copper-alloy ring, possibly the fastening loop of a scabbard. See above, No. 91 and below, No. 93.

93

Chapter 4: Military equipment

81

85

90

82

86

83

87

88

92

91 0

89

93

1

Fig. 4.23. Scabbard parts and fittings.

93. Scabbard Loop(?) (Fig. 4.23:93) Area T; L4020; Reg. No. 1807/5. D 16–20 mm; Th 1–2 mm. Copper-alloy ring, possibly the fastening loop of a scabbard. See above, No. 92.

Belts (Fig. 4.24) The Roman military belt was primarily for carrying the sword and dagger (Bishop and Coulston 2006:106; Feugère 1994:225–231).29 Nonetheless, throughout Roman military history, the waist-belt (balteum

94

Guy D. Stiebel

militare) was not merely functional, but was important as a signifier of status (Coulston 1998:184). Pliny the Elder (Natural History 33.152) mentions the use of silver scabbard links and silver belt plates. The silverplated belt mount from Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:11, Pl. 10:1), the gilded frog from Legio (Stiebel 2007: V.3/G.3) and the silver-plated/tinned frog from Gamla (Nos. 100, 101), serve as fine illustrations of this flamboyant tendency. The ample use of precious metals and the evident emphasis upon the decoration of the mounts (Grew and Griffiths 1991) made the military belt valuable monetarily. In 69 CE, soldiers handed over their belts in order to raise money in favor of Vitellius (Tacitus, Histories 1.57). 94. Hinged Belt Mount (Fig. 4.24:94) Area T; Sqs B4–6; Reg. No. 1411/2. 27 × 30 (34 mm, with hinge); Th of plate 1 mm; D (int.) of hinge 2 mm; D of rivets’ heads 5 mm. Nearly square hinged mount. One edge of the brass band (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 13) was folded over and held by two rivets, after which the hinge was cut. A similar technique was used to make the lobate hinges of the lorica segmentata. Four rivets spaced in its corners attached the mount to what appears to have been a leather strap. The mount was found with a fragment of a lorica segmentata tie-hoop (No. 42). Parallels: Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: No. 1075). 95. Belt Mount (Fig. 4.24:95) Area T; L4001; Reg. No. 1049. L 50 mm; W (twisted) 30 mm; W (unfolded) 38 mm; D of holes 2 mm. Rectangular copper-alloy plate, possibly used as a belt mount. It has two fastening holes at the corners of one edge (one hole was punched twice) and three along the other. 96. Belt Mount (Fig. 4.24:96) Area T; L4186; Reg. No. 1140. L 56+ mm; W 28 mm; D of holes 2 mm. Rectangular copper-alloy plate, possibly a belt mount (damaged). Two fastening holes are at one of the lateral edges and the longitudinal edges are bent very slightly backward.

Cast copper-alloy cap with eight equidistantly spaced cuts, forming a rosette, with a pierced round central hole. Though smaller in dimension, it bears a resemblance to metal caps unearthed in Pfünz (ORL B Nos. 73:38, 50; Pl. 13:39, 41; Oldenstein 1976: Nos. 25, 27, Pls. 11) and Weissenburg (Oldenstein 1976: No. 28), Germany that are associated with the gripping assemblage of edged arms. James suggested that these caps covered pommels, like the rockcrystal sword pommel from Dura-Europos (James 2004:150–151, No. 531). There is indeed a strong affinity in the pommel from Dura-Europos to the object from Gamla,30 but the object appears to be a central rosette decoration in a belt-plate with pseudohinges, similar to the seemingly Augustan belt-plate found in the Lujbljanica River, Bevke (Slovenia; Istenič 2003:286–290, Figs. 4, 5). See also Augusta Raurica (Deschler-Erb 1999:45, No. 367, Fig. 44, Pl. 20).31 Embossed belt plates with an integral floral boss element that imitate this style are known elsewhere, e.g., Rheingönheim (Ulbert 1969a:40, Pl. 27:7) and Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: No. 901, Pl. 36).32 The fact that it was discovered in Area T, L4019, may associate it with the balteus of L. Magus, from the panoply of which the scabbard chape and the handle of the pugio have survived. For a similar object see below, No. 98. 98. Decorating Stud of Belt Mount (Fig. 4.24:98) Area T; Sq C18; Reg. No. 1073; IAA 2008-1317. Max. H 12 mm; H of cap ; D of cap 16.5–17.0 mm; Th of cap 1 mm; L of rivet 12 mm; D of rivet head 5 mm; Th of rivet 2.5 mm. Decorative cast copper-alloy rosette fitting with eight open work cuts. The fastening sphere-headed rivet, its tip broken, is still in place. Parallels: see above, No. 97. 99. Belt Decoration(?) (Fig. 4.24:99) Area E; Sq A6; Reg. No. 5004. Copper-alloy dome-shaped object, found 65 cm from the city wall. An incised inscription is visible on the cap, on the back is a soldering material. The twolettered inscription appears to read: Diplomatic Transcript: < Ī

97. Decorating Stud of Belt Mount (Fig. 4.24:97) Area T; L4019; Reg. No. 1762; IAA 2009-1566.

Translation: C(ohors) Ī

95

Chapter 4: Military equipment

94

95

96

98

97

99

100

102

103

101

0

1

Fig. 4.24. Belts and frogs.

It was apparently attached to a belt as a decorative element; its function is unclear. Frogs Roman scabbards were suspended from the belt by means of leather leashes that were attached to the shanks of metal or bone frogs. The frog consists of a circular head from which a shank, usually triangular or circular, protrudes at right angles. It was fastened to the belt by means of a slit in the belt, and hence, the frequently-decorated head was visible. The shank hung behind the belt. Several representations of this arrangement are found in military funerary art (Ubl 1989: Ills. 5, 7).

100. Frog (Fig. 4.24:100) Area G; L1507; Reg. No. 6933. L 29 mm; H 9 mm; D of head 22 mm; Th of head’s center 3.5 mm; Th of head 1 mm; H of shank 6 mm; W of shank’s body 8 mm; Th of shank (at loop) 2 mm; D (ext.) of shank’s loop 14 mm. Silver-plated or tinned bronze frog (see Chapter 21: Sample No. 5). The head, the perimeter of which is raised, is elaborately decorated with a running tendril motif, executed in punched dots (punctim). A central boss, consisting of three concentric circles, rises from its center and the shank protrudes from the head at right angles, with a loop at its end. It was uncovered on the surface, outside the wall, some 50 m south of the synagogue.

96

Guy D. Stiebel

Parallels: Künzl 1977: Ill. 14. Frogs with looped shanks were reported from Qumran (Stiebel 2007: III.17/G.3), Masada (Stiebel 2007: III.19/G.13) and siege Camp F, Masada (Stiebel 2007: III.20b/G.1). See below, No. 101. 101. Silver-Plated Frog (Fig. 4.24:101) Area M; Sqs A17–18; Reg. No. 2278/1; IAA 2009-1565. D of head 22 mm; Th of head ~0.5 mm; total H (distorted) 19 mm; Th of shank 1 mm; D of hole 7 mm. Copper-alloy frog. It features a simple, circular flat head, the upper face silver-plated. A distorted shank protrudes from its back, off center, with a loop set at the end. It belongs to Wild’s Type VIIIa (Wild 1970:143, 153–154, Nos. 117–127). The silver-plating of the head indicates once again the Roman soldier’s fondness for a shiny appearance. It was found together with what may be a helmet fastening loop (No. 9). Parallels: see above, No. 100 and Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997:54 and Nos. 2064–2087, in particular 2082–2085. 102. Bone Frog (Fig. 4.24:102) Area T; Sq B9; Reg. No. 1337; IAA 2009-1564. Surviving L 18+ mm; W of shank 19.5 mm; Th of shank 3 mm; Loop 8.5 × 6.0+ mm. Bone frog; only the shank has survived. This typical trapezoidal element has a central semicircular hole, intended for a leather strap. A straight line was incised across its width, just above the hole (such lines were observed, for example, on items from Vindonissa; see below). The faint remains of circular incisions on its top are the only mark of the lost circular head. The rear face of the shank is slightly chipped at the bottom. Bone frogs were included in Wild’s typology under the category of loops and fasteners (Wild 1970: Type X). Yet, the close affinity with the metal frogs suggests that they served a similar function. The use of bone elements in association with scabbard fastenings is not surprising, as bone buckles of the Roman balteus were recorded at military sites (Béal 1983:255, 381, Pl. 44:1341; Grew and Griffiths 1991: Nos. 129, 131, 152, 156; Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 1192, 1193, 1194–1209, Pl. 44 and the references on p. 3733), and in Palestine, e.g., Caesarea (Ayalon 2002:68–69, Nos. 97, 99); Wolfe Family collection (Ayalon and Sorek 1999:68, Fig. 101). Parallels: Banasa, Morocco (Boube-Piccot 1994:91, No. 132, Pl. 13); Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb

1997:55, Nos. 2107–2129, Pls. 71, 72 and references therein). 103. Frog (Fig. 4.24:103) Area B; L1282; Reg. No. 460; IAA 2009-1567. L 22 mm; max. W 15 mm; H 4 mm; W of head 12 mm; Head 3 × 2 mm; Th of shank 1.5–2.0 mm; L of shank 21 mm; int. W of shank 9 mm. Copper-alloy frog consisting of a short, triangular shank with a simple bar head. It belongs to Wild’s Type IX (Wild 1970:143). It is not a common type, possibly because it did not provide a very secure grip. Parallels: Wild 1970:154, Nos. 131–135; Volubilis and Banasa (Boube-Piccot 1994:92, Nos. 133–135, Pl. 13); Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997:55, Nos. 2103–2105, Pl. 71 and references therein); Aislingen, Germany (Ulbert 1959:95, No. 27, Pl. 24).

Shafted Weapons (Fig. 4.25) Only few remnants of shafted arms were unearthed at Gamla and merely two feature Roman affinities; none appears to originate in the front fighting zones. The rareness of shafted heads in besieged cities is reported elsewhere in the East, for example, DuraEuropos (James 2004:188) and Masada (Stiebel and Magness 2007:23–24). It therefore seems to represent a phenomenon that needs to be examined. This subject may be approached from either an archaeological or a tactical perspective. Though it may be argued that the small number of heads is due to the restricted scope of excavations in the interior parts of Gamla, their apparent absence in the conflict zone close to the walls, which has been thoroughly excavated, cannot be ignored. The uncovering of numerous metal arrowheads and catapult bolts there clearly indicates that the under-representation of shafted weapons is not due to preservation conditions. The reason may be because of either the limited use of shafted weapons in siege warfare or by the meticulous gathering of large metal heads by the Romans. The latter seems likely, unless the army left the site in haste, leaving behind only the smaller metal projectiles. Pila Several examples of one of the most characteristic weapons of the legionaries were uncovered at Gamla.

97

Chapter 4: Military equipment

104 0

1

105

106

108 0

0

1

0

4

2

Fig. 4.25. Shafted weapons.

The relatively small number of fittings is unsurprising because it was less effective in a siege battle, whether against an enemy who took shelter behind the walls, or within the boundaries of the city, if the harsh topography is taken into account. 104. Pilum Collet (Fig. 4.25:104) Area R North; L5108; Reg. No. 5133.

H (damaged) 37 mm; lower section (much damaged) 22 × ~19 mm; upper section 18 × 18 mm; Th (corroded) 3–5 mm. Heavily corroded iron collet that sheathed the junction of the iron shank and the wooden shaft of a pilum. The conical-shaped fitting has a square section. Parallels: Cf. plates in Feugère 1993:166–167:1–3, 5–13; Bishop and Coulston 2006: Figs. 36:37.4, 11-4;

98

Guy D. Stiebel

and at Carnuntum (von Groller 1901: Pl. XXIII: Fig. 1) and Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997:19–20, Nos. 220, 234–246 and ample references therein for Europe). 105. Pilum Collet(?) (Fig. 4.25:105) Area S; L1909; Reg. Nos. 6914, 6916, 6932, 7099. H 28 mm; lower section 15 × 13 mm; upper section 10 × 13 mm; Th (corroded) 4 mm. Corroded iron conical object with square section. If not for the proximal end of the socketed catapult bolt, the object appears to be a pilum collet. Parallels: see above, No. 104. Spearheads 106. Iron Spearhead (Fig. 4.25:106) Area B; L1258; Reg. No. 999; IAA 1990-3144. L 292 mm; L of head 175 mm; W of head 41 mm; D of socket 17 mm; Wt 314.20 g. Large leaf-shaped iron spearhead. The tang is socketed, with possible traces of wood on the shaft, and the head is mid-ribbed. It was uncovered on the floor of a room with rich finds dating to the second half of the first century BCE (Goren 2010:120). 107. Iron Spearhead (not illustrated) Area M; Sq A3, Reg. No. 1545; IAA 1997-4278. L 216 mm; L of head 130 mm; W of head 33 mm; Th of head 3–6 mm; W of socket 14–19 mm; L of tang 86 mm; L of slit 72 mm; D 18 mm; D of nail 2 mm; Wt 104 g. Iron leaf-shaped socketed spearhead. The socket has a long slit and a fastening nail.

Siege Equipment

Falces Muralis These shafted seige tools are clearly appropriate for stabbing, slashing and hooking (Stiebel 2005:102). Josephus describes the use of an identical tool (falx muralis) during the siege of Yodefat: “…the Roman invented a counter-device of long poles to the ends of which were attached scythes, with which they cut the cords supporting the sacks” (War 3.7.20 [225]). It seems, however, that this was not a new innovation, as such devices were in regular use. The vigil operated both the uncinus and the falx (Reynolds 1926:89–90), while

military use is attested in Gallia: “One thing provided by our men was of great service, [viz.] sharp hooks inserted into and fastened upon poles, of a form not unlike the hooks used in attacking town walls” (BG 3.14.5).34 The overall shape bears a remarkable resemblance to the falces used by contemporary fire-brigades.35 This find substantiates the premise that in spite of the fact that Josephus acquired his military knowledge from reading, his descriptions were very much in touch with reality. I reject the suggestion to define the socketed iron implement from Dura-Europos as a falx muralis (James 2004:188, No. 643, Fig. 114). The position and upturned orientation of the ‘sickle’ element contradicts this identification (nor does it lend credence to its designation as a ‘boat-hook’). It appears to be a spear-butt with a tread, as indeed suggested by James (2004:188). 108. Falx Muralis (Fig. 4.25:108) Area G; L1501; Reg. No. 7001. Total L 325 mm; total W 170 mm; L of point 147 mm; W of point 36 mm; max. Th of point 7 mm; L of sickle 135 mm; W of sickle 36 mm; L of socket 178 mm; D of socket 28–55 mm. A socketed leaf-shaped spear with a sickle-like feature stemming from the base. This unique shafted siege tool was found in the excavations of the Roman breach at Gamla. Slings Josephus narrates the approach of King Agrippa to the wall, writing that he: “was struck on the right elbow with a stone by one of the slingers” (War 4.1.3 [14]). Further indication maybe found in his narration of Vespasian’s near escape during the failing first Roman attack (War: 4.1.5 [33–34]). His guard shielded their commander by forming a testudo that diverted the multitude of the defenders’ missiles, part of which may have been slingshots. Small pebbles are discernible throughout the site; however, as they form part of the local Neogenic rocks, it is impossible to determine which pebbles, if at all, were used in the fighting (Syon and Yavor 2001:31). One lead slingshot was uncovered at Gamla in Area B, dating to the second half of the first century BCE. Slingshots 109. Lead Slingshot (Fig. 4.26:109) Area B; Sq A20; Reg. No. 1194. 25.0 × 16.5 × 14.0 mm.

Chapter 4: Military equipment

Biconical lead pellet with an oval cross-section, found on the surface in Area B, which dates to the second half of the first century BCE. Although a surface find, it may date to the Jewish War. Parallels: Jerusalem (Zitronblat and Geva 2003, M51; Stiebel 2007: III.12/K.2). For an inscribed lead shot from this period, see Stiebel 1999.

R iding Equipment (Figs. 4.26:110–114, 4.27) The assemblage from Gamla comprises halters, bits, spurs and harness decorations (pendants and phalerae). The relatively small group of equine equipment is not surprising. The very nature of the siege compounded by the harsh topographical conditions of the city dictated that a mounted force play a far less crucial role in the combat and consequently, was less prone to leave its mark on the archaeological record. The excavations indicated that the inhabitants of Gamla possessed horses, at least in the second half of the first century BCE, as two horse skeletons were unearthed, one, along with part of its bridle gear (Stiebel 2007: Appendix 1.2; Goren 2010:129–130, Fig. 3.25). Halter 110. Halter (Fig. 4.26:110) Area B; L1281; Reg. No. 2034; IAA 1990-3014. D 123 mm; D of tube 9 mm; Th of ext. tube 1 mm; D of inner tube 7 mm; D of rivet 2.5–3.0 mm; Wt 192.7 g. Copper-alloy ring found close to the equine skeletons at Gamla. The ring was inside the jaw of the mature horse of the two (Gutmann 1994:117) and was apparently used as a sort of or part of a halter. Mounts were lead with a chain—šeir (‫( )שיר‬M Shabbat 5.1; JT Shabbat 7a–b, 8b; Tosefta Shabbat 4.4, 4.9; BT Shabbat 51b, 52a; 61b). The Semitic word occurs in Aramaic—šeira (‫)שירא‬, chain, and in Syriac—‫ ﺸﻴﺮ‬šir, meaning a rope, leash or strap. Rashi interpreted it as a kind of clasp around the horse’s neck with a ring set in it; a rein, for leading the horse, was inserted in it. Bits: Snaffle-Bit The snaffle bit has two subtypes, one plain and the other comprising two links. The two-linked bit is constructed of joint links, each of them a short rod that terminates in two loops. One loop was designed to attach the links and the other held a free-moving ring. The loops of one

99

link are set on one plane, while those of the other link are at a 90 degree angle. The snaffle bit provides control over the horse, and is considered the least severe among the various bit types (Manning 1985:66; Dixon and Southern 1992:63; for use of the snaffle bit, cf. Hyland 1993:56–63). The two iron links are held in the horse’s mouth, while the bridle straps and reins are attached through the siderings. The loops of the iron link from Gamla, both broken, are set on the same plane. The fact that they differ in size is significant. Like the three parallels from Germany detailed below, the small loop of the iron rod was used to attach the links and the larger loop held the side-ring. The snaffle bit is for two-handed control of the mount. The two-link snaffle bit is Celtic in origin and was very popular in Iron Age Europe. It appears to be the most common type in the Roman West (Manning 1985:66). 111. Two-Link Snaffle Bit (Fig. 4.26:111) Area B; L1302; Reg. No. 56. Max. L 79 mm; L of rod 42 mm; Th of rod 6 × 9–11 × 12 mm; D of side loop (ext.) 22 mm; Th of side loop 5–6 mm; D of inner-loop (ext.) 16 mm; Th of innerloop 5–6 mm. Short biconical iron rod with loops on both ends—one link of a two-link snaffle bit. The link from Gamla is to date the sole example of this type in the Roman East. Parallels: Hod Hill, London(?), England (cf. Manning 1985:66–67, H10–17, Pls. 28, 29 with ample references therein); Tiefenbach, Gräfenhausen (Junkelmann 1992:18, Ill. 6), Castell Neuwied-Neiderbieber (Junkelmann 1992:24, Ill. 14), Germany. Spurs (Fig. 4.26:112–114) A pair of iron spurs and part of another example were recorded from Gamla. The pair was unearthed in Area B, in a first-century BCE context, while the other, found near the town’s wall, seems to date from the period of the Jewish War. In the Eastern Mediterranean, spurs appear to have been introduced during the Hellenistic period, initially noted by Xenophon (Art of Horsemanship 8.5) as a jumping aid. In the West, spurs were associated with the Celts (Azzaroli 1985:115). As for the period under discussion, several modern works have been dedicated to the classification of Roman spurs (Jahn 1921; Shortt

100

Guy D. Stiebel

109

111 0

2

112

110 0

0

2

114

113

0

1

Fig. 4.26. Slingshot and riding equipment.

1

Chapter 4: Military equipment

1959; Manning 1985:69–70; Dixon and Southern 1992:58–59). Both copper-alloy and iron were used in the production of spurs, but the material selected does not appear to have much significance to their typology. Three principal types of spurs are familiar, based on the method used to attach the leather straps to the spur—hooks, loops or rivets. An additional criterion is the shape of the prick that rises from the spur’s body. All three spurs from Gamla were produced from iron, and are very close in resemblance. A simple pointed prick rises from the center of the U-shaped body. The ends of the body’s arms are flattened and have a 5 mm hole. The spurs lack any traces of a rivet, though theoretically, there may have been such a feature, now lost. It is more likely that the pierced non-angled ends represent a hybrid form of the riveted and the looped types, like the spur from Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997:51, No. 1963, Pl. 69). Classified under the category of Ösensporn (‘ear’, i.e., loop spur), this spur differs from the loop category, like the spurs of Gamla, in that its loops or pierced end are aligned with the spur’s body and not angled to it. Due to the small size of the sample, the exact manner of attachment remains uncertain. In Palestine, a copperalloy spur is reported from Samaria (Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924:354, Fig. 225:5a) and there is a possible iron example from Herodium (Stiebel 2003:236–237, No. 148, Fig. 21). 112, 113. Pair of Loop Spurs (Fig. 4.26:112, 113) Spur 1: Area B; L1267, Reg. No. 1817; IAA 19903264. H (including prick) 61 mm; W 72 mm; L of prick 10 mm; D of prick at base 5 mm; D of holes 5 mm; Th 2 mm; Wt 20.3 g. Spur 2: Area B; L1300; Reg. No. 3264; IAA 19974299: H (damaged) 55+ mm; W (damaged) 68+ mm; Th 2 mm; Wt 17.7 g. A pair of iron spurs was uncovered in Area B. One (L1300) was found in the room next to the room in which two horses’ skeletons were unearthed (Goren 2010:125, Fig. 3.14) and the other, in the olive-oil press nearby. They belong to the loop type (Stiebel 2003:236–237). At the top of the heel, a short prick rises in the form of a simple point. Two attachment holes were punched through the flattened ends of the arms. One spur (No. 112) is complete, while the other (No. 113) is missing one of its ends and part of its prick.

101

114. Iron Spur (Fig. 4.27:114) Area A; chance find. H (damaged) 50+ mm; W of spur (damaged) 66+ mm; W of arms 13–17 mm; Th of arms 5–6 mm; H of prick 16 mm. Corroded iron spur, missing the straight parts of both its arms. The curved arc is rectangular in section, and expands toward the peak. The prick is a simple conical point. The context of the find, in a section of an unexcavated part of a service room adjacent to the synagogue,36 suggests it dates from the time of the Jewish War. If indeed so, the close affinity between the pair of spurs from Area B and the spur under discussion hints that the structure of the spur changed little during the Second Temple period. Harness Pendants One the most common designs of Roman harness pendants is the lunate form. In the symbolic world of Roman harness fittings, lunate pendants appear to represent the luna, and together with the round phalera, symbolised the eternal couple—the moon and the sun, femininity and masculinity. This popular design may also have had an apotropaic intent, to protect the horse from evil forces (Bishop 1988:108). 115. Lunate Pendant (Fig. 4.27:115) Area R; L5201, Reg. No. 905; IAA 1997-4312. L 56 mm; W 45 mm; L of loop 10 + 13.5 mm; W of loop 7.5 mm; Th of body 1–2 mm; Th of terminals 3 mm; Wt 16.4 g. Complete copper-alloy lunate harness pendant. It has acorn terminals and a loop hanger. Parallels: Bishop 1988: Type 9. 116. Lunate Pendant (Fig. 4.27:116) Area S; L1924; Reg. No. 7852 (Stratum I); IAA 20081320. L 29 mm; W 26.5 mm; Th 1 mm; Terminals 4 × 3 mm; D of hole 2.5 mm; W of loop 3 mm. Copper-alloy crescent-shaped pendant. The arms have knobbed teardrop-like terminals. A slight trace of the suspension neck is visible on the center of the object’s perimeter. The hole intended for a minute interpendant is spaced in the body’s center. The pendant was discovered in the lower end of a steep alley in the Western Quarter, at the very southern end of the city.

102

Guy D. Stiebel

115

116

117

118

120

119

122

121

0

1

Fig. 4.27. Harness pendants and fittings.

124

Chapter 4: Military equipment

Parallels: Bishop 1988:153, Type 9e; Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997:1312–1316, 1323–1324, p. 43 and references therein). 117. Lunate pendant (Fig. 4.27:117) Area S, L1916, Reg. No. 7582; IAA 1990-3195. L55 mm; W43 mm; Th 1 mm; terminals 4 × 8 mm; W of loop 4 mm. 118. Pendant (Fig. 4.27:118) Area R; L5051; Reg. No. 6565; IAA 2008-1319. Total L 29 mm; L of body 22 mm; max. W 16 mm; Th of body 0.5–1.0 mm; Th of terminal 3 mm; D of loop (int.) 3.5 mm. Well-preserved copper-alloy inter-pendant of teardrop shape. The flat-faced pendant has a knobbed terminal. A suspension neck rises from the center of the upper part of the body. It was unearthed in a narrow room above Room 5054. Parallels: Bishop 1988:98, Type 8; Vindonissa (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 1462, 1463, Pl. 53). 119. Pendant (Fig. 4.27:119) Area R; L5027; Reg. No. 7830; IAA 2007-3553. L 40 mm; W 15 mm; Th 0.5–1.5 mm; bulbous terminal 3.0 × 4.5 mm. Copper-alloy pendant with the outline of a vine leaf (Bishop 1988: Type 4d). The much distorted pendant was not available for examination. Close parallels are reported from Rheingönheim and Mainz (Behrens 1913–1914:68, No. 23, Ill. 2.20). Parallels: Ulbert 1969a: Pl. 36:12, 13. 120. Pendant (Fig. 4.27:120) Area S; L5006; Reg. No. 7304; IAA 2008-1318. Overall L 51.5 mm; W 5.5–20.0 mm; Th of body 0.5– 1.0 mm; W of loop 3.5–5.0 mm; D of loop (int.) 3 mm; W of tip 10 mm. Copper-alloy teardrop-shaped pendant, terminating in a semicircular tip. The faint outlines of an incised line may be observed running along the perimeter of the pendant, 2 mm from its edge. Strong chemical treatment stripped it of most of its original tinning or plating. It

103

was uncovered in a small chamber (storeroom?) next to the oil-press complex. 121. Pendant (Fig. 4.27:121) Area B; L1251, Reg. No. 699; IAA 1997-4280. A copper-alloy heart-shaped inter-pendant with a pierced central hole. Phalera 122. Phalera (Fig. 4.27:122) Area S; L5024; Reg. No. 7611. D 45 mm; Th 1.0–1.5 mm; D of holes 1.0–1.5 mm. Cast copper-alloy disc, its upper face decorated with a series of concentric circles. In its center is a raised dot surrounded by a small raised circle. Three raised circles ornament its perimeter. Two rivets, on either side of the center, were used to attach the phalera to the leather strap that passed from behind. The rear face is slightly concave. Aggressive chemical cleaning deprived us from any further knowledge concerning possible tinning or plating. Parallels: Bishop 1988:94–95, Table 5, Figs. 39–42 (variation of Type 2h). Harness Fittings 123. Harness plate (not illustrated) Area S; L2051; Reg. No. 3808/3. L 30+ mm; W 13 mm; Th 1 mm; L of rivet 1 mm. Rectangular plate. One small rivet survived on its back. Similar objects were interpreted as harness plates (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 1976–1987, Pl. 69 and ample references on p. 52). 124. Harness mount (Fig. 4.27:124) Area T; L4034; Reg. No. 1014; IAA 2007-1989. D 24 mm; Th of head 1 mm. Circular domed-head harness mount with a short shank, bent at a right angle. The tip of the shank is broken. The mount was found outside the wall, east of the towers in the collapse layers of the wall. A scabbard mount (above, No. 75) was found in this locus.

104

Guy D. Stiebel

Notes 1 Although I prefer using the name ‘Gamala’ for the city under discussion, for the sake of coherence with the rest of the volume, the spelling Gamla is used in this report. The drawings were prepared by Hagit Tahan-Rosen, Alex Kranz and Tina Waghorn. Photographs are by the author, Danny Syon and Clara Amit. X-ray photographs are by Miriam Lavi. Abbreviations: L = Length; W = Width; H = Height; Th = Thickness; D = Diameter; De = Depth; Wt = Weight. 2 I am most grateful to Danny Syon for inviting me to study this assemblage, for providing all the required data and, above all, his kind encouragement and patience. 3 Also known as MOUT (Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain). 4 The term is a late-sixteenth century CE Latinized version and does not exist in the ancient sources (Bishop 2002:1). 5 Note, the assertion that finds from L4019 included a visor helmet (Syon 2002:145) does not stand, unless it is merely a poor use of terminology intended to describe the discovery of the brow-guard that was previously thought to originate in this locus. For a possible fragment of a sports helmet, see No. 8. 6 Gutmann (1994:98 and photograph on p. 73, bottom) erroneously suggested that the tabula ansata tag was originally attached to the helmet. 7 Based on erroneous recordings, in preliminary studies, I mistakenly associated the brow-guard to L4019 and to the panoply of L. Magus (Stiebel 2005:102–103; 2007:29, 171, III.3/A.2). 8 Matthew Ponting (pers. comm.). They are not silvered (Gutmann 1994:64, 85, 97, 98) or silver-plated (Syon 2002:145) as was previously asserted. 9 An example of flax padding was recently identified among the material unearthed in a small fort on the Coptos-Berenike road, Didymoi (H. Granger-Taylor, pers. comm.). 10 We cannot be more precise, as the small flanges of Schaan helmets were attached to both the right and the left cheekpieces. 11 Robinson (1975:46) hinted that ear-guards assisted hearing. 12 An additional source was the Sarmatian enemy, although the Sarmatian examples seem to be later than the Eastern examples. 13 Also galvanic or electrolytic corrosion. 14 This result slightly lowered the actual number, for the remains of L. Magus were considered as one item in the category of armor plates. 15 Leander Touati 1987: Nos. 25, 37–38, 42, 70, 80. 16 http://www.romancoins.info/augustusturpilianusparther. jpg . 17 For copper-alloy and iron scale thigh guards, see James 2004: Nos. 443–445, Figs. 68–70. 18 Cf. Column of Arcadius (400 CE; Nicolle and McBride 1992:12, lower register). 19 Cf. Tzaferis 1982:22, Fig. 2:1. 20 It was discovered in 1997 during a survey in a cemetery east of Gamla conducted by the IAA Central and Southern

Golan Survey Unit (NIG map ref. 2699/7566). The IAA survey unit of the central and southern Golan included Moshe Hartal, Yigal Ben-Ephraim, Ran Barnur and Aharon Elrom. I thank Yigal Ben-Ephraim of the IAA for granting me permission to publish the artifact and for providing the information regarding the site and the find circumstances. 21 And not ‘on the inside of their rank’ or ‘on the reverse side of the shield’ as translated by Stelten (1990). 22 I am indebted to Prof. R. Tomlin for the initial reading of the three tags. 23 Literally, the wise man, magician. 24 Also see the tombstone of: MVS•VET• LEG•XV•APOL AN•XI•H•S•E VETIN•SABIN

(Bahat and Sabar 1998:79 [photograph]). 25 The nickname musi, the mouse, is unlikely (for blasphemy slogans, such as the ‘bald’, see Keppie 1984:125). 26 For a prosopographical study of the legio X Fretensis’ officers, see Dąbrowa 1993. 27 It contains nitric and muriatic acid. 28 Theoretically, as the artifact originated in the Western Quarter, it may be a non-military item. However, its clear resemblance to examples of scabbard U-guttering from the site suggests otherwise. 29 The Midrash notes the three functions of the belt, including the fastening of the sword (Psikta Derav Kahana 124b). 30 Such rosettes appear on the reconstruction of the chamfron from Newstead (England; Robinson 1975:190–194, Pls. 514–516; Garbsch 1978:6, Pl. 46:1). The lower hem and the ivy-like designs of the object’s center are represented by decorated, rather similar-looking studs. 31 It is most likely that not a few of the belt plates of this type had a central decorative element such as this (Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: Nos. 884–892, 894–913; and another type of rivet, Unz and Deschler-Erb 1997: No. 893). 32 This pattern also occurs on inlaid dagger sheaths, e.g., Colchester, England (Obmann 2000: Pl. 5: GB 25); Leeuwen (Obmann 2000: NL 2); Nijmegen (Obmann 2000: NL 1); Utrecht (Obmann 2000: Pl. 7: NL 8); Mainz (Obmann 2000: Pl. 7: D 10; Pl. 9: D 12–13); and Köln (Obmann 2000: Pl. 8, D 8). 33 See further, Nos. 2012–2035, Pl. 70, and references on p. 54. 34 Cf. Bellum Gallicum 7.22.2. 35 The use of hooks and spears, which is equivalent to the operation of the combined tool from Gamla, is noted in the battle at the refuge caves of the Arbela (Antiquities 14.15.5 [426]). Cf. Strasbourg: Forrer 1927:514, Nos. 11084, 11243, 11247, 11061, 11442. 36 I thank Yoav Farhi for bringing this find to my attention.

Chapter 4: Military equipment

105

R eferences Allason-Jones L. and Bishop M.C. 1988. Excavations at Roman Corbridge: The Hoard (English Heritage Archaeological Report 7). London. Allason-Jones L. and Miket R. 1984. The Catalogue of Small Finds from South Shields Roman Fort. Newcastle upon Tyne. Aviam M. 2002. Yodefat/Jotapata, the Archaeology of the First Battle. In A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman eds. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology. London–New York. Pp. 121–133. Avigad N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Ayalon E and Dray Y. 2002. Workshops for Bone Tools in Caesarea. Michmanim 16:15–22 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 39*–40*). Ayalon E. and Sorek C. 1999. Bare Bones: Ancient Artifacts from Animal Bones. Tel Aviv. Azzaroli A. 1985. An Early History of Horsemanship. Leiden. Bahat D. and Sabar S. 1998. Jerusalem—Stone and Spirit: 3000 Years of History and Art. New York. Bar-Kochva B. 1980. The Battles of the Hasmonaeans: The Times of Judas Maccabaeus. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Baur P.V.C. and Rostovtzeff M.I. 1931. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary Report of Second Season of Work, October 1928–April 1929. New Haven. Béal J.C. 1983. Catalogue des objets de tabletterie du Musée de la civilisation gallo-romaine de Lyon (Centre d’études romaines et gallo-romaines, Université Jean Moulin, N.S. 1). Lyon. Behn F. 1935. Ein vorfränkisches Gräberfeld bei Lampenheim am Rhein. Mainzer Zeitschrift 30:56–65. Behrens G. 1913–1914. Dritter Bericht über Funde aus dem Kastell Mainz. Mainzer Zeitschrift 8–9:65–93. Bernard P. 1980. Campagne de fouilles 1978 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan). Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscrptions et Belles-Lettres 124:435–459. Bernard P., Garczinski P., Guillaume O., Grenet F., Ghassouli N., Leriche P., Liger J.-C., Rapin C., Rougeulle A., Thoraval J., Valence R. de, and Veuve S. 1980. Campagne de fouilles 1978 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan). Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient 68:1–103. Bishop M.C. 1987. The Evolution of Certain Features. In M. Dawson ed. Roman Military Equipment: The Accoutrements of War (Proceedings of the Third Roman Military Equipment Research Seminar) (BAR Int. S. 336). Oxford. Pp. 109–139. Bishop M.C. 1988. Cavalry Equipment of the Roman Army in the First Century AD. In J.C.N. Coulston ed. Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman Soldiers (Proceedings of the Fourth Roman Military Equipment Conference) (BAR Int. S. 394). Oxford. Pp. 67–195. Bishop M.C. 2002. Lorica segmentata I: A Handbook of Articulated Roman Plate Armour (Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies Monograph 1). Chirnside. Bishop M.C. and Coulston J.C.N. 2006. Roman Military Equipment: From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome (2nd ed.). Oxford.

Bliss F.J. and Dickie A.C. 1898. Excavations at Jerusalem, 1894–1897. London. Bliss F.J. and Macalister R.A.S. 1902. Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900. London. Bordowicz I. 2001. Hobnailed Sandals: The Archaeological and Historical Evidence. M.A. thesis. Bar Ilan University. Ramat Gan (Hebrew; English summary, pp. V–XI). Bottini A., Egg M., Hase F.-W. von, Pflug H., Schaaff U., Schauer P. and Waurick G. 1988. Antike Helme: Sammlung Lipperheide und andere Bestände des Antikenmuseums Berlin (Römisch-Germanisch Zentralmuseum Mainz: Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 14). Mainz. Boube-Piccot C. 1994. Les bronzes antiques du Maroc IV: L’équipement militaire et l’armement. Paris. Collingwood R.G. and Wright R.P. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain II: Instrumentum Domesticum (eight fascicles). Avon. 1990–1995. Coulston J.C.N. 1998. How to Arm a Roman Soldier. In M.M. Austin, J. Harries and C. Smith. eds. Modus Operandi: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Suppl. 7). London. Pp. 167– 190. Dąbrowa E. 1993. Legio X Fretensis: A Prosopographical Study of Its Officers (I–III c. A.D.) (Historia Einzelschriften 66). Stuttgart. Dannell G.B. and Wild J.P. 1987. Longthorpe II: The Military Works Depot, An Episode in Landscape History (Britannia Monograph 8). London. Deschler-Erb E. 1999. Ad arma! Römisches Militär des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. in Augusta Raurica (Forschungen in Augst. Band 28). Augst. Dixon K.R. and Southern P. 1992. The Roman Cavalry: From the First to the Third Century AD. London. Down A. 1978. Chichester Excavations III. Chichester. Driel-Murray C. van and Gechter M. 1983. Funde aus der Fabrika der legio I Minervia aus Bonner Berg. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 23:1–83. Edelstein G. 2002a. A Section of the Hellenistic-Roman Cemetery at Berit-Ahim, North of ‘Akko (Acre). ‘Atiqot 43:75*–98* (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 257–258). Edelstein G. 2002b. Two Burial Caves from the Roman Period near Tel Qedesh. ‘Atiqot 43:91*–105* (Hebrew; English summary, p. 259). Eshel H. 1988. Nailed Sandals in Jewish Sources and in the Excavation of a Cave at Ketef Jericho. Zion 53:191–198 (Hebrew; English summary, p. VII). Eshel H. and Zissu B. 1998. Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Caves at Ketef Jericho. In H. Eshel and D. Amit. Refuge Caves of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Tel Aviv. Pp. 113–151 (Hebrew). Eshel H., Zissu B. and Frumkin A. 1998. Two Refuge Caves in Wadi Suweinit. In H. Eshel and D. Amit. Refuge Caves of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Tel Aviv. Pp. 93–109 (Hebrew). Feugère M. 1993. Les armes des Romains: De la République à l’Antiquité tardive. Paris.

106

Guy D. Stiebel

Feugère M. 1994. Les casques antiques: Visages de la guerre de Mycènes à l’Antiquité tardive. Paris. Florescu F.B. 1965. Das Siegesdenkmal von Adamklissi: Tropaeum Traiani (3rd ed.). Bucharest. Forrer R. 1927. Das römische Straβburg-Argentorate. Strasbourg. Frere S. 1984. Verulamium Excavations III (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 1). Oxford. Gansser-Burckhardt A. 1942. Das Leder und seine Verarbeitung im römischen Legionslager Vindonissa (Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa 1). Basel. Garbsch J. 1978. Römische Paraderüstungen (Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 29). Munich. Goldsworthy A.K. 1996. The Roman Army at War 100BC– AD200. Oxford. Goren D. 2010. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Hasmonean Quarter (Areas D and B) and Area B77. In D. Syon and Z. Yavor. Gamla II: The Architecture; The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations, 1976–1989 (IAA Reports 44). Pp. 113–152. Grew F. and Griffiths N. 1991. The Pre-Flavian Military Belt: The Evidence from Britain. Archaeologia 109:47–84. Groller M. von. 1901a. Das Lager von Carnuntum. Der römische Limes in Österreich 2:15–84. Groller M. von. 1901b. Römische Waffen. Der römische Limes in Österreich 2:85–132. Gutmann S. 1965. With Masada. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Gutmann S. 1994. Gamla—A City in Rebellion. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Haalebos J.K. and Bogaers J.E. 1970. Een schildknop uit Zwammerdam-Nigrum Pullum, gem. Alphen (Z.-H.). Helinium 10:242–249. Hyland A. 1993. Training the Roman Cavalry: From Arrian’s Ars Tactica. Gloucester. Istenič J. 2003. The Early Roman ‘Hoard of Vrhnika’: A Collection of Finds from the River Ljubljanica. Arheološki vestnik 54:281–298. Jahn M. 1921. Der Reitersporn, seine Entstehung und früheste Entwicklung. Leipzig. James S. 1986. Part of a Roman Helmet from Jerusalem. PEQ 118:109–112. James S. 2004. The Excavations at Dura-Europos Conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters, 1928 to 1937; Final Report VII: The Arms and Armour and Other Military Equipment. London. Junkelmann M. 1992. Die Reiter Roms III: Zubehör, Reitweise, Bewaffnung (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 53). Mainz am Rhein. Junkelmann M. 2000. Familia Gladiatoria: The Heroes of the Amphitheatre. In E. Köhne and C. Ewigleben eds. Gladiators and Caesars: The Power of Spectacle in Ancient Rome. London. Pp. 31–74. Kajanto I. 1965. The Latin Cognomina (Commentationes humanarum litterarum 36/2). Helsinki. Kalee C.A. 1989. Roman Helmets and Other Militaria from Vechten. In C. van Driel-Murray ed. Roman Military

Equipment: The Sources of Evidence (Proceedings of the Fifth Roman Military Equipment Conference) (BAR Int. S. 476). Oxford. Pp. 193–226. Kennedy D.L. and Bishop M.C. 1998. Military Equipment. In D.L. Kennedy. The Twin Towns of Zeugma on the Euphrates: Rescue Work and Historical Studies (JRA Suppl. S. 27). Portsmouth, R.I. Pp. 135–137. Keppie L. 1984. The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire. London. Kirshner B. 1946. A Mint of Bar-Kochba? BJPES 12:153– 160 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XI). Künzl E. 1977. Cingula aus Campanien. In S. Boucher ed. Actes du VIe Colloque International sur les bronzes antiques (17–21 mai 1976). Lyons 1976. Pp. 83–86. Künzl E. 1998. Der Eisendolch mit opus interrasiledekor aus grab 95/7 vom Tell Schech Hamad/Syrien. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 28:269–282. Lewis C.T. and Short C. A Latin Dictionary. Oxford 1879 (rev. 1927). Leander Touati A.-M. 1987. The Great Trajanic Frieze: The Study of a Monument and of the Mechanisms of Message Transmission in Roman Art. Stockholm. Lee J.W.I. 2001. Urban Combat at Olynthos. In P.M.W. Freeman and A. Pollard. Fields of Conflicts: Progress and Prospect in Battlefield Archaeology (Proceedings of a Conference Held in the Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow, April 2000) (BAR Int. S. 958). Oxford. Pp. 11–22. MacMullen R. 1960. Inscriptions on Armor and the Supply of Arms in the Roman Empire. AJA 64:23–40. Manning W.H. 1985. Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools, Fittings and Weapons in the British Museum. London. Mielczarek M. 1993. Cataphracti and Clibanarii: Studies on the Heavy Armoured Cavalry of the Ancient World (Studies on the History of Ancient and Medieval Art of Warfare 1). Lodz. Morel J.-M.A.W. and Bosman A.V.A.J. 1989. An Early Roman Burial in Velsen I. In C. van Driel-Murray ed. Roman Military Equipment: The Sources of Evidence (Proceedings of the Fifth Roman Military Equipment Conference) (BAR Int. S. 476). Oxford. Pp. 167–191. Nicolle D. and McBride A. 1992. Romano-Byzantine Armies, 4th–9th Centuries (Men-at-Arms Series 247). London. Not. dign. Occ. Notitia dignitatum in partibus Occidentis. O. Seeck ed. Berlin 1878, repr. Frankfurt am Main 1962. Not. dign. Or. Notitia dignitatum in partibus Orientis. O. Seeck ed. Berlin 1876, repr. Frankfurt am Main 1962. Obmann J. 1992. Zu einer elfenbeinernen Dolchgriffplatte aus Nida-Heddenheim/Frankfurt am Main. Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 3:37–40. Obmann J. 2000. Studien zu römischer Dolchscheiden des 1. Jahrunderts n. Chr. (Kölner Studien zur Archäologie der römischen Provinzen 4). Rahden. Oldenstein J. 1976. Zur Ausrüstung römischer Auxiliareinheiten; Studien zu Beschlägen und Zierat an der Ausrüstung der römischen Auxiliareinheiten des obergermanisch-raetischen Limesgebietes aus dem

Chapter 4: Military equipment

zweiten und dritten Jahrundert n. Chr. Bericht der römisch-germanischen Kommission 57:49–284. Ponting M.J. 2002. Roman Military Copper-Alloy Artefacts from Israel: Questions of Organization and Ethnicity. Archaeometry 44:555–571. Reisner G.A., Fisher C.S and Lyon D.G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria (1908–1910) 1–2. Cambridge, Mass. Reynolds P.K.B. 1926. The Vigiles of Imperial Rome. Oxford. Ritterling E. 1913. Das frührömische Lager bei Hofheim im Taunus (Annalen des Vereins für Nassauische Altertumskunde und Geschichtsforschung 40). Wiesbaden. Robertson A., Scott M. and Keppie L. 1975, Bar Hill: A Roman Fort and Its Finds (BAR British S. 16). Oxford. Robinson H.R. 1975. The Armour of Imperial Rome. London. Salazar C.F. 2000. The Treatment of War Wounds in GraecoRoman Antiquity (Studies in Ancient Medicine 21). Leiden. Schönberger H. 1978. Kastell Oberstimm: Die Grabungen von 1968 bis 1971. Berlin. Schoppa H. 1974. Ein Gladius vom Typus Pompeji. Germania 52:102–108. Selzer W. 1988. Römische Steindenkmäler: Mainz in römischer Zeit (Landesmuseum Mainz, Katalogreihe zu den Abteilungen und Sammlungen 1). Mainz. Shaked I. 1997. Kafr Makr. ESI 16:29. Shortt H. de S. 1959. A Provincial Roman Spur from Longstock, Hants, and Other Spurs from Roman Britain. The Antiquaries Journal 39:61–76. Stiebel G.D. 1999. “...You were the word of war”—A Sling Shot Testimony from Israel. In M. Feugère ed. L'équipement militaire et l'armement de la République (IVe–Ier s. avant J.-C.) (Proceedings of the Tenth International Roman Military Equipment Conference Held at Montpellier, France, 26th–28th September 1996) (Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 8). Oxford. Pp. 301–307. Stiebel G.D. 2003. The Militaria from Herodium. In G.C. Bottini L., Di Segni and L.D. Chrupchała eds. One Land—Many Cultures: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Stanislao Loffreda OFM (SBF Collectio Maior 41). Jerusalem. Pp. 214–244. Stiebel G.D. 2004. A Hellenistic Gladius from Jericho. In E. Netzer. Hasmonean and Hoerodian Palaces at Jericho. Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations II. Jerusalem. Pp. 229–232. Stiebel G.D. 2005. ‘Dust to dust, ashes to ashes’—Military Equipment from Destruction Layers in Palestine. In J. Cencic ed. Archäologie der Schlachtfelder: Militaria aus Zerstörungshorizonten (Akten der 14. Internationalen Roman Military Equipment Conference [ROMEC], Wien, 27.–31. August 2003) (Carnuntum Jahrbuch 2005). Vienna. Pp. 99–108. Stiebel G.D. 2007. Armis et litteris—The Military Equipment of Early Roman Palestine in Light of the Archaeological

107

and Historical Sources. Ph.D. diss. University of London. London. Stiebel G.D. 2008. “Miles Gloriosus”? Outlines for the Image of the Roman Legionary. In O. Guri-Rimon ed. The Great Revolt in the Galilee (Hecht Museum Catalogue 28). Haifa (Hebrew). Stiebel G.D. and Magness J. 2007. The Military Equipment from Masada. In Masada VIII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports. Jerusalem. Pp. 1–94. Suolahti J. 1955. The Junior Officers of the Roman Army in the Republican Period: A Study on Social Structure. Helsinki. Syon D. 2002. Gamla: City of Refuge. In A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman eds. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology. London. Pp. 134–153. Syon D. and Yavor Z. 2001. Gamla—Old and New. Qadmoniot 121:2–33 (Hebrew). Thomas M.D. 2002. Lorica Segmentata II: A Catalogue of Finds (Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies Monograph 2). Chirnside. Tzaferis V. 1982. A Monumental Roman Tomb on Tel ‘Eitun. ‘Atiqot (HS) 8:22–25 (English summary, p. 3*). Ubl H. 1989. Was trug der römische Soldat unter dem Cingulum? In C. van Driel-Murray ed. Roman Military Equipment: The Sources of Evidence. Proceedings of the Fifth Roman Military Equipment Conference (BAR Int. S. 476). Oxford. Pp. 61–74. Ulbert G. 1959. Die römischen Donau-Kastelle Aislingen und Burghöfe (Limesforschungen 1). Berlin. Ulbert G. 1969a. Das frührömische Kastell Rheingönheim: Die Funde aus den Jahren 1912 und 1913 (Limesforschungen 1). Berlin. Ulbert G. 1969b. Gladii aus Pompeji: Vorarbeiten zu einem Corpus römischer Gladii. Germania 47:97–128.. Unz C. and Deschler-Erb E. 1997. Katalog der Militaria aus Vindonissa: Militärische Funde, Pferdegeschirr und Jochteile bis 1976 (Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa 14). Brugg. Vegetius. Epitoma Rei Militaris. L.F. Stelten ed. and transl. New York. 1990. Webster G. 1960. The Roman Military Advance under Ostorious Scapula. Archaeological Journal 115:49–98. Weinberg S.S. 1979. A Hoard of Roman Armor. Antike Kunst 22:82–86. Wild J.P. 1970. Button-and-Loop Fasteners in the Roman Provinces. Britannia 1:137–155. Zitronblat A. and Geva H. 2003. Metal Artifacts. In H. Geva. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982 II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X–2; Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 353–363.

108

Guy D. Stiebel

Chapter 5

Coins Danny Syon

Part I: The Numismatic Material1 The majority of the 5892 identifiable coins discussed here were found during the 14 excavation seasons conducted by S. Gutmann (1976–1989), which yielded 6164 coins in all. Twenty-six were recovered during preservation and restoration works in 1990–1991, and as stray finds by visitors to the site. The remaining 126 coins were gathered in the four seasons conducted by Z. Yavor and myself in 1997–2000. An additional 424 unidentifiable coins bring the total number to 6316. Another 153 coins from Gamla, ‘discovered’ in the Kibbutz Sasa collection, are not included here.2 Two interim numismatic reports have seen publication. One, published twice, describes about 250 coins found until

1978 (Eidlin 1981; 1985).3 The other (Syon 1992–1993) served as the basis for the present report and includes the 6164 coins recovered until 1989. Several coins presented then as rare have since been recorded by others and are not treated in any detail. Many coins were re-examined and found to have been misidentified. Figure 5.1 shows the number of coins and their percentages. The most striking feature is the overwhelming majority of Hasmonean coins, both relatively and absolutely. ‘Autonomous Phoenicia’ includes both full autonomous and civic coins. The ‘other’ category is broken down in Figs. 5.2–5.4.

Byblos

Unidentified 6.6% 419 Seleucid 610 9.7%

Berytus

Hasmonean 62.8%

89

Caesarea

Hippos Gadara

NysaScythopolis

Samaria

Judea 7

Iturean

16

3

19

11 16

Jerusalem Ascalon

3

14

Other Autonomous Coinages

Gamla Tiberias

1

Ptolemaic

Paneas

‘AkkoPtolemais

Local Civic Nabatean Coinage

Late Roman

a

ni Tyre

Ph

3964

Fig. 5.1. General distribution chart of the coins.

Modern

Damascus

oe

Autonomous Phoenician 928 14.7% Herodians 304 and Roman Administration 4.8% Other 1.4%

Chalcis

ci

Sidon

Dead Sea

Roman Imperial

Autonomous and civic mint Ptolemaic or Seleucid mint Jewish mint and Roman administration

Arabia Petra

0

Roman Provincial and Colonial

Fig. 5.2. Coin classes in the ‘other’ category.

Fig. 5.3. Mints in Palestine and Phoenicia represented at Gamla.

50 km

110

Danny Syon

Amphipolis (Macedonia)

Armenia

Commagene

Cilicia r Tig is

Seleucla Pieria Antioch Balanea

Paphos

tes ra ph Eu

Cyprus

Apamea

Aradus Marathus

Syria Gamla

Seleucia on the Tigris

B

Autonomous and civic mint Ptolemaic or Seleucid mint Roman Imperial mint

Jerusalem

ab yl on

Jewish mint Alexandria

0

Arabia

200 km

Fig. 5.4. Mints in outlying areas represented at Gamla.

The Earliest Coin A single very small Tyrian silver coin from the second half of the fourth century BCE is the earliest coin recovered at Gamla (5057).

Ptolemaic Coins (1–14) Eight early Ptolemaic bronze coins (1–8) (Table 5.1) were found, in a poor state of preservation, making accurate attribution difficult. Five late Ptolemaic coins of Ptolemy IX or X from Cyprus, dated c. 114/3–103 BCE (9–11, 13, 14), are probably connected with the violent campaign of Ptolemy IX Soter II (Lathyrus) following the unsuccessful siege of ‘Akko-Ptolemais by the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus in 103 BCE (Josephus, Antiquities 13.12.1– 13.13.2 [320–355], and see below, Non-Hasmonean Coins). The doubts surrounding the identity of the king who minted these coins stem from the fact that Ptolemy IX Lathyrus ruled Cyprus only from 106/5 BCE, allowing him little time to mint before his foray to the Levantine coast. His brother, Ptolemy X Alexander I, ruled Cyprus from 114/3 BCE, thus having had ample time to mint

Table 5.1. Ptolemaic Coins Cat. No.

Ruler

Date

Mint

Qty.

1, 2, 3

Ptolemy I or II

305–246 BCE

Tyre (1); Egypt (2)

3

4

Ptolemy II(?)

282–246 BCE

Tyre?

1

5

Ptolemy IV(?)

224–222 BCE

Tyre

1

6, 7, 8

Uncertain

?

3

in Cyprus (Gitler and Kushnir-Stein 1994–1999:46). A sixth coin (12), Head of Zeus-Ammon/Isis headdress, is probably of the same ruler and the same period. Coins of the ‘two eagles’ type have also been found at Dora, Ginnosar and Yodefat (Iotapata of Josephus; Gitler and Kushnir-Stein 1994–1999), in ‘Akko-Ptolemais itself (Gitler and Kushnir-Stein 1994–1999; Syon, forthcoming) and in an underwater hoard at ‘Atlit (Galili, Syon and Finkielsztejn, forthcoming).

Seleucid Coins Among the 610 Seleucid coins retrieved at Gamla, most kings, from Antiochus III on, are represented (Table

111

Chapter 5: Coins

5.2). The late Seleucid rulers who minted at Damascus, Demetrius III and Antiochus XII, are well represented.

The classification follows the two volumes of Seleucid Coins (SC I, II).

Table 5.2. Seleucid Coins at Gamla (Gray Indicates Inoperative Mint) Mints Phoenicia

Ruler Byblos

Sidon

Tyre

Antiochus III (222– 187 BCE)

4

Seleucus IV (187–175 BCE)

2

Antiochus IV (175– 164 BCE)

1

1

‘AkkoPtolemaisi

Judea Uncertain

Jerusalemii

Ascalon

Syria Damascus

2

Demetrius I (162–150 BCE)

17

Alexander I Balas (150–145 BCE)

15

Demetrius II (first reign: 145–138 BCE)

88

7(?)

Uncertain 5

2

1 1 1

Antiochus VI (144– 142 BCE)

1

Antiochus VII (138– 129 BCE)

31

Demetrius II (second reign: 129–125 BCE)

2

Demetrius II or Antiochus VII (uncertain: 145–125 BCE)

?

3

4

4

59 11

Alexander II Zebina (128–122 BCE)

3

Antiochus VIII and Cleopatra Thea (125– 121 BCE)

1

1

2

Antiochus VIII (121– 96 BCE)

6

Antiochus IX (114– 101 BCE)

2

10

Seleucus VI (95–94 BCE)

1

Demetrius III (96–88 BCE)

9

Antiochus XII (87–84 BCE)

10

Seleucid, not otherwise identifiable (2nd c. BCE) Total

Seleucia Pieria

25

Antiochus V (164–162 BCE)

i

Antioch

1

270

1

3

524

4

9

5

4

1

19

29

2

10

‘Akko-Ptolemais under Antiochus VII: Traditionally considered inactive, Voulgaridis (2000:150–154, Pl. IX) has attributed some silver tetradrachms and didrachms of both Attic and Phoenician weight to ‘Akko-Ptolemais under Antiochus VII as well as some bronze coins (SC II:388–391). ii Jerusalem: Barag (2000–2002) suggested that this mint was active under Antiochus IV, but the coins he proposed as the products of this mint were most probably minted in Samaria (SC II:94–95).

112

Danny Syon

Denomination Marks of value appear on a small number of Seleucid coins, none of which was found at Gamla. Attempts to classify and value the Seleucid bronze denominations (Schlösser 1985; Le Rider 1994), lately by Hoover (2008:45–48), have not met with universal consensus.

Fig. 5.5. Elephant of Antiochus III.

Silver Coins Dating Many of the individual coins are dated, and thus, state of preservation permitting, their identification is full. Many others are worn to some degree, and the attribution is based on fragmentary inscriptions, dates or parts of dates, types and stylistic considerations. Table 5.2 reflects only some of the uncertain attributions because, for simplicity’s sake, some of the question marks attached to either ruler or mint have been omitted; these can be found in the catalogue. It is noteworthy that all the coins of Antiochus III were minted in Seleucid mints established after 200 BCE, and some of them are now tentatively attributed to military mints operating in the newly conquered territories, as suggested by Houghton and Lorber (2000–2002; SC I:356). There are a few unusual coins among the finds deserving a separate discussion. Relative rarities are the two coins of Antiochus V (62, 63), a coin of Antiochus VI (196) and one of Seleucus VI (599), who produced few coins during their short reigns. Two coins (27, 28) that had been attributed to Antiochus I from the mint of Carrhae (Syon 1992– 1993:50, No. 48) have been reattributed to Antiochus III (Fig. 5.5), from an uncertain mint in southern KoileSyria, based on many provenanced coins from the region (Houghton and Lorber 2000–2002:47–48; SC I:413, No. 1089).

Six Seleucid silver coins were found, all from the mint of Tyre, and all fall within the date range 139–125 BCE (Table 5.3). All the silver coins are struck on the Phoenician standard (equivalent to the Ptolemaic), which was introduced under Antiochus V in ‘AkkoPtolemais and used in the Seleucid period exclusively along the southern Phoenician and Palestinian coasts. It was used alternately with the Attic standard, current in the Seleucid Empire, albeit scarce in archaeological material in Israel.4 Using this standard for striking was an acknowledgement by the Seleucids of the strong economic influence exerted by Egypt on this region when it was under Ptolemaic rule in the third century BCE, an influence that still prevailed at the time of the Seleucids (Mørkholm 1984:96; Le Rider 1995:396; Houghton and Lorber 2000–2002:54–55). The sheqels minted by autonomous Tyre from 125 BCE continued to use this standard for nearly 200 more years. Mints In quantity, the Seleucid mint at Tyre far surpasses all others put together. Antioch, the capital, is second, and the late-Seleucid mint of Damascus, third. ‘Akko-Ptolemais follows far behind. Other mints are sparsely represented by one to four coins each (see Table 5.2). The influence of

Table 5.3. Seleucid Silver Coins Cat. No.

Ruler

Denomination

203 204

Antiochus VII

Didrachm

243 244 245 246

Demetrius II, 2nd reign

Tetradrachm

Date

Control Mark

139/8 BCE

Δ?

Illegible

Between legs:>

130/29 BCE

? Between legs: >

129/8 BCE

Between legs:{

128/7 BCE

Between legs:>

126/5 BCE

? Between legs: >

113

Chapter 5: Coins

The Tyrian Palm-Tree Coins

these mints across the Galilee and the Golan is examined in some depth in Syon, in press.

The majority of Seleucid issues are the ubiquitous small Tyrian coins with the head of the king on the obverse and a palm tree on the reverse. Unfortunately, a great number of these were found in extremely worn condition, not always permitting a full identification. A practically identical type was issued in Tyre following the inauguration of the autonomous coinage in 125 BCE; thus, worn Seleucid and autonomous issues are easily confused. The large quantity of both Seleucid and autonomous types at Gamla led to the creation of a checklist to facilitate the classification of both (see below and Syon 2008).

Municipal Coinage This class, minted under the Seleucids, was introduced by Antiochus IV (Mørkholm 1963). It continued intermittently down to the second reign of Demetrius II (129–125 BCE). Characteristic of these issues is the Seleucid ruler’s head on the obverse, as on the royal issues, but with a local type and/or inscription in Greek or Phoenician naming the issuing city, on the reverse. At Gamla, 12 coins of this class were found (Table 5.4). Table 5.4. Seleucid ‘Municipal’ Issues Ruler

35 36

Antiochus IV

37, 38, 39

Mint

Qty.

Type

Byblos

1

Bull’s head

Sidon

1

Galley

Tyre

3

Galley’s prow(1), galley’s stern

Tyre

1

Galley’s stern

Hasmonean Coins

64

Demetrius I

81

Demetrius I or II

Tyre

1

Galley’s stern

98

Demetrius II, 1st reign

Tyre

1

Galley’s stern

205, 207

Antiochus VII

Tyre

2

Galley’s stern, battering ram

241, 242

Demetrius II, 2nd reign

Sidon

2

Astarte on galley

The Hasmonean coin types are classified primarily according to Meshorer’s TJC—his final work on Jewish coinage (Fig. 5.6). In the catalogue herein, however, the AJC 1 equivalent is also given, as in my opinion this publication presents a far higher resolution for Hasmonean coinage (see also Tables 5.6–5.8). Today, even TJC is no longer considered as presenting an accurate attribution and chronology (see below). The Hasmonean coins from Gamla are thus classified according to the following criteria:

1300 1180 1121

Uncertain (inscription/cornucopia)

Cat. No.

1100

900

Aristobulos I

Number

700

500 Hyrcanus I

Jannaeus 288

300

150 100

381

87 18 A

41 B

D

50 E

41 F

76 24 G

1 H

27 I

25 U

7

4 V K Area

128 111

L

N

P

Q

R

Fig. 5.6. The frequency of Hasmonean coins according to TJC types.

S

T

?

114

Danny Syon

1. It is now unanimously accepted that John Hyrcanus I was the first Hasmonean ruler to strike coins, based on solid evidence from hoards and excavations (Hendin 2010:162; TJC:25–26). Thus, all the coins bearing the name Yehohanan (‫ )יהוחנן‬are his. The date Hyrcanus I started striking his coins cannot be accurately fixed. It is best assigned to the period following the death of Antiochus VII in 129 BCE, and, more likely, following the death of Demetrius II in 125 BCE, when, for all practical purposes, firm Seleucid control of southern Koile-Syria was lost. It has been suggested that the Greek alpha (a) above Type M of Hyrcanus I stands for Alexander (II Zebina, 128–123 BCE) or Antiochus (VIII Grypus, 121–96 BCE), thereby signifying the beginning of Hasmonean coinage with the consent of these rulers (Barag and Qedar 1980:18). In this report, the beginning date for Hasmonean coinage is assumed to be 125 BCE, and I believe it provides an acceptable compromise until new evidence becomes known. 2. Were the coins bearing the name Yehuda (‫)יהודה‬ struck by Aristobulos I (104 BCE) or by Aristobulos II (67–63 BCE)? Meshorer preferred to attribute them to Aristobulos II (TJC:27–29) but an attribution to Aristobulos I now seems secure, for reasons beyond the stylistic considerations presented by Barag and Qedar (1980:18). Further support for this comes from a hoard from the Golan (Seyrig 1958:175–176 [=IGCH 1613]), which contained two coins of Yehuda, one of Jannaeus and nine more otherwise unidentifiable Hasmonean coins together with twenty-five coins of Tyre dated 99/8 BCE, a coin each of Antiochus VII and VIII and an autonomous coin of Sidon with an illegible date. Thus, the latest coin appears to be that of Jannaeus. Lastly, at Mt. Gerizim a single Yehuda coin was uncovered in a sequence of coins of John Hyrcanus I (52 coins) and Jannaeus (480 coins); after Jannaeus, no coins are attested until the Late Roman period (Magen 2000b:115). It is much more reasonable to insert the single Yehuda coin between Hyrcanus and Jannaeus than to assume a single coin of Aristobulos II arriving a decade or so after the others.5 3. Who struck the coins bearing the name YNTN (‫ ?)ינתן‬Meshorer first believed it was Jannaeus (AJC 1:69–70, 74) and later tentatively assumed it was Hyrcanus II (TJC:26–27), while Kindler (1991:16–17) thought it was Aristobulos II (67–63 BCE). Several authors attributed coins to Hyrcanus II. Based mainly on the evidence of TJC Types S and T, the latter supposedly overstruck on the later issues of Jannaeus,

they were said to have possibly been struck already in the reign of Salome-Alexandra, following Jannaeus’ death (TJC:27; Barag and Qedar 1982:29; Rappaport 1984:38–39; Maltiel-Gerstenfeld 1987:56). Besides the fact that the name YNTN appears also on issues attributable to Jannaeus with certainty, a recent unique find of a double-overstrike (Hendin and Shachar 2008) of TJC Type K over Type T proves unequivocally that the YNTN series belongs to him. 4. Recent scholarship on the war of 103–101 BCE, and especially a newly interpreted papyrus, proves that Cleopatra III was already in possession of ‘Akko in September 103 (Van ‘t Dack et al. 1989:50–61, 109). This bears on the accession of Jannaeus, which should now be dated to 104 BCE (Van’t Dack et al. 1989:118– 121). The present report adopts this suggestion (and see below). 5. The internal chronology of the various Hasmonean types has so far defied a coherent classification. Except for a few distinct types, it would appear that the paleographic variants of the inscription in wreath/ joined cornucopia type and the various forms of the star/anchor type do not reflect chronological markers. As no meaningful information can be extracted from the Gamla material concerning these issues, they will not be dealt with in this report. The sequence proposed by Hendin and Shachar (2008) for the Hasmonean coinage seems quite satisfactory (Table 5.5). The absence of the palm branch/lily types of Hyrcanus I (TJC Types C and J) and Jannaeus (TJC Type O) is notable. Some of the very common and very small star/anchor-type coins of Jannaeus (TJC Types L7–L17) are so poorly preserved that some of them could conceivably be of these types, but the probability is low. Thus, the period of Hasmonean rule represented numismatically at Gamla spans altogether some 85 Table 5.5. The Hasmonean Minting Sequence (after Hendin and Shachar 2008:88) Jannaeus Group

TJC Type

Date At least until 99/98 BCE

1

P, Q, R

2

O

3

N

4

K

Probably in the mid to late 80s

5

L1–L6

80/79 BCE

6

M Lead

7

L7–L17

Some possibly struck posthumously

115

Chapter 5: Coins

years at the most—from c. 125 BCE, when Hyrcanus I presumably first struck coins, until c. 40 BCE, assuming that some coins of Jannaeus were struck posthumously (see below, Coins of Jannaeus Circulating in the First Century CE). Nonetheless, 62.8% of all coins found at the site are from this period, compared to 4.8% from the 107 years representing the Herodian dynasty (40 BCE–67 CE, when the town fell). More coins of Jannaeus were found at Gamla than at any other site with the exception of Jerusalem. In fact, many of his coins were apparently found in contexts of the first century CE, implying posthumous use, or even posthumous minting, as already suggested by Rappaport (1984:39). The ubiquity of his coins and their mass-production traits are reflected in some 25 examples that were struck on incompletely cast flans (Fig. 5.7) and on others, on which there are short, random strokes instead of an inscription (Tables 5.7, 5.8).

Fig. 5.7. Coins of Jannaeus struck on incompletely cast flans.

Table 5.6. A Concordance of Hasmonean Coin Types Ruler

New Sequence TJC (2001)

AJC 1 (1982)

A

Ma

AB

Mb

AC

Mc

B1–23

Na

B24–25

Nb

B26–32

Nc

B33–34

Nd

C

O

D1–16

Pa

D17–23

Pb

E

La

F

K

G

Lb, Lc

H

R

I1–4

Sa

I5–18

Sb

I19–66

Sc

J

T

U

Ja

V

Jc

K

Ca, Cb, Cc

L

Cd, Ce

M

D

N

A

O

B

P1–45

Ea

P46–53

Eb

Q

F

Archelaos

R

G

Few of Archelaos’ coins, minted in Jerusalem, found their way to Gamla, as indeed his coins are relatively rare in Galilee. Three of his types were found, represented by two specimens each (Table 5.11).

S1–32

Ha

S33–36

Hb

S37–46

Hc

T

I

The Herodian Dynasty Compared to the enormous quantities of Hasmonean coins, the number of coins of all the rulers of the house of Herod found at Gamla is very modest (Table 5.9). For the Herodian coins, TJC and RPC I are the preferred references.

Yehohanan (yhwhnn)

Herod As the Golan belonged to Herod’s realm from the very beginning of his rule (see below, phase IIIb), it is not surprising to find one coin of the early part of his reign from the group which is dated ‘Year 3’. Traditionally, these coins are thought to have been minted in SebasteSamaria in 40 BCE, when Herod was officially invested with the kingship by the Roman Senate. Recent scholarship suggests the mint of these issues was in Jerusalem in 38/7 BCE (Ariel and Fontanille 2012:94–98) and this view is tentatively adopted in this report (Table 5.10).

Yehuda (yhwdh)

Yehonatan (yhwntn)

Yonatan (yntn)

116

Danny Syon

Table 5.7. Frequency of Hasmonean Coin Subtypes at Gamla Main Type (after AJC 1)

Ruler

Subtype a

R

Hyrcanus I

Aristobulos I

Jannaeus

b

c

d

Total e

Uncertain

1

S

1

M

9

1 9

N

20

P

6

53

L

50

24

K

39

J

25

A

6

8

9

27

2

7

18

10

11

41

6

22

87

14

88

2

41

4

29

1

7

E

213

10

65

288

F

117

11

22

150

G

7

57

12

76

C

626

55

440

319

861

198

2499

yntn

H

97

1

2

17

1

10

128

I

96

Uncertain

Inscription/ Cornucopia 1313

Total

220

472

336

862

15

111

373

373

760

3964

Table 5.8. Weight and Diameter Ranges for Hasmonean Coins Ruler

Type (after AJC 1)

Weight range (g)

Diameter range (mm)

R

3.69

16

A

S

0.91–2.46

11–14

E

M

0.79–2.75

12–15

a

0.61–2.10

10–15

c

1.43–2.20

11–15

a

1.52–2.17

11–14

b

0.63–2.81

9–16

c

1.44–2.08

12–14

a

1.03–2.37

N Hyrcanus I

P

L

Subtype

b Aristobulos I

Ruler

Type (after AJC 1)

Weight range (g)

Diameter range (mm)

1.36–2.53

12–14

a

0.79–3.30

10–16

b

1.36–2.65

12–15

a

1.04–2.80

11–15

b

1.46–2.40

12–15

a

1.09–2.67

13–15

b

0.95–2.64

11–15

a

0.45–4.26

10–17

11–15

b

0.17–1.81

10–15

F G Jannaeus C

Subtype

1.07–2.74

11–15

c

0.50–3.52

9–17

K

0.83–2.43

11–15

d

0.32–1.87

9–16

J

1.22–2.44

11–14

e

0.15–1.89

8–17 (many are elongated)

H yntn I

a

1.05–2.90

11–15

d

1.09–2.17

11–14

0.78–3.96

12–16

117

Chapter 5: Coins

Antipas

Table 5.9. Frequency of Coins of the Herodian Dynasty Herod Archelaos

Certain

Uncertain

Total

105

1

106

1

61

6

6

Antipas

60

Philip

36

Agrippa I

31

1

32

238

3

241

Total

Coins of Antipas from Tiberias are far more abundant. Among the 61 coins of Antipas retrieved, all five of his minting years are represented, with at least two denominations for each year (Table 5.12).6 On some, the date is illegible, but as they are all of the palmbranch type, they belong to Years 33, 34 or 37. Most are in the poor state of preservation unfortunately

36

Table 5.10. Herod’s Types TJC No.

RPC I No.

Mint

Cat. No.

Type

Qty.

46

4903

Jerusalem

4584

Caduceus/Pomegranate(?)

1

49, 51

4905

Jerusalem

4585–4586

Diadem with cross/Tripod

2

53–54

4906

Jerusalem

4587–4590

Diadem/Tripod

59

4910

Jerusalem

4591–4679

Anchor/Joined cornucopia with Caduceus

89

66

4909

Jerusalem

4680–4689

Cornucopia/Eagle

10

4

Table 5.11. Archelaos’ Types TJC No.

RPC I No.

Cat. No.

Type

Qty.

68

4912

4690-4691

Anchor/Joined cornucopia with Caduceus

2

72

4916

4692-4693

Galley’s prow/Inscription in wreath

2

73

4917

4694-4695

Bunch of grapes/Helmet

2

Table 5.12. Antipas’ Types TJC No.

RPC I No.

Date

76

4919

77

4920

78

4921

⅛

1

79

4922

1

6

80

4923

½

7

81

4924

¼

2

83

4926

84

4927

87

4930

88

4931

91

4934 4935

93

4936

Type

½ Year 24 = 20 CE

Year 33 = 29–30 CE

Year 34 = 30–31 CE Year 37 = 33–34 CE Years 33–37

92

Denomination

Year 43 = 39 CE

Illegible

¼

1 ½

Qty. 3

Reed/Inscription in wreath

Palm branch/Inscription in wreath

2

2 7

1

1

½

4

½

2

1

Palm tree/Inscription in wreath

4

½

Palm branch/Inscription in wreath

7

¼

Cluster of dates/Inscription in wreath

2

1 ½

Palm branch/Inscription in wreath

4 7

118

Danny Syon

common to the issues of this tetrarch. Nevertheless, two specimens of a new variant of TJC Type 91 (unit, Year 43) are recorded (4732, 4733), with ΕΤΟΥ/C instead of ETO/C for ‘Year’ in the obverse inscription. It should be noted that RPC I (p. 680) gives the full legend on the coins of ‘Year 43’ as ΕΤΟΥΣ ΜΓ, as if all varieties carried a four-bar sigma. Unfortunately, no comparable photograph is published.7 All the coins have an upright axis (↑) or very close to it. Philip Philip is represented by 37 coins, most of them very worn from long use. Many carry the countermarks common to the coins of this ruler. In fact, some of the coins were assigned to Philip only because of the presence of these typical countermarks. They have either of two shapes: a star, always on the obverse, on the neck of the emperor, appearing on eight coins; or the shape þ—possibly a variant of the Φ countermark, appearing on certain other coins (e.g., TJC Types 101c, 101d). At Gamla, it appears on two coins on the reverse, both of which also carry an obverse countermark. Howgego, in his work on countermarks, omitted this variant from his corpus and only presented an obvious Φ (Howgego 1985:243, No. 690.) Contrary to the assertion of Meshorer (TJC:228) that all the coins of Philip (Table 5.13) have an upright

axis (↑), two coins of ‘Year 30’ (TJC Type 103) found at Gamla have an inverse axis (↓). I prefer to date the undated coins of the ‘Jugate Busts’ type (TJC Type 100) to c. 30 CE, following RPC I (p. 681) and Meshorer 1990–1991:108–109) and not to 14 CE.8 Agrippa I Since the publication of AJC in 1982, a great number of changes have taken place in the identification and interpretation of the coinage of this king, based on new readings and new discoveries. The work that established the current chronology was that of Burnett (1987), followed by RPC I and Meshorer 1990–1991. Still, not all questions have been solved. The question of the mint of the coins of ‘Year 5’ has not been satisfactorily settled. RPC I (p. 683) asserts that the mint was at Caesarea Paneas, while Meshorer (in all his publications) opts for Tiberias, albeit with a question mark. While the seven coins discovered at Gamla cannot decide the issue based on the distance from the mint, Paneas seems more plausible, based on the fabric and imagery on these fine coins. It is difficult to see Tiberias minting pagan imagery at this time, and later reverting to aniconic types under the Roman administration (see below). The relatively large quantity of coins minted in Jerusalem that were found at Gamla tends to support

Table 5.13. Philip’s Types TJC No.

RPC I No.

Date

Denomination

Type

95

4938

Year 5 = 1 CE

1+

Head of Augustus/Head of Philip

1

97

4940

1

Head of Augustus/Tetrastyle temple

6

98

4941

101

4943

102?

4944

103

4945

104

4946

100

4951

106

4948

107

4949

109

4952

111

4953

Year 12 = 8/9 CE

½

Qty.

Countermarks

Two: stars

1

Year 19 = 15/6 CE

1

2

One on each coin: star

Year 1[?] (8–16 CE)

1

1

Unclear, on obv.

Year 30 = 26/7 CE Year 33 = 29/30 CE

1

Head of Tiberius/Tetrastyle temple

½

1 3

1

3

1+

Jugate heads of Tiberius(?) and Livia/ Tetrastyle Temple

2

1

Head of Tiberius/Tetrastyle temple

2

½

Bust of Livia/Hand holding 3 ears of corn

1

1

Head of Tiberius/Tetrastyle temple

1

¼

Head of Tiberius/Date in wreath

1

Year 34 or 37

½

Bust of Livia/Hand holding 3 ears of corn

1

Illegible

1

Head/Tetrastyle temple

30 CE(?) Year 34 = 30/31 CE Year 37 = 33/4 CE

11

One coin with both countermarks

4 stars, one þ

119

Chapter 5: Coins

Fig. 5.8. Rare types of Agrippa I from the mint of Paneas.

Table 5.14. Types of Agrippa I TJC No.

RPC I No.

Cat. No.

113

4974

4794

114

4975

4795

116

4976

4796 4797

117 (this specimen)

4977

4798

119

4979

4799–4802

120

4981

4803–4825

Date

Year 2 = 37/8 CE

Denomination

Year 6 = 41–43 CE

Meshorer’s assertion (TJC:97) that these were minted for more than one year, with an immobilized date. Some of the very rare issues of Agrippa I were found in an excellent state of preservation, such as the ‘Germanicus in Quadriga’ type and the ‘Drusilla’ type, both from the mint of Caesarea Paneas (Fig. 5.8), underscoring the fine workmanship of this mint.9 The only ‘Agrippa II on Horseback’ coin is a surface find from the 2000 season (Table 5.14).

The Early Roman Governors of Judea Coins of all prefects and procurators to Judea who minted coins were found at Gamla (Table 5.15). These coins are relatively common in northern Israel, and Gamla yielded 40 coins—against the 261 other recorded examples put together from this region.10 Questions have been raised lately about the wisdom in assigning coins to specific governors, as their dates are not entirely certain. Their names do not appear on the coins, but the regnal years of the emperors do (Kushnir-Stein 2007). Thus, this report adopts the new classification.

Type

Qty.

½

Head of Agrippa I/Young Agrippa II on horseback

1

¼

Head of Cypros/Hand holding three ears of corn

1

Head of Caligula/Germanicus in quadriga

2

½

Bust of Caesonia/Drusilla

1

⅛

Head of Agrippa II/Crossed cornucopia

4

Canopy/Three ears of corn

23

1

Year 5 = 40/1 CE

Mint

Paneas

Perutah

Jerusalem

Table 5.15. Coins of the Early Roman Governors of Judea TJC No.

RPC I No.

Date

Qty.

311

4954

5/6 CE

2

313

4956

8/9 CE

4

327

4964

16/17 CE

1

328

4965

18 CE

2

17–24 CE

1

331

4967

29 CE

2

333

4968

30 CE

4

340

4971

54 CE

2

342

4970

54 CE

5

345

4972

58–61 CE

17

Total

40

The Roman Administration, 47–66 CE (Table 5.16) The four types included in this section (4866–4880) have been dated, grouped and generally dealt with in the past. Kindler (1983–1984) attributed them to Agrippa II. However, Meshorer included only the coin from

120

Danny Syon

Table 5.16. Coins of the Roman Administration, 47–66 CE Type TJC No. RPC I No.

Cat. No.

Date (CE) 53

Denom. Unit

Mint Tiberias

Type

Qty.

347

4851

4866–4868

348

4852

4869

Palm branch/Inscription

3

350

4842

4870–4874

c. 47–54

Caesarea Paneas

Head of Claudius/The three children of Claudius

5

356

4848

4875– 4878

c. 47–54

Caesarea Maritima

Head of Claudius/Anchor in wreath

4

360

4861

4879– 4880

54/5

Caesarea Maritima

Bust of Nero/Bust of Agrippina

2

½

Tiberias in Supplement III to Agrippa II (AJC 2:279, No. 5). In the Addendum, Supplement IX: “The Roman Administration under Agrippa II,” he included the Paneas and Caesarea coins but not the Tiberias coin; RPC I catalogued all under their respective mints, though suggesting that they may have been minted by the Roman governors. Although the Tiberias coin can conceivably be catalogued as a civic issue, as it explicitly names Tiberias, I here follow Meshorer (TJC:177–156; 261–262), which I believe so far to be the best arrangement. Most of these coins were found in the Western Quarter of the town (Areas R, RN, S).11 It is noteworthy that most of them are much worn from use. The frequency of TJC Type 350 at Gamla (5 coins: 4870–4874) supports the attribution to Paneas.12

The Jewish War So far, no coins of the Jewish war minted in Jerusalem were found at Gamla (Fig. 5.9). In the entire Galilee not a single ‘Year One” coin is known, and only one silver half-sheqel of ‘Year Two’ is known from Capernaum (Spijkerman 1975:42, No. 330). Bronze issues of ‘Year Two’ in Galilee number around 60 (see also Syon, in press).13 Issues of ‘Year One’ were minted not earlier than the winter of 66/7 CE (TJC:119), and the issues of ‘Year Two’ could have arrived no later than the autumn

Fig. 5.9. A Jerusalem sheqel of the Jewish War.

1

of 67, altogether less than a year. Still, some silver sheqels of Years One or Two may yet become known at the site. In any event, one of these Jerusalem sheqels certainly served as the model for a unique coin type. Nine specimens of this type are known, seven from the excavations of Gamla and termed the ‘Gamla’ coin.14 The coin was discussed in English briefly by Meshorer (AJC 2:129–131; 1986:224–225; TJC:130– 131) and by me (Syon 1992–1993:40–41, Pl.13:81– 82). In Hebrew, it was discussed by Eidlin (1981:94; 1985:146; 1994) and Meshorer (1999:116). All seven specimens (4881–4887) from the town were found in the Western Quarter. An eighth coin that appeared in the market may have been looted from the site.15 A ninth specimen was found in 2000 at Sartaba-Alexandrion, a desert fortress in the Jordan Valley. 16 The dies are very crudely cut, obviously done under improvised conditions and by an unskilled artisan. The obverse shows a chalice, in clear imitation of the Jerusalem sheqels, which are generally accepted as showing one of the Temple utensils (TJC:117–118). All nine coins share the same obverse die, but two different reverse dies have now been identified. One reverse die Table 5.17. Physical Data for the ‘Gamla’ Coins Cat. No.

Rev. Die

Wt. (g)

Diam. (mm)

‘Trade’

1

7.91

22

4881

1

11.05

22

4882

1

11.41

24

4883

1

12.26

23

4884

1

13.75

24

4885

1

13.80

24

4886

2

11.96

21

Alexandrion

2

12.1

22

4887

2

12.59

21

Remarks

Worn die?

Worn die?

121

Chapter 5: Coins

is shared by six coins, the other by three (Table 5.17). A relatively small number of these coins were probably minted. This is substantiated by the single obverse die shared by all. It is thus rather surprising to find even two different reverse dies. An inspection of the eight specimens available for study and the photograph of the ‘trade’ coin show that most coins have filing marks—some heavy—around the edges. This may ostensibly indicate that they were struck on older coins that were filed to prepare them for restriking. If so, the most likely coins to have been used for this purpose, matching the weight and diameter range of these coins perfectly, were coins of Tiberias: the largest (unit) denomination of Antipas and the ‘Year 13’ coins of the Roman administration struck in 53 CE. A metallurgical analysis carried out on one ‘Gamla’ coin (4883) and two coins of Antipas (4721, 4738) showed some similarity in that both have a very low lead content. This, however, is not a significant similarity and the number of coins sampled was too small to obtain a statistically valid result (see Ponting, this chapter: Appendix). The fabric of the coins also appears to be different: the Antipas coins are usually smooth and shiny and are prone to bronze disease, while the Gamla coins have a grittier feel, and are very stable. A second set of XRF surface analyses was conducted on all seven coins in the state collections (Table 5.18; 4881–4887). For the precision this method affords, the results are relatively close. The low percentage of lead is apparent in all coins.17 Until more conclusive analytical tests are conducted, I prefer to see these as locally cast flans. A metallurgical survey of selected finds carried out by Ponting (see Chapter 21), clearly points to a metal-casting workshop operating at Gamla in the first century CE, which may have been converted to a makeshift mint during the Jewish War. The letters are very crude, indicating that the die cutter was not literate. Some of the letters appear to be Paleo-Hebrew (meant to be copied from the Jerusalem

Table 5.18. XRF Analyses of Seven Gamla Coins in Percents (Gray Indicates Similar Alloy) Cat. No.

Rev. Type

Sn (Tin)

Pb (Lead)

As (Arsenic)

4881

1

3.5

0.9

Galley’s stern. SC II: No. 1463.1. 37. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1310, Reg. No. 0445, IAA 34097, ↑, 6.50 g, 21 mm. Obv.: Head of king, radiate. Rev.: [---] Galley’s stern. SC II: No. 1465. 38. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1266, Reg. No. 1065, IAA 20702, ↑, 5.10 g, 20 mm. Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---] Galley’s prow. Cf. SC II: No. 1466. 39. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3147, IAA 20368, ↑, 2.10 g, 16 mm.

Antiochus IV(?), 175–169/8 BCE Obv.: Head of king, diademed. Rev.: [---]ANTIOXOY[---] Galley’s stern; date illegible. Cf. SC II: No. 1461.2. 40. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4035, Reg. No. 2034, IAA 18906, ↑, 4.33 g, 22 mm. Same. [---] 41. Western Quarter, Area R, L5005, Reg. No. 0244, IAA 34198, ↑, 3.70 g, 19 mm.

Byblus Obv.: Head of king, radiate. Rev.: Bull’s head with crown of Isis. Flanking type:

Same. [---] 42. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1270, Reg. No. 1744, IAA 20915, ↑, 5.85 g, 18 mm.

[B] – Y

SC II: No. 1447. 35. Western Quarter, Area R, L5027, Reg. No. 7834, IAA 20049, 0.96 g, 11 mm. Sidon Obv.: Head of king, radiate. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Galley.

Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---]ANTIO[---] Palm tree. 43. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3102, Reg. No. 0883, IAA 34633, ↑, 1.91 g, 15 mm, hole centered.

Chapter 5: Coins

Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---] Palm tree. Cf. SC II: No. 1470. 44. Western Quarter, Area S, L2019, Reg. No. 3624, IAA 18469, ↑, 2.16 g, 14 mm, hole centered.

Same. [---] 45. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3102, Reg. No. 0923, IAA 34680, ↑, 2.28 g, 15 mm, hole centered.

151

Demetrius I (162–150 BCE) Municipal Issue Tyre Obv.: Traces of head. Rev.: [---]TYPIΩN. Galley’s stern; date illegible. Cf. SC II: No. 1672.1. 64. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5101, Reg. No. 4384, IAA 21127, ↑, 6.35 g, 20 mm. Royal Issues Tyre Head of King/Palm Tree

Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: Around: ΒΑΣΙΛEΩΣ ANΤΙΟΧΟY (varying degrees of legibility). Palm tree with clusters of dates; no date. 46–61. Most from Hasmonean Quarter, IAA 33577, 34653, 18396, 21636, 21219, 33819, 20879, 34353, 19257, 21471, 21341, 17573, 17611, 20514, 19323, 35036, all ↑, 1.40–2.60 g, 13–15 mm, poorly preserved.

Antiochus V (164–162 BCE) Municipal Issues Tyre 163/2 BCE Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---] Palm tree; date N–P SC II: No. 1580. 62. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4089, IAA 20592, 1.90 g, 15 mm. Same. [---] Date N–P 63. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5106, Reg. No. 4614, IAA 21569, ↑, 1.84 g, 13 mm, hole centered.

159/8 BCE Rev.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ Date ΔΝ-Ρ SC II: No. 1676.1. 65. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1257, Reg. No. 0858, IAA 20631, ↑, 2.12 g, 13 mm. Same. [---] Date LΔNP SC II: No. 1676.1 (this coin). 66. Western Quarter, Area R, L5011, Reg. No. 6023, IAA 19251, ↑, 1.88 g, 11 mm, hole centered. Same. [---] Date Δ–N[P] 67. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 0304, IAA 34033, 1.44 g, 13 mm. 155/4 BCE(?) Rev.: [---] Date LH(?)–NP SC II: No. 1676.2. 68. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 2958, IAA 33556, ↑, 1.83 g, 13 mm, hole centered. 154/3 BCE Rev.: [---]. Palm tree; date ΘN–P SC II: No. 1676.3. 69. Eastern Quarter, Area E, L1654, Reg. No. 5170, IAA 17600, ↑, 1.93 g, 13 mm, hole centered. Rev.: [---] Palm tree; date Θ–NP SC II: No. 1676.3 (this coin).

152

Danny Syon

70. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 0562, IAA 34260, ↑, 1.52 g, 12 mm.

Demetrius I? Municipal Issues

162–153 BCE Rev.: [---] Date [∙]–N [P] 71. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3108, Reg. No. 0369, IAA 34891, ↑, 1.50 g, 12 mm. Rev.: . [---]ΣΙΛΕΩΣ Palm tree. To r. NP 72. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1297, Reg. No. 2594, IAA 21585, ↑, 1.26 g, 14 mm.

Tyre 153/2 BCE? Rev.: [---] Palm tree; date Ξ(?)–P 77. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1261, Reg. No. 0988, IAA 20681, ↑, 1.78 g, 13 mm, hole centered. 162–150 BCE

Rev.: [---] Date [-]N–[P] 73. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1258, Reg. No. 0360, IAA 34745, ↑, 2.50 g, 15 mm, hole centered. 152/1 BCE Rev.: [---] Date LAΞP SC II: No. 1676.5. 74. Western Quarter, Area S, L1900, Reg. No. 6656, IAA 17648, 2, 1.90 g, 15 mm.

Rev.: [---] Palm tree; date B–[NP] or B–[ΞP] 78. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 0212, IAA 33992, 2.73 g, 14 mm. The style suggests Demetrius I. Rev.: [---]ΔHMH[---] Palm tree; date illegible. 79. Western Quarter, Area S, L1916, Reg. No. 7668, IAA 18122, ↑, 1.59 g, 13 mm, hole centered. Rev.: [---]ΔΗΜΗΤΡ Palm tree; no date. 80. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1270, Reg. No. 1745, IAA 20916, ↑, 2.21 g, 14 mm.

Demetrius I or II (162–138 BCE) Rev.: BAΣΙΛE[ΩΣ ΔH]MHT[PIOY] Date LAΞP SC II: No. 1676.5. 75. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1258, Reg. No. 0259, IAA 34739, ↑, 2.30 g, 14 mm.

Municipal Issue Tyre Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---] Below: TYPIΩΝ Traces of galley’s stern. 81. Western Quarter, Area K, Surface, Reg. No. 1502, IAA 68439, ↑, 5.33 g, 19 mm.

‘Akko–Ptolemais Obv.: Young male head. Rev.: [BAΣ]IΛEΩ[Σ Δ]HMHTPIOY Veiled, draped goddess, holding long torch. Bijovsky 1994–1999:39, Pl. 7:1, 2; SC II: No. 1679. 76. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4034, Reg. No. 1030, IAA 19177, ↑, 2.34 g, 14 mm, serrate.

Alexander Balas (150–146/5 BCE) Tyre Head of King/Palm Tree 149/8 BCE Obv.: Head of king, diademed. Rev.: [---] Date Δ-ΞΡ Cf. SC II: No. 1838.2 (this coin). 82. Western Quarter, Area R, L5028, Reg. No. 3391, IAA 20955, ↑, 2.60 g, 14 mm, hole centered.

Chapter 5: Coins

Same. 83. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq A16, Reg. No. 2074, IAA 21315, ↑, 1.52 g, 13 mm, hole centered.

Alexander Balas? (150–146/5 BCE)

Obv.: Same. Rev.: [---] Date Δ(?)-ΞΡ 84. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq C16, Reg. No. 2406, IAA 21255, ↑, 1.81 g, 14 mm.

Head of King/Palm Tree

147/6 BCE Rev.: [---] Date ² Ξ-P SC II: No. 1838.2. 85. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1262, Reg. No. 3318, IAA 33821, ↑, 1.31 g, 13 mm. Same. 86. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1260, Reg. No. 1081, IAA 20716, ↑, 2.32 g, 13 mm. Rev.: [---]AΛEΞ Palm tree; date ²[Ξ]–P 87. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1296, Reg. No. 2810, IAA 21712, ↑, 2.24 g, 13 mm, hole centered, blundered date. Rev.: [---] Date ²ΞP 88. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1297, Reg. No. 3362, IAA 33865, 1.01 g, 10 mm. Same. [---] 89. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1278, Reg. No. 3051, IAA 33627, ↑, 2.16 g, 12 mm.

153

Tyre

Cf. SC II: No. 1838. Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---] Palm tree; date illegible. 93. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1314, Reg. No. 0740, IAA 34485, ↑, 1.51 g, 14 mm. Rev. [---] Palm tree; date, if any, illegible. 94. Western Quarter, Area S, L2017, Reg. No. 3457, IAA 18415, 1.59 g, 14 mm, hole centered. Rev. BAΣIΛEΩΣ[---] Palm tree; date [∙ Ξ]–P 95. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5106, Reg. No. 4672, IAA 21644, ↑, 1.69 g, 13 mm. Obv.: Head of king, features of Balas. Rev.: Palm tree; date [∙∙]–P 96. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 0273, IAA 34016, ↑, 2.30 g, 13 mm. Ascalon Obv.: Head of king r. Rev.: [---] Dove r. Above: BA SC II: No. 1848. 97. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 0556, IAA 34254, ↑, 1.73 g, 15 mm.

146/5 BCE Rev.: AΛΕΞ[---] Palm tree; date zΞ–P SC II: No. 1838.3. 90. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1301, Reg. No. 3251, IAA 33783, ↑, 1.60 g, 13 mm.

Demetrius II, First R eign (146/5–138 BCE) 150–146/5 BCE Rev.: [---] Palm tree; date [∙]–ΞΡ 91. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq D15, Reg. No. 0165, IAA 33972, ↑, 1.50 g, 15 mm. Rev.: [---AΛE]ΞAN-[ΔPOY] Palm tree; date illegible. 92. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1280, Reg. No. 1885, IAA 21001, ↑, 2.51 g, 14 mm.

Municipal Issues Tyre Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ ΔHMHTPIOY Galley’s stern; date illegible. Cf. SC II: No. 1968.

154

Danny Syon

98. Hasmonean Quarter, Area D, L3003, Reg. No. 4110, IAA 17805, ↑, 6.25 g, 19 mm. Head of King/Palm Tree 146/5 BCE SC II: No. 1970. Rev.: [---] Date ZΞ–P SC II: No. 1970.1 (this coin). 99. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5158, Reg. No. 5421, IAA 35139, ↑, 1.60 g, 13 mm. Same. Rev.: ΔHMHTPIOY[---] 100. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1257, Reg. No. 0103, IAA 34734, ↑, 2.40 g, 13 mm, hole centered.

Same. Traces of inscription. 101. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1264, Reg. No. 1063, IAA 20715, ↑, 1.46 g, 13 mm. Same. Rev.: ΔHMHTPIOY[---] Date Z[Ξ–P] 102. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1285, Reg. No. 3371, IAA 33867, ↑, 2.04 g, 11 mm.

Rev.: [---] Palm tree; date ZΞ–P 103. Western Quarter, Area S, L2019, Reg. No. 3622, IAA 18467, ↑, 1.51 g, 13 mm. Rev.: [---]ΔHMH[---] Date Z–[ΞP] SC II: No. 1970.1. 104. Western Quarter, Area S, L1909, Reg. No. 6978, IAA 17751, 1.77 g, 13 mm. Same. Rev.: [---]ΔHMHTP[---] 105. Surface, ↑, IAA 17702, 1.81 g, 13 mm.

145/4 BCE Obv. Head of king. Rev.: [---] Palm tree; date H–ΞP SC II: No. 1970.2. 106. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1285, Reg. No. 2221, IAA 21108, ↑, 2.20 g, 13 mm.

Same. [---] Date H–ΞP 107. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1296, Reg. No. 2881, IAA 21744, ↑, 1.52 g, 12 mm.

Same. [---] Date H–ΞP 108. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq D17, Reg. No. 0181, IAA 33978, ↑, 1.74 g, 13 mm.

Same. [---] Date H-ΞP 109. Eastern Quarter, Area A, L1067, Reg. No. 0012, IAA 17712, ↑, 2.08 g, 14 mm.

Same. [---] Date H–ΞP 110–122. IAA 18232, 18727, 33969, 20651, 34005, 17694, 20510, 34236, 21657, 34108, 21029, 19330, 33626, all ↑, 1.05–2.85 g, 11–17 mm. 144/3 BCE Rev.: [---] Date ΘΞ–P SC II: No. 1970.3 (this coin). 123. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5153, Reg. No. 5254, IAA 35064, ↑, 2.00 g, 14 mm, hole centered. Same. Rev.: [---] Palm tree; date Θ–ΞP SC II: No. 1970.3.

Chapter 5: Coins

124. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1268, Reg. No. 1272, IAA 20135, ↑, 1.39 g, 11 mm.

Same. [---] Date Θ–ΞP 125. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1254, Reg. No. 0677, IAA 19185, ↑, 2.49 g, 12 mm.

Same. Date Θ–ΞP Rev.: [---]ΔHMHT[---] 126. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1257, Reg. No. 0102, IAA 34733, ↑, 2.40 g, 13 mm.

155

Same. [---]ΔHMHTPIOY Date O–P 147. Western Quarter, Area S, L1922, Reg. No. 7912, IAA 18028, ↑, 1.72 g, 13 mm.

Rev.: Variously preserved legends; date O–P (some uncertain). 148–157. IAA 17800, 19150, 20017, 20723, 19018, 35142, 34040, 20967, 21146, 33986, all ↑, 1.20–1.88 g, 12–14 mm. 144–143 BCE Same. Rev. To left Θ or Ο. 158. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq C19, Reg. No. 1098, IAA 20728, ↑, 1.53 g, 12 mm. 142/1 BCE

Same. [---]ΔHMHTPIOY Date Θ–ΞP 127. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1267, Reg. No. 1375, IAA 20145, ↑, 2.09 g, 12 mm.

Rev. [---]ΔΗΜΗΤΡ[---] Palm tree; date A–O[P] SC II: No. 1970.5 (this coin). 159. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5107, Reg. No. 4659, IAA 21626, ↑, 1.29 g, 12 mm. 140/39 BCE

Rev.: Variously preserved legends; date Θ–ΞΡ (some uncertain). 128–145. IAA 21662, 19760, 33965, 21754, 33734, 18572, 21148, 20976, 20703, 20978, 17923, 18338, 19992, 34251, 19973, 18808, 20303, 20990, all ↑, 0.99–2.49 g, 11–14 mm. 143/2 BCE Same. Rev.: [---]ΔHMHTP[---] Date O–P SC II: No. 1970.4. 146. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5162, Reg. No. 5663, IAA 35198, ↑, 1.50 g, 13 mm.

Rev.: [---] Date Γ–OP SC II: No. 1970.6 (this coin). 160. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5109, Reg. No. 5115, IAA 33846, ↑, 1.54 g, 12 mm. Obv.: Head of young king. Rev.: [---] Date Γ–[OP] SC II: No. 1970.6. 161. Eastern Quarter, Area T, Sq C22, Reg. No. 1793, IAA 18856, 1, 1.81 g, 12 mm. Rev.: [---] Date LΓ–OP SC II: No. 1970.6 (this coin). 162. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1258, Reg. No. 0902, IAA 20650, ↑, 1.60 g, 13 mm. 146/5–143 BCE Rev.: Traces only of inscription. Date [∙]–ΞP 163–167. IAA 17490, 21035, 34031, 18419, 21082, all ↑, 1.25–1.70 g, 12–14 mm.

156

Danny Syon

142–138 BCE

Antiochus VI (144–142/1 BCE)

Rev.: [---] Palm tree; date [∙]–OP 168–169. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, IAA 20481, 33536, ↑, 0.97–1.72 g, 11–13 mm.

Royal Issue Antioch

146/5–138 BCE Obv.: Head of young king. Rev.: Variously preserved inscription. Palm tree; date illegible. 170–185. IAA 20307, 19227, 34899, 18282, 34711, 21025, 20655, 33559, 18464, 18382, 17605, 20684, 34034, 18522, 18965, 19191, ↑, 1.04–2.19 g, 12–15 mm.

Obv.: Head of king, radiate. Controls, if any, illegible. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY EΠIΦANOYΣ ΔIONYΣOY Nike l. Controls, if any, illegible. SC II: No. 2024. 196. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1280, Reg. No. 2020, IAA 21310, ↑, 3.30 g, 15 mm, serrate.

Royal Issues Damascus

Demetrius II or Antiochus VII

Obv.: Head of Artemis. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ ΔHMHTPIOY ΘΕOY [ΦIΛAΔE]ΛΦO[Y NIKATOPOΣ] Tripod. To r., Z Date, if any, off flan. SC II: No. 2184. 186. Western Quarter, Area S, L2026, Reg. No. 3966, IAA 18579, ↑, 2.08 g, 14 mm.

Municipal Issues Tyre 144/3 or 134/3 BCE Obv.: Head. Rev.: [---] Palm tree; date Θ–[∙∙] 197. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5104, Reg. No. 4115, IAA 21327, ↑, 1.48 g, 12 mm.

Demetrius II, Uncertain R eign (145–125 BCE) Municipal Issues

Antiochus VII (138–129/8 BCE)

Tyre

Royal Issues

Head of King/Palm Tree Fragmentary inscriptions, discernible. Date illegible.

Rev. BAΣΙΛEΩΣ[---] Palm tree; date Θ–[∙ P] 198. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5153, Reg. No. 5371, IAA 35094, 1.60 g, 12 mm.

the

name

Demetrius

187–195. All except one from the Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, IAA 33624, 21501, 20709, 33702, 20404, 20653, 18982, 20739, 34349, all ↑, 1.15–1.99 g, 11–14 mm.

Antioch 136/5 BCE Obv.: Bust of Eros. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ ANTI[OXOY] Isis Headdress; date Controls, if any, illegible.

ZOP

Chapter 5: Coins

SC II: No. 2067.9. 199. Western Quarter, Area S, L2011, Reg. No. 3301, IAA 18384, 1, 5.30 g, 18 mm.

157

203. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1282, Reg. No. 3333, didrachm, IAA 33825, ↑, 5.70 g, 21 mm. 138–129 BCE

138–134/3 BCE Same. [---] Rev.: [---] Isis Headdress; date [•]OP SC II: No. 2067. 200. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq D19, Reg. No. 1138, IAA 20747, ↑, 4.32 g, 18 mm.

Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---] Eagle on battering ram (traces). To l. club surmounted by ¾ Between legs > Date illegible. SC II: No. 2109. 204. Western Quarter, Area R, Reg. No. 0001, Cistern, IAA 19141, didrachm, ↑, 6.00 g, 20 mm. Municipal Issues Bronze

138–129 BCE

136/5 BCE

Obv.: Head of lion. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY EYEPΓETOY Club; undated, or date off flan. SC II: No. 2068. 201. Western Quarter, Area R, L5007, Reg. No. 4714, IAA 19118, -, 2.35 g, 14 mm.

Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---] Below: TYP[IΩN] ÷·Ò Galley’s stern; date

Obv.: Head of lion. Rev.: [---] Club; date illegible. SC II: No. 2068. 202. Western Quarter, Area R, L5011, Reg. No. 6024, IAA 19252, ↑, 2.10 g, 14 mm.

zOP

SC II: No. 2112. 205. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4031, Reg. No. 2005, IAA 18901, ↑, 6.00 g, 20 mm. 134/3 BCE Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [BAΣI]ΛE[ΩΣ ANTIO]XOY [---] IEP A† ÷·Ò Galley; date ΘOP SC II: No. 2113.2. 206. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1305, Reg. No. 0313, IAA 34037, ↑, 5.62 g, 20 mm.

Tyre Silver 139/8 BCE Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: BAΣIΛEΩΣ[---] Eagle on battering ram. To l. club surmounted by ¾ Date ΔOP To r., traces of monogram with Δ(?). SC II: No. 2109.1 or 2109.2.

Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---] Battering ram l. Date ΘΟΡ SC II: No. 2114.3. 207. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3004, IAA 20231, ↑, 1.60 g, 15 mm.

158

Danny Syon

Head of King/Palm Tree 139/8 BCE Rev.: BAΣΙΛΕΩΣ[---] Date Δ–ΟΡ SC II: No. 2115.1a (this coin). 208. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1296, Reg. No. 3072, IAA 33633, ↑, 1.62 g, 13 mm.

135/4 BCE Rev.: BAΣΙΛΕΩΣ[---] Date H–OP SC II: No. 2115.4 (this coin). 215. Western Quarter, Area R, L5012, Reg. No. 6049, IAA 19265, ↑, 1.73 g, 13 mm. Same. [---] Date H–OP 216. Western Quarter, Area S, Sq J9, Reg. No. 3023, IAA 18221, ↑, 1.90 g, 13 mm. 134/3 BCE

Same. [---] 209. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5151, Reg. No. 5443, IAA 34934, ↑, 1.60 g, 12 mm, hole centered. Rev.: [---] Date ΔΟ–Ρ SC II: No. 2115.1b (this coin). 210. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1280, Reg. No. 2191, IAA 21080, ↑, 1.53 g, 12 mm.

Same. Rev.: [---]ANT[---] Date Θ–[OP] SC II: No. 2115.5. 217. Eastern Quarter, Area T, Sq C17, Reg. No. 1030, IAA 18626, ↑, 1.87 g, 11 mm.

138/7 or 136/5 BCE Rev.: [---] Date E–OP or Z–OP SC II: No. 2115. 211. Eastern Quarter, Area A, L1040, Reg. No. 0106, IAA 35328, ↑, 1.41 g, 12 mm.

Same. Rev.: BAΣIΛEΩΣ[---] Date [Θ]O–P 218. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5106, Reg. No. 4555, IAA 21525, ↑, 1.06 g, 12 mm, perforated.

137/6 BCE Rev.: [---] Date ²–OP SC II: No. 2115.2 (this coin). 212. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B1, Reg. No. 0918, IAA 20654, 1.98 g, 13 mm, hole centered. 136/5 BCE Rev.: [---] Date z–OP SC II: No. 2115.3b (this coin). 213. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1310, Reg. No. 0419, IAA 34284, ↑, 2.07 g, 13 mm.

Rev.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ[---] Palm tree; date Θ–OP (some partly illegible). SC II: No. 2115.5. 219–228. IAA 19353, 34446, 19212, 35129, 21036, 20235, 18507, 20947, 20366, 18251, all ↑, 1.06–1.87 g, 11–14 mm. 138–134/3 BCE Same. Rev.: [---] Date [∙]–OP Cf. SC II: No. 2115. 229–232. Hasmonean Quarter, IAA 33661, 33574, 17772, 33881, all ↑, 1.30–1.53 g, 12–14 mm.

Rev.: [---]ANTIOXOY Date Z–O[P] 214. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1304, Reg. No. 0598, IAA 34284, ↑, 2.06 g, 13 mm.

Obv.: Head of king, features of Antiochus VII(?). Rev.: [---] Palm tree.

Chapter 5: Coins

159

233. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 0184, IAA 33981, ↑, 2.11 g, 13 mm. Royal Issues Probably Damascus

Rev.: [---]EYEPΓ[---] Date illegible. 238. Hasmonean Quarter, Area D, L3003, Reg. No. 4142, IAA 18103, ↓, 2.17 g, 14 mm.

136/5 BCE Obv.: Illegible Head of king. Rev.: [BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANT]IOXOY [EY]EPΓETOY Apollo, holding arrow and leaning on bow; date zOP SC II: No. 2098.2–4. 234. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5108, Reg. No. 4766, IAA 33520, ↑, 1.71 g, 13 mm.

Rev.: [---] Date illegible. 239. Western Quarter, Area S, L1921, Reg. No. 8257, IAA 18074, ↑, 1.94 g, 14 mm. Rev.: [---] Date illegible. 240. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq C18, Reg. No. 1912, IAA 21023, ↑, 1.73 g, 13 mm.

138–129 BCE Obv.: Bust of Artemis. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY EYEPΓETOY Apollo holding arrow and leaning on bow; date illegible. SC II: No. 2098. 235. Western Quarter, Area R, L5032, Reg. No. 0429, IAA 34373, ↑, 1.89 g, 13 mm.

Demetrius II, Second R eign (129/8–125 BCE) Municipal Issues Sidon 129/8 BCE Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: ΣIΔONOΣ ΘEAΣ mãP·> Astarte on galley; date ΔΠΡ

Same. Mostly illegible. 236. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1263, Reg. No. 0521, IAA 34757, 3.20 g, 14 mm.

SC II: No. 2189.2–2189.5. 241. Western Quarter, Area RN, Reg. No. 5411, L5151, IAA 34927, ↑, 6.70 g, 20 mm.

Jerusalem Lily/Anchor 132–130 BCE SC II: No. 2123. Obv.: Lily. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY EYEPΓETOY Anchor; date illegible. 237. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3101, Reg. No. 8441, IAA 34584, 1, 2.27 g, 14 mm.

127/6 BCE Obv.: Head of king r. Rev.: Traces of [ΣIΔΩNOΣ ΘEAΣ] Astarte on galley; date L²ΠP

SC II: No. 2189.7 (this coin) Var.: Date introduced by L 242. Western Quarter, Area R, L5015, Reg. No. 6469, IAA 19489, ↑, 6.20 g, 21 mm.

160

Danny Syon

Royal Issues Tyre Silver 130/29 BCE Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ ΔHMH[TPIOY] Eagle on battering ram. To l. ? above club surmounted by i; between legs > To r. date ΓΠΡ above: A† SC II: No. 2195.1. 243. Western Quarter, Area R, L5014, Reg. No. 4072, IAA 20587, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.47 g, 27 mm.

126/5 BCE Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---]ΔHMHTPIOY Eagle on battering ram. To l. ? above club surmounted by i; between legs > To l. date Z[Π]P SC II: No. 2195.5 (differently shaped digit: z). 246. Western Quarter, Area R, L5018, Reg. No. 6963, IAA 19716, tetradrachm, ↑, 12.78 g, 27 mm.

Municipal Issuses Bronze Head of King/Palm Tree 129/8 BCE

129/8 BCE

Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: BAΣIΛEΩΣ[---] Eagle on battering ram. To l. club surmounted by i, between legs {; To r. date ΔΠP Above: A† SC II: No. 2195.2. 244. Western Quarter, Area R, L5006, Reg. No. 7245, IAA 19850, tetradrachm, ↑, 12.76 g, 27 mm.

Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---]ΙΛEΩÇ ΔHMHTPIOY Palm tree; date Δ-Π[P] SC II: No. 2200.1a. 247. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1311, Reg. No. 0455, IAA 34113, ↑, 1.68 g, 12 mm. Note square sigma.

128/7 BCE Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---] Eagle on battering ram. To l. club surmounted by i Date EΠP Between eagle’s legs > SC II: No. 2195.3. 245. Western Quarter, Area R, L5006, Reg. No. 7246, IAA 19851, tetradrachm, ↑, 12.51 g, 27 mm.

Same. Rev.: [---] Date Δ–ΠP (some partly illegible). SC II: No. 2200.1a. 248–254. IAA 20630, 34030, 21474, 20795, 34058, 21352, 34241, all ↑, 0.90–1.81 g, 11–13 mm. Rev.: [---] Date ΔΠ–P (some partly illegible). SC II: No. 2200.1b (these coins). 255–259. IAA 19652, 20346, 21482, 17842, 20917, all ↑, 0.82–1.79 g, 12–13 mm.

161

Chapter 5: Coins

128/7 BCE

126/5 BCE

Rev.: [BAΣ]IΛEΩΣ ΔHM[HTPIOY] Date E–ΠP 260. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5101, Reg. No. 4362, IAA 21118, ↑, 2.47 g, 13 mm. SC II: No. 2200.2 (this coin). This and the following coin are the only known specimens with this date.

Rev.: [---] Date ZΠP SC II: No. 2200.4b (this coin). 273. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1270, Reg. No. 1747, IAA 20918, ↑, 1.40 g, 12 mm.

Same. [---] 261. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1272, Reg. No. 1411, IAA 20309, ↑, 1.52 g, 11 mm. 127/6 BCE Rev.: [---]ΔHMHT[---] Date ²–ΠP SC II: No. 2200.3 (this and the following coins). 262. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1252, Reg. No. 0479, IAA 34132, ↑, 1.50 g, 11 mm.

Rev.: [---]. Palm tree; date ZΠ–Ρ SC II: No. 2200.4a (differently shaped digit: z). 274. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 6919, IAA 19691, ↑, 1.48 g, 13 mm. Same. [---]ΔHM[---] 275. Western Quarter, Area R, L5011, Reg. No. 7527, IAA 19949, ↑, 1.24 g, 12 mm. 129–125 BCE Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ [ΔHMHTPIOY] Date [•]–ΠP SC II: No. 2200. 276. Western Quarter, Area S, L2017, Reg. No. 3422, IAA 18402, ↑, 2.08 g, 12 mm.

Same. BAΣIΛEΩΣ[---] Date ²–ΠP 263. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Reg. No. 0768, L1251, IAA 19335, ↑, 1.25 g, 11 mm.

Same, but very unusual headgear on the king’s head. Rev.: [---]ΔHMHTPI[---] Date ²–ΠP 264. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4188, Reg. No. 1193, IAA 19515, ↑, 1.83 g, 13 mm.

Same. Fragmentary legends and dates. 277–301. IAA 18163, 33628, 34910, 34437, 17824, 20222, 17538, 18858, 20289, 20639, 33997, 20446, 21479, 33830, 34883, 35332, 20662, 34249, one), ↑, 1.03–1.94 g, 10–13 mm.

21505, 18909, 34849, 20164, 20272, 34748, 34095 (all but

Uncertain K ing (c. 198–125 BCE) Tyre Head of King/Palm Tree Same (some only partly legible). 265–272. IAA 18015, 34074, 21131, 19165, 21720, 33704, 34299, 33529, all ↑, 1.10–2025 g, 11–13 mm.

Details illegible. 302–573 (272 coins): 0.78–2.63 g, 10–15 mm.

162

Danny Syon

Alexander II Zebina (128–123 BCE)

Antiochus VIII and Cleopatra Thea (125– 121 BCE)

Antioch Obv.: Head of king, radiate. Rev.: [---]AΛEΞANΔPOY Entwined cornucopiae. To l. Σ above wreath. To r., A SC II: No. 2235.1h. 574. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1271, Reg. No. 1369, IAA 20293, ↑, 8.16 g, 20 mm.

Obv.: Head of king, radiate. Rev.: BAΣIΛEΩΣ AΛEΞANΔPOY Entwined cornucopiae. To l. Σ, to r. A SC II: No. 2235.1. 575. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1282, Reg. No. 0697, IAA 34778, ↑, 8.00 g, 20 mm. Obv.: Head of king, radiate. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ [AΛEΞANΔPOY] Parallel cornucopiae. To l. A SC II: No. 2237.1, 2. 576. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1274, Reg. No. 1604, IAA 20214, ↑, 7.19 g, 21 mm.

Antioch 122/1 BCE Obv.: Head of king, radiate. Rev.: BAΣIΛIΣΣHΣ KΛEOΠATPAΣ [KAI] BAΣΙΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY Owl on overturned amphora; date A;P SC II: No. 2263.4. 578. Western Quarter, Area R, L5037, Reg. No. 0615, IAA 34409, ↑, 5.35 g, 19 mm, hole centered.

Same. [---] 579. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5106, Reg. No. 4597, IAA 21552, ↑, 4.90 g, 18 mm. ‘Akko–Ptolemais 123–121 BCE Obv.: Head of king, radiate. Rev.: [---] Isis Headdress; date [•]ΠP SC II: No. 2274. 580. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B15, Reg. No. 3079, IAA 33650/1, ↑, 3.94 g, 17 mm.

Antiochus VIII (121–96 BCE) Antioch 121–c.114 BCE Seleucia Pieria Obv.: Elephant. Rev.: [---] Eagle 1. on thunderbolt; controls illegible. SC II: No. 2243. 577. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3152, IAA 20373, ↑, 2.19 g, 13 mm, serrate.

Obv.: Head of king, radiate. Rev. BAΣΙΛEΩΣ / ΛENTIOXO (sic) / EΠIΦANOYΣ Eagle on thunderbolt; date illegible. SC II: No. 2300 or 2307. 581. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4012, Reg. No. 1272, IAA 18672, ↑, 4.90 g, 18 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

163

Obv.: Head of king, radiate. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY [---] Eagle on thunderbolt; date illegible. SC II: No. 2300, 2307 or 2308. 582. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 0213, IAA 33993, ↑, 5.40 g, 20 mm. Same. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ / ANTIOXOY / [ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ] Date Θ;P 588. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3113, Reg. No. 0610, IAA 34902, ↑, 5.10 g, 17 mm. 113/2 BCE 121–96 BCE Same. Rev.: [BAΣIΛEΩΣ] ANTIOXOY [---] Eagle on thunderbolt. 583. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1316, Reg. No. 0006, IAA 35310, ↑, 5.44 g, 18 mm. Same. Rev.: [---] Eagle on thunderbolt; date, if any, illegible. 584. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 8047, IAA 20108, ↑, 3.40 g, 17 mm. Same. Rev.: [---] Eagle on thunderbolt. 585. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4025, IAA 20559, ↑, 4.80 g, 18 mm. Same. Rev.: [---] Eagle? 586. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1261, Reg. No. 0966, IAA 20670, ↑, 3.00 g, 17 mm.

Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [BAΣIΛEΩΣ] / ANTIOXOY / ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ Winged thunderbolt; date Σ To l., ~ SC II: No. 2364.2. 589. Western Quarter, Area S, L2019, Reg. No. 3836, IAA 18538, ↑, 6.30 g, 17 mm. Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ / ANTIOXOY / ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ Winged thunderbolt; date Σ 590. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1301, Reg. No. 3250, IAA 33782, ↑, 5.24 g, 18 mm. 114/3–113/2 BCE Same. Rev.: BAΣΙΛE[ΩΣ] / ANTIO[XOY] / [ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ] Date, if any, illegible. SC II: No. 2364. 591. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1286, Reg. No. 2154, IAA 21475, ↑, 5.47 g, 19 mm.

Antiochus IX (1st Reign, 114/3–111 BCE) Antioch 114/3 BCE Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ / ANTIOXOY / ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ Winged thunderbolt; date Θ;P SC II: No. 2364.10. 587. Western Quarter, Area R, L5018, Reg. No. 7372, IAA 19890, ↑, 6.06 g, 18 mm.

Same. [---] Date, if any, illegible. 592. Eastern Quarter, Area H, L1801, Reg. No. 6208, IAA 17546, ↑, 6.59 g, 19 mm.

164

Danny Syon

Antiochus IX (2nd Reign, 110/9–109/8 BCE) Antioch 110/9 BCE Obv.: Bearded head of Heracles. Rev.: BAΣIΛE[ΩΣ] / ANTOTIXO (sic) / ΦIΛOΠAT[OPOΣ] Athena, holding Nike, leaning on shield; date illegible. SC II: No. 2368. 593. Western Quarter, Area R, L5033, Reg. No. 0312, IAA 34289, ↑, 4.25 g, 17 mm.

Rev.: Head—brockage of obverse. 598. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1278, Reg. No. 1838, IAA 20968, 4.96 g, 18 mm.

Seleucus VI (C. 95–94 BCE) Antioch Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: BAΣIΛE[ΩΣ] / ΣEΛEYKO[Y] / EΠIΦANOY[Σ] / NIKATOP[OΣ] Apollo, holding arrow and leaning on column. SC II: No. 2424. 599. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1267, Reg. No. 2727, IAA 21679, ↑, 6.27 g, 20 mm.

Same. [---] / [ANT]IOX[OY] 594. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5101, Reg. No. 4385, IAA 21128, ↑, 4.80 g, 19 mm. Same. [---] 595. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5103, Reg. No. 4240, IAA 21435, ↑, 4.20 g, 18 mm. Uncertain Mint, Probably in Phoenicia 112–110 BCE Obv.: Winged Eros. Rev.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ / ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ / [Φ]ΙΛΟΠΑΤΟ[ΡΟΣ] Nike l. SC II: No. 2388. 596. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5105, Reg. No. 4869, IAA 33618, ↑, 5.50 g, 19 mm.

Same. BAΣΙΛEΩΣ / ANTIOXOY / ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ. 597. Hasmonean Quarter, Area D, L3003, Reg. No. 4083, IAA 18102, ↑, 4.23 g, 17 mm. Antiochus IX? Antioch? Obv.: Head.

Demetrius III (c. 96–87 BCE) Seleucia Pieria Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ / ΔHMHTPIOY / ΦIΛOMHTOPOΣ / EYEPΓETOY / [KAΛΛINIKΟΥ] Thunderbolt on altar. SC II: No. 2447. 600. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq C18, Reg. No. 1812, IAA 20949, ↑, 6.65 g, 20 mm.

Damascus 96/5 BCE Obv.: Head of king, radiate. Rev.: [BAΣ]IΛE[ΩΣ / ΔHMH]TPIOY / ΘEOY / ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ / [ΣΩTHPOΣ] Nike walking r., holding wreath; date ZIΣ SC II: No. 2454.2. 601. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Reg. No. 0252, L1304, IAA 34355, ↑, 6.09 g, 20 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

94/3 BCE Same. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ / ΔHMHTPIOY / ΘEOY / ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ / ΣΩTHPOΣ Date ΘI[Σ] SC II: No. 2454.9. 602. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4188, Reg. No. 1176, IAA 19443, ↑, 7.37 g, 20 mm.

165

Same. [---] 608. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4037, Reg. No. 2151, IAA 18923, 3.50 g, 18 mm. Obv.: Radiate(?) head. Rev.: [---] Hermes on square base. Cf. SC II: No. 2456. 609. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5108, Reg. No. 4763, IAA 33517, ↑, 3.50 g, 17 mm.

Antiochus XII (c. 88–84 BCE) Damascus C. 96–87 BCE Same.

BAΣΙΛEΩΣ / ΔHMHTPIOY / ΘEOY / ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ

Control marks a above N; date illegible (probably HIΣ). SC II: No. 2454.7. 603. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B19, Reg. No. 1201, IAA 20501, ↑, 5.24 g, 21 mm.

/ ΣΩTHPOΣ

Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩΣ / ANTIOXOY / EΠIΦANOYΣ / ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ / KAΛΛINIKΟΥ Tyche standing l., with palm branch and cornucopia. To l. ª SC II: No. 2476. 610. Western Quarter, Area S, L1911, Reg. No. 6927, IAA 17740, ↑, 8.08 g, 21 mm.

Same. BAΣΙΛEΩΣ / ANTIOXOY / EΠIΦANOYΣ / ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ Same. [---] 604. Eastern Quarter, Area A, L1089, Reg. No. 0412, ↑, IAA 17571, 6.31 g, 20 mm, deformed.

/ KAΛΛINIKΟΥ To l., ª

Same. [---] 605. Eastern Quarter, Area T, Reg. No. 1783, L4017, IAA 18851, ↓, 5.50 g, 20 mm, deformed.

Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: BAΣIΛ[EΩΣ] / ANTIOXOY / EΠIΦANOYΣ / ΦIΛΟΠATOPOΣ / KAΛΛINIKOY Apollo, holding palm branch and leaning on tripod. SC II: No. 2477. 612. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5201, Reg. No. 0672, IAA 34438, ↑, 4.86 g, 18 mm.

Obv.: Head of king, bearded. Rev.: BAΣIΛ[EΩΣ] / ΔHMHTPIOY / [ΘEOY / ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ / ΣΩTHPOΣ Hermes. SC II: No. 2455. 606. Western Quarter, Area S, L2002, Reg. No. 3194, IAA 18330, ↑, 5.42 g, 17 mm. Same. Rev.: [---] Hermes. Cf. SC II: No. 2456. 607. Western Quarter, Area R, L5007, Reg. No. 4701, IAA 19111, ↑, 3.10 g, 18 mm.

611. Western Quarter, Area R, L5007, Reg. No. 0985, IAA 34690, ↑, 8.54 g, 22 mm.

Same. [BAΣIΛEΩΣ] / ANTIOXOY / EΠIΦANOYΣ / [---] 613. Western Quarter, Area S, L1922, Reg. No. 8214, IAA 18012, ↑, 2.20 g, 17 mm, broken.

166 Same.

Danny Syon [BΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ / ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ / ΕΠΙΦΑ]ΝΟ[ΥΣ / ΦΙΛΟ]

Jewish Coins

ΠΑΤ[ΟΡΟΣ / ΚΑΛΛΙΝΙΚΟΥ]

614. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3174, IAA 20384, ↑, 4.20 g, 18 mm. Obv.: Head of king, bearded. Rev.: BAΣΙΛEΩ[Σ] / ANTIOXO[Y] / EΠIΦANO[YΣ] / ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ / KAΛΛINIKOY Zeus standing l., holding Nike. In outer l, field. SC II: No. 2478. 615. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1309, Reg. No. 0389, IAA 34072, ↑, 6.79 g, 19 mm.

The Hasmoneans (Selected Coins), All Jerusalem Mint

Hyrcanus I (135–105 BCE; minted c. 125–105 BCE) TJC Type A; AJC Type Ma. Obv.: Inscription in wreath: /‫וחבר היה‬/‫הכהן הגדל‬/‫יהוחנן‬ ‫ודים‬. Above a Rev.: Joined cornucopia; between them pomegranate. 620. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1267, Reg. No. 1326, IAA 20162, ↑, 1.53 g, 12 mm. Same. ‫הודים‬/‫ל וחבר הי‬/‫הכהן הגד‬/‫ יהוחנן‬Above a 621. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1272, Reg. No. 1467, IAA 20337, ↑, 1.39 g, 14 mm.

Same. BAΣΙΛEΩΣ / ANTIOXOY / EΠIΦANOYΣ / ΦIΛOΠATOPOΣ Control marks illegible. 616. Western Quarter, Area R, L5009, Reg. No. 4740, IAA 19130, ↑, 6.36 g, 19 mm.

/ KAΛΛINIKΟΥ

TJC Types B26–B32; AJC Type Nc. Same, but no a above. Obv.: ‫דל וח‬/‫הכהן הג‬/‫יהוחנן‬ 622. Western Quarter, Area S, L2014, Reg. No. 3580, IAA 18461, ↑, 1.84 g, 13 mm.

Same. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ / ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ / ΕΠΙ[ΦΑΝΟΥΣ / [---] 617. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4052, IAA 20573, ↑, 6.70 g, 20 mm. Same. 618. Eastern Quarter, Area G, L1704, Reg. No. 6262, IAA 17816, ↑, 6.77 g, 19 mm. Obv.: Head. Rev.: [---] Nike walking r.? SC II: No. 2479. 619. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4462, IAA 21204, ↑, 8.50 g, 19 mm.

Same. ‫יהד‬/‫ול החברה‬/‫הכהן הגד‬/‫יהוחנן‬ 623. IAA 18197, Surface, 2.02 g, 12 mm. TJC Types D1–D16; AJC Type Pa. Same. ‫ידם‬/‫חבר ה‬/‫ן הגדל ו‬/‫חנן הכה‬/‫יהו‬ 624. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq A20, Reg. No. 1146, IAA 20462, ↑, 2.17 g, 13 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

TJC Types D17–D23; AJC Type Pb. Same. ‫ידי‬/‫חבר ה‬/‫הן הגדל ו‬/‫חנן הכה‬/‫יהו‬ 625. Western Quarter, Area S, L1924, Reg. No. 7916, IAA 18031, ↑, 1.46 g, 14 mm.

167

Same. ]··[/‫[··]חב‬/‫כהן ה‬/‫חנן ה‬/‫יהו‬ 633. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1302, Reg. No. 0038, IAA 33897, ↑, 1.72 g, 13 mm.

Same. ]---[/‫חנן ה‬/‫יהו‬ 634. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1255, Reg. No. 0730, IAA 19225, ↑, 1.45 g, 12 mm. Same. ‫יה‬/‫חבר ה‬/‫הגדל ו‬/‫חנן הכהן‬/‫יהו‬ 626. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1296, Reg. No. 2878, IAA 21741, ↑, 1.71 g, 12 mm. Same. Obv.: ‫וחבר‬/‫ן הגדל‬/‫חנן הכה‬/‫יהו‬ Rev.: Monogram Λ 627. Western Quarter, Area S, L1922, Reg. No. 7947, IAA 18035, 7, 1.65 g, 13 mm. Same. ‫יהו‬/‫חבר ה‬/‫הגדל ו‬/‫חנן הכהן‬/‫יהו‬ 628. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 0218, IAA 33998, 7, 2.11 g, 13 mm. Same. ‫די‬/‫חבר הי‬/‫ן הגדל ו‬/‫חנן הכה‬/‫יהו‬ 629. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1260, Reg. No. 1083, IAA 20718, ↑, 1.64 g, 13 mm.

Same. ‫ היה‬/‫ל וחבר‬/‫כהן הג‬/‫וחנן ה‬/‫יה‬ 630. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B15, Reg. No. 3081, IAA 33651, ↑, 2.28 g, 14 mm, deformed. Same. ‫דים‬/‫חבר הי‬/‫הן הגדל ו‬/‫וחנן כ‬/‫יה‬ 631. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1272, Reg. No. 1436, IAA 20324, ↑, 1.69 g, 13 mm. TJC Type E; AJC Type La.

Same. ‫יהד‬/‫ן הגדל‬/‫נן הכה‬/‫יהוח‬ 635. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1272, Reg. No. 1435, IAA 20323, 1, 1.94 g, 12 mm. TJC Type F; AJC Type K. Same. ‫יהד‬/‫הל וחבר‬/‫ן הכהן‬/‫יהוחנ‬ 636. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5104, Reg. No. 4207, IAA 21410, 2, 1.62 g, 12 mm. Same. ]··[‫גדל‬/‫נן הכה גד‬/‫יהוח‬ 637. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1267, Reg. No. 1376, IAA 20146, ↑, 1.77 g, 13 mm. Same. ‫יהוד‬/‫דל וחבר‬/‫ן הכהן ה‬/‫יהוחנ‬ 638. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1256, Reg. No. 0774, IAA 20071, 1, 1.14 g, 12 mm.

TJC Type G; AJC Type Lb. Same. [---[‫[חנן ה‬---] 639. Western Quarter, Area S, L1920, Reg. No. 8201, IAA 18059, ., 1.77 g, 14 mm. Same. Mostly gibberish. 640. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B15, Reg. No. 3080, IAA 33650/2, 7, 1.94 g, 14 mm, crude.

Same. ‫חבר‬/‫הן הגד‬/‫חנן הכ‬/‫יהו‬ 632. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B19, Reg. No. 1205, IAA 20505, 1, 1.89 g, 13 mm. TJC Type H; AJC Type R1.

168

Danny Syon

Obv.: [‫ ]יהוחנן הכהן הגדול ראש חבר היהודים‬Parallel cornucopiae. Rev.: Helmet. 641. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1275, Reg. No. 1608, IAA 20216, ↑, 3.69 g, 16 mm.

Same. ‫ים‬/‫[הי]הוד‬/‫[דל] וחבר‬/‫ה כהן ג‬/‫יהוד‬ 929. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5109, Reg. No. 5057, IAA 33795, 1, 1.53 g, 13 mm. Same. ‫ים‬/‫ היהוד‬/‫ול וחבר‬/‫ה כהן גד‬/‫יהוד‬ 930. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1272, Reg. No. 1439, IAA 20328, 1, 1.74 g, 14 mm.

TJC Type I5–I18; AJC Type Sb. Obv.: Inscription in wreath: ‫חבר‬/‫הגדל ראש‬/‫חנן הכהן‬/‫יהו‬ ‫דים‬/‫היה‬ Rev.: Joined cornucopia; between them pomegranate. 642. Western Quarter, Area R, L5003, Reg. No. 0749, IAA 34497, ↑, 2.11 g, 13 mm.

Same. ‫הודי‬/‫ול וחבר‬/‫ה כהן גד‬/‫יהוד‬ 931. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5153, Reg. No. 5286, IAA 35083, ↑, 2.00 g, 14 mm.

Same. [---]/‫ש חבר‬/‫הגדל רא‬/‫חנן הכהן‬/‫יהו‬ 643. Hasmonean Quarter, Area D, L3003, Reg. No. 4069, IAA 17794, ↑, 2.26 g, 14 mm.

Same. [---]‫יה‬/]∙∙[‫ול וחב‬/‫[ה] כהן גד‬/]‫יה[וד‬ 932. Western Quarter, Area R, L5025, Reg. No. 3243, IAA 20861, ↓, 1.42 g, 11 mm.

Same. ‫י‬/‫היהו‬/‫אש חבר‬/‫ן הגדל ר‬/‫חנן הכה‬/‫יהו‬ 644. Western Quarter, Area S, L1909, Reg. No. 6966, IAA 17747, ↑, 1.78 g, 11 mm.

Same. [∙∙] /‫בר היה‬/‫גדול וח‬/‫דה כהן‬/‫יהו‬ 933. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1282, Reg. No. 0714, IAA 34787, ↑, 2.30 g, 13 mm.

645–888. John Hyrcanus: 244 coins (Eastern Quarter: 38, Hasmonean Quarter: 92, Western Quarter: 114), most ↑, 0.61–2.81 g, 9–16 mm.

TJC Type V; AJC Type Jc.

889–926. Uncertain John Hyrcanus: 38 coins, various axes, 1.01–2.61 g; 11–15 mm.

Judah Aristobulos I (105/4–104/3 BCE) Obv.: Inscription in wreath: ‫דים‬/‫ היהו‬/‫ול וחבר‬/‫ה כה גד‬/‫יהוד‬ Rev.: Joined cornucopia; between them pomegranate. TJC Type U; AJC Type Ja. 927. Eastern Quarter, Area E, Sq A9, Reg. No. 5706, IAA 19002, 2, 2.21 g, 13 mm. Same. ‫יהוד‬/]‫ול וחב[ר‬/‫ה כהן גד‬/‫יהוד‬ 928. Western Quarter, Area R, L5012, Reg. No. 6042, IAA 19262, ↑, 2.05 g, 13 mm.

Same. ‫ום‬/‫יהד‬/‫וחבר ה‬/‫נ הגדל‬/‫דה הכה‬/‫יהו‬ 934. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4016, Reg. No. 1377, IAA 18696, ↑, 1.64 g, 13 mm. Same. ‫יד‬/‫חבר ה‬/‫ הגדל ו‬/‫דה הכהן‬/‫יהו‬ 935. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1263, Reg. No. 0498, IAA 34752, ↑, 1.80 g, 14 mm. 936–951. Judah Aristobulos I: 16 coins (Hasmonean Quarter: 9; Western Quarter: 7), various axes, 1.22– 2.44 g; 12–14 mm. 952–955. Uncertain Judah Aristobulos I: 4 coins.

Alexander Jannaeus (104/3–76 BCE) The coins are arranged according to TJC types, though this is not the minting sequence.

Chapter 5: Coins

TJC Type K; AJC Type Ca. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Anchor; all in dotted border. Rev.: Eight rayed star in wreath tied with ribbons. Between the rays: ]‫ך‬/‫מל‬/‫ה‬/[‫ן‬/‫ת‬/‫ונ‬/‫]ה‬/‫[י‬ 956. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1263, Reg. No. 1014, IAA 20692, 2.77 g, 15 mm. Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Rev.: ‫ך‬/‫מל‬/‫ה‬/‫ן‬/‫ת‬/‫נ‬/‫הו‬/‫י‬ 957. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4182, IAA 21389, 3.11 g, 14 mm.

Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩ[Σ ΑΛΕ]ΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Rev.: [---]‫ן‬/‫ת‬/‫נ‬/‫הו‬/‫י‬ 958. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B20, Reg. No. 1184, IAA 20489, 2.61 g, 13 mm. Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝ[ΔΡΟΥ] Rev.: ‫ך‬/‫מל‬/‫ה‬/‫ן‬/‫ת‬/‫נ‬/‫הו‬/‫י‬ 959. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4011, Reg. No. 1259, IAA 18668, 2.78 g, 15 mm Same. Obv.: [ΒΑΣ]ΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝ[ΔΡΟΥ] Rev.: [---] 960. Western Quarter, Area R, L5024, Reg. No. 1030, IAA 34717, 2.41 g, 16 mm.

169

Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕ[ΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ] Rev.: ‫לך‬/‫מ‬/‫ה‬/‫ן‬/‫ת‬/‫ונ‬/‫ה‬/‫י‬ 963. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1274, Reg. No. 1599, IAA 20209, 1, 1.36 g, 13 mm.

Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑ[ΝΔΡΟΥ] Rev.: ‫ך‬/‫מל‬/‫ה‬/‫ן‬/‫ת‬/‫ונ‬/‫ה‬/‫י‬ 964. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1260, Reg. No. 1044, IAA 20707, 2.65 g, 15 mm. Same. Obv.: [ΒΑ]ΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞ[ΑΝΔΡΟΥ] Rev.: [---] 965. Western Quarter, Area R, L5025, Reg. No. 7627, IAA 19977, 1.43 g, 14 mm, double strike of reverse.

Same. Obv. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑ[ΝΔΡΟΥ] Rev. ‫לך‬/‫מ‬/‫ה‬/‫ן‬/‫ת‬/‫ונ‬/‫ה‬/‫י‬ 966. Western Quarter, Area R, L5022, Reg. No. 7446, IAA 19925, ↑, 0.96 g, 12 mm.

Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙ[ΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕ[ΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ] Rev.: ‫ו[···]ך‬/‫ה‬/‫י‬ 961. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B20, Reg. No. 1209, IAA 20491, 3.88 g, 15 mm.

Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕ[ΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ] Rev.: ‫לך‬/‫מ‬/‫ה‬/‫ן‬/‫ת‬/‫ונ‬/‫ה‬/‫י‬ 967. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4016, Reg. No. 1378, IAA 18697, 1.19 g, 13 mm.

Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Rev.: [---] 962. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3324, IAA 20429, ↓, 2.04 g, 15 mm.

Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Rev.: ‫[לך‬---] 968. Western Quarter, Area R, Reg. No. 7028, L5018, IAA 19756, ↑, 1.72 g, 13 mm.

170

Danny Syon

Same. Obv.: [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ]ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡ[ΟΥ] Rev.: [---] 969. Western Quarter, Area R, L5003, Reg. No. 4571, IAA 19078, 2.77 g, 15 mm. Same. Obv.: [ΒΑΣΙΛΕ]ΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝ[ΔΡΟΥ] Rev.: ‫ך‬/‫מ‬/‫ה‬/‫ן‬/‫ת‬/‫נ‬/‫הו‬/‫( י‬sic) 970. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq C18, Reg. No. 2954, IAA 33554, 1.79 g, 13 mm.

Same. Obv.: [---] Very poorly formed letters. Rev.: [---] 976. Western Quarter, Area R, L5014, Reg. No. 6213, IAA 19369, 1.13 g, 12 mm. Same. Obv.: [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩ]Σ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔ[ΡΟΥ] Rev.: [---] 977. Western Quarter, Area R, L5055, Reg. No. 6861, IAA 19665, 1.19 g, 12 mm.

Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Rev.: [---] 971. Western Quarter, Area S, L2014, Reg. No. 3667, IAA 18487, 3.03 g, 14 mm. Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Rev.: ‫ך‬/‫מל‬/‫ה‬/‫ן‬/‫ת‬/‫ונ‬/‫ה‬/‫י‬ 972. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1267, Reg. No. 1241, IAA 20125, 2.65 g, 14 mm. TJC Type K; AJC Type Cb. Same, but delicate anchor. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ Α[ΛΕΞΑΝ]ΔΡΟΥ Rev.: [---] 973. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1314, Reg. No. 0757, IAA 34495, 1.81 g, 15 mm. Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Rev.: [---] 974. Western Quarter, Area R, L5014, Reg. No. 6266, IAA 19396, ↓, 1.04 g, 14 mm. Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Rev.: [---] 975. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1294, Reg. No. 2464, IAA 21519, 1.38 g, 14 mm.

TJC Type K; AJC Type Cc. Same, but crude anchor; sometimes a circle near the anchor. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕ[---] Rev.: [---]‫נ‬/‫[ו‬---] 978. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B18, Reg. No. 1742, IAA 20914, 1.05 g, 13 mm. Same. Obv.: [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ]ΑΛΕΞΑ[ΝΔΡΟΥ] Rev.: [---] 979. Eastern Quarter, Area M, L4102, Reg. No. 3040, IAA 19215, ↑, 1.18 g, 11 mm. Same. Obv. [---] Rev. ‫ך‬/‫מ‬/‫ה‬/‫ת‬/‫נ‬/]‫[ו‬/‫ה‬/‫( י‬sic) 980. Western Quarter, Area R, L5026, Reg. No. 7633, IAA 19983, 1.74 g, 12 mm, double strike on reverse.

Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Rev.: [---] 981. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4011, Reg. No. 1757, IAA 18666, 2.76 g, 16 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

Same. [---]ΣΙΛΕΩΣ[---] 982. Western Quarter, Area S, L2008, Reg. No. 3239, IAA 18370, 4, 1.50 g, 15 mm. Same. Obv.: [---]ΒΑΙΛΣ[E]ΩΣ (sic). Circle near the anchor, as if part of the inscription. Rev.: [---] 983. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1267, Reg. No. 1325, IAA 20161, 1.41 g, 14 mm.

Same. [---] 984. Western Quarter, Area R, L5052, Reg. No. 6392, IAA 19447, 2.15 g, 14 mm, overstrike, probably on a non-Hasmonean coin. Same. [---]ΛΕΞΑ[---] 985. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq A18, Reg. No. 5480, IAA 18996, 1.96 g, 12 mm, chisel mark visible.

Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛ[---] Circle near anchor. Rev.: [---]‫ה‬/‫ן‬/‫]ת‬---[ 986. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4132, IAA 20608, 1.52 g, 14 mm, overstrike.

987–2075. Jannaeus TJC Type K: 1089 coins (Eastern Quarter: 118; Hasmonean Quarter: 236; Western Quarter: 724), various axes, 0.17–4.26 g, 9–17 mm.

1760

1011 0

Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Anchor surrounded by circle; date L-KE Rev.: ‫ מלכא אלכסנדרוס שנת כה‬Eight-rayed star in dotted circle. Obv.: [---] ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟ[ L[KE] Rev.: [---]‫מלכא‬ 2076. Western Quarter, Area S, L1921, Reg. No. 8108, IAA 18000, 1.19 g, 14 mm.

Same. Obv.: [---] Rev.: [---]‫[א אלכסנ‬---] 2077. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1255, Reg. No. 0722, IAA 19219, 1.11 g, 12 mm. Same. Obv.: Β[ΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔ]ΡΟΥ Rev.: [---]‫[וס ש‬---] 2078. Western Quarter, Area S, L1922, Reg. No. 8133, IAA 18043, 1.37 g, 14 mm.

Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛ[ΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞ]ΑΝΔΡΟΥ Rev.: ]‫מל[כא אלכסנ]דרוס שנת כ[ה‬ 2079. Western Quarter, Area R, L5018, Reg. No. 7021, IAA 19749, 1.22 g, 13 mm, badly cast flan. Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛ[---] Rev.: ]‫[מלכא] אלכסנדר[וס שנת כה‬ 2080. Western Quarter, Area R, L5019, Reg. No. 1004, IAA 34701, 1.28 g, 14 mm, double strike on both sides. Same. Obv.: [---] Rev.: [---]‫[נדרוס שנ‬---] 2081. Western Quarter, Area S, L1922, Reg. No. 7952, IAA 18037, 1.16 g, 13 mm.

1

TJC Type L1–L6; AJC Type Cd. 80/79 BCE

171

Same. Obv.: [---] Rev.: [---]‫[רוס‬---] 2082. Western Quarter, Area S, L1922, Reg. No. 8110, IAA 18002, 1.08 g, 13 mm.

172

Danny Syon

Same. 2399. Hasmonean Quarter, Area P, L6002, Reg. No. 0002, IAA 34723, 1.46 g, 11 mm. Same. Obv.: [---]ΙΛΕΩΣ[---] Rev.: [---] 2083. Western Quarter, Area S, L1910, Reg. No. 7688, IAA 18130, 1.02 g, 14 mm. Same. Obv.: [---]. Rev.: [---]‫[א אלכסנד‬---] 2084. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1260, Reg. No. 1082, IAA 20717, 1.55 g, 14 mm. Same. Obv.: [---]ΑΣΙΛ[---] Rev.: [---] 2085. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4184, Reg. No. 1098, IAA 19243, 1.21 g, 11 mm. 2086–2394. Jannaeus TJC Type L1–L6: 309 coins (Eastern Quarter: 30; Hasmonean Quarter: 110; Western Quarter: 165), various axes, 0.32–1.87 g, 9–16 mm. TJC Type L7–L17; AJC Type Ce. Same. Star is six- or eight-rayed; inscription (as on type L1–L6) mostly incomplete or off flan. 2395. Western Quarter, Area S, Sq J9, Reg. No. 3030, IAA 18224, 0.86 g, 10 mm. Same. 2396. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq A19, Reg. No. 5471, IAA 18989, 0.83 g, 11 mm. Same. 2397. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3326, IAA 20431, 1.13 g, 12 mm.

Same. 2400. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4018, Reg. No. 1779, IAA 18848, 0.95 g, 12 mm. Same. 2401. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1267, Reg. No. 1818, IAA 20227, 1.11 g, 12 mm. Same. 2402. Western Quarter, Area S, L1922, Reg. No. 8062, IAA 17988, 1.01 g, 12 mm.

Same. 2403. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1266, Reg. No. 1024, IAA 20699, 0.62 g, 11 mm, incompletely cast flan.

Same. 2404. Western Quarter, Area S, L1919, Reg. No. 7733, IAA 18148, 0.70 g, 10 mm. Same. 2405. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 3088, IAA 33657, 0.93 g, 11 mm. 2406–3255. Jannaeus TJC Type L7–L17: 850 coins (Eastern Quarter: 85; Hasmonean Quarter: 220; Western Quarter: 536), various axes, 0.15–1.89 g, 8–15 mm. 3256–3451. Jannaeus TJC Types K or L: 196 coins (Eastern Quarter: 7; Hasmonean Quarter: 32; Western Quarter: 156). TJC Type N; AJC Type Aa.

Same. 2398. Western Quarter, Area S, L1921, Reg. No. 8258, IAA 18075, 1.10 g, 12 mm.

Obv.: [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ] Anchor in circle. Rev.: ‫ יהונתן המלך‬Lily. All in border of dots. 3452. Western Quarter, Area R, L5012, Reg. No. 6082, IAA 19285, ↑, 2.33 g, 13 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

Same. Obv.: [---] Rev.: [---] 3453. Western Quarter, Area R, L5014, Reg. No. 6217, IAA 19373, ↓, 1.39 g, 12 mm. Same. Obv.: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩ[Σ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ] Rev.: ‫[יה]ונתן המלך‬ 3454. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1272, Reg. No. 1404, IAA 20302, ↑, 2.53 g, 12 mm.

173

Same. ‫דים‬/‫וחבר הי‬/‫הן הגדל‬/‫נתן הכ‬/‫יהו‬ 3462. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1280, Reg. No. 2190, IAA 21079, ↑, 1.42 g, 12 mm. Same. ‫ד‬/‫חבר הי‬/‫הגדל ו‬/‫תן הכבן‬/‫( יהונ‬sic) 3463. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1315, Reg. No. 0005, IAA 35309, ↑, 1.62 g, 12 mm. Same. Obv.: [---] Appears to be overstruck on a portrait, perhaps a Seleucid coin. 3464. Western Quarter, Area S, L2002, Reg. No. 3169, IAA 18305, ↑, 2.42 g, 14 mm.

TJC Type N; AJC Type Ab. Same, but three dots to the right of the anchor. Obv.: [---] Rev.: ]‫יהונתן [המלך‬ 3455. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1306, Reg. No. 0408, IAA 34078, ↑, 1.36 g, 13 mm.

TJC Type P46–P53; AJC Type Eb. Same. ‫ל וחב‬/‫הן הגד‬/‫נתן הכ‬/‫יה‬ 3465. Western Quarter, Area R, L5003, Reg. No. 4551, IAA 19073, ↓, 1.80 g, 14 mm. Same. ‫לו חרה‬/‫כהן הגד‬/‫ונתן ה‬/‫( יה‬sic) 3466. Western Quarter, Area S, L2008, Reg. No. 3240, IAA 18371, ↑, 1.40 g, 13 mm.

3456–3458. Jannaeus TJC Type N, various axes, 1.53– 1.99 g, 12–14 mm.

3467–3746. Jannaeus TJC Type P: 280 coins (Eastern Quarter: 39; Hasmonean Quarter: 83; Western Quarter: 156), various axes, 0.66–3.30 g, 10–16 mm.

TJC Type P1–P45; AJC Type Ea. TJC Type Q; AJC Type Fa. Obv.: Inscription in wreath: ‫י‬/‫ל וחבר ה‬/‫הן הגד‬/‫נתן הכ‬/‫יהו‬ Rev.: Joined cornucopia, between them pomegranate. 3459. Western Quarter, Area S, L2017, Reg. No. 3458, IAA 18416, ↑, 1.34 g, 13 mm.

Same. ‫י‬/‫בר‬/‫הגדול‬/‫תן הכ‬/‫יהונ‬ 3747. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq C18, Reg. No. 2890, IAA 21753, ↑, 1.95 g, 13 mm.

Same. ‫וחבר‬/‫הן הגדל‬/‫( נתן הכ‬sic) 3460. Western Quarter, Area S, L1921, Reg. No. 8248, IAA 18073, ↑, 1.91 g, 14 mm.

Same. ‫י‬/‫בר יה‬/‫ הגדול ח‬/]··[‫תן הכ‬/‫יהונ‬ 3748. Western Quarter, Area R, L5026, Reg. No. 7632, IAA 19982, ↑, 2.05 g, 12 mm.

Same. ‫חבר ה‬/‫ן הגדל ו‬/‫נתן הכה‬/‫יהו‬ 3461. Western Quarter, Area S, L1924, Reg. No. 8274, IAA 18081, ↑, 1.36 g, 13 mm.

Same. ‫ם‬/‫יהוד‬/‫דול חב‬/‫תן הכה‬/]---[ 3749. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1253, Reg. No. 0632, IAA 19159, 2, 2.25 g, 13 mm.

174

Danny Syon

Same. ‫דים‬/‫ר היהו‬/‫ הגדול חב‬/‫תן הכה‬/‫יהונ‬ 3750. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1304, Reg. No. 0241, IAA 34011, ↓, 1.35 g, 13 mm. Same. ]---[/‫דול חבר‬/‫תן הכג‬/‫[י]הונ‬ 3751. Western Quarter, Area R, L5014, Reg. No. 6136, IAA 19328, ↓, 1.91 g, 14 mm. Same. ‫ יה‬/‫דול ובר‬/‫תן כה ג‬/‫יהונ‬ 3752. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 3087, IAA 33656, ↑, 2.23 g, 14 mm. Same. ‫יהד‬/‫דול ח‬/‫תן כה ג‬/‫יהונ‬ 3753. Western Quarter, Area R, L5011, Reg. No. 8116, IAA 19669, ↓, 1.68 g, 13 mm. TJC Type Q; AJC Type Fb. Same. Obv.: ]···[/‫תן כהג‬/‫יהונ‬ 3754. Eastern Quarter, Area G, L1704, Reg. No. 6181, IAA 17838, ↑, 2.16 g, 14 mm.

TJC Type R; AJC Type Gb. Same. ‫ם‬/‫יהדי‬/‫ל וחבר ה‬/‫ן כהן גד‬/‫יהונת‬ 3898. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq C1, Reg. No. 0839, IAA 20622, ↓, 1.26 g, 11 mm. Same. ‫יהוד‬/‫ל וחבר ה‬/‫ן כהן גד‬/‫יהונת‬ 3899. Western Quarter, Area S, L1914, Reg. No. 7579, IAA 17907, 7, 1.64 g, 13 mm. Same. ‫יהוד‬/‫וחבר ה‬/]‫ן כהן גד[ל‬/‫יהונת‬ 3900. Western Quarter, Area S, L2053, Reg. No. 4035, IAA 18607, 7, 1.46 g, 12 mm. Same. ‫ם‬/‫יהודי‬/‫וחבר ה‬/‫ן כהן גדל‬/‫יהונת‬ 3901. Western Quarter, Area S, L2005, Reg. No. 3139, IAA 18291, 1, 1.61 g, 12 mm. Same. ‫ם‬/‫יהודי‬/‫ל וחבר‬/‫ן כהן גד‬/‫יהונת‬ 3902. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4013, Reg. No. 1310, IAA 18676, ↑, 1.54 g, 14 mm.

Same. ‫ יהו‬/‫דול וח‬/‫תן כה ג‬/‫יהונ‬ 3755. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1290, Reg. No. 3120, IAA 33701, ↑, 2.08 g, 14 mm. Same. ‫ים‬/‫ היהוד‬/‫ דול וחב‬/‫תן כהן‬/‫יהונ‬ 3756. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5110, Reg. No. 4981, IAA 33722, ↑, 1.91 g, 12 mm.

Same. [---] Very small letters. 3903. Western Quarter, Area S, L1910, Reg. No. 7730, IAA 18147, ↓, 1.58 g, 14 mm.

3757–3895. Jannaeus TJC Type Q: 139 coins (Eastern Quarter: 23; Hasmonean Quarter: 52; Western Quarter: 63), various axes, 1.04–2.80 g; 11–15 mm.

3904–3971. Jannaeus TJC Type R: 68 coins (Eastern Quarter: 5; Hasmonean Quarter: 33; Western Quarter: 28), various axes. 0.95–2.64 g; 11–15 mm.

TJC Type R; AJC Type Ga.

Subgroup YNTN (see Part 1)

Same. ‫הודים‬/‫ל וחבר הי‬/‫ן כהן גד‬/‫יהונת‬ 3896. Western Quarter, Area S, L1923, Reg. No. 7776, IAA 18166, ↓, 2.47 g, 15 mm. Same. ‫ודים‬/‫ וחבר היה‬/‫ן כהן גדל‬/‫יהונת‬ 3897. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1252, Reg. No. 0484, IAA 34137, ↑, 2.67 g, 14 mm.

TJC Type S1–S32; AJC Type Ha. Obv.: Inscription in wreath: ‫הכהן [הגדול וחבר‬/‫ינתן‬ ]‫ היהודים‬Mostly incomplete and garbled. Rev.: Joined cornucopia; between them pomegranate. 3972. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1267, Reg. No. 1381, IAA 20150, 2, 1.57 g, 12 mm. Same. Garbled inscription. 3973. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1314, Reg. No. 0744, IAA 34489, 7, 1.92 g, 14 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

175

Same. Garbled inscription. 3974. Western Quarter, Area R, L5018, Reg. No. 7025, IAA 19753, 2, 1.35 g, 12 mm.

3983–4099. Jannaeus TJC Type S: 117 coins (Eastern Quarter: 13; Hasmonean Quarter: 48; Western Quarter: 56), various axes, 1.05–2.90 g, 11–15 mm.

Same. Garbled inscription. 3975. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1291, Reg. No. 2521, IAA 33733, ↑, 2.06 g, 13 mm.

TJC Type T; AJC Type Ia.

Same. Unusually garbled inscription, though the letter forms are mostly correct. 3976. Western Quarter, Area S, L2005, Reg. No. 3179, IAA 18318, ↑, 2.51 g, 15 mm. Same. [---]‫ה‬/‫ חבר‬The rest garbled. 3977. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1263, Reg. No. 1018, IAA 20696, ↑, 1.57 g, 13 mm. TJC Type S37–S46; AJC Type Hc. Same. [---] 3978. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Reg. No. 1352, L1267, 1.37 g, 12 mm, IAA 20167. TJC Type S; AJC Type Hd. Same. Mostly garbled and sometimes only random strokes imitating letters. 3979. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 0216, IAA 33996, ↑, 2.17 g, 13 mm. Same. Pseudo-inscription. 3980. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5107, Reg. No. 4804, IAA 33552, ., 1.19 g, 13 mm.

Same. Pseudo-inscription. 3981. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1291, Reg. No. n/a, IAA 34813, 2, 1.60 g, 14 mm.

Same. ‫ר יהד‬/‫גדל וחב‬/‫הכהן ה‬/‫ינתן‬ 4100. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1276, Reg. No. 1763, IAA 20433, ↑, 2.20 g, 14 mm, overstrike. Same. ‫די‬/]··[‫גדל וחב‬/]··[‫הכה‬/‫ינתן‬ Rev.: Part of anchor and Greek inscription visible. 4101. Western Quarter, Area S, L2014, Reg. No. 3664, IAA 18484, ↑, 2.33 g, 14 mm, overstrike.

Same. ‫דל וח‬/‫הכהן ה‬/‫ינתן‬ 4102. Western Quarter, Area S, L2051, Reg. No. 3844, IAA 18546, ↑, 2.33 g, 15 mm, overstrike, on obverse traces of [---]ΛΕ Same. Obv.: ‫]ר הי‬---[/‫] גדל‬---] Part of lily visible. Rev.: [---]ΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Anchor. 4103. Western Quarter, Area R, L5053, Reg. No. 6771, IAA 19623, 2.46 g, 14 mm, overstrike.

Same. ‫יהד‬/‫גדל וחב‬/‫הכהן ה‬/‫ינתן‬ 4104. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1256, Reg. No. 0793, IAA 20098, ↓, 1.96 g, 13 mm, overstrike. Same. [‫גדל וח‬/‫הכהן ה‬/‫ינתן‬ 4105. Western Quarter, Area S, L1924, Reg. No. 7905, IAA 18024, ↑, 2.18 g, 14 mm, overstrike.

Same. Pseudo-inscription. 3982. Western Quarter, Area R, L5026, Reg. No. 7649, IAA 19993, 1.62 g, 12 mm. Same. Obv.: ‫יהד‬/‫דל וחבי‬/‫[·]הן הג‬/]---[ Rev.: Lily clearly visible and part of the legend: [---] ‫נ המל‬

176

Danny Syon

4106. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1260, Reg. No. 0751, IAA 34493, ↑, 1.87 g, 15 mm, overstrike.

Same. [---] 4107. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4014, Reg. No. 1323, IAA 18678, ↑, 1.81 g, 15 mm, overstrike. Same. ‫גדל וחב‬/‫הכהן ה‬/‫ינתן‬ Rev.: Overstruck on anchor; BA is visible. 4108. Hasmonean Quarter, Area D, L3002, Reg. No. 4076, IAA 18199, ↑, 2.54 g, 15 mm.

4109–4210. Jannaeus TJC Type T: 102 coins (Eastern Quarter: 16; Hasmonean Quarter: 31; Western Quarter: 55), various axes, 0.78–3.96 g, 12–16 mm. 4211–4232. Probably Jannaeus, inscription/cornucopia types: 22 coins.

4584. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 7909, IAA 20060, 1, 2.77 g, 16 mm.

Jerusalem 37–4 BCE Diadem/Tripod Obv.: ΗΡΩΔΟΥ[---] Cross in open diadem. Rev.: Tripod. TJC 49; AJC Type 8A. 4585. Western Quarter, Area S, L2017, Reg. No. 3554, IAA 18456, ., 2.50 g, 17 mm.

Obv.: HP[---] Cross in closed diadem. Rev.: Tripod. TJC 51; AJC Type 10. 4586. Western Quarter, Area S, L1921, Reg. No. 8261, IAA 18101, 7, 1.54 g, 14 mm.

4233–4541. Hasmonean coins, inscription/cornucopia types: 309 coins. 4542–4583. Probably Hasmonean: 42 coins.

The Herodians Herod (40–4 BCE)

Obv.: [---] Cross in closed diadem. Rev.: Tripod. TJC 53; AJC Type 12. 4587. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5103, Reg. No. 4281, IAA 21487, ↓, 1.19 g, 13 mm, deformed.

Jerusalem (see Part 1) 38/7 BCE Obv.: ΗΡΩΔΟΥ [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ] Caduceus. On l. LΓ Rev.: Pomegranate(?). TJC 46; AJC Type 4. For the identification of the fruit as a pomegranate, see Ariel and Fontanille 2012.

Same. 4588. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5201, Reg. No. 0729, IAA 34471, 1.31 g, 14 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

Same. TJC 53; AJC Type 13. 4589. Eastern Quarter, Area H, L1801, Reg. No. 6619, IAA 35294, 0.93 g, 13 mm. Same. TJC 54; AJC Type 13. 4590. Western Quarter, Area S, L1918, Reg. No. 7544, IAA 17891, 0.78 g, 13 mm, fragment. Anchor/Joined Cornucopia; between them, Caduceus. TJC 59; AJC Type 17.

177

Same. HPw BA[---] 4595. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5161, Reg. No. 5861, IAA 35179, ↓, 1.00 g, 14 mm, broken.

Same. [---]w BAÇ [---] 4596. Western Quarter, Area R, L5053, Reg. No. 7881, IAA 20058, ↑, 1.20 g, 11 mm, broken.

Obv.: [ΗΡw BAÇ IΛΕ] Anchor. Rev.: Joined cornucopia with caduceus between the horns; above, five pellets. 4591. Western Quarter, Area R, L5025, Reg. No. 7583, IAA 19965, ↓, 1.60 g, 12 mm.

Same. HPw BAÇ [---] 4597. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5101, Reg. No. 4012, IAA 20550, 5, 1.91 g, 15 mm.

Same. Obv.: [---] BAÇ I 4592. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1272, Reg. No. 1589, IAA 20392, ↓, 1.69 g, 13 mm.

Cornucopia/Eagle

Same. ΗΡw BAÇ I 4593. Western Quarter, Area S, L2051, Reg. No. 3975, IAA 18582, 1, 2.06 g, 15 mm.

Same. Fragmentary inscriptions. 4598–4679. 82 coins (Eastern Quarter: 10; Hasmonean Quarter: 2; Western Quarter: 70), various axes, 0.36– 2.00 g, 11–16 mm.

TJC 66; AJC Type 23. Obv.: [HPwΔ BAÇ IΛ] Cornucopia. Rev.: Eagle standing r.; In left field, pellet. 4680–4689. IAA 19295, 34150, 35214, 35132, 18638, 18629, 34566, 21419, 17659, 18960, all ↑, 0.68–1.23 g, 11–13 mm.

Archelaos (4 BCE–6 CE) Jerusalem

Same. [---]AÇIΛ 4594. Western Quarter, Area S, L2014, Reg. No. 3466, IAA 18421, ↑, 1.68 g, 14 mm.

Obv.: [HP]W-Δ[Η] Anchor. Rev.: Joined cornucopia; between them, caduceus. Above: [---]N TJC 68, AJC Type 1. 4690. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4016, Reg. No. 1456, IAA 18737, 5, 0.85 g, 12 mm.

178

Danny Syon

Same. Obv.: H[PWΔ]Η Rev.: ‰Θ-Ν 4691. Western Quarter, Area R, L5010, Reg. No. 6054, IAA 19268, ↑, 0.92 g, 12 mm.

Antipas (4 BCE–39 CE) Tiberias 20 CE Half Denomination TJC 76; AJC Type 2.

Obv.: H-P-W Galley’s prow. Rev.: Inscription in wreath? (traces). TJC 72, AJC Type 5. 4692. Western Quarter, Area S, L2019, Reg. No. 3716, IAA 18503, 1.05 g, 11 mm. Same. Obv.: H[P]W 4693. Western Quarter, Area R, L5035, Reg. No. 7383, IAA 19898, ↑, 1.36 g, 14 mm.

Obv.: ΗΡwΔ[ΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ] Reed. Date L[KΔ]. Rev.: TIBE/PIAC Inscription in wreath. 4696. Western Quarter, Area R, L5021, Reg. No. 7295, IAA 19863, ↑, 7.11 g, 21 mm.

Same. [---] Rev.: TIBE/PIAC Inscription in wreath. 4697. Western Quarter, Area S, L2005, Reg. No. 3264, IAA 18380, ↑, 8.49 g, 21 mm. Quarter Denomination TJC 77; AJC Type 3.

Obv.: [HPW]ΔΟΥ Bunch of grapes. Rev.: Helmet. TJC 73, AJC Type 6. 4694. Eastern Quarter, Area G, L1507, Reg. No. 6786, IAA 19113, ↑, 1.65 g, 17 mm.

Same. [---] Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4698. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5151, Reg. No. 5723, IAA 34965, 4.00 g, 14 mm. Same. [---] Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4699. Western Quarter, Area S, L2014, Reg. No. 3462, IAA 18417, 1, 4.45 g, 13 mm. Eighth Denomination

Same. Obv.: [H]ΡWΔΟΥ[---] Rev.: Helmet. 4695. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5151, Reg. No. 5467, IAA 34945, 5, 2.30 g, 16 mm.

TJC 78; AJC Type 4. Obv.: Reed; date illegible. Rev.: TI/BC Inscription in wreath. 4700. Western Quarter, Area R, L5018, Reg. No. 7157, IAA 19804, ↑, 2.78 g, 14 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

29–30 CE Unit Denomination TJC 79; AJC Type 5. Obv.: [ΗΡw]ΔΟΥ Τ‰ΤΡÓΡ[ΧΟΥ] Palm branch. Date LΛΓ Rev.: TIBE/PIAC Inscription in wreath. 4701. Western Quarter, Area S, L2002, Reg. No. 3190, IAA 18326, ↑, 10.55 g, 24 mm.

179

Same. [---] Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4710. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5160, Reg. No. 5549, IAA 35143, ↑, 5.30 g, 18 mm. Obv.: [ΗΡWΔΟΥ Τ]ΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4711. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5151, Reg. No. 5609, IAA 34959, ↑, 6.40 g, 18 mm. Obv.: [ΗΡw]ΔΟΥ Τ‰ΤΡÓΡ[ΧΟΥ] Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4712. Western Quarter, Area R, L5057, Reg. No. 3080, IAA 20776, ↑, 6.06 g, 19 mm.

Same. [HP]wΔOY [TET]PÓPXOY Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4702. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5154, Reg. No. 5346, IAA 35106, ↑, 11.60 g, 24 mm.

Same. [---] Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4713. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3175, IAA 20385, ↑, 4.98 g, 18 mm. Quarter Denomination TJC 81; AJC Type 7.

Same. Fragmentary obverse inscriptions. Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4703–4706. All Western Quarter, IAA 34693, 17905, 17881, 18280, 9.79–13.42 g, 22–25 mm.

Obv.: HΡ[ΩΔΟΥ Τ]‰ΤΡÓΡΧΟΥ Palm branch. Rev.: TIBE/PIAC Inscription in wreath. 4714. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5201, Reg. No. 0634, IAA 34420, ↑, 3.70 g, 18 mm.

Half Denomination TJC 80; AJC Type 6. Obv.: Η[ΡWΔΟΥ Τ]‰ΤΡÓΡΧΟΥ Palm branch. Rev.: TIBE/PIAC Inscription in wreath. 4707. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3382, IAA 20449, 5, 4.62 g, 18 mm. Obv.: [Η]ΡwΔΟΥ [ΤΕΤΡ]ÓΡΧ[ΟΥ] Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4708. Western Quarter, Area R, L5019, Reg. No. 6799, IAA 19636, 5.57 g, 19 mm. Obv.: [HPWΔOY TE]TPAPXOY Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4709. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5160, Reg. No. 5642, IAA 35158, ↑, 5.90 g, 18 mm.

Same. [---] Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4715. Western Quarter, Area R, L5018, Reg. No. 7159, IAA 19806, ↑, 3.06 g, 15 mm. 30–31 CE Unit Denomination TJC 83; AJC Type 9. Same. [---] Date LΛΔ Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4716. Western Quarter, Area S, L2002, Reg. No. 3100, IAA 18272, ↑, 14.40 g, 23 mm.

180

Danny Syon

Same. [---] Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4717. Western Quarter, Area S, L1909, Reg. No. 6878, IAA 17732, ↑, 12.27 g, 22 mm.

39 CE

Half Denomination

Obv.:

TJC 84; AJC Type 10. Same. ΗΡWΔΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4718. Western Quarter, Area R, L5003, Reg. No. 4673, IAA 19095, ↑, 5.63 g, 20 mm.

Unit Denomination TJC 91; AJC Type 17. [HPΩΔΗC TETΡ]AΡXH[C]

Palm tree. Date

ETO/C

MΓ

Rev.: ΓAIΩ / KAICAP / ΓEPMA / [NIKΩ] Inscription in wreath. 4730. Western Quarter, Area K, L7001, Reg. No. 1559, IAA 68453, ↑, 13.74 g, 22 mm.

Same. [---] Rev. TIBE/PIAC 4719. Western Quarter, Area R, L5025, Reg. No. 7700, IAA 20004, ↑, 4.50 g, 17 mm. Obv.: ΗΡw[ΔΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡ]ΧΟΥ Date LΛΔ Rev.: TIBE/PIAC 4720. Western Quarter, Area R, L5018, Reg. No. 7773, IAA 20030, ↑, 5.97 g, 19 mm. Same. Fragmentary inscriptions. 4721–4724. All Western Quarter, IAA 87501, 19294, 34961, 34274, 5.90–6.40 g, 18–20 mm.

33–34 CE Unit Denomination TJC 87; AJC Type 13. Obv.: [ΗΡwΔΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ] Palm branch. Date LΛZ Rev.: TIBE/PIAΣ Inscription in wreath. 4725. IAA 18325. Western Quarter, Area S, Reg. No. 3189, L2002, 1, 12.00 g, 23 mm, note four-bar sigma. Half Denomination TJC 88, AJC Type 14. Obv.: [ΗΡwΔΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ] Palm branch. Date LΛZ Rev.: TIBE/PIAC. Inscription in wreath. 4726–4729. All Western Quarter, IAA 18223, 21187, 21141, 21369, ↑, 4.60–7.26 g, 18–20 mm.

Obv.: ETO/C MΓ Rev.: ΓAIΩ / KAICAP / ΓEPMA / NIKΩ 4731. Western Quarter, Area R, L5033, Reg. No. 0311, IAA 34288, ↑, 12.08 g, 20 mm. Obv.: ΗΡΩΔ[ΗC ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧ]ΗC ETOY/C MΓ Rev.: Illegible. 4732. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5201, Reg. No. 0644, IAA 34423, ↑, 13.89 g, 22 mm.

Obv.: ETOY/C MΓ Rev.: ΓAIΩ / KAICAP / ΓEPMA / NIKΩ 4733. Western Quarter, Area S, L2101, Reg. No. 52, IAA 88520, ↑, 12.53 g, 22 mm. Half Denomination TJC 92; AJC Type 18. Obv.: ΗΡΩΔΗC ΤΕΤ[ΡΑΡΧΗC] Palm branch. Date L MΓ Rev.: ΓAIΩ / KAICAP / ΓEPM / [NIK] Inscription in wreath. 4734. Eastern Quarter, Area G, L1701, Reg. No. 6010, IAA 17541, ↑, 6.25 g, 18 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

181

Same. [---] 4735. Western Quarter, Area R, L5036, Reg. No. 0343, IAA 34306, ↑, 5.18 g, 16 mm.

Same. [---] 4746. Western Quarter, Area R, L5006, Reg. No. 7150, IAA 19801, 12.90 g, 23 mm.

Obv.: ΗΡΩΔΗC TETPAPXHC. Palm branch. Date L M[Γ]. Rev.: ΓAIΩ / KAIC / ΓEPM / NIK. Inscription in wreath. 4736. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5153, Reg. No. 5284, IAA 35081, ↑, 6.30 g, 18 mm.

Half Denomination

Same. Obv.: [ΗΡΩΔΗC TETP]APXHC Rev.: [---]. 4737. Eastern Quarter, Area G, L1705, Reg. No. 6012, IAA 17543, 1, 6.03 g, 19 mm. Same. Fragmentary inscriptions. 4738–4740. Western Quarter, IAA 87513, 21329, 18241/1, ↑, 4.58–6.67 g, 17–20 mm. Quarter Denomination TJC 93; AJC Type 19. Obv.: [HΡWΔ]HC TET[ΡΑΡΧΗC] Cluster of dates. Date LΜΓ Rev.: [---] Inscription in wreath. 4741. Western Quarter, Area R, L5033, Reg. No. 0300, IAA 34277, ↑, 2.80 g, 14 mm.

Obv.: Palm branch, date illegible. Rev.: Traces of inscription. 4747–4756. Western Quarter, IAA 17652, 18977, 35303, 19245, 34310, 19414, 18279, 21203, 21675, 68465, ↑, 4.92–8.65 g, 17–23 mm.

Philip (4 BCE–34 CE) Paneas 1/2 CE Unit+ Denomination Obv.: KAICAP [CEBAC]TOY Head of Augustus r. Rev.: [ΦIΛIΠΠOY] TETPAP[XOY] Head of Philip. TJC 95; AJC Type 1. 4757. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5201, Reg. No. 0703, IAA 34456, unit+, ↑, 8.94 g, 22 mm.

Obv.: Cluster of dates. Date L[∙∙] Rev.: var.:ΓAIΩ/KAIC/A[P] Inscription in wreath. 4742. Western Quarter, Area R, L5007, Reg. No. 0940, IAA 34660, ↑, 2.44 g, 13 mm. 8/9 CE 20–39 CE (worn coins) Unit Denomination Unit Denomination Obv.: HPw[ΔOY T‰TPAP]ΧOY Palm branch. Rev.: [---] Inscription in wreath. 4743. Western Quarter, Area S, L2109, Reg. No. 27, IAA 88518, ↑, 13.39 g, 23 mm. Same. [---] 4744. Western Quarter, Area S, L2107, Reg. No. 22, IAA 88516, 13.74 g, 23 mm. Obv.: Palm branch, date illegible. Rev.: TIBE/PIAC Inscription in wreath. 4745. Western Quarter, Area R, L5056, Reg. No. 8122, IAA 20123, ., 11.19 g, 22 mm.

TJC 97; AJC Type 3. Obv.: [---] Head of Augustus r. Rev.: ΦIΛIΠ / ΠOY / TETP / [APXOY] Temple facade; date LIB

4758. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4229, IAA 21425, ↑, 7.15 g, 20 mm. Obv.: [---]CAPI Rev.: ΦΙΛΙΠ / ΠΟΥ ΤΕΤ [ΡΑΡΧΟΥ] Date LIB 4759. Western Quarter, Area S, L1907, Reg. No. 7371, IAA 18381, ↑, 8.09 g, 21 mm. Obv.: [KAI]CAPI [CEBACTΩ] Rev.: ΦIΛIΠ / ΠOY / TETP / [APXOY] Date LIB

182

Danny Syon

4760. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3287, IAA 20405, ↑, 8.65 g, 20 mm.

Obv.: ΣΕΒΑ[---] Rev.: ΕΠΙ / ΦΙΛΙ / ΠΠΟΥ[---] Large circle (Θ?) in center. 4766. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Reg. No. 1503, IAA 17581, unit+, ↑, 10.15 g, 24 mm. 15/6 CE Unit Denomination

Same. [---] Rev.: [---]TET[---] 4761. Western Quarter, Area S, L1916, Reg. No. 7984, IAA 17957, ., 8.47 g, 20 mm. Same. [---] Obv.: Countermark: Star on neck (Howgego 1985:192, No. 457). 4762. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq T16, Reg. No. 1509, IAA 17587, ↑, 9.05 g, 21 mm. Same.[---] Rev.: ΦIΛ[---] 4763. Western Quarter, Area S, L2018, Reg. No. 3564, IAA 18457, ↑, 4.80 g, 19 mm, broken and deformed. Half Denomination TJC 98; AJC Type 4. Same. [---] Date L[∙∙] 4764. Western Quarter, Area S, L1907, Reg. No. 7319, IAA 18375, ↑, 4.58 g, 18 mm. 30 CE TJC 100; AJC Type 6. Obv.: [ΣΕΒΑΣTWN] Jugate heads of Tiberius and Livia. Countermark: Star (Howgego 1985:192, No. 457). Rev.: EΠI ΦIΛI[ΠΠOY TETPAPXOY] Temple facade; countermark: þ on temple podium. 4765. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3102, Reg. No. 0861, IAA 34596, unit+, ↑, 9.55 g, 23 mm. For the date, see RPC I:681.

TJC 101; AJC Type 7. Obv.: [TIB KAIΣAPI ΣEBAΣ] Head of Tiberius r. Countermark: Star on neck (Howgego 1985:192, No. 457). Rev.: ΦIΛIΠΠOY TETPAXOY Temple facade. Date LIΘ 4767. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3054, IAA 20260, ↑, 5.52 g, 18 mm.

Obv.: [---] Countermark: star on neck (Howgego 1985:192, No. 457). Rev.: ΦIΛIΠOY T-E / TPAXOY (sic) Temple facade with large step; date LIΘ 4768. Western Quarter, Area R, L5055, Reg. No. 6995, IAA 19730, ↑, 5.20 g, 19 mm. 26–34 CE Obv.: [---] Head of Tiberius r. Rev.: ΕΠΙ ΦΙΛ /---/ ΡΑ;ΧΟΥ (sic) Temple facade, date LΛ[∙] The L introducing the date resembles Γ TJC 102(?); AJC Type 8? 4769. Western Quarter, Area S, L1907, Reg. No. 7271, IAA 18310, ↑, 6.52 g, 18 mm. 26/7 CE Half Denomination TJC 103(?); AJC Type 9. Obv.: Head of Tiberius r. Rev.: ΕΠΙ/ ∙ΛΠΟ(?) Temple facade; date illegible LΛ(?) 4770. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1268, Reg. No. 1247, IAA 20129, 2.40 g, 18 mm, broken.

Chapter 5: Coins

183

Same. Fragmentary inscriptions. 4771, 4772. Western Quarter, IAA 34170, 33765, ↓, 2.61, 2.90 g, 12, 16 mm.

Same. [---] 4777. Western Quarter, Area R, L5019, Reg. No. 6757, IAA 19613, ↑, 5.18 g, 17 mm.

29/30 CE

Half Denomination

Unit Denomination TJC 104; AJC Type 10. Obv.: [KAICAPOC CEBACTOY] Head of Tiberius r. Rev.: ΦΙΛΙ / ΠΠΟ / [Υ ΤΕ] / ΤΡΑ / ΡΧ[ΟΥ] Temple facade, date LΛΓ 4773. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq T16, Reg. No. 1512, IAA 17590, ↑, 7.00 g, 19 mm.

TJC 107; AJC Type C1. Obv.: [IOYΛIA CEBAC]TΗC Bust of Livia. Rev.: KAPΠOΦOPOC Hand, holding three ears of corn. To l. date [LΛ]Δ 4778. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5163, Reg. No. 5716, IAA 35211, ↑, 3.20 g, 16 mm.

Obv.: [---] Head of Tiberius r. Rev.: [Φ]IΛΙΠ[ΠΟΥ] / TET / PAPX /[---] Temple facade, date LΛΓ

4774. Western Quarter, Area R, L5011, Reg. No. 4751, IAA 19138, ↑, 5.70 g, 19 mm.

31–34 CE Half Denomination TJC 107 or 110; AJC Type C1.

Same. Rev.: ΦIΛΙΠΠΟ[---] Temple facade, date LΛΓ 4775. Western Quarter, surface, IAA 106418, ↑, 7.74 g, 18 mm.

Obv.: [---] Bust of Livia. Rev.: [KAPΠ]OΦOPOC Hand, holding three ears of corn; date illegible. 4779. Western Quarter, Area R, L5026, Reg. No. 7636, IAA 19986, ↑, 2.25 g, 12 mm.

30/1 CE Unit Denomination TJC 106; AJC Type 11. Obv.: [TIBEPIOY CEBACTOC] KAICAP Head of Tiberius r. Olive sprig in front. Rev.: EΠI Φ[IΛIΠΠOY TETPAP]XOY Temple facade, date LΛΔ

4776. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5151, Reg. No. 5697, IAA 34962, ↑, 4.40 g, 20 mm.

33/4 CE Obv.: TIBEP[IOY CEBA]CTOC [KAICAP] Head of Tiberius r. Rev.: [EΠI ΦIΛI]ΠΠOY TET;A;X[OY] (sic) Temple facade; date LΛZ TJC 109; AJC Type 14. 4780. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5151, Reg. No. 5525, IAA 34957, ↑, 7.50 g, 17 mm. Obv.: [---] Head r. Rev.: Inscription in wreath: LΛZ TJC 111; AJC Type 13. 4781. Western Quarter, Area R, L5007, Reg. No. 0885, Quarter, IAA 34619, ↑, 0.89 g, 10 mm.

184

Danny Syon

1–34 CE

4794. Surface, Reg. No. 1644, IAA 88502, ., 5.91 g, 18 mm.

Unit Denomination Obv.: [---] Head. Rev.: [---] Probably Temple facade. 4782. Western Quarter, Area S, L2111, Reg. No. 51, IAA 88517, 5.71 g, 19 mm. Same. [---] Obv.: Countermark: Star on neck (Howgego 1985:192, No. 457). 4783. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3006, IAA 20233, 6.70 g, 20 mm. Obv.: [---] Countermark: Star on neck (Howgego 1985:192, No. 457). Rev.: [---] Countermark: þ 4784. Western Quarter, Area S, L1901, Reg. No. 6769, IAA 17666, 9.96 g, 21 mm.

Same. Fragmentary inscriptions. Obv.: Countermark: Star on neck (Howgego 1985:192, No. 457). 4785–4787. Western Quarter, IAA 18243, 78363, 68472, ↑, 4.27–8.33 g, 18–24 mm. Same. Fragmentary inscriptions; no countermark. 4788–4793. Western Quarter, IAA 17736, 20232, 34219, 20774, 18498, 17741, mostly ↑, 4.66–6.69 g, 18–20 mm.

Agrippa I (37–44 CE) Caesarea Paneas 37/8 CE Obv.: Head of Agrippa I, r. Rev.: [---] Young Agrippa II on horseback to r. Below, LB

TJC 113; AJC Type 2.

Obv.: [KYΠP]O[C] Bust of Cypros r. Rev.: [ΓAIW K]AIC[API] Hand, holding three ears of corn. In field r. date B TJC 114; AJC Type 3. 4795. Western Quarter, Area S, L1906, Reg. No. 6812, Quarter, IAA 17721, ↑, 3.84 g, 16 mm.

40/1 CE Obv.: ΓAIΩ KAIΣAPI ΣEBAΣTΩ ΓE[PMANIKΩ] Head of Caligula l. Rev.: NOMIΣ(? / BAΣIΛEΩΣ / AΓPIΠΠA Germanicus in quadriga. In exergue, date LE TJC 116; AJC Type 5. 4796. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq T16, Reg. No. 1506, IAA 17584, ↑, 12.53 g, 25 mm.

Same. Obv.: [---]ΓEPMANIK[Ω] Rev.: [NOMIΣ] / BAΣIΛE[ΩΣ] / AΓPIΠΠA 4797. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq T16, Reg. No. 1507, IAA 17580, ↑, 11.38 g, 25 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

Obv.: [KAIΣONIA ΓYNΗ] ΣEBAΣTOY Head of Caesonia. Rev.: ΔPOYΣIΛΛH ΘYΓATPI ΣEBAΣTOY Drousilla, Holding Nike. In field l. date LE TJC 117 (this coin); AJC Type 6. 4798. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq T16, Reg. No. 1508, IAA 17586, ↑, 5.60 g, 18 mm.

Obv.: [---] Head of young Agrippa II to l. Rev.: [---] Joined cornucopia. TJC 119; AJC Type 8. 4799. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5203, Reg. No. 0973, IAA 34687, ↑, 2.68 g, 13 mm.

Same. [---] 4800. Western Quarter, Area R, L5006, Reg. No. 6027, IAA 19255, ↑, 2.57 g, 14 mm. Same. [---] 4801. Western Quarter, Area R, L5018, Reg. No. 7020, IAA 19748, ↑, 2.75 g, 13 mm.

185

Same. ΑΓΡΙΠΑ ΒΑCΙΛΕwC 4805. Western Quarter, Area R, L5007, Reg. No. 0906, IAA 34643, ↑, 2.65 g, 17 mm. Same. ΑΓΡΙΠΑ ΒΑCΙΛΕwC 4806. Western Quarter, Area S, L1921, Reg. No. 8147, IAA 18007, ↑, 2.53 g, 16 mm.

Same. Fragmentary inscriptions. 4807–4825. Eastern Quarter: 3; Western Quarter: 16. IAA 33791, 21447, 34278, 68469, 19371, 17522, 20408, 20008, 19687, 18778, 68463, 20262, 19846, 34379, 87469, 17585, 68470, 68471, 20243, various axes, 0.75–2.97 g, 15–18 mm. The Early Roman Governors of Judea (formerly listed as coins of the Procurators)

Jerusalem Under Augustus 5/6 CE (Coponius?)

Same. [---] 4802. Western Quarter, Area K, L7002, Reg. No. 1518, IAA 68454, ↑, 2.55 g, 13 mm.

Obv.: KAICA–[POC] Ear of barley. Rev.: Palm tree; date L–Λ² TJC 311; AJC Type 1. 4826. Western Quarter, Area S, Sq G10, Reg. No. 3075, IAA 18259, ↑, 1.65 g, 15 mm.

Jerusalem 41–43 CE TJC 120; AJC Type 9. Obv.: ΑΓΡΙΠΑ Β[ΑCΙΛΕwC] Canopy. Rev.: Canopy, date L–² 4803. Western Quarter, Area S, L1916, Reg. No. 7651, IAA 18117, ↑, 2.62 g, 17 mm. Same. [---]ΒΑCΙΛ[---] 4804. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3350, IAA 20924, ., 2.17 g, 16 mm.

5–12 CE Same. Obv.: KAICA–POC Rev.: Date illegible. 4827. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4180, IAA 21387, 5, 2.10 g, 16 mm.

186

Danny Syon

8/9 CE (Ambibulus?) TJC 313; AJC Type 3. Obv.: [KA]ICA–POC Ear of barley. Rev.: Palm tree, date [L]–ΛΘ 4828. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3045, IAA 20256, ↑, 2.03 g, 16 mm. Same. [KAI]CA-POC 4829. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4008, Reg. No. 1123, IAA 18639, ↑, 2.49 g, 16 mm.

Same. [K]AICA-[POC] 4830. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4189, Reg. No. 1185, IAA 19460, ., 1.45 g, 15 mm. Same. Obv.: [KAICA]-POC Rev.: Date LΛ[Θ] 4831. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4447, IAA 21193, 5, 1.97 g, 17 mm. Under Tiberius 16/17 CE (Valerius Gratus?) TJC 327; AJC Type 17. Obv.: [---] Oblit. Rev.: IOY–ΛIA Palm branch. Date L–Δ(?). 4832. Western Quarter, Area S, L2107, Reg. No. 54, IAA 87476, ↑, 2.58 g, 16 mm. 17/18 CE (Valerius Gratus?) TJC 328; AJC Type 18.

Same. [---] 4834. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5152, Reg. No. 5844, IAA 35019, ↑, 1.70 g, 15 mm. 16–24 CE Obv.: [---] Inscription in wreath. Rev.: IOY–[ΛIA] palm branch; L–[∙] 4835. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5104, Reg. No. 4114, IAA 21326, ↑, 1.95 g, 15 mm. 28/29 CE (Pontius Pilate?) TJC 331; AJC Type 21. Obv.: TIBEPIOY KAICAPOC LI² Simpulum. Rev.: IOYΛIA KAICAPOC Three ears of corn. 4836. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5151, Reg. No. 5522, IAA 34954, ., 1.90 g, 16 mm.

Same. Obv.: [TIBEPIOY KAIC]APOC Rev.: IOYΛIA [KAICAPOC] 4837. Western Quarter, Area R, L5015, Reg. No. 6473, IAA 19493, ↑, 1.74 g, 15 mm. 30 CE TJC 333; AJC Type 23. Obv.: TIBEPIO[Y KAICAPOC] Lituus. Rev.: Inscription in wreath: date LIZ 4838. Western Quarter, Area R, L5014, Reg. No. 6189, IAA 19360, ↑, 2.03 g, 14 mm. Same. TIBEPIOY [KAICAPOC] 4839. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5110, Reg. No. 4982, IAA 33723, ↑, 1.60 g, 15 mm.

Obv.: TIB/KAI/CAP Inscription in wreath. Rev.: [IOY]–ΛIA Palm branch; date [L]–‰ 4833. Western Quarter, Area S, L1916, Reg. No. 7671, IAA 18124, ↑, 1.99 g, 15 mm. Same. [---] 4840. Western Quarter, Area K, L7003, Reg. No. 1543, IAA 68460, 1.95 g, 15 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

30–31 CE Same. Date illegible. 4841. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3415, IAA 20455, ., 2.36 g, 15 mm. Under Claudius 54 CE (Antonius Felix?) Crossed Shields/Palm Branch Obv.: [---] Crossed shields. Rev.: [BRIT] / KAI Palm tree; date LIΔ TJC 340; AJC Type 29. 4842. Western Quarter, Area R, L5026, Reg. No. 7647, IAA 19991, 5, 1.55 g, 17 mm. Same. Obv.: N‰P[W KΛAY KAIC]AP Rev.: BRI[T] / KAI L-[IΔ] 4843. Western Quarter, Area R, L5001, Reg. No. 4567, IAA 19101, 5, 2.55 g, 16 mm, poorly cast flan.

187

4846. Western Quarter, Area R, L5038, Reg. No. 0411, IAA 34370, ↑, 2.76 g, 17 mm, broken. Same. Obv.: [---]ΔΙΟC KAI[---] Rev.: [IOY] / ΛΙΑΑ[Γ] / ΡΙΠΠΙ / ΝΑ 4847. Western Quarter, Area S, L1902, Reg. No. 6677, IAA 17683, ↓, 2.65 g, 17 mm. Same. Obv.: [TI KΛAYΔIOC KAIC]AP Γ‰P[M] Rev.: IOY / ΛIA AΓ / PIΠΠI/NA 4848. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5107, Reg. No. 4825, IAA 33572, ↑, 2.03 g, 15 mm. Under Nero 58/9 CE (Porcius Festus?) Inscription in Wreath / Palm Branch TJC 345; AJC Type 35. Obv.: N‰P / wNO / [C] in wreath. Rev.: L‰[KAIC–APO]C Palm branch. 4849. Western Quarter, Area R, L5010, Reg. No. 6129, IAA 19312, ↑, 1.81 g, 14 mm.

Crossed Palm Branches/Inscription in Wreath Obv.: TI KΛAYΔIOC KAIC[AP Γ‰PM] Crossed palm branches; date LIΔ Rev.: IOY / ΛIA AΓ / PIΠΠI / NA Inscription in wreath. TJC 342; AJC Type 32. 4844. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5108, Reg. No. 4768, IAA 33522, ↑, 2.52 g, 16 mm.

Same. Obv.: N‰P / wNO / C Rev.: L‰ KAC–APOC (sic) 4850. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5163, Reg. No. 5772, IAA 35216, ↑, 1.80 g, 16 mm.

Same. Obv.: TI KΛAYΔIOC [KAICAP Γ]‰PM• Rev.: IOY / ΛIA AΓ / PIΠΠ[I / NA] 4845. Eastern Quarter, Area G, L1507, Reg. No. 6901, IAA 19121, ↑, 2.51 g, 16 mm.

Same. 4851. Western Quarter, Area S, L2017, Reg. No. 3420, IAA 18400, ↑, 2.49 g, 16 mm.

Same. Obv.: TI KΛΛYI KA[ICAP Γ‰PM (sic) Rev.: IOY / ΛIA ΛΓ / PIΠΠ / NA (sic)

Same. Obv.: N‰P / wN / C (sic) Rev.: L‰ KA[IC–A]POC

188

Danny Syon

4852. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5103, Reg. No. 4288, IAA 21494, 5, 1.79 g, 16 mm.

4866. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5151, Reg. No. 5488, IAA 34951, ., 11.30 g, 22 mm.

Same. Obv.: N‰P / wNO (sic) Rev.: L‰ KAIC–APOC 4853. Eastern Quarter, Area M, L4101, Reg. No. 3038, IAA 19213, ↑, 2.13 g, 14 mm. Same. Obv.: N‰P / wNO / C Rev.: L‰ KAIC–APOC 4854. Western Quarter, Area S, L2002, Reg. No. 3193, IAA 18329,↑, 1.37 g, 15 mm. Same. Obv.: NEP / wÚO (sic) Rev.: L‰ KAIC–APOC 4855. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5202, Reg. No. 0847, IAA 34576, ↑, 1.59 g, 15 mm. Same. Obv.: N‰P / wN• / [C] (sic) Rev.: L‰ KAIC–APOC 4856. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5101, Reg. No. 4407, IAA 21154, ↑, 1.86 g, 15 mm. Same. Obv.: Γ‰P / [wNO / C] (sic) Rev.: L‰ KAI[C–APOC] 4857. Western Quarter, Area R, L5057, Reg. No. 3254, IAA 20868, 5, 1.39 g, 14 mm. Same. Fragmentary inscriptions. 4858–4865. IAA 18922, 33814, 68464, 21534, 34428, 18563, 17527/4, 19642, various axes, 1.50–2.59 g, 15–17 mm.

Same. Obv.: [KΛ]AYΔIOY [KAICAPOC] Rev.: TIBE / PIAC 4867. Surface, Reg. No. 1594, IAA 87486, ↑, 10.79 g, 23 mm. Same. Obv.: KΛAY[ΔIOY K]AICAPOC Rev.: TIBE / PIAC 4868. Western Quarter, Area S, L1901, Reg. No. 6739, IAA 17663, ↑, 11.79 g, 23 mm. Obv.: [---]KΑ[---] Palm branch, date [L–IΓ] Rev.: TIBE / PIAC Inscription in wreath. TJC 348; AJC Type C6. 4869. Western Quarter, Area R, L5026, Reg. No. 7565, IAA 19958, ↑, 5.17 g, 17 mm. Caesarea Paneas(?) C. 47–54 CE TJC 350. Obv.: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP PP Head of Claudius l. Rev.: ANTONIA BRITANNICVS OCTAVIA The three children of Claudius. 4870. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3279, IAA 20399, ↑, 10.25 g, 23 mm.

The Roman A dministration (47–66 CE) Tiberias 53 CE Obv.: KΛAYΔIOY[---] Palm branch, date L–IΓ Rev.: TIBE / PIAC Inscription in wreath. TJC 347; AJC Type C5.

Same. Obv.: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP PP Rev.: ANTONIA BRITANNICVS OCTAVIA 4871. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5110, Reg. No. 4985, IAA 33726, ↑, 11.90 g, 22 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

Same. Obv.: [TI CLA]VDIVS CAESAR A[VG P M TR P IMP PP] Rev.: ANTONIA BRITANNICVS OCTAVIA 4872. Eastern Quarter, Area G, L1701, Reg. No. 6002, IAA 17540, ↑, 12.82 g, 23 mm. Same. Obv.: [TI CLAVDIVS] CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP PP Rev.: [ANTONIA] BRITANNICVS OCTAVIA 4873. Western Quarter, Area S, L1907, Reg. No. 7454, IAA 17875, ↑, 9.54 g, 21 mm. Same. [---] 4874. Western Quarter, Area S, L1907, Reg. No. 7272, IAA 18311, ↑, 9.98 g, 21 mm. Caesarea Maritima

189

54/5 CE TJC 360. Obv.: NEPWNOC CEBACTOY KAICAPOC Bust of Nero. Rev.: AΓPIΠΠEINHC CHBACTHC Bust of Agrippina. 4879. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1281, Reg. No. 1958, IAA 21037, ↑, 5.14 g, 20 mm.

Same. Obv.: NEPWNOC CEBACTOY KAICAPOC Rev.: AΓPIΠΠEINHC CHBACTHC 4880. Western Quarter, Area S, L2005, Reg. No. 3177, IAA 18316, ., 6.50 g, 20 mm.

Circa 47–54 CE TJC 356.

Autonomous

Obv.: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP PP Head of Claudius. Rev.: Anchor in wreath. 4875. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3336, IAA 20437, ↑, 7.92 g, 21 mm.

Gamla 67 CE TJC 217; AJC Type 32. All inscriptions fragmentary. Obv.: )?(‫ לגאלת‬or )?(‫ בגמלא‬Chalice. Rev.: )?(‫יורשלם הק‬ 4881. Western Quarter, Area S, L1906, Reg. No. 6809, IAA 17710, 11.05 g, 22 mm.

Same. [TI CLAVDIVS CAES]AR AVG P [M TR P IMP PP] 4876. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5163, Reg. No. 5771, IAA 35215, ↑, 9.90 g, 21 mm.

Same. Obv.: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP PP 4877. Eastern Quarter, Area E, L1504, Reg. No. 5039, IAA 17511, ↑, 8.90 g, 21 mm. Same. Obv.: TI CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVG P M TR P IMP PP 4878. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5202, Reg. No. 0839, IAA 34571, ↑, 10.50 g, 22 mm.

Same. 4882. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0465, IAA 26724, 11.41 g, 24 mm.

190

Danny Syon

Same. 4883. Western Quarter, Area R, L5010, Reg. No. 6169, IAA 19346, 12.26 g, 23 mm.

Civic and Provincial Coinages Outlying Areas Amphipolis 187–31 BCE

Same. 4884. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5107, Reg. No. 4991, IAA 15539, 13.75 g, 24 mm.

Obv.: [---] Rev.: [AMΦ]-[IΠOΛ]/[I]-TΩ-[N] Two goats standing on hind legs, confronting each other. BMC Maced.:48, Nos. 36–39. 4888. Western Quarter, Area S, L2107, Reg. No. 53, IAA 87475, 7.36 g, 23 mm. Commagene(?), under Tiberius 19–20 CE

Same. 4885. Western Quarter, Area R, L5005, Reg. No. 0281, IAA 34234, 13.80 g, 24 mm.

Obv.: [TI CAESAR DIVI AVGVSTI F AVGVSTVS] Head r. Rev.: PONT M]AXIM COS III IMP VII TR POT [ XXI Crossed cornucopia; between them, caduceus. RPC I:574, No. 3868. 4889. Western Quarter, Area S, Surface, Reg. No. 8352, IAA 18211, 1, 14.43 g, 29 mm. Same. Obv.: TI CAESAR D]IVI AVG[VSTI F AVGVSTVS Rev.: [---] 4890. Western Quarter, Area R, L5033, Reg. No. 0314, IAA 34291, ↑, 13.22 g, 30 mm.

Same. 4886. Western Quarter, Area S, L2111, Reg. No. 23, IAA 88514, 11.96 g, 21 mm.

Same. 4887. Western Quarter, Area S, L2014, Reg. No. 3494, IAA 18433, 12.59 g, 21 mm.

Same. Obv.: TI CAESAR DIVI] AVGVS[TI F AVGVSTVS Rev.: PONT MAXIM COS III [ IMP VII TR POT ] XXI 4891. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3008, IAA 20234, ↑, 13.48 g, 29 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

Seleucia on the Tigris 125–c.100 BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: [---] Tyche, seated l, holding cornucopia. Behind thymiaterion(?). BMC Arab.:141, No. 4. 4892. Surface, Reg. No. 1650, IAA 88509, 1, 6.37 g, 20 mm. Same. Rev. On r.: [Σ]EΛEYK[---] On l. illegible. 4893. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5108, Reg. No. 5016, IAA 33764, ↑, 4.20 g, 17 mm, strip cast. Same. Rev.: On r.: [ΣEΛ]EYKEΩN on r. illegible. Below: TIΓPE 4894. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B15, Reg. No. 3015, IAA 33589, 7, 3.05 g, 16 mm, strip cast.

191

RPC I:616, No. 4185. 4896. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0442, IAA 21882, tetradrachm, 1, 14.79 g, 24 mm, from hoard.

Obv.: NEPΩN KAIΣAP Σ-EBAΣTOΣ Head r. laureate, with aegis. Rev.: ETOYΣ AIP•Θ Eagle r. on thunderbolt. To r. dot and palm branch. RPC I:616, No. 4185. 4897. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0445, IAA 21885, tetradrachm, ↑, 14.82 g, 24 mm, from hoard.

Syria Antioch Imperial Silver Nero 60/1 CE Obv.: NEPΩNOΣ KAIΣAPOΣ - ΣEBAΣTOY Head r. laureate, with aegis. Rev.: Û / ΘP Eagle l. on thunderbolt. To l. palm branch. RPC I:616, No. 4181. 4895. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0449, IAA 21889, tetradrachm, ↑, 15.37 g, 25 mm.

63 CE Obv.: NEPΩN KAIΣAP Σ-EBAΣTOΣ Head r. laureate, with aegis. Rev.: ETOYΣ BIP• I Eagle r. on thunderbolt. To r. palm branch. RPC I:616, No. 4188. 4898. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0444, IAA 21884, tetradrachm, ., 14.71 g, 24 mm, from hoard.

62/3 CE

63/4 CE

Obv.: [NEPΩN KAIΣAP Σ-]EBAΣTOY Head r. laureate, with aegis. Rev.: ETOYΣ AIP•Θ Eagle r. on thunderbolt. To r. dot and palm branch.

Obv.: NEPΩN KAIΣAP Σ-EBAΣTOΣ Head r. laureate, with aegis. Rev.: ETOYΣ BIP• I Eagle r. on thunderbolt. To r. dot and palm branch.

192

Danny Syon

RPC I:616, No. 4189. 4899. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0446, IAA 21886, tetradrachm, ↑, 14.77 g, 25 mm, from hoard.

Same. 4900. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0454, IAA 21894, tetradrachm, ↑, 15.23 g, 24 mm, from hoard.

Same. 4901. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0441, IAA 21881, tetradrachm, ↑, 15.25 g, 25 mm, from hoard.

Circa 92–c.19 BCE Obv.: Head of Zeus. Rev.: [ANTIOXEΩN] / THΣ / [M]HTPOΠO[ΛEΩΣ] Zeus, seated; date off flan; to l. E Cf. BMC Gal.:153, No. 12 (same control mark). 4903. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1297, Reg. No. 3097, IAA 33666, ↑, 6.83 g, 19 mm.

Same. Rev.: [---]THΣ / [MHTPOΠOΛE]ΩΣ Date, if any, illegible. In field l. cornucopia(?). Cf. BMC Gal.:155, Nos. 33–35. 4904. Eastern Quarter, Area L, L1685, Reg. No. 5542, IAA 19100, ↑, 6.20 g, 19 mm. Same. Rev.: [---]THΣ / MHTPOΠOΛEΩΣ 4905. Western Quarter, Area R, L5055, Reg. No. 6882, IAA 19678, ↑, 5.40 g, 18 mm. Same. Rev.: [---]ΠΟΛ[---] Zeus, seated; date, if any, illegible. In field l. cornucopia(?). 4906. Western Quarter, Area S, L2014, Reg. No. 3493, IAA 18432, ↑, 7.68 g, 17 mm. Circa 64–60 BCE

Autonomous Bronze 75/4 BCE Obv.: Head of Zeus. Rev.: [---]POΠOΛEΩ[---] Zeus, seated; date HΛΣ. Control mark illegible. Cf. BMC Gal.:154, No. 24. 4902. Surface, IAA 18157, 1, 8.69 g, 18 mm.

Obv.: Head of Zeus r., bearded. Rev.: On r. downward: [ANTIOXEΩN / THΣ] On l. downward: [MHTPOΠO]ΛEΩ[Σ] Tyche, holding cornu-copia and aplustre; date off flan. Butcher 2004:313, No. 1c. 4907. Western Quarter, Area S, L2025, Reg. No. 3891, IAA 18558, ↑, 4.51 g, 16 mm. Imperial Bronze Augustus Circa 5 BCE–14 CE Obv: [---]TR POT[---] Head r. Rev.: SC in wreath.

Chapter 5: Coins

Cf. RPC I:625, No. 4247. 4908. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B20, Reg. No. 1177, IAA 20482, dupondius(?),↑, 16.70 g, 21 mm.

193

4916–4917. Western Quarter, IAA 18390, 18312, dupondius(?), 11.54–12.78 g, 25–28 mm. Obv.: [---] Head r. Rev.: SC in wreath. 4918. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4181, as(?), IAA 21388, ↑, 8.41 g, 25 mm. Apamea

Same. IMP[---]TR POT 4909. Western Quarter, Area R, L5055, Reg. No. 6993, IAA 19728, dupondius(?), ↑, 15.40 g, 28 mm. Same. Fragmentary inscriptions. 4910–4911. Western Quarter, IAA 33706, 18478, dupondius(?), ↑, 13.74–14.05 g, 26 mm.

76/5 BCE Obv.: Head of Zeus. Rev.: AΠAMEΩN / THΣ IEPAΣ / KAI AΣYΛOY Elephant, date zΛΣ Below: ΣE BMC Gal.:233, No. 3; Pl. XXVII:2. 4919. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1251, Reg. No. 0689, IAA 19194, ↑, 6.16 g, 21 mm.

Augustus to Claudius Circa 5 BCE–54 CE Obv.: [---] Head r. Rev.: SC in wreath. Traces of countermark. Cf. RPC I:625, Nos. 4246–4248. 4912–4914. Western Quarter, IAA 18294, 87482, 34406, dupondius(?), 12.02–14.03 g, 23–27 mm.

Balanea 37–31 BCE

Nero 54–67 CE Obv.: CAES[---] Head r. Rev.: SC in wreath. Cf. RPC I:629, No. 4310. 4915. Western Quarter, Area S, L2002, Reg. No. 3191, IAA 18327, as(?), ↑, 8.55 g, 19 mm.

Obv.: Radiate head (Helios?) r. Rev.: BAΛANEΩTΩN Cornucopia. RPC I:640, No. 4458. 4920. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4235, IAA 21431, 1, 3.47 g, 14 mm (see Part 1).

Uncertain Syria Uncertain

Nero

Circa 5 BCE–54 CE Obv.: [---] Head r. Rev.: SC in wreath. Cf. RPC I:625, Nos. 4246–4248.

63–68 CE Obv.: [NERO CLA]VD DIVI C–[LAVD F CAESAR AVG GER] Head of Nero.

194

Danny Syon

Rev.: DIVOS CLAVD AVG GERMANIC PATER AVG Head of Claudius. RPC I:605, No. 4122; RPC Suppl. 3:57, No. 4122. 4921. Surface, IAA 18196, tetradrachm, ↑, 14.08 g, 24 mm (see Part 1).

Cf. BMC Phoen.:53, Nos.11, 12. 4924. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Reg. No. 2139, Sq C17, IAA 21466, ↑, 6.70 g, 20 mm. Sidon Civic issue under Seleucid rule (see Part 1). 168–150 BCE

Phoenicia

Cf. BMC Phoen.:156, No. 91; Pl. XXI:8. Obv.: Head of Tyche. Rev.: Traces of Phoenician inscription below. Rudder l. 4925. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1253, Reg. No. 0621, IAA 19154, 1.05 g, 9 mm.

Aradus Circa167–110 BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: [---] Aplustre, date illegible. BMC Phoen.:22–23, Nos. 173–177. 4922. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq T16, Reg. No. 1514, IAA 17592, ↑, 1.30 g, 13 mm.

Same. Obv.: (partly off flan). Dotted border. Rev.: [P‚ / t≤ â˘â “¤≤ ¤â [ /¤4P‚Ò Dotted border. 4926. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1296, Reg. No. 3152, IAA 33750, ↑, 1.20 g, 10 mm. Same. Partly legible. 4927. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1282, Reg. No. 2025, IAA 21276, ↓, 0.96 g, 12 mm.

Marathus 2nd century BCE(?). Obv.: Head of Zeus r. Rev.: In field l. m Across below: tΔ(?). Two parallel cornucopiae. Cf. BMC Phoen.:125, Nos. 34–41. 4923. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1251, Reg. No. 0656, IAA 19172, ↑, 7.91 g, 20 mm.

Berytus 1st c. BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: [---]ΩΝ Dolphin, wrapped around trident, between pilei of dioscuri.

Same. Partly legible. 4928. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5105, Reg. No. 4509, IAA 21241, ↑, 1.19 g, 12 mm. Same. Partly legible. 4929. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4303, IAA 21064, ↑, 1.31 g, 10 mm.

Same. Partly legible. Obv.: Behind Tyche a letter? Rev.: P‚/t≤ â˘â “¤≤ ¤â / ¤4P‚Ò 4930. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1291, Reg. No. 2523, IAA 33735, ↑, 0.89 g, 11 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Behind, one or two letters or monogram. Rev.: [---] Rudder l(?). 4931. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 6972, IAA 19722, ↑, 0.57 g, 12 mm. Same. Partly legible. 4932–4940. IAA 34842, 21630, 19815, 34214, 34929, 19637, 34640, 34399, 18654, 0.66–1.80 g, 10–12 mm.

195

4944. Eastern Quarter, Area G, L1501, Reg. No. 6711, IAA 19096, ↑, 4.00 g, 20 mm. 108/7 BCE? Same. Obv.: Behind, illegible symbol or letter. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Date L(Δ?). 4945. Surface, IAA 17477, ↑, 5.80 g, 21 mm. 87/6 BCE

Autonomous Coinage Silver Plated 82–61 BCE Obv.: Head (traces). Rev.: [---] Eagle (traces). Date LΛ or LA–N Below left: H or similar monogram, to r. illegible monogram / N Cf. BMC Phoen.:158, No. 104. 4941. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1255, Reg. No. 0729, IAA 19224, tetradrachm, 7.95 g, 23 mm., heavily corroded.

Same. Obv.: Behind Tyche, MEN Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Date LEK Cf. BMC Phoen.:163, No. 130. 4946. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 2957, IAA 33555, ↑, 4.56 g, 20 mm.

Bronze Head of Tyche/Astarte on Galley 111/0 BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled,wearing turreted crown. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ / [ ¤4P‚Ò [ Astarte on galley, date LA Cf. BMC Phoen.:163–164, Nos. 130–136. 4942. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1297, Reg. No. 2597, IAA 21588, 1, 6.85 g, 20 mm.

Same. ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ 4943. Western Quarter, Area S, L1924, Reg. No. 7783, IAA 18174, 1, 4.35 g, 21 mm. 109/8 BCE? Same. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Date Γ(?)

Same. Rev.: [---] Date LEK 4947. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4027, Reg. No. 1900, IAA 18881, ↑, 5.52 g, 20 mm. 86/5 BCE Same. Rev.: [---] Date L²K Cf. BMC Phoen.:163–164, Nos. 130–136. 4948. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1263, Reg. No. 1015, IAA 20693, ↑, 2.40 g, 18 mm. Same. Rev.: [---] Date L(²?) K 4949. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1272, Reg. No. 1425, IAA 20314, ↑, 4.10 g, 20 mm, deformed flan. 83/2 BCE Same. Obv.: Behind Tyche: H? Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ / ¤4P‚Ò Date [L]ΘK BMC Phoen.:164, No. 133.

196

Danny Syon

4950. Western Quarter, Area S, L1907, Reg. No. 7282, IAA 17833, ↑, 3.69 g, 17 mm, double struck obverse?

62–53 BCE

Same. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Date LΘK 4951. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5107, Reg. No. 4877, IAA 33635, ↑, 5.06 g, 20 mm.

Same. Rev.: Date: [∙∙]N Cf. BMC Phoen.:163–164, Nos. 130–136. 4957–4959. IAA 18287, 19106, 19253, ↑, 4.39–6.44 g, 19–22 mm.

81/0 BCE

61/60 BCE

Same. Obv.: Behind Tyche: Λ Rev.: [---] Date LAΛ Cf. BMC Phoen.:164, No.134. 4952. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq D17, Reg. No. 2038, IAA 21286, 1, 6.00 g, 23 mm.

Same. Obv.: Behind Tyche illegible monogram, perhaps X Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ / [¤4P‚Ò] Date LAN Cf. BMC Phoen.:163–164, Nos. 130–136. 4960. Surface, IAA 17478, ↑, 7.34 g, 22 mm.

Same. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Date LAΛ 4953. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5160, Reg. No. 5578, IAA 35153, ↑, 5.40 g, 20 mm.

Same. Rev.: [---] Date LAN 4961–4963. IAA 20315, 19012, 21103, ↑, 2.90–6.23 g, 19–20 mm. 61/0 or 58/7 BCE

Same. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Date LAΛ BMC Phoen.:164, No. 135. 4954. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4017, Reg. No. 1731, IAA 18822, ↑, 6.12 g, 19 mm.

Same. Rev.: [---] Date [L]AN or [L]ΔΝ Cf. BMC Phoen.:163–164, Nos. 130–136. 4964. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1292, Reg. No. 2354, IAA 21223, ↑, 8.30 g, 22 mm.

Same. Obv.: Behind Tyche Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Date LAΛ BMC Phoen.:164, No. 134. 4955. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B16, Reg. No. 2970, IAA 33561, ↑, 5.59 g, 20 mm.

58/7 BCE Same. Obv.: Behind Tyche, illegible monogram, perhaps a Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ / [¤4P‚Ò] Date: LΔN 4965. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1304, Reg. No. 0242, IAA 34012, ↑, 8.34 g, 21 mm.

70/69 BCE Same. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ / ¤4P‚Ò Date [L]BM Cf. BMC Phoen.:163–164, Nos. 130–136. 4956. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5109, Reg. No. 5051, IAA 33789, ↑, 2.70 g, 20 mm.

Same. Obv.: Behind Tyche: A Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ / [¤4P‚Ò] Date LΔN 4966. Eastern Quarter, Area A, L1089, Reg. No. 0407, IAA 17567, ↑, 6.25 g, 21 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

197

55/4 BCE

111–10 BCE

Same. Rev.: [---] Date [L]Nz 4967. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq T16, Reg. No. 1515, IAA 17593, ↑, 3.74 g, 20 mm.

Same. Obv.: Behind Tyche: a Rev.: [ΣIΔ]ΩNIΩ[N] Date, if any, illegible. Cf. BMC Phoen.:163–164, Nos. 130–136. 4974. Western Quarter, Area S, L1922, Reg. No. 8046, IAA 17980, ↑, 6.37 g, 20 mm.

53/2 BCE Same. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Date LΘN Cf. BMC Phoen.:164, No. 136. 4968. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5104, Reg. No. 4200, IAA 21403, ↑, 4.36 g, 20 mm. Same. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Date [L]ΘN 4969. Western Quarter, Area R, L5025, Reg. No. 7741, IAA 20018, ↑, 4.70 g, 20 mm. Same. Obv.: Behind Tyche illegible monogram. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Date LΘN 4970. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq A20, Reg. No. 1199, IAA 20500, ↑, 4.76 g, 20 mm. Same. Obv.: Behind Tyche H Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Date LΘN 4971. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1296, Reg. No. 2884, IAA 21747, 1, 6.66 g, 20 mm. Same. Obv.: Behind Tyche, zH Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ / ¤4P‚Ò Date [L]ΘN 4972. Eastern Quarter, Area BE, Sq O15, Reg. No. 0444, IAA 17527/7, ↑, 7.30 g, 20 mm.

Same. Obv.: Two countermarks: star in square punch; bearded profile to r. in circle. Rev.: [---] 4975. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Surface, Reg. No. 0830, IAA 20618, ↑, 6.49 g, 22 mm. Same. Rev.: ΣIΔΩNIΩN Two countermarks: star in rectangle; head(?) in oval. 4976. Western Quarter, Area S, L1916, Reg. No. 7642, IAA 17936, 1, 5.90 g, 25 mm.

Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled,wearing turreted crown, sometimes with letters behind. Rev.: Variously preserved inscription: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ / ¤4P‚Ò Astarte on galley, date illegible. Cf. BMC Phoen.:163–164, Nos. 130–136. 4977–5021. 45 coins, most ↑, 1.70–8.46 g, 14–24 mm. Head of Tyche/Galley 108/7 BCE?

24/3 BCE? Same. Rev.: [---] Date (LΠΗ)? Cf. BMC Phoen.:163–164, Nos. 130–136. 4973. Western Quarter, Area R, L5057, Reg. No. 3104, IAA 20788, ↑, 5.16 g, 19 mm.

Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled,wearing turreted crown. Behind, illegible monogram. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ / ¤4P‚Ò Galley; date L(Δ?). Cf. BMC Phoen.:161–162, Nos. 119–127. 5022. Western Quarter, Area S, L2055, Reg. No. 4046, IAA 18613, ↑, 7.95 g, 18 mm.

198

Danny Syon

111–44 BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: [---] Galley; date illegible. Cf. BMC Phoen.:161–162, Nos. 119–127. 5023. Western Quarter, Area S, L2014, Reg. No. 3527, IAA 18447, ↑, 2.90 g, 20 mm, half a coin, deliberately cut. Same. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ Date illegible. 5024–5027. IAA 33716, 19091, 18971, 17653, ↑, 2.80–7.50 g, 17–22 mm.

5031. Western Quarter, Area S, L2055, Reg. No. 4064, IAA 18617, ↑, 3.94 g, 17 mm.

58/9 CE Same. Rev.: ΣIΔΩNOΣ ΘEAΣ / 4P‚Ò Date ΘΞP RPC I:653, No. 4591. 5032. Western Quarter, Area S, L2055, Reg. No. 3864, IAA 18553, ↑, 3.10 g, 13 mm.

45/6 CE Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled,wearing turreted crown. Rev.: ΣIΔΩNOΣ ΘEAΣ / 4P‚Ò Galley, date ²NP Cf. RPC I:653, Nos. 4588–4594. 5028. Western Quarter, Area R, L5034, Reg. No. 4653, IAA 19093, ↑, 2.82 g, 16 mm.

Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled,wearing turreted crown. In front aplustre, B/² Rev.: ΣIΔΩNOΣ ΘEAΣ / ¤4P‚Ò Date ΘΞP Cf. RPC I:653, Nos. 4588–4594. 5033. Surface, Reg. No. 1597, IAA 87489, ↑, 3.37 g, 16 mm.

49/50 CE Same. Rev.: ΣIΔΩNOΣ ΘEAΣ / 4P‚Ò Date LΞP RPC I:653, No. 4589. 5029. Western Quarter, Area S, L1921, Reg. No. 8270, IAA 18079, ↑, 3.66 g, 16 mm.

76/7 CE Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled,wearing turreted crown. Rev.: [ΣIΔ]Ω[NOΣ] / Θ[EAΣ / IEPAΣ KAI / AΣYΛOY [KAI] NAYAP[XIΔOΣ] Galley, date ZΠP Cf. RPC I:653, Nos. 4588–4594. 5034. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1290, Reg. No. 2335, IAA 21218, ↑, 9.35 g, 23 mm.

49–58 CE Same. Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled,wearing turreted crown. In front: [•]/² Rev.: ΣIΔΩNOΣ ΘEAΣ / 4P‚Ò Date [•]ΞP RPC I:653, No. 4588. 5030. Western Quarter, Area R, L5013, Reg. No. 6103, IAA 19300, ↑, 3.15 g, 15 mm. 55/6 CE Same. Rev.: ΣIΔΩNOΣ ΘEAΣ / 4P‚Ò Date [L²]ΞP RPC I:653, No. 4590.

44–117 CE Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled,wearing turreted crown. Rev.: Traces of [ΣIΔΩNOΣ ΘEAΣ / 4P‚Ò] Galley; date illegible. Cf. RPC I:653, Nos. 4588–4594. 5035–5037. IAA 33900, 19432, 33762, ↑, 1.60–5.70 g, 13–17 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

199

Jugate Heads of Zeus and Tyche/Galley

Dionysus/Cysta Mystica

76/5 BCE

51/0 BCE

Obv.: Jugate heads of Zeus and Tyche. Behind: ΑΨ Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΟΣ ΘΕΑΣ / ¤4P‚Ò Galley; date L²Λ Cf. BMC Phoen.:164–165, Nos. 137–142. 5038. Eastern Quarter, Area G, L1711, Reg. No. 6251, IAA 17554, ↑, 5.95 g, 20 mm.

Obv.: Head of Dionysus r. Behind: a Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ / ¤4P‚Ò Cysta Mystica in ivy wreath, date LΞA 5048. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq A19, Reg. No. 5452, IAA 18964, ↑, 7.38 g, 19 mm, unpublished(?). This inscription variant on this type does not appear in either BMC Phoen. or RPC I.

48/7 BCE Same. Obv.: Jugate heads of Zeus and Tyche. Behind: H; in front: letter? Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΟΣ ΘΕΑΣ / ¤4P‚Ò Date [L]ΔΞ Cf. RPC I:653, Nos. 4595–4596. 5039. Western Quarter, Area S, L2021, Reg. No. 3677, IAA 18492, ↑, 5.15 g, 20 mm. 38/7 BCE Obv.: Jugate heads of Zeus and Tyche. Behind: H, in front: ΛΙ Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΟΣ / ΘΕΑΣ Galley; date LΔΟ Cf. RPC I:653, Nos. 4595–4596. 5040. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3024, IAA 20242, ↑, 4.10 g, 20 mm. 78–1 BCE Obv.: Jugate heads of Zeus and Tyche. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΟΣ ΘΕΑΣ / 4P‚Ò Galley; date illegible. Cf. BMC Phoen.:164–165, Nos. 137–142. 5041. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5151, Reg. No. 5410, IAA 34926, ↑, 4.60 g, 19 mm. Same. 5042–5047. Western Quarter (5 coins), IAA 17529, 18508, 21434, 18471, 18501, 18917, ↑, 4.69–8.60 g, 19–20 mm.

Mid–1st c. CE Obv.: Head of Dionysus l. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΟΣ / ΘΕΑΣ Cysta Mystica in ivy wreath; date illegible. Cf. RPC I:653, Nos. 4572–4587. 5049. Western Quarter, Area RN, Reg. No. 5573, L5161, IAA 35169, ↑, 5.30 g, 18 mm. Provincial coinage Under Caligula 37/8 CE Obv.: Head of Caligula r. Dotted border. Rev.: ΣIΔΩNOΣ Europa riding Zeus the bull l. To r. of Europa: crescent; date HMP Cf. RPC I:655, No. 4612 (var.). 5050. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5202, Reg. No. 0838, IAA 34570, ↑, 10.80 g, 23 mm, Crescent unattested on any published specimens.

200

Danny Syon

37–41 CE

5055. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3093, IAA 20290, ↑, 8.11 g, 22 mm.

Obv.: Head of Caligula(?) r. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝΟΣ Europa l., riding Zeus the bull, l. Date off flan. Cf. RPC I:655, No. 4612. 5051. Eastern Quarter, Area G, L1702, Reg. No. 6053, IAA 17544, ↑, 10.40 g, 22 mm, attribution to Caligula is based also on its worn state. Uncertain Date Under Claudius 41–54 CE Obv.: Head of Claudius l. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩ[---] Europa riding Zeus the bull r. Date illegible. Cf. RPC I:655, Nos. 4613–4615. 5052. Western Quarter, Area S, L2054, Reg. No. 4017, IAA 18592, ↑, 9.29 g, 22 mm.

Obv.: Illegible. Rev.: [ΣΙ]ΔΩ[NOΣ] Traces of bull(?). 5056. Western Quarter, Area R, L5011, Reg. No. 7930, IAA 20063, 1.50 g, 19 mm, broken. Tyre 4th c. BCE

49/50 CE

Silver

Obv.: Head of Claudius r. Rev.: ΣIΔΩNOΣ Europa riding Zeus the bull r. Date LΞP Cf. RPC I:655, Nos. 4613–4615. 5053. Western Quarter, Area R, L5057, Reg. No. 3077, IAA 20773, ↑, 10.50 g, 22 mm.

Obv.: Dolphin l. Below star? Murex? Dotted border. Rev.: Owl l. To l. monogram? Dotted border. BMC Phoen:228, Nos. 8–10. 5057. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B18, Reg. No. 1720, IAA 20900, 1/24 stater, 2, 0.68 g, 8 mm. Silver Tetradrachms 125 BCE

51/2 CE Obv.: Head of Claudius r. Rev.: ΣΙΔΩΝ[---] Europa r. riding Zeus the bull r. Below: date ΒΞΡ RPC I:655, No. 4615. 5054. Eastern Quarter, Area E, Sq A6, Reg. No. 5014, IAA 17508, ↑, 12.10 g, 23 mm. Same. Rev.: ΣIΔ[ΩNOΣ] Date LBΞP RPC I:655, No. 4615.

Obv.: Head of Melqart. Rev.: TYPOY IEPA[Σ KAI] AΣYΛOY Eagle on battering ram, behind palm branch, on l. club. No letter between legs; date LA To r.{ 5058. Western Quarter, Area R, L5019, Reg. No. 0974, IAA 34689, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.95 g, 28 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

44/3 BCE Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEPAΣ KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs: “ Date ΠΓ To r. +I BMC Phoen.:246, No. 171. 5059. Eastern Quarter, Area A, L1040, Reg. No. 0107, IAA 35329, tetradrachm, ↑, 12.79 g, 27 mm.

201

5064. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0455, IAA 21895, tetradrachm, ↑, 14.01 g, 24 mm, from hoard.

22/1BCE Same. Rev.: Between legs: “. Date PE To r., BN BMC Phoen.:247, No. 182. 5060. Western Quarter, Area S, L1909, Reg. No. 6962, IAA 17762, tetradrachm, ↑, 12.55 g, 26 mm. 5/6 CE Same. Rev.: [---] Date PΛA To r., KP, and  Cf. RPC I:656, No. 4653. 5061. Western Quarter, Area S, L2019, Reg. No. 3621, IAA 18466, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.98 g, 24 mm. 8/9 CE

19/20 CE Same. Rev.: TYPOY IE[PAΣ KAI AΣ]YΛOY Between legs:Ă ? Date PME To r., KP over Cf. RPC I:656, No. 4640. 5065. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0443, IAA 21883, tetradrachm, ↑, 14.10 g, 24 mm, from hoard.

Same. Rev.: [---] Between legs: “ Date [P]ΛΔ To r., KP 5062. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0437, IAA 21877, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.15 g, 23 mm, from hoard.

Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEPAΣ [KAI AΣYΛOY] Between legs: “ Date PME To r., KP over ⁄ Cf. RPC I:657, No.4658. 5066. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0447, IAA 21887, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.88 g, 23 mm, from hoard.

17/8 CE

20/1CE

Same. Rev.: [TYPOY IEPAΣ KAI] AΣYΛOY Between legs:Ă ? Date PMΓ To r., KP over ‘ Cf. RPC I:657, No. 4656. 5063. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0461, IAA 21901, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.82 g, 23 mm, from hoard.

Same. Rev.: TYPOY[---] Between legs: Ă Date [P]M² To r., KP over ÷ Cf. RPC I:657, No. 4659. 5067. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0439, IAA 21879, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.97 g, 23 mm, from hoard.

18/9 CE Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEP[AΣ KAI AΣYΛOY] Between legs: “ Date PMΔ To r., KP over  BMC Phoen.:248, No. 199.

202

Danny Syon

33/4 CE Same Rev.: TYPOY IEPAΣ KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs:Ă Date PNΘ To r., KP over I 5068. Western Quarter, Area S, L2019, Reg. No. 3500, IAA 18435, ↑, 14.08 g, 28 mm, double struck reverse. 34/5 CE Same. Obv.: Head of Melqart. Rev.: [TYPOY IEPAΣ K]AI AΣYΛOY Between legs:Ă Date PΞ To r., KP over Cf. RPC I:657, No. 4664. 5069. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0456, IAA 21896, ↑, 13.75 g, 24 mm, from hoard. Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEPAΣ KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs: “ Date PΞ To r., KP over ) 5070. Western Quarter, Area S, L2201, Reg. No. 40, IAA 87470, ., 13.85 g, 24 mm. Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEPAΣ KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs:Ă Date PΞ To r., KP, over 5071. Western Quarter, Area S, L2019, Reg. No. 3676, IAA 18491, ↑, 13.71 g, 24 mm.

Same. Rev.: Between legs:Ă ? Date PΞΑ To r., KP over ) 5074. Western Quarter, Area S, L1919, Reg. No. 7588, IAA 17909, ↑, 14.51 g, 25 mm. 37/8 CE Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEP[---] Between legs:Ă Date PΞΓ To r., KP over ) Cf. RPC I:657, No. 4667. 5075. Western Quarter, Area R, L5012, Reg. No. 4036, IAA 20567, ↑, 13.89 g, 23 mm, from hoard. Same. Rev.: [TYPOY I]EPAΣ [KAI AΣYΛOY] Between legs:Ă Date [P]ΞΓ To r., KP over ) 5076. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0448, IAA 21888, ↑, 13.94 g, 23 mm, from hoard. 39/40 CE Same. Rev.: [---] Between legs: “ Date PΞE To r., KP over Cf. RPC I:657, No. 4669. 5077. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1272, Reg. No. 1363, IAA 20280, ↑, 13.68 g, 23 mm.

41/2 CE ? Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEPAΣ KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs:Ă Date PΞ To r., KP over illegible monogram. 5072. Western Quarter, Area S, L2014, Reg. No. 3644, IAA 18477, ↑, 13.48 g, 23 mm. 35/6 CE Same. Rev.: [---] Between legs: “ Date PΞA. To r., KP over ) BMC Phoen.:249, No. 205. 5073. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0458, IAA 21898, ↑, 13.79 g, 22 mm, from hoard.

Same. Rev.: [---]NAI ÓΣY[ΛOY] (sic) Between legs:Ă Date Z(Ξ?)[P] 5078. Eastern Quarter, Area T, Sq D20, Reg. No. 1057, IAA 18632, ., 6.46 g, 29 mm, recut die. Half a coin, deliberately cut.

Chapter 5: Coins

203

43/4 CE

47/8 CE

Same. Rev.: [TYPOY IEPAΣ] KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs:Ă ? Date PΞΘ To r., off flan. 5079. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0451, IAA 21891, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.91 g, 24 mm, from hoard.

Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEPAΣ[---] Between legs:Ă Date [P]OΓ To r., KP over EL 5085. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0440, IAA 21880, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.92 g, 24 mm, from hoard.

Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEPAΣ KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs: Ă Date PΞΘ To r., KP over ´ 5080. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0453, IAA 21893, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.86 g, 25 mm, from hoard.

Same. Rev.: [---] Between legs:Ă Date POΓ To r., KP over EL 5086. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0452, IAA 21892, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.92 g, 23 mm, from hoard.

44/5 Same. Rev.: TYPO[Y IEPAΣ ]KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs: Ă Date PO To r., KP over EL(?) Cf. RPC I:657, No. 4670. 5081. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0450, IAA 21890, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.97 g, 25 mm, from hoard. 45/6 CE Same. Rev.: [---] Between legs: “ Date POA To r., KP over RPC I:657, No. 4671. 5082. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0460, IAA 21900, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.35 g, 23 mm, from hoard. Same. Rev.: [---]KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs:Ă Date POA To r. K[P] 5083. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4012, Reg. No. 1274, IAA 18674, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.57 g, 24 mm. Same. Rev.: [TYPOY I]EPA[Σ KAI AΣYΛOY] Between legs: “ Date POA To r., KP over 5084. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0463, IAA 21903, tetradrachm, ↑, 14.03 g, 23 mm, from hoard.

48/9 CE Same. Rev.: [TYPOY IEPAΣ] KAI A[ΣYΛOY] Between legs: Ă Date POΔ To r., KP over EL Cf. RPC I:657, No. 4673. 5087. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0459, IAA 21899, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.98 g, 23 mm, from hoard.

49/50 CE Same. Rev.: [---] Between legs: “ Date POE To r. KP over ÇA Cf. RPC I:657, No. 4674. 5088. Western Quarter, Area R, L5003, Reg. No. 4700, IAA 19110, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.88 g, 24 mm.

204

Danny Syon

51/2 CE

19 BCE–66 CE

Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEP[AΣ KAI A]ΣYΛOY Between legs: “ Date POZ To r., KP over EL Cf. RPC I:657, No. 4676. 5089. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0438, IAA 21878, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.98 g, 23 mm, from hoard.

Same. Mostly fragmentary inscriptions. Rev.: [---] To r., KP 5093. Western Quarter, Area S, L2019, Reg. No. 3907, IAA 18562, tetradrachm, ←, 14.03 g, 25 mm, crude.

52/3 CE Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEP[---] Between legs: “ Date POH To r., KP over E Cf. RPC I:657, No. 4677. 5090. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0462, IAA 21902, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.59 g, 24 mm, from hoard. 62/3 CE Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEPAΣ KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs: “ Date PΠH To r., KP over EL 5091. Western Quarter, Area S, L2012, Reg. No. 3338, IAA 18389, tetradrachm, ↑, 14.10 g, 24 mm.

Same. Rev.: [---] To r., KP over illegible monogram. 5094. Western Quarter, Area R, L5019, Reg. No. 8054, IAA 20112, tetradrachm, ↑, 14.01 g, 25 mm, crude. Same. Rev.: [---] Between legs: “ Date P? (Θ?). To r., KP over EL? Cf. RPC I:656, No. 4640. 5095. Western Quarter, Area R, L5002, Reg. No. 0457, IAA 21897, tetradrachm, ↑, 13.66 g, 24 mm, from hoard. Silver Didrachms 125/4 BCE Obv.: Head of Melqart. Rev.: TYPOY IEP[AΣ KAI A]ΣYΛOY Eagle on battering ram, behind palm branch, on l. club. Between legs:Ă Date LB To r. { 5096. Eastern Quarter, Area C, Sq P8, Reg. No. 5526, IAA 17548, diadrachm, ↑, 6.85 g, 22 mm.

63/4 CE

12/11 BCE

Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEPAΣ KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs:Ă Date PΠΘ. To r., KP over !A 5092. Western Quarter, Area S, L2012, Reg. No. 3337, IAA 18388, tetradrachm, ←, 14.12 g, 24 mm, crude.

Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEPAΣ KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs:Ă Date PIE To r. KP over BN Cf. RPC I:657, No. 4686. 5097. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4031, Reg. No. 2037, IAA 18908, diadrachm, ↑, 6.75 g, 19 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

45/6 CE Same. Rev.: TYPOY IEP[---] Between legs: “ Date POA To r. KR over illegible monogram. Cf. RPC I:657, No. 4671. 5098. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5103, Reg. No. 4251, IAA 21446, diadrachm, ↑, 6.89 g, 19 mm. 46/7 CE Same. Rev.: TYPOY I[EPAΣ] KAI AΣYΛOY Between legs: “ Date POB To r. KP above: EL 5099. Eastern Quarter, Area HN, L8001, Reg. No. 0105, IAA 35255, diadrachm, 1, 6.60 g, 19 mm.

205

Bronze

Head of Tyche/Battering Ram 125 BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: Battering ram l., behind palm branch. Below, ÷·Ò å )?( To l., i to r, LA 5104. Eastern Quarter, Area E, Sq A16, Reg. No. D161, IAA 17520, 1, 1.35 g, 12 mm, possibly unique.

Head of Tyche/Galley’s Prow 122/1 BCE

52/3 CE Same. Rev.: [---] Between legs:Ă Date POH To r. KP Above EL BMC Phoen.:253, No. 243. 5100. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 6871, IAA 19675, diadrachm, 1, 6.63 g, 19 mm. 125 BCE–66 CE Same. [---] most details illegible. 5101. Western Quarter, Area R, L5014, Reg. No. 6451, IAA 19479, diadrachm, ↑, 6.54 g, 21 mm. Same. [---] 5102. Western Quarter, Area K, L7001, Reg. No. 1509, IAA 68451, diadrachm, ↑, 6.14 g, 20 mm. 19 BCE–66 CE Same. Rev.: [---] To r. KP 5103. Western Quarter, Area S, L2014, Reg. No. 3520, IAA 18440, diadrachm, ↑, 6.31 g, 22 mm.

Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: Below, ÷·Ò. Galley’s prow left. Above i and date LΔ 5105. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4035, Reg. No. 2046, IAA 18910, ↑, 1.86 g, 12 mm, possibly unique.

125–1st c. BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled, wearing turreted crown. Behind, palm branch. Rev.: [---] Galley’s prow. Cf. BMC Phoen.:255–256, Nos. 252–267. 5106. Western Quarter, Area S, L1901, Reg. No. 6738, IAA 17662, ↑, 6.05 g, 18 mm, perforated. Head of Tyche/Galley 125 BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò Galley i Date LA

206

Danny Syon

Cf. BMC Phoen.:255–256, Nos. 252–267. 5107. Western Quarter, Area S, L1907, Reg. No. 7495, IAA 17882, ↑, 5.47 g, 21 mm. 116/5 BCE Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò i Date LAI 5108. Western Quarter, Area R, Reg. No. 3288, L5054, IAA 20406, ↑, 3.60 g, 20 mm. 88/7 BCE? Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò i Date ΛΘ(?) 5109. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4016, Reg. No. 1627, IAA 18779, ↑, 6.00 g, 19 mm. 78/7 BCE? Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò i Date L(Θ?)M 5110. Western Quarter, Area R, L5057, Reg. No. 3105, IAA 20789, ↑, 5.81 g, 20 mm.

76/5 BCE Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò i Date AN BMC Phoen.:255, No. 253. 5111. Eastern Quarter, Area G, L1704, Reg. No. 6248, IAA 17553, ↑, 7.58 g, 21 mm, drilled depression on obverse.

73/2 BCE Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Òi Date LΔN 5113. Western Quarter, Area R, L5024, Reg. No. 7733, IAA 20013, ↑, 4.20 g, 19 mm. 72/1 BCE Same Rev.: IEPAΣ i Date LEN 5114. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5160, Reg. No. 5511, IAA 35141, ↑, 6.00 g, 19 mm. 68/7 BCE Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò Date LNΘ 5115. Western Quarter, Area R, L5007, Reg. No. 0960, IAA 34665, ↑, 6.42 g, 19 mm. 77–68 BCE Same. Rev.: ÷·Ò i Date N(?). 5116. Western Quarter, Area S, L1922, Reg. No. 8021, IAA 17971, ↑, 4.82 g, 19 mm. 56/5 BCE? Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò i Date (O?)A 5117. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1255, Reg. No. 0719, IAA 19216, ↑, 4.50 g, 22 mm. Same. Rev.: ÷·Ò Galley; date OA? 5118. Western Quarter, Area R, L5005, Reg. No. 0191, IAA 34192, ↑, 3.80 g, 20 mm. 37/6 BCE

75/4 BCE Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ i Date LBN Cf. BMC Phoen.:255–256, Nos. 252–267. 5112. Western Quarter, Area S, L1907, Reg. No. 6816, IAA 17725, ↑, 5.69 g, 19 mm.

Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò i Date L; 5119. Eastern Quarter, Area T, IAA 18633, Reg. No. 1090, L4002,↑, 6.38 g, 19 mm. Same. Rev. IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò i Date L; 5120. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5102, Reg. No. 4274, IAA 21485, ↑, 5.48 g, 18 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

207

30/29 BCE

17/8 CE

Same. Rev.: [---]÷·Ò Date L;Z 5121. Western Quarter, Area S, L1906, Reg. No. 6862, IAA 17731, ↑, 5.42 g, 21 mm.

Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò Date PMΓ 5127. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq T16, Reg. No. 1513, IAA 17591, ↑, 4.80 g, 19 mm.

4/5 CE

Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò i Date PMΓ 5128. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq T16, Reg. No. 1511, IAA 17589, ↑, 6.87 g, 20 mm.

Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled, wearing turreted crown and earring. Behind, palm branch. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò Galley i Date LPΛ Cf. BMC Phoen.:255–256, Nos. 252–267. 5122. Western Quarter, Area R, L5024, Reg. No. 7782, IAA 20033, ↑, 7.02 g, 20 mm. 5/6 CE Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò i Date PΛA 5123. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4014, Reg. No. 1322, IAA 18677, ↑, 6.16 g, 20 mm. 15/6 CE Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ i Date PMA 5124. Western Quarter, Area R, L5024, Reg. No. 7543, IAA 19952, ↑, 7.49 g, 18 mm.

27/8 CE? Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò Galley i Date PNΓ(?). Cf. BMC Phoen.:255–256, Nos.252–267. 5129. Hasmonean Quarter, Area P, Surface, Reg. No. 1007, IAA 18019, ↑, 5.67 g, 20 mm. After 27 BCE Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ i Date illegible. 5130. Western Quarter, Area R, L5006, Reg. No. 7242, IAA 19847, ↑, 6.48 g, 19 mm. Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò i Date illegible. 5131. Western Quarter, Area R, L5006, Reg. No. 7189, IAA 19824, ↑, 6.50 g, 20 mm. 125 BCE–1st c. BCE

Same. Rev. IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò i Date [P]MA 5125. IAA 34722. Western Quarter, Area R, Reg. No. 1035, L5024,↑, 6.83 g, 20 mm.

Obv.: Stylized head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Behind, palm branch. Rev.: Illegible Greek and Phoenician inscription. Galley; i Date illegible. Cf. BMC Phoen.:255–256, Nos. 252–267. 5132. Western Quarter, Area S, L1903, Reg. No. 6770, IAA 17686, ↑, 5.72 g, 20 mm, crude.

16/7 CE Same. Rev.: IEPAΣ / ÷·Ò i Date PMB 5126. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4007, Reg. No. 1205, IAA 18659, ↑, 7.26 g, 20 mm.

Same. [---] 5133. Western Quarter, Area R, L5011, Reg. No. 6582, IAA 19537, ↑, 4.63 g, 20 mm, broken, crude.

208

Danny Syon

Same. [---] Date off flan. 5134. Western Quarter, Area S, L1916, Reg. No. 8325, IAA 18201, ↑, 5.77 g, 18 mm, crude.

5188. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3100, Reg. No. 0838, IAA 34580, ↑, 1.39 g, 11 mm.

Same. [---] 5135. Western Quarter, Area S, L2017, Reg. No. 3418, IAA 18398, ↑, 8.19 g, 19 mm. Same. [---] Date illegible. 5136. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4031, Reg. No. 2004, IAA 18900, 1, 6.04 g, 21 mm. 0

Same. [---] 5137. Western Quarter, Area R, L5038, Reg. No. 0475, IAA 34380, ↑, 7.37 g, 20 mm. Same. [---] 5138. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5107, Reg. No. 4818, IAA 33565, ↑, 4.86 g, 20 mm.

2

Same. Rev.: Date illegible. Possibly LA 5189. Western Quarter, Area S, L1919, Reg. No. 7815, IAA 18185, ↑, 0.88 g, 9 mm. 125 BCE? Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: Inscription, if any, illegible ]÷·Ò]? Palm tree. At r. above i, at r. below date A(?). 5190. Western Quarter, Area RN, Sq R14, Reg. No. 4001, IAA 21006, ↑, 2.00 g, 17 mm.

Same. [---] 5139. Eastern Quarter, Area A, L1054, Reg. No. 14, IAA 84620, ↑, 6.36 g, 18 mm. Same, mostly illegible. 5140–5186. Forty-seven coins, most from the Western Quarter, most ↑, 2.10–8.50 g, 16–24 mm. Same. 5187. Western Quarter, Area R, L5056, Reg. No. 7592, IAA 19969, ↑, 4.10 g, 20 mm, obverse portrait deliberately effaced. Head of Tyche/Palm Tree (see Part 1)

124/3 BCE? Obv.: Head—possibly Tyche. Rev.: Palm tree; date L–Γ(?). 5191. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5201, Reg. No. 0707, IAA 34460, ↑, 1.69 g, 13 mm. Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: Illegible. Palm tree; date L–Γ(?). 5192. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 6827, IAA 19650, ↑, 2.35 g, 14 mm. Same. Rev.: ÷·Ò? Palm tree; i date Γ? 5193. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4007, Reg. No. 1126, IAA 18641, ↑, 2.20 g, 15 mm.

125–122 BCE

123/2 BCE

Obv.: Head of Tyche—stylized, wearing turreted crown. Behind, palm branch. Rev.: No inscription. Stylized palm tree. To l., i Date L – A (or Δ?).

Same. Rev.: [---] In upper r. date Δ 5194. Western Quarter, Area R, L5019, Reg. No. 8072, IAA 20118, ., 1.90 g, 15 mm, deformed.

Chapter 5: Coins

125–120 BCE Same. Rev.: Stylized palm tree, with clusters of dates; i No date. 5195. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1312, Reg. No. 0245, IAA 34809, ↑, 1.10 g, 12 mm.

209

Same. 5202. Eastern Quarter, Area A, L1415, Reg. No. 0869, IAA 18969, ↑, 1.78 g, 12 mm. Same. Rev.: Date partly illegible. Possibly L² 5203. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4016, Reg. No. 1650, IAA 18803, ↑, 0.72 g, 9 mm, crude.

125–120 BCE? Same. Rev.: i Date, if any, illegible. 5196. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1281, Reg. No. 1961, IAA 21040, ↑, 1.00 g, 10 mm.

Same. 5197. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3100, Reg. No. 0818, IAA 34558, ↑, 0.82 g, 9 mm.

Same. Rev.: To l. ÷· To r., i 5198. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5153, Reg. No. 5268, IAA 35075, ↑, 3.60 g, 14 mm, crude.

Same. Cf. BMC Phoen.:254, Nos. 249–250. 5204. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5106, Reg. No. 4539, IAA 21510, ↑, 2.62 g, 14 mm. Same. Rev.: Palm tree. To l., i Date, if any, illegible. 5205. Western Quarter, Area S, L1920, Reg. No. 8091, IAA 17994, ., 1.05 g, 14 mm, crude. Same. 5206. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1261, Reg. No. 0967, IAA 20671, ↑, 2.60 g, 15 mm. Same. 5207. Eastern Quarter, Area A, L1070, Reg. No. 0113, IAA 84776, ↑, 2.14 g, 14 mm, broken. Same. 5208. Western Quarter, Area R, surface, Reg. No. 0002, IAA 34432, ↑, 1.43 g, 12 mm.

Same. Rev.: Stylized palm tree, date, if any, illegible. 5199. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1304, Reg. No. 0352, IAA 34047, ↑, 0.87 g, 10 mm.

Same. 5209. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1291, Reg. No. 0111, IAA 33949, ↑, 0.53 g, 10 mm. 116/5 BCE?

Same. Rev.: Stylized palm tree, traces of dots. 5200. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1256, Reg. No. 0792, IAA 20097, ↑, 1.10 g, 12 mm.

Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: Palm tree; date on l. AI? 5210. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1272, Reg. No. 1590, IAA 20393, ↑, 1.51 g, 13 mm.

Same. Rev.: Inscription, if any, illegible. Stylized palm tree, traces of monogram. 5201. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1316, Reg. No. 0007, IAA 35311, ↑, 0.97 g, 11 mm.

Same. Obv.: Behind Tyche traces of letters or monogram. Rev.: Palm tree; i Date I–A(?). 5211. Eastern Quarter, Area L, Sq A19, Reg. No. 5468, IAA 18990, ↑, 3.00 g, 13 mm.

210

Danny Syon

108/7 BCE

24/3 BCE

Same. Rev.: Date LΘI To r., i BMC Phoen.:254, No. 249. 5212. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq A20, Reg. No. 1314, IAA 20527, ↑, 8.00 g, 21 mm.

Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: Palm tree. To l. date LPΓ To r. i Cf. BMC Phoen.:258–259, Nos. 275–287. 5217. Western Quarter, Area S, L1909, Reg. No. 7098, IAA 17770, ↑, 1.95 g, 14 mm. 125 BCE–1st c. BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled, wearing turreted crown. Behind, palm branch. Rev.: Palm tree; date illegible. 5218. Western Quarter, Area R, L5003, Reg. No. 0860, IAA 34603, ↑, 3.07 g, 14 mm.

97/6 BCE? Obv.: Illegible. Rev.: Palm tree, date LΛ? 5213. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq C18, Reg. No. 1831, IAA 20964, ↑, 1.44 g, 12 mm. 92/1 BCE ? Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: IEP–AΣ. Palm tree, date EΛ? Cf. BMC Phoen.:254, Nos. 249–250. 5214. Western Quarter, Area S, L2005, Reg. No. 3125, IAA 18284, ↑, 5.91 g, 17 mm. 65/4 BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, veiled wearing turreted crown. Behind, palm branch. Rev.: IEP–[AΣ] Palm tree; date ΞB 5215. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1293, Reg. No. 2946, IAA 33537, ↑, 3.54 g, 17 mm.

41/0 BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: Palm tree; date ²–Π Cf. BMC Phoen.:254, Nos. 249–250. 5216. Western Quarter, Area S, L1916, Reg. No. 8330, IAA 18204, ↑, 2.65 g, 14 mm.

After 27 BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: Palm tree; date [··]–P Cf. BMC Phoen.:254, Nos. 249–250. 5219. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3320, IAA 20425, ↑, 2.72 g, 14 mm. Head of Melqart/Palm Treeb (see Part 1) 124/3 BCE? Obv.: Head of Melqart r. Rev.: Palm tree. To l. date(?) Γ 5220. Western Quarter, Area R, L5025, Reg. No. 3259, IAA 20871, ↑, 1.75 g, 12 mm. Same. Rev.: To r. Γ(?). 5221. Western Quarter, Area R, L5003, Reg. No. 0748, IAA 34496, ↑, 1.90 g, 14 mm. Same. Rev.: Traces of monogram; date LΓ 5222. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq D19, Reg. No. 1107, IAA 20737, ↑, 1.21 g, 13 mm. Same. Rev.: Date L–Γ(?). 5223. Western Quarter, Area S, L2101, Reg. No. 1033, IAA 68446, ↑, 1.43 g, 12 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

123/2 BCE? Same. Rev.: Date L–Δ? 5224. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5161, Reg. No. 5866, IAA 35184, ↑, 1.30 g, 13 mm.

Same. Rev.: Palm tree; date Δ? 5225. Western Quarter, Area R, L5011, Reg. No. 7672, IAA 19995, ↑, 1.76 g, 10 mm. Obv.: Oblit. Rev.: Palm tree. To l. Δ? 5226. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1278, Reg. No. 1840, IAA 20970, ↑, 1.53 g, 12 mm. Same. Rev.: To l. date Δ, to r. i 5227. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq D18, Reg. No. 1866, IAA 20985, ↑, 1.11 g, 12 mm. 120/19 BCE? Same. Rev.: Palm tree; date L–Z(?). 5228. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1251, Reg. No. 0684, IAA 19189, ↑, 1.31 g, 11 mm. 119/8 BCE Same. Rev.: Palm tree; date L–H 5229. Western Quarter, Area R, L5014, Reg. No. 6233, IAA 19389, ↑, 1.25 g, 11 mm.

211

Same. Rev. Date LH(?). 5231. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1291, Reg. No. 0101, IAA 33939, ↑, 1.37 g, 13 mm, double strike? Same. Rev.: Date L–H 5232. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1284, Reg. No. 2058, IAA 21300, ↑, 1.86 g, 12 mm.

Same. Rev. Date: H 5233. Eastern Quarter, Area L, L1682, Reg. No. 5512, IAA 19007, ↑, 1.67 g, 11 mm. Same. Rev.: To l. date H to r. i 5234. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4016, Reg. No. 1439, IAA 18720, ↑, 1.50 g, 13 mm. Same. Rev.: On l. date LH? 5235. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq C17, Reg. No. 2142, IAA 21468, ↑, 1.21 g, 12 mm. Same. Rev.: To 1.A? To r. date H? 5236. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4014, Reg. No. 1324, IAA 18679, ↑, 1.34 g, 12 mm. 118/7 BCE Same. Rev.: Palm tree. To r. date Θ 5237. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5104, Reg. No. 4293, IAA 21048, ↑, 1.56 g, 13 mm. 117/6 BCE

Same. Rev.: Date L–H 5230. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3095, IAA 20771, ↑, 1.54 g, 11 mm, double strike.

Same. Rev.: iDate I? 5238. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1261, Reg. No. 0939, IAA 20663, ↑, 1.11 g, 13 mm.

212

Danny Syon

116/5 BCE Same. Rev.: Palm tree, date A–I 5239. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 0575, IAA 34267, ↑, 1.23 g, 11 mm, crude.

Same. Rev.: i date AI 5240. Western Quarter, Area R, L5003, Reg. No. 0768, ↑, IAA 34518, 1.51 g, 12 mm. Same. 5241. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5107, Reg. No. 4693, IAA 21464, ↑, 1.13 g, 13 mm.

Same. Rev.: i date LΔI 5247. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1284, Reg. No. 2117, IAA 21376, ↑, 1.86 g, 12 mm, double strike on obverse.

Same. Rev.: i date LΔI 5248. Western Quarter, Area S, L1901, Reg. No. 6743, IAA 17665, ↑, 1.67 g, 13 mm. Obv.: Head, off flan. Rev.: Monogram illegible; date LΔI 5249. Western Quarter, Area S, L2017, Reg. No. 3424, IAA 18404, 1, 1.25 g, 11 mm.

116–108 BCE Same. Rev.: i date LI[•] 5242. Eastern Quarter, Area T, Reg. No. 1025, Sq C20, IAA 18625, ↑, 1.93 g, 13 mm. 115/4 BCE? Same. Rev.: Palm tree. On l. date LIB? 5243. Western Quarter, Area RN, Sq R11, Reg. No. 4001, IAA 21010, ↑, 0.79 g, 10 mm. 113/2 BCE

Same. 5250. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1263, Reg. No. 1019, IAA 20697, ↑, 1.46 g, 10 mm. Same. Rev. i date LΔI 5251. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3010, IAA 20236, ↑, 1.13 g, 11 mm. Same. Rev.: i date LΔI 5252. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1285, Reg. No. 2198, IAA 21086, 1, 1.39 g, 11 mm.

Same. Rev.: Date LΔΙ 5244. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, surface, Reg. No. 0135, IAA 84767. ↑, 1.58 g, 13 mm. Same. Rev.: i date LΔ[I] 5245. Western Quarter, Area R, L5056, Reg. No. 7591, IAA 19968, 1, 1.08 g, 10 mm.

Same. Rev. i date LΔI 5253. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1255, Reg. No. 0723, IAA 19220, ↑, 1.09 g, 12 mm.

Same. Rev.: i date LΔI 5246. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4016, Reg. No. 1652, IAA 18805, ↑, 1.50 g, 11 mm.

Same. Rev.: i date LΔ[I] 5254. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1256, Reg. No. 0804, IAA 20104, ↑, 1.03 g, 11 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

213

Same. Rev.: i Date LΔI 5255. Western Quarter, Area R, L5014, Reg. No. 6268, IAA 19398, ↑, 1.53 g, 13 mm.

Same. Rev.: Date ΔI 5264. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq D18, Reg. No. 1868, IAA 20987, ↑, 1.35 g, 12 mm, no monogram.

Same. Rev.: i Date LΔI 5256. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4191, Reg. No. 1216, IAA 19688, ↑, 1.30 g, 12 mm.

Same. Rev.: Palm tree. i Date LΔI (some details illegible). 5265–5356. 92 coins, mostly ↑, 0.51–2.27 g, 10–14 mm.

Same. Rev.: i Date LΔI 5257. Western Quarter, Area R, L5016, Reg. No. 6528, ↑, IAA 19513, 1.46 g, 12 mm.

112/1 BCE

Same. Rev.: i Date LΔI 5258. Eastern Quarter, Area T, Sq A24, Reg. No. 1580, IAA 18764, ↑, 1.17 g, 12 mm.

Obv.: Head of Melqart. Rev.: Palm tree. i Date EI 5357. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1284, Reg. No. 2116, IAA 21375, ↑, 1.57 g, 12 mm. Same. 5358. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4042, Reg. No. 1800, IAA 18860, ↑, 1.39 g, 11 mm.

Same. Rev.: i Date LΔI 5259. Western Quarter, Area S, L1922, Reg. No. 7806, IAA 18180, ↑, 1.02 g, 10 mm. Same. Rev.: i Date LΔI 5260. Eastern Quarter, Area A, L1008, Reg. No. 0021, IAA 18016, ↑, 1.66 g, 13 mm. Same. Rev.: i Date LΔI 5261. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq D19, Reg. No. 1877, IAA 20994, ↑, 1.39 g, 11 mm.

Same. 5359. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq D19, Reg. No. 1139, IAA 20748, ↑, 1.38 g, 11 mm. Same. 5360. Eastern Quarter, Area G, L1704, Reg. No. 6319, IAA 18980, ↑, 1.39 g, 12 mm. Same. 5361. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq A15, Reg. No. 2272, IAA 21178, ↑, 1.93 g, 12 mm. Same. 5362. Eastern Quarter, Area BE, L1220, Reg. No. 5332, IAA 17539, ↑, 2.00 g, 13 mm.

Same. Rev. i Date ΔI 5262. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1283, Reg. No. 2056, IAA 21299, ↑, 1.35 g, 11 mm. No date introduction. Same. Rev. i Date ΔI 5263. IAA 21378. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Reg. No. 2120, L1285, ↑, 2.15 g, 12 mm.

Same. 5363. Western Quarter, Area S, L1914, Reg. No. 7280, IAA 17830, ↑, 1.64 g, 11 mm.

214

Danny Syon

Same. 5364. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5107, Reg. No. 4924, IAA 33689, ↑, 1.32 g, 11 mm.

Same. Rev.: i date HI 5404. Eastern Quarter, Area HN, L8004, Reg. No. 0132, IAA 35272, ↑, 1.33 g, 12 mm.

Same. Rev.: i date LIE 5365. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3106, Reg. No. 0275, IAA 34876, 1, 1.90 g, 13 mm. Same. Rev.: No monogram; date LEI 5366. Western Quarter, Area S, L2019, Reg. No. 3751, IAA 18511, ↑, 1.83 g, 12 mm. Date introduced by L Same. 5367. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 0576, IAA 34279, ↑, 1.25 g, 11 mm. Same as 1528. 5368–5400. Thirty-three coins, most ↑, 0.74–1.85 g, 10–13 mm. 111/10 BCE Obv.: Head of Melqart. Countermark: X in round punch. Rev.: Palm tree. i date L²I 5401. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5103, Reg. No. 4109, IAA 21321, ↑, 1.80 g, 12 mm.

Same. 5405. Western Quarter, Area S, L2056, Reg. No. 4057, IAA 18615, ↑, 1.37 g, 13 mm. Same. Rev.: Traces of monogram and date L– HI? 5406. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5103, Reg. No. 4070, IAA 21305, ↑, 1.19 g, 10 mm. 99/8 BCE Obv.: Bust of Melqart, wearing lion skin. Rev.: Palm tree. To l. date HK , to r.iabove ÷·Ò BMC Phoen.:254, No. 251. 5407. Western Quarter, Area R, L5101, Reg. No. 4331, IAA 21097, ↑, 1.44 g, 13 mm.

Same. 5408. Eastern Quarter, Area T, Sq C22, Reg. No. 1794, IAA 18857, 1, 1.80 g, 13 mm.

109/8 BCE Same. Rev.: No monogram; date L–HI 5402. Western Quarter, Area R, L5021, Reg. No. 7334, IAA 19869, ↑, 0.64 g, 10 mm.

Same. 5409. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4032, Reg. No. 1971, IAA 18889, ↑, 1.69 g, 12 mm.

Same. 5403. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5104, Reg. No. 4191, IAA 21394, ↑, 1.42 g, 10 mm.

Same. 5410. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5108, Reg. No. 4770, IAA 33524, ↑, 1.59 g, 13 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

Same. 5411. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1263, Reg. No. 0547, IAA 34758, ↑, 2.10 g, 13 mm. Same. 5412. Eastern Quarter, Area T, L4188, Reg. No. 1210, IAA 19569, ↑, 1.71 g, 13 mm. 124–98 BCE Monogram—no date. Obv.: Head of Melqart. Rev. Palm tree; i no date. 5413. IAA 18924. Eastern Quarter, Area T, Reg. No. 2152, L4037, ↑, 1.27 g, 10 mm.

Same. 5414. IAA 18699. Eastern Quarter, Area T, Reg. No. 1383, L4016, 1.01 g, 11 mm.

215

Same. Rev. Some dots on l. 5419. IAA 20809. Western Quarter, Area R, Reg. No. 3191, L5025, ↑, 1.34 g, 12 mm. Same. 5420–5439. IAA 20757, 20444, 34725, 20319, 84609, 35308, 19422, 18268, 21527, 34730, 19031, 20114, 20194, 21773, 34888, 18785, 21207, 84608, 34724, 21107, 0.71–1.98 g, 11–14 mm. No monogram and no date Obv. Head of Melqart. Rev. Palm tree; no monogram or date. 5440. IAA 21270. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Reg. No. 1996, L1280, ↓, 0.80 g, 10 mm, crude. Same. 5441. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1302, Reg. No. 0066, IAA 33916, ↑, 1.19 g, 11 mm, crude.

Same. 5442. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3109, Reg. No. 0398, IAA 34896, 2, 1.00 g, 12 mm, crude. Same. 5415. IAA 18798. Eastern Quarter, Area T, Reg. No. 1646, L4016, ↑, 1.19 g, 10 mm, crude. Same. 5416. IAA 33664. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Reg. No. 3095, L1295, 1, 1.72 g, 12 mm. Same. Rev. Blundered monogram, no date. 5417. IAA 34240. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Reg. No. 0532, L1304, ↓, 1.54 g, 11 mm, crude.

Same. Rev. Some dots on l., no date. 5418. IAA 19858. Western Quarter, Area R, Reg. No. 7284, L5022, ↑, 1.67 g, 13 mm, double strike.

Same. 5443–5454. IAA 34524, 18591, 21764, 34908, 18850, 21583, 34094, 17828, 18905, 34055, 34385, 21539, 0.97–2.27 g, 11–14 mm. Most details illegible or nonexistent. Obv.: Head of Melqart r. Rev.: Palm tree; monogram, date illegible. 5455. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1285, Reg. No. 2222, IAA 21109, ↑, 1.19 g, 12 mm, broken. Same. No monogram or date. 5456. Eastern Quarter, Area E, L1655, Reg. No. 5313, IAA 17603, ↑, 1.21 g, 11 mm, crude.

216

Danny Syon

Same. 5457. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3109, Reg. No. 0372, IAA 34895, ↑, 1.50 g, 12 mm. Same. 5458. Western Quarter, Area S, L2008, Reg. No. 3255, IAA 18379, 2, 0.85 g, 12 mm.

5468. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1253, Reg. No. 0648, IAA 19166, ↑, 1.14 g, 12 mm. Same. 5469. Eastern Quarter, Area E, L1655, Reg. No. 5313, IAA 17604, ↑, 1.19 g, 10 mm.

Same. 5459. Western Quarter, Area R, L5017, Reg. No. 6592, IAA 19544, ↑, 1.36 g, 12 mm.

Same. Rev.: Single dot in l. field. 5470. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5104, Reg. No. 4160, IAA 21361, ↑, 1.34 g, 13 mm.

Same. 5460. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Surface, Reg. No. 0832, IAA 20620, ↑, 1.10 g, 12 mm, crude.

Same. 5471. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1261, Reg. No. 1532, IAA 20803, ↑, 1.36 g, 10 mm.

Same. Rev.: To r. illegible inscription (÷·Ò?(. 5461. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B18, Reg. No. 0690, IAA 34911, ↑, 1.30 g, 12 mm.

Same. Rev.: On l. unclear sign. 5472. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 0563, IAA 34261, ↑, 1.32 g, 11 mm.

Same. 5462. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5101, Reg. No. 4360, IAA 21116, ↑, 1.63 g, 12 mm.

Same. 5473–5812. 340 coins, ↑, 0.38–2.74 g, 9–14 mm.

Same. 5463. Western Quarter, Area R, L5011, Reg. No. 6240, IAA 19391, ↑, 1.15 g, 12 mm. Same. Rev.: Some dots on l. and r. 5464. Western Quarter, Area S, L1911, Reg. No. 7167, IAA 17777, ↑, 2.37 g, 15 mm. Same. 5465. Surface, IAA 18094, ↑, 1.10 g, 13 mm, crude. Same. Rev.: To r. ÷·Ò 5466. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5103, Reg. No. 4034, IAA 21278, 1, 1.67 g, 12 mm. Same. Rev.: Stylized palm tree. 5467. Western Quarter, Area S, L1907, Reg. No. 7330, IAA 17844, ↑, 2.62 g, 13 mm. Same. Rev.: Some dots on l.

‘Akko -Ptolemais Civic issue under Seleucid rule Circa 169–164 BCE and later(?). Obv.: Heads of the Dioscuri. Rev.: ANTIOX[EΩN] T[ΩN] EN ΠTO[ΛEMAIΔI] Cornucopia. Date, if any, illegible. Seyrig 1962:27, No. 3. 5813. Western Quarter, Area R, L5033, Reg. No. 0310, IAA 34287, ↑, 1.70 g, 15 mm, beveled edge. Same? [---] 5814. Western Quarter, Area R, L5008, Reg. No. 4697, IAA 19109, ↑, 0.86 g, 12 mm, beveled edge. Same. [---] 5815. Eastern Quarter, Area A, Surface, Reg. No. 0006, IAA 34664, ↑, 1.73 g, 15 mm, beveled edge. Same. [---] 5816. Western Quarter, Area S, L1919, Reg. No. 7786, IAA 18172, ↑, 2.10 g, 16 mm, beveled edge, hole centered.

Chapter 5: Coins

125–116 BCE Head of Zeus/Zeus Obv.: Head of Zeus. Rev.: [---] Zeus. Seyrig 1962:28–29, No. 7. 5817. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5104, Reg. No. 4165, IAA 21366, ↑, 7.90 g, 21 mm. Heads of the Dioscuri / Cornucopia Obv.: Heads of the Dioscuri. Rev.: [ΙΕΡΑ]! Α!YΛ[ΟΥ] Cornucopia. To l. x Seyrig 1962:29, No. 8. 5818. Surface, Reg. No. 1593, IAA 68443, ↑, 1.61 g, 14 mm.

Same. Rev.: [---] 5819. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq B19, Reg. No. 1206, IAA 20506, ↑, 1.86 g, 13 mm. Same. 5820. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1284, Reg. No. 0792, IAA 34532, ↑, 3.01 g, 14 mm. Same. Rev.: [---] To l. H(?) or x 5821. Western Quarter, Area S, L1907, Reg. No. 7339, IAA 17853, ↑, 2.37 g, 13 mm. Same. 5822–5826. IAA 17644, 35282, 34375, 20461, 19218, 1.58–2.12 g, 12–14 mm.

217

Seyrig 1962:29, No. 9. 5828. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Sq A20, Reg. No. 1339, IAA 20536, ↑, 2.05 g, 13 mm, beveled edge, hole centered. Head of Tyche/Astarte on Galley Late 2nd c. BCE? Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Border of dots. Rev.: IE–PA[Σ] Astarte on prow of galley to l., under her l. arm rudder(?), her right raised, holding bird (or aplustre). Monogram of Ptolemais: Seyrig 1962:40, No. 29. 5829. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1295, Reg. No. 2846, IAA 21728, ↑, 2.84 g, 13 mm (see Part 1).

Civic Coinage, Perhaps Autonomous Head of Tyche/Zeus Mid–1st c. BCE? Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: [---] Zeus; no date; countermark: head r. in round punch. Seyrig 1962:31–32, Nos. 13, 14. 5830. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3100, Reg. No. 0131, IAA 34824, ↑, 6.10 g, 19 mm. Same. Rev.: Date Θ Countermark: head(?) in round punch. 5831. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5160, Reg. No. 5579, IAA 35154, 1, 7.20 g, 18 mm.

Obv.: Heads of the Dioscuri. Rev.: [ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ]/EN ΠTOΛEM[ΑΙΔΙ] Cornucopia. 5827. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, Surface, Reg. No. 2, IAA 84618, 1, 2.44 g, 16 mm. Head of Apollo/Lyre Obv.: Head of Apollo. Rev.: [---] Lyre.

Same. Rev.: [---]TΩN[---] Round countermark. 5832. Eastern Quarter, Area E, L1092, Reg. No. 5848, IAA 19034, ↑, 7.22 g, 20 mm.

218

Danny Syon

Same. Rev.: Date illegible. Countermark: head(?) in round punch. 5833. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1268, Reg. No. 1780, IAA 20223, ↑, 6.10 g, 19 mm.

5843. Western Quarter, Area S, L2008, Reg. No. 3436, IAA 18406, ↑, 4.01 g, 17 mm (see Part 1).

Same. Rev.: Countermark: unclear type in round punch. 5834. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5108, Reg. No. 5045, IAA 33787, ↑, 6.92 g, 20 mm. Jugate Heads of Zeus and Tyche/Tyche 40/39 BCE Same. Rev.: Date Θ (mostly illegible); all countermarked. 5835–5841. IAA 33785, 21541, 35322, 19329, 19463, 19083, 33931, most ↑, 3.90–6.68 g, 18–21 mm. Head of Zeus/Tyche

Obv.: Jugate heads of Zeus and Tyche. Rev.: To l. date LI over unclear monogram, AΣY To r. [ΠT]OΛE / M[AE]ΩN / [IEP]AΣ Tyche, holding cornucopia and aplustre. Seyrig 1962:34, No. 18. 5844. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5201, Reg. No. 0742, IAA 34480, 2, 7.66 g, 24 mm. Unpublished date (see Part 1).

45/4 BCE Obv.: Head of Zeus. Countermark: head r. in square punch. Rev.: AΣY/Δ(?)Α / ΠTOΛE / MAEΩN / I[EPAΣ] Tyche, holding cornucopia and aplustre; date LE To l. A Seyrig 1962:33–34, No.15. Countermark: cf. Howgego 1985:131, No. 138. 5842. Eastern Quarter, Area T, Sq C17, Reg. No. 1046, IAA 18630, ↑, 8.49 g, 25 mm.

Same. Rev.: To l.: Date

LI

/ unclear monogram,

AΣY

To r.:

ΠTO[ΛE] / MAEΩ[N] / IEPAΣ

5845. Eastern Quarter, Area A, L1089, Reg. No. 0411, IAA 17570, ↑, 10.75 g, 24 mm. Provincial Coinage Head of Tyce/Tyche

Under Claudius

45/4 BCE

40/1 CE

Obv.: Head of Tyche r, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: On r.: ΠTO / [ΛEMAEΩN] Tyche, holding cornucopia and aplustre; date LE

Obv.: Inscription, if any, illegible. Head of Claudius r. Rev.: AN[---] Tyche, holding cornucopia and aplustre. Date Π[Θ?]

Chapter 5: Coins

5846. Western Quarter, Area R, L5014, Reg. No. 6186, IAA 19357, ↑, 6.86 g, 22 mm. Unpublished date (see Part 1). Cf. RPC I:660, No.4746; Seyrig 1962:34, No. 25.

41/2 CE Obv.: No inscription. Head of Claudius r. Rev.: [---]ΓEPMANI[---] Tyche, holding cornucopia and aplustre; date L–Ч 5847. Western Quarter, Area S, L2019, Reg. No. 3786, IAA 18515, ↑, 9.41 g, 20 mm. Unpublished date (see Part 1). Cf. RPC I:660, No. 4746.

219

5849. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5165, Reg. No. 5750, IAA 35217, ↑, 14.20 g, 25 mm.

Obv.: [---] Head of Nero. To r. star and crescent. Rev.: [C]OL CLA STA GER[---] Founder, plowing with oxen. Across: COL CLA Behind four vexilla: the last vexillum: X(?). 5850. Western Quarter, Area R, L5011, Reg. No. 6844, IAA 19661, ↑, 13.79 g, 25 mm. Probably Phoenicia, 1st century BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche. Rev.: [---] Galley or illegible. 5851–5860. IAA 17915, 18399, 18595, 19028, 19441, 33961, 34462, 34709, 35068, 84766.

Colonial Coinage Under Nero 66–67 CE Obv.: [---]R PM TR[---] Head of Nero r. Rev.: [---]STA GER P[TOL] Founder, plowing with oxen. Across: COL CLA Behind, 4 vexilla: second vexillum from left: VI; the last XII RPC I:660, No. 4750. 5848. Western Quarter, Area S, Surface, Reg. No. 7547, IAA 17894, ↑, 14.00 g, 24 mm. New reverse legend variant (see Part 1).

Decapolis Hippos 42–38 BCE Obv.: Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Rev.: [---] Horse. Cf. Meshorer 1985:74, No. 197. 5861. Western Quarter, Area R, L5011, Reg. No. 6647, IAA 19568, ↑, 2.20 g, 15 mm, broken.

Gadara Civic Coinage Obv.: IMP NER[---. Head of Nero r. Traces of crescent. Rev.: DIVOS CLA[---] Founder, plowing with oxen. Across: COL CLA Behind four vexilla.

47/6 BCE Obv.: Stylized head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Behind, palm branch.

220

Danny Syon

Rev.: ΓaΔa / PE[wN] Caduceus; across it stem an aplustre; date LIH Spijkerman 1978:128, No. 3; Pl. 26. 5862. Stray find, IAA 106188, ↑, 5.68 g, 22 mm.

Nysa–Scythopolis

45/4 BCE

C. 55 BCE

Obv.: Stylized bust of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Behind, palm branch. Rev.: ΓaΔa / PEwN Cornucopia; date LK Spijkerman 1978:128, No. 6; Pl. 26. 5863. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5103, Reg. No. 4479, IAA 21217, ↑, 5.52 g, 20 mm. Same dies as No. 5864.

Obv. Bust r. (Gabinius?). Rev.: [ΓABINIΣ OI E]N NY[ΣHI] Nike to l., with palm branch and wreath. RPC I:668, Nos. 4825–4826; Barkay 2003: No.1. 5866. Western Quarter, Area S, L2106, Reg. No. 82, IAA 87481, ↑, 5.99 g, 20 mm, beveled edge.

Civic Coinage

Provincial Coinage Under Caligula 39/40 CE Same. 5864. Western Quarter, Area R, L5057, Reg. No. 3103, IAA 20787, ↑, 4.26 g, 18 mm. Same dies as No. 5863.

Obv.: [Γ]AIOY KAI[CAPOC] Head l. Rev.: NYC[A H KAI CKYΘOΠOΛIC] Dionysus stg. l., holding wreath and thyrsus. Barkay 2003: No. 7. 5867. Western Quarter, Area S, Sq J9, Reg. No. 3015, IAA 18216, ↑, 6.02 g, 20 mm.

Provincial Coinage Under Claudius Under Claudius 51/2 CE 50/1 CE Obv.: Head of Claudius. Rev.: [---] Bust of Tyche, wearing turreted crown, date

Obv.: Head of Dionysus. On l. L; date illegible [EIP] Countermark: Head r. in round punch. Rev.: Inscription in wreath: NYC / A[IEwN Tw] / N [KA] /

LΔI[P]

I CKY[ΘOΠO] / ΛI[TwN]

RPC I:667, No. 4819. 5865. Western Quarter, Area R, L5057, Reg. No. 3079, IAA 20775, ↑, 4.75 g, 17 mm.

Barkay 2003: No. 10. Countermark: Barkay 2003:53–58. 5868. Surface, IAA 17745, ↑, 5.65 g, 18 mm.

Chapter 5: Coins

Iturean Coinage

Ptolemy Son of Menaeus

221

Nabatean Coinage Aretas II Petra?

Chalcis Sub-Libano 73/2 BCE Obv.: Head of Zeus r. Rev.: Two soldiers stg. To front, leaning on spears. Above the soldier on l. a star. Date off flan [LMΣ]? Herman 2006:59, No.1.a3 (this coin). 5869. Eastern Quarter, Area A, L1089, Reg. No. 0417, IAA 17574, ↑, 5.98 g, 20 mm.

From c. 129–104 BCE and later. Obv.: Helmeted head of Athena r. Rev.: [---] Nike l. Cf. Kushnir-Stein and Gitler 1992–1993:20, No. 31; Pl. 2:31. 5872. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L3106, Reg. No. 0183, IAA 34852, ↑, 2.90 g, 15 mm.

Uncertain (see Part 1)

Same. 5873. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5153, Reg. No. 5387, IAA 35100, ↑, 3.10 g, 14 mm.

64/3 BCE

Aretas II?

Obv.: Helmeted bust of Athena(?) r. Rev.: La PΩMHΣ Aplustre l. Dotted border. Spijkerman 1978:128, No. 2; Pl. 26 (attributed to Gadara). 5870. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1302, Reg. No. 0063, IAA 33915, ↑, 8.22 g, 21 mm.

Obv.: Illegible, possibly helmeted head. Rev.: Inscription, if any, illegible. Nike stg. r., hand extended, holding ankh-shaped object (wreath?). Below r., uncertain symbol. Cf. Kushnir-Stein and Gitler 1992–1993. 5874. Western Quarter, Area S, L2008, Reg. No. 3450, IAA 18407, ↑, 1.58 g, 13 mm. Nike is standing to r. instead of l. (see Part 1).

Obv.: Bust of Heracles l., club over shoulder. Rev.: LA PΩMHΣ Battering ram r. Spijkerman 1978:128, No.1; Pl. 26 (attributed to Gadara). 5871. Western Quarter, Area R, L5010, Reg. No. 6039, IAA 19259, ↑, 9.41 g, 21 mm.

Aretas III Damascus 84–71 BCE Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: BAΣIΛ[EΩΣ] APETO[Y] [ΦI]ΛEΛΛHN[OΣ] Tyche, seated on rock, holding cornucopia. To l. aP Meshorer 1975:86, No. 6.

222

Danny Syon

5875. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5106, Reg. No. 4671, IAA 21643, 2, 7.25 g, 20 mm.

39/40 CE Obv.: [---] Jugate busts of king and queen. Rev.: ‫לת‬/‫ שקי‬/ ‫ חרתת‬Joined cornucopiae. Meshorer 1975:105, No. 112. 5880. Western Quarter, Area S, L1914, Reg. No. 7552, IAA 17897, -, 3.15 g, 19 mm.

Obv.: Head of king. Rev.: [---] Nike. Cf. Meshorer 1975:87, No. 8. 5876. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1310, Reg. No. 0448, IAA 34099, ↑, 2.50 g, 14 mm. Aretas IV Petra?

Same. 5881. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5108, Reg. No. 4665, IAA 21632, ↑, 2.83 g, 17 mm. Same. 5882. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5107, Reg. No. 4992, IAA 33756, unit, ↑, 3.04 g, 17 mm.

6–3 BCE Obv.: ‫ ס‬Bust of king, laureate. Rev.: ]? ‫ חרתת מלך נבטו [שנת‬Queen Huldu (?) to l ; Cf. Meshorer 1975:96, No. 56. 5877. Western Quarter, Area S, L1907, Reg. No. 7324, IAA 18376, ↑, 5.06 g, 15 mm. 16 CE Obv.: The king as soldier. To r. ; Rev.: [---] Traces of Queen standing l. Cf. Meshorer 1975:103, No. 97. 5878. Western Quarter, Area R, L5053, Reg. No. 6705, IAA 19593, ↑, 1.61 g, 14 mm.

Same. 5883. Western Quarter, Area RN, L5101, Reg. No. 4420, IAA 21166, ↑, 3.50 g, 17 mm. Same. Meshorer 1975:105, No.114. 5884. Western Quarter, Area R, L5011, Reg. No. 6261, unit, IAA 19394, ↑, 2.16 g, 17 mm. Same. 5885. Surface, IAA 17471, 2.10 g, 16 mm. 9 BCE–40 CE Obv.: Bust of king. Rev.: Joined cornucopiae. Between: ;(?). Cf. Meshorer 1975:99, No. 68. 5886. Western Quarter, Area S, IAA 17974, Reg. No. 8030, L1920, ↑, 1.50 g, 13 mm.

Same. 5879. Western Quarter, Area S, L1922, Reg. No. 7878, IAA 17947, -, 1.61 g, 15 mm.

Obv.: Illegible Rev. [---] Parallel cornucopiae? Cf. Meshorer 1975:98, Nos. 62, 63.

Chapter 5: Coins

5887. Western Quarter, Area R, L5054, Reg. No. 3316, IAA 20421, ↑, 1.70 g, 16 mm.

223

Theodosius I 378–395 CE

Other Coins Tiberias under Hadrian

Obv.: DN[---] Bust of emperor. Rev.: Illegible. 5890. Eastern Quarter, Area T, Sq H13, Reg. No. 2162, IAA 18958, ↑, 1.00 g, 12 mm.

120 CE Obv.: AYT TPA AΔPIANW KAIC CEB Bust of Hadrian. Rev.: TIBE / KΛAY Galley; date illegible. Meshorer 1985:35, No. 83. 5888. Hasmonean Quarter, Area B, L1299, Reg. No. 2974, IAA 33562, ↑, 2.30 g, 13 mm. Valentinian I, Constantinople. Circa 370 CE Obv.: DN VALENTINI–[ANVS∙∙∙] Bust r. Rev.: SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE Victory l., holding wreath and palm. In exergue: CONSPA LRBC II:87, No. 2071. 5889. Surface, IAA 17758, ↑, 1.13 g, 16 mm.

Late Roman 4th c. CE Obv.: Bust of emperor? Rev.: Illegible. 5891. Hasmonean Quarter, Area D, Surface, IAA 17790, ↑, 0.64 g, 11 mm. Turkish Mehmet V (1909–1918) 1910 CE Obv.: Around: ‫ حرﻴت * مساوات * عدلت‬In center: tughra. Rev.: Around: ‫ صرب فى * دولت عثمانيه * قسطنطنيه‬In center: ١٠, below: ١٧ ‫ بارال‬In exergue: ١٣٢٧ Pere 1968:291, No. 1062. 5892. Eastern Quarter, Area E, L1654, Reg. No. 5171, IAA 17601, on para, ↑, 2.59 g, 19 mm.

224

Matthew Danny Ponting Syon

Appendix: Compositional Analysis of the Gamla Jewish War Coin Matthew Ponting The Gamla siege coin (4883) is made of a low-tin bronze. It differs from the other Jewish War coins analyzed in that, while containing a similar amount of tin, it contains no appreciable lead. The few Jewish War coins that contain similarly low levels of lead contain almost no tin. As far as minor and trace impurities go, the Gamla coin is very similar to the other coins. It does have an elevated nickel content, but this may be purely fortuitous and not representative of the entire issue. In general, the Gamla coin is made of metal that exhibits the same compositional characteristics as the other coins analyzed and also of the general domestic metal-work from the site. Where it differs is in the nature of the alloying, primarily observed in the absence of any added lead (Table 5.30). Figure 5.35 shows an inverse correlation between the lead and tin—the higher the lead content the lower the tin. The simplest interpretation is that the lead was added to compensate for a lack of tin. As far as we can tell, lead was regarded in antiquity as a cheaper white metal, and 10

Weight (percentage of tin)

8

the two were related in the minds of people in the past as Pliny clearly shows in his Natural History (Book 34, 161). Pliny mentions that a libra (pound) of tin cost 80 denars, while a libra of lead cost only 7 denars (Book 34, 161). The addition of cheaper lead to compensate for a reduction of more valuable tin could therefore be interpreted as a form of ‘debasement’, in the same way that copper was used to debase silver in precious metal coinages. The reduction of the tin content and, in the ‘War’ coins at least, the corresponding increase in the lead content, may therefore reflect increasing shortage of raw materials as the war continued. The reduced tin content without an increased lead content observed in the Gamla coin may reflect a more traditional approach to alloying, where the addition of lead was regarded as unacceptable. Indeed, a characteristic of the bronze artifacts from Gamla is the small number of leaded bronze alloys identified. The chronology of the compositional changes is mixed, with ‘Year Four’ Jewish War coins having both high and low lead. It is also interesting to see the ratios of lead to tin; the standard composition for a ‘good’ bronze alloy for coin or artifact would have been one containing 10% tin with no added (