Mount Gerizim Excavations. The coins 9789654067140, 9789654067522

Citation preview

MOUNT GERIZIM EXCAVATIONS

Yitzhak magen, gabriela bijovsky and yoav tzionit

MOUNT GERIZIM EXCAVATIONS VOLUME III

THE COINS

19 Israel Antiquities Authority Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria Jerusalem 2021

19

Editor: Ayelet Hashahar Malka

English Style: Miriam Feinberg Vamosh

Typesetting: Tal Bar-On Printed by Printiv, Jerusalem

ISBN 978-965-406-714-0 EISBN 978-965-406-752-2

© 2021 Israel Antiquities Authority and the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form without permission from the publisher.

This book is dedicated to Tal Bar-On, who for two decades with great commitment produced the graphic layout of the Judea and Samaria Publications, thereby contributing to the long-standing success of the series.

CONTENTS

Preface

IX

Abbreviations

XI

Section One The Samaritans and the History of Mount Gerizim

1

Yitzhak Magen

Section Two The Coins from the excavations at Mount Gerizim

79

Gabriela Bijovsky

Catalogue

130

Plates

205

Appendix: List of Coins from Mount Gerizim IAA library site, title input: Mount Gerizim Excavations III: The Coins Yoav Tzionit

Preface This is the third volume on the archaeological excavations at Mt. Gerizim, and the fourth volume in the JSP (Judea and Samaria Publications) series that is dedicated to the Samaritans. Three more volumes in the series will be devoted to Mt. Gerizim: The fourth volume focuses on private architecture in the Mt. Gerizim excavations (ready for print), the fifth volume deals with the archeological finds, and the sixth volume describes the Samaritan sacred precinct and the Byzantine church. Research on the coins discovered at Mt. Gerizim has been underway for over three decades. This book describes the thousands of coins that were found in the excavations at Mt. Gerizim, dating from the Persian period in the fifth century BCE to the Byzantine period in the seventh century CE, and spanning a thousand years of Samaritan history. The first section, written by Dr. Yizhak Magen, details the history of the Samaritans and Mt. Gerizim from the destruction of Samaria at the end of the eighth century BCE until the Byzantine period. The author discusses coins discovered at Mt. Gerizim that have helped put to rest more than a century of historical and archeological debate over research issues regarding the Samaritans. This section incorporates several papers that have been published elsewhere, and have been combined here to create a complete study on the history of the Samaritans, including the numismatic finds from Mt. Gerizim. The second section, by Dr. Gabriela Bijovsky, analyses the thousands of coins discovered at Mt. Gerizim dating from the Persian period to the Byzantine period. The author deals with several aspects of the Mt. Gerizim coins, among them chronology, typology and the study of mints. The main contribution of this volume is the corpus of coins from the Persian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods. The discussion is followed by a typological catalogue of the coins discovered at Mt. Gerizim. The isolated coin finds are described first, followed by special finds, including four hoards and the lead tesserae. Photographs of most of the coin types appear in the plates that follow the catalogue. The third section was prepared by Yoav Tzionit, and includes the database of the coins from Mt. Gerizim. An exhaustive online list of all the coins discovered in the excavations is available at IAA library site, title input: Mount Gerizim Excavations III: The Coins. Many people have been involved in this project leading to it successful completion. I would like to thank the Israel Antiquities Authority for their ongoing assistance to the Judea and Samaria publication unit. My thanks go to Yoav Tzionit, who has been involved in this volume for many years. Special thanks to Ayelet Hashahar Malka, who continued to work on this book with Yoav on a volunteer basis for several years, after the JSP publication unit went through several changes and eventually closed. Ayelet has been more than a scientific editor in this book. My appreciation also goes to Evgeny Aharonovich for his continuing participation in the excavations. I am grateful to Dr. Gabriela Bijovsky, who in spite of numerous hurdles, successfully completed the scientific publication of Mt. Gerizim coins. I would like to express my gratitude to all those who contributed in the completion of the book, especially Aaron Goel and Dr. Donald T. Ariel. I would also like to thank Jill Harish who translated parts of the historical section; Shlomi Ammami, Assaf Peretz, Yoav Tzionit and Clara Amit of the IAA for coin photography; Yael Shelach for the preparation of the coin plates;

[IX]

Miriam Feinberg Vamosh, the language editor; KeterPress Enterprises and especially Tal Bar On, who was in charge of the design and layout of this book and of several other books that have been published in this series. Finally, I also wish to thank the many assistants of Dr. Gabriela Bijovsky who worked through the years on the registration and curatorial aspects of the Mt. Gerizim coins: Tali Lizemer, Lior Alon, Levana Tsfania and Liora Kleinberg. The coins were masterfully cleaned at the IAA laboratories under the direction of Ella Altmark, and subsequently by Lena Kuperschmidt. May they all be blessed. Dr. Yitzhak Magen Head of Judea and Samaria Publications

[X]

ABBREVIATIONS AASOR

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

ADAJ

Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan

AJN

American Journal of Numismatics

AJSL

American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures

AJS Review

Association for Jewish Studies

BA

Biblical Archaeologist

BAIAS

Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BCH

Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique

BJRL

Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

INJ

Israel Numismatic Journal

INR

Israel Numismatic Research

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JCS

Journal of Cuneiform Studies

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JRA

Journal of Roman Archaeology

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies

JSJ

Journal for the Study of Judaism

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSP

Judea and Samaria Publications

NC

Numismatic Chronicle

NEAEHL

E. Stern, A. Lewinson-Gilboa and J. Aviram (eds.), New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Jerusalem 1993.

PEQ

Palestine Exploration Quarterly

RB

Revue Biblique

REJ

Revue des Études Juives

ROC

Revue de l’Orient Chrétien

RQ

Revue de Qumran

TA

Tel Aviv

VT

Vetus Testamentum

[XI]

Ant.

Josephus Flavius, “Antiquities of the Jews,” in: The Works of Flavius Josephus, W. Whiston (transl.), London 1895.

BT

Babylonian Talmud

Chron

Chronicles

Chronicon Paschale

Chronicon Paschale (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae), L. Dindorf (ed.), Bonn 1832.

Chronographia

Ioannis Malalae, Chronographia, L. Dindorf (ed.), Bonn 1931.

Curtius Rufus

Q. Curtius Rufus, Historiarum Alexandri Magni Macedonis, E. Hedicke (ed.), Lipsiae 1908.

Deut.

Deuteronomy

Eusebius, Chronicon

Eusebi Chronicorum canonum, A. Schoene (ed.), Berlin 1866.

Eusebius, Theophania

W.F. Otto, Theophania: der Geist der altgriechischen Religion, Hamburg 1956.

Gen. Rabbah

Midrash Rabbah, Genesis

Hag.

Haggai

Herodotus

Herodotus, Herodotus I–II (Loeb Classical Library), A.D. Godley (transl.), London 1946.

Hieronymus, Chronicon

Die Chronik des Hieroniymus (Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 7), R. Helm (ed.), Berlin 1956.

Historiae Augustae

Aelius Spartianus, “Severus,” in Scriptores Historiae Augustae, (Loeb Classical Library), D. Magie (transl.), London 1967.

Isa.

Isaiah

Jer.

Jeremiah

Josh.

Joshua

JT

Jerusalem Talmud

Lam. Rabbah

Midrash Rabbah, Lamentations

II Macc.

II Maccabees (Anchor Bible), J.A. Goldstein (transl.), New York 1983.

M

Mishnah

Mal.

Malachi

Matt.

Matthew

Neh.

Nehemiah

Onomasticon

Eusebius, Onomasticon. The Place Names of Divine Scripture, Including the Latin Edition of Jerome (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series IX), R.S. Notley and Z. Safrai (transl. and com.), Boston 2005.

Plinius, Historia Naturalis

Plinius, Historia Naturalis (Loeb Classical Library), H. Rackham (transl.), London 1952.

Procopius, Buildings

Procopius of Caesarea, Buildings (Loeb Classical Library), H.B. Dewing (transl.), London 1954.

T

Tosefta

War

Josephus Flavius, “The Wars of the Jews,” in: The Works of Flavius Josephus, W. Whiston (transl.), London 1895.

[XII]

SECTION ONE  THE SAMARITANS AND THE HISTORY OF MOUNT GERIZIM



The Samaritans and the History of Mount Gerizim Yitzhak Magen

(s) Samaritans u tleft nd no writings pp p contemporaneous, yi y The s 0 o he o y; t ; b , , or nearly, so, with events in their history. In contrast t of c hLaw , or Jews, s n  to the Oral of, the there are9 no religious a e l F gs  (F – ) g  –  s w texts through which to follow the development ofaithe hSamaritan h h religion ge pand k religious an alaw.1 To M ri im s i this day, the JSamaritans adhere ntu only atoTthe dPentateuch, and “their e i a i e   only historical sources besides the Pentateuch  arethe T o n a a v n g o i g o u h a un is Samaritan Chronicles, the Samaritan Book of Joshua, d zMarqe, and(Gbiblical n  exegeses.  ;  .2All g t ofngthese the Tibat d,p in writing y s i gun th ing t Ages, p were set down in uthe Middle ande arg their z i )e ancients and we knowg neither origin, whether   , a e s i i T original Samaritan information was incorporated in

a g nor whether (u they si  were g  basedl on external, p d nonthem, sSamaritan o y sis historical pi wi sources. In n my opinion, nd these g g a a o p i p t , sources contain very little information from the Late, ok s ,periods, e and odate mainly a by Roman andghe Byzantine from sthe e rc T n r 3 Early Islamic period. ng se absence e g g ofieauthentic g o s ohistorical t p e and p ereligious The e ed i a writings affects the Samaritans themselves. 4 aImportant t i and)( splendid g episodes from their past se, g p , sta , nd went unmentioned inpntheir ehistory. The magnificent rtemple a on Mt. ng m Gerizim et n n r d disappeared completely 5 h in fo o religious n y p i experience, pg g and in from the Samaritan r a oa s d g t u t i h a n g t its place they developed a belief in a sanctuary

 Fig Mt. ebal . Mt. as ebal seen as from se M n f om Gerizim Mt.



[3]

countries by the Assyrian king and settled in Samaria. The 200 years between the destruction of Samaria and the Persian period are shrouded in obscurity, in both historical and archaeological terms. Information about the people of Samaria is very fragmentary, in both external and biblical sources.9 It is interesting that Nehemiah does not mention the Samaritans, nor does he use the term “people of Israel” when discussing the people of Samaria. He merely mentions Sanballat (Neh. 3:33–34); and he does not name him governor of Samaria, but rather connects him with Samaritan military force, and calls him a Horonite (Neh. 2:10, 19). Horon is apparently a village near Mt. Gerizim, the settlement of Hawara, and not Beth Ḥoron in Benjamin.10 Ezra mentions Samaria as the place to which Esarhaddon and Osnappar (Ashurbanipal), kings of Assyria, brought people of gentile nations (Ezra 4:2, 10), but he calls the inhabitants of Samaria “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 4:1). The history of the Samaritans began, in effect, following the Assyrian exile of Samaria. In 722 BCE Shalmaneser V conquered Samaria, following the revolt by Hoshea son of Elah (II Kings 17:1–6; 18:9– 11). The Assyrian king died shortly after the city’s conquest, and did not complete the exile of the city of Samaria’s populace. In ca. 720 BCE his successor, Sargon II, did so. In his inscriptions he relates that he conquered the city of Samaria, took 27,290 people captive, rebuilt the city and settled it with different peoples.11 This exile uprooted large groups of people from their land, resettled them in distant places and established satrapies in the conquered areas. This method was devised by the Assyrians to prevent rebellions by the conquered peoples in their expanding empire.12 Several additional waves of exiled peoples were apparently brought to Samaria to replace the Israelites. The first wave began in the time of Shalmaneser V and continued in that of Sargon II. II Kings 17:24 relates that the Assyrian king brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim. Doubts have been raised about the conquest of these cities during the time of these two monarchs, and they apparently fell to the Assyrians in a later period.13 The inscriptions of Sargon relate that he brought the Arab tribes of Tamudi, Ibadidi, Marsimani and Hajapa.14 He deported the inhabitants of Samaria to Assyria,

tabernacle and the rise of a messiah who would reveal the vessels of the sanctuary, and a new era would begin. In the Samaritan belief this sanctuary, whose origins lie in the period when the Jewish nation conquered the Land of Israel, preceded the sanctuary at Shiloh. There are no archaeological finds to support the existence of such a sanctuary.4 The absence of a written history and an oral law that was a continuation of the Torah, from which it would be possible to extract information about the beliefs of the Samaritans, as well as historical information from the distant past, afforded the Samaritans a degree of flexibility in determining their history, beliefs, and religion. Their lack of contemporaneous sources helped them in religious disputes with the Jews over the ancient sanctity of Mt. Gerizim and the origins of the Samaritans. The archaeological excavations on Mt. Gerizim and in Samaria have provided us with new evidence that could bridge the enormous gap in Samaritan history and religion as a result of the lack of authentic historical writings. Important contributions to reconstructing and studying Samaritan history, from the destruction of Samaria and the Assyrian exile until the end of the Byzantine period have been made by the discovery of the major Samaritan city that was built around a sacred precinct with temple at its heart5; Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek inscriptions6; architecture and archaeological finds7; synagogues8; and, in particular, the thousands of coins that are the focus of this book. This article will deal with the history of the Samaritans on the basis of the external historical sources and the excavations carried out at Mt. Gerizim and in Samaria. The many coins found at Mt. Gerizim offer us a new perspective on the history of the Samaritans, and on those who ruled the Land of Israel in different periods.

The destruction of Samaria and the exile of the people of Israel during the First Temple period Before its destruction, the residents of Samaria were called the people of Israel, or Israel. The term “Samaritans” appears only once, in II Kings 17:29, and refers to those peoples brought from different

[4]

 Fig The . site of h biblical site of shechem iblical shechem with Mt.with Gerizim Mt. Geriz seen m i se th nbackground. in the back

ssettling uth t o them ythe in ty re Halah, wh it re ione et a he oa main the roa ad ng ead ng w the Habor, River of to te e sa tern aria samaria ress fo wit tress wers ith o wa s w ps Gozan and in the cities of the Medes (II Kings 18:11). co mentioned, dstruct n his d on r atwo this additional road dditi additi a waves cnal seconda ar exiles roa arrived roads n As of le tin tSamaria up t t t during om ci ythf the mo he nta mo n a nous gr ul agri u al u ral reigns of Esarhaddon and ar ur oas nu ng rounding G Mt r zim e Osnappar (Ashurbanipal). M riz.we m G srdisregard zoca m ed s loca t e dispute cinnthe er ofconcerning e ater region of a rt gio at time tha If the the ha n de b en s y dens ula y opula s n ed in e ea e he y B ear y z Bronz y of the writing and redaction of the biblical sources age a oa ju ma the troj destruction nof ion h roa o th of cr r aSamaria, ssing s c os ng r sa a as ia it describing such II ca was e l ca h ed n egi the n r s gion main s c m t in sh city c e sh che l – el o Kings, Ezra, and II Chronicles, and do not relate to the Balâah, , o y a ity holy e city tled si et ce led th si ce a th of awn hist ry f his or question of whether II Kings 17 is a later addition, 5e Ma samar y an am in sri an e biblical acr it ds and asieesextra-biblical located a loca n ed arsources ne or the narrative the rarezt G ( riz m 8), ( ig. c ), ding inc u g ā e artā, y ein a sychar, p quite similar: Samaria was conquered by the a ob ell,s J its pl, population Josep s om s Tt was mb e exiled man he r and man yz nreplaced Byzan i ine ci Assyrians, by village (T l B ( ell â h) Bal o ah e on of M elon re Mo , an eh, a um nd e num different peoples in different periods. The Book ofr marita of sa describes syn ari angog sy the agog , religious uch es,ass uzn as ya uzn qūb peoples. qūb r (o Kings life of these 6 GM r zim s land, m cs lThey pa did an l ofnotlhend at helk a ade t ha sadeh know the rules of M the .God ofGeriz the or s hern op is slop ri h is in rich pri n gs spring d was , and s as se fi e st se ud and therefore YHWH let lions loose against them to per skill e them, aps n e lien r e t an ie e han r an e p sian rio pe iod. thi n his until one of the deported Israelite priests sl oop returned stood towt and eofo settled na oa M r Bethel, a , wher arta to wh theteach roman r the r man l was in them “the ci nea y o neapolis i w ate was bui at t uilt rules of the God of the land” (II Kings 17:25–29). ciTh peoples nci Mt erizim Mt. Geriz po m esspos d syncretistic ssed o na nu a n rites: turap These developed unique advan ages nducive ges ondu i its e o bei its g ing sit the o sit f p “Even while these people were worshiping the Lord, m to n r i ow a iqui in an y qui L c y e Lo n a ed a on igh, a o igh, d co lo they were serving their idols” (II Kings 17:41). d, If

and wat nr an approp no appropria ate ag u agricu u lto the tur int idolatrous l land hinteforand or this is so, how does this erelate ritual producing ng grain g ai w s i ot was ce not ral c ntra e g geo phi a ra y hi ally, held in Samaria in Jeroboam’s time, and to Josiah’s nor it domin did itto cleanse ominat e ny Samaria any jor ma o or mecommer cial ro of ial .paganism routes it it activity and Bethel ilt as bui ere t o of r re u g of ou re , gious, rat r ather an eco tha om econ c mi and kill the priests of the shrines (II Kings 23:15, 19– or culta The ral ic peoples ltural eas nsr exiled asons F rs tothe i s sac , theddid saprec rednct, precinct, 20)? Samaria not leave their wi e h e h p e te a ple i s a r s w or s b was il ; bui nly many on y many mark on the material culture of the time and region.16 years er da ater dfew theof did city egin c y to begi take oshtake p shape a allude ounda to ound Only thethe inscriptions discovered the ity , a city o wh inha se itin i ants mo w rtlymostly i s s peoples rie s and existence of populace composed ofp those in 1 em oth le templ of cia offic Bei the Land of Israel. aAccording wures, ich wh we ch eto w uch vital suc 17, ac v alno s Israelites n t hes inh iremained c oi e II re Kings of a aSamaria on locatio f r a after import for the n impor nexile it of nt in the cit an Northern qui in an y, iqu i Kingdom, ty, n tdid no in gr lay a a ro gr at in r l e de i t e op de e el pm a d gro nd th gr w theh of he and that the population in Samaria was composed questio itypeoples in que brought t on. of by the Assyrians. Even when the only o on ere y r su th atu slength dings r ou of dings h Josiah’s rs ha he sh Th Book of Kings speaks reforms, ain mo wa ntain made was o ma r e k o that rock w ha s u was s ita ns e fo i able or the destruction of the shrine and altar in Bethel (II uctio cons tion. e and per he upp leve of r was ev ha wd splaces ahar in and it the e,brittle, Kings 23:15), that the cult cities able unsuitable or h for p o the ucti p od n of cti n la o s ashlars h s rock This of Samaria (II Kings 23:19), it is silent regardingrock the consist ed o ay d of s oay vrsryo gin varyi i gtime nesh ,of kanJosiah e ea , a and d each inhabitants Samaria the the had layer had be remo othebeAssyrian eemov sepamonarch d ately separate uring y During the the exilest whom brought to replace pe p sian r d peri he dIt p mentions he er layer upper lay ro rkthe of as ocke of asved r mo and ed, the Israelites. only kings Israel producing ing un rson unworkab a of le Nebat, fie dse ones fieldsmade Ioneseshrines Hellenis I th that Heicangered lenistic Jeroboam who period the sam h te ame ique echnique wa u was ed on u r d on s o ks YHWH, even though many decades had passed from from lower lay time rs l of nd e Jeroboam sthe andqua th and ied quarr stones ed stones we e mo e mo e the the destruction ofe Samaria

[5] 4

These attempts continued in the time of Josiah, during whose reign repairs were made on the Temple. Chronicles relates that money for the repairs came from Judah, Benjamin, Manasseh, Ephraim and “the entire remnant of Israel” (II Chron. 34:9). This surprising fact is not mentioned in Kings, even though it does speak of Josiah’s Temple repairs. Jeremiah attests that men from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria came to the House of YHWH, carrying grain offerings and incense (Jer. 41:5). He thus implies that the Israelite remnant, defined by tribe in order to separate them from the people brought by the Assyrian kings, continued to participate in Jewish rites in Jerusalem until the destruction of the First Temple. The Chronicler tells us of the “remnant of Israel” in Samaria with whom the kings of Judah sought a rapprochement and the creation of a new religious framework centered in Jerusalem. Chronicles relates to the remnant as an integral part of the people of Israel, and regards the inhabitants of Samaria as full Israelites.22 There is no mention of the peoples brought by the Assyrian king and settled in Samaria, nor is any distinction drawn between them and the remnant of the Israelite tribes.23 The Chronicler emphasized what the author of Kings concealed, and vice versa. The position of Chronicles stands in sharp contrast not only to the view of Kings, but also to that of Ezra and Nehemiah. The latter says to Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite servant and Geshem the Arab: “But you have no share or claim [tzedakah] or stake in Jerusalem” (Neh. 2:20). Tzedakah usually means “charity,” but here it means “inheritance” (Isa. 54:17). The Book of Kings apparently tried to efface the existence of the Israelite remnant, and ascribed the shrines in Samaria and Bethel to the Israelite kings prior to the destruction of Samaria, thereby avoiding mention of the existence of such a remnant. The stance of Kings is closer to that of Ezra and Nehemiah, who regarded the inhabitants of Samaria as foreigners with neither affiliation to Jerusalem nor association with the returnees.24 This was a narrow sectarian view held by those returning from the Diaspora who wanted to preserve their Jewish uniqueness and prevent the incorporation of local populations into the “holy seed” of the returnees as expressed in their opposition to intermarriage with gentile women (Ezra 10:17–44; Neh. 13:23–25).

to Josiah’s reforms (Josiah ruled 640–604 BCE).18 Some 80 years after the destruction of Samaria, the author of Kings still used Jeroboam to explain the existence of pagan cultic sites in Samaria. Who used the altars and shrines razed by Josiah? Were they the peoples brought by the Assyrian king, or were they Israelites, inhabitants of Samaria, who had remained in the region? Kings does not say. Nor do we know why Kings connected the shrines with Jeroboam and not with the pagan peoples brought by the Assyrians, since the Book itself attests that none of the original inhabitants of Samaria remained. Not only does Kings make no mention of the existence of an Israelite remnant, it explicitly states that only “the tribe of Judah was left” (II Kings 17:18); and II Kings 17:23 states: “So the people of Israel were taken from their homeland into exile in Assyria, and they are still there.” The Kings version seems problematic and unreliable; the author had apparently attempted to conceal the presence of the Israelite remnant, whose shrines had been demolished by Josiah. As noted, when the author of Kings used the term “Samaritans,” he meant the peoples brought by the Assyrians (II Kings 17:29).19 The isolationist worldview of Kings reflects what is also implicit in Ezra and Nehemiah. The “people of Samaria” are gentiles, pagans brought by the king of Assyria who accepted belief in the YHWH only when compelled to do so (II Kings 17:33).20 Chronicles, composed in the Return to Zion period (probably in the fourth century BCE), adopts a different approach. According to the Chronicler, after the destruction of Samaria King Hezekiah attempted to effect a rapprochement between the inhabitants of Ephraim and Manasseh and those of Judah.21 He sent them letters inviting them to come to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. Some mocked him, while others consented and came (II Chron. 30:1, 10–11). We also learn that people came from Issachar and Zebulun (v. 18), and that: “All the assembly of Judah, with the priests and the Levites, and all the assembly who came out of Israel” participated in Hezekiah’s celebrations (v. 25). It should be emphasized that Chronicles does not call them the people of Israel, the people of Samaria, or Samaritans, but names each according to the tribe to which they belong, and in general terms, calls them the remnant of Israel.

[6]

representative of this group was Eliashib the priest. The other group, however, opposed any contact with the surrounding peoples, even if they were Jews by descent, like Tobiah; they included in this grouping the Samaritans, who were deemed to be the simple pagan peoples brought by the Assyrians. This second group of returnees, represented most prominently by Ezra and Nehemiah, advocated isolationism, opposed any contact with the surrounding peoples who were not of the holy seed, and struggled against intermarriage. Priests who could not prove their descent were even disqualified from the priesthood (Ezra 2:62). There are three narratives regarding the exile from Samaria. First, the Book of Kings, which, on the basis of external sources, provides genuine historical facts regarding the exchange of populations in Samaria; Second, Ezra and Nehemiah, who returned from exile and objected to the ties between the people of Judah and the Samaritans and Tobiah the Ammonite servant. Third, Chronicles, which tries to hide the conquest of Samaria and the replacement of the exiled tribes by other peoples, and relates to the Samaritans with forgiveness and kinship. Some researchers have tried to tie together the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.29 While besieging the city of Samaria, the Assyrians almost certainly took the numerous cities and villages surrounding it to avoid endangering their forces. At the approach of the Assyrian army, the inhabitants of Samaria fled to caves and neighboring lands until order was restored. We see a similar phenomenon following the Babylonian conquest of Judah, when part of the population fled to the neighboring lands of Moab, Ammon, and Edom (Jer. 40:11–12). In Judah, the Babylonians left the “poorest in the land” (Jer. 40:7). This was also the case after the conquest of Samaria, when the Assyrians did not send all strata of the population into exile.30 The inhabitants of Samaria, especially those on the border with Judah, fled upon the onset of the Assyrian conquest. Beginning in the late eighth century BCE, we see considerable expansion of the territory of Judah, Benjamin, and Jerusalem.31 Dozens of new settlements were added in the border areas, in the Jordan Valley (e.g., ʿEn-Gedi and Jericho), in southern Judah, and in the Land of Benjamin.32 Such a massive and dramatic increase in

Chronicles exhibits broader horizons, and sees the people of Israel as also including the northern remnant, the Samaritans.25 This tendentious description makes no mention of the exiles’ return to Samaria. Neither does it directly portray the exiles of the northern and Transjordan tribes. In its offhand depiction, it mentions that a Reubenite named Beerah had been exiled by King Tiglath-Pileser (I Chron. 5:6); it also states that the Reubenites, the Gadites, and that the half tribe of Manasseh were exiled by the Assyrian kings Pul and Tiglath-Pileser to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the Gozan River (I Chron. 5:26). There is no mention of the exile of the northern tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. Of Hezekiah’s reign, mention is made of “the congregation that came from Israel,” possibly referring to the remnant of Samaria (II Chron. 30:25). These seem to be the two opposing positions prevalent in the Return to Zion period. One was formulated in the Babylonian exile and brought by the later returnees, including Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 4:1). The other was advocated by Eliashib the priest, together with the dominant Judahite elite that either remained in the lands of Judah and Benjamin during the Babylonian exile, or came with the first wave of returnees, who became acclimated to their surroundings and viewed the Samaritans as an integral part of the people of Israel.26 Eliashib had a different attitude to the northern remnant, and apparently also to the remnant in the east represented by Tobiah the Ammonite servant.27 His conception was one of affinity and a shared fate, and therefore he perceived the Samaritans as an integral part of the Israelite people. This is why Eliashib saw nothing wrong with giving Tobiah a chamber in the Temple (Neh. 13:4–5) and arranging a marriage between his grandson and Sanballat’s daughter, which aroused Nehemiah’s ire (Neh. 13:28). These extreme contrasts between Chronicles and II Kings 17 and the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah concerning the origin and fitness of the Samaritans possibly reflect the conflicting views prevalent in the Return to Zion period. The first of these views was held by the veteran group that had returned during the time of Zerubbabel, and possibly also the remnant from the territory of Benjamin who had successfully integrated into the region and maintained a religious dialogue with their neighbors.28 The leading

[7]

[9] 0

27

100 m

26

Persian eriod Period Hellenistic ic Period Period man Late Roman eriod Period Byzantine e Period Period nSamaritan Holy SiteHoly Site

3

2

20

21

25

22

hern 22 Southern residential residential quarter (Area qua ter B (Area B) hern 23 Southe city gate n city gate hern 24 Southern city wall city wall del 25 Building Citadel (Building B-V) B-V) den 26 ial Residential building building (Area K (Area I) K-II) den 27 ial Residential building building (Area K (Area ) K-I) 28 N Area N hern 29 Southern citadel (Buil cita ing el (Building G) G)

7–8 r ya Courtyards ds for accommoda for accommodating ing pilgrims pilgrims

10 Twelve The “Twelve Stones” Stones” 11 ie Fortified enclosureenclosure ern 12 entrance Western entrance to the sacred to thep sacred ecinct precinct 13 na “Eternal Hill” Hill” 14 c buPublic lding building 15 c buPublic lding building (Building(Building J) J)

21 E Area E

ea 9 Southe tern citad st lrn citadel

ern 20 residential Western residential quarter (Area qua ter A (Area A)

He 6 lenis Late Hellenistic ic residential residential quarter (Area qua ter S) (Area S)

18 0m

23

nis 5 Hellenistic ic eastern city eastern gate city gate

sio 19 Mansi (Com lex n (Complex P-I) P-I)

15

16

m 4 Monumental ntal staircase staircase leading oleading the sacred to thep sacred ecinct precinct

18

12

13

17 r of“Altar the Sacrifice of the Sacrifice of Isaac”of Isaac” 18 c building Public building (Building(Bui P I ding ) P-II)

13 14

17

16 pr ss Winepress

19

11

9

ss 2 Fortress en 3 ial Residential building bui an ding oil press and oil (Building press (Building T) T)

7

h1 ofChurch Mary Theotok of Mary Theotokos s

10

1

4

5

aerial photograph of Mt. Gerizim (preceding page) and general plan of the archaeological remains at the site.

28

8

6

24

29

and dates to the seventh century BCE. In his survey of the eastern valleys and the desert fringe, based on the presence of bowls with wedge decorations he detected intensive settlement by “Cutheans,” who had been brought by the Assyrian kings. Zertal’s suggestion that this settlement expansion was a consequence of Sargon II’s importing foreign peoples to Samaria is probably far removed from reality. Furthermore, his use of the term “Cuthean” to define these peoples is strange, since it was used by the sages in the Second Temple period and by Josephus to describe the foreign origin of the Samaritans, and was not in use during the Iron Age.37 Archaeological finds from the surveys indicate a decline in the number of settlements in Samaria in the seventh century BCE, but not the general abandonment of the area, as occurred in Lower Galilee, which was deserted in the late eighth century BCE.38 The picture obtained from the excavations conducted in the rural region in Samaria is no less problematic than what emerges from the surveys. The excavations at Kh. Jemeʿin (22 km east of Qalqiliya; ITM 20696/67501) uncovered an Iron Age II c village (seventh century BCE) that was apparently founded after the Assyrian conquest.39 Interestingly, none of the wedge-decorated bowls that Zertal discovered at other sites in Samaria were found at this site, which was abandoned prior to the Persian period. A large Iron Age II archaeological site (Kh. Ḥadash) that was discovered at Beth Aryeh (ITM 20485/66090),40 was an agricultural settlement the ninth and eighth centuries BCE, and was probably abandoned close to the Assyrian conquest of Samaria and never resettled. An extensive archaeological survey conducted by I. Finkelstein in the area of the hills east of the Ben Shemen–Rosh Haʿayin road revealed a group of Iron Age II c farms.41 The archaeological finds led Finkelstein to conclude that the farms were established after the destruction of Samaria and that some remained active in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. Finkelstein proposed that these farms were settled by refugees who had fled from central Samaria to its western fringes. To sum up the fragmentary archaeological picture suggested by the excavations and surveys in Samaria, the Assyrian conquest resulted in a decline in the

settlement in the border region of Judah and Benjamin could not have resulted from a sudden natural increase in Judah in the seventh century BCE. We assume that Israelites fled the Assyrians and became entrenched in Judah. If this assumption is correct, Hezekiah and Josiah’s willingness and attempts at a rapprochement with the remnant of Ephraim and Manasseh were also based on an attempt to absorb and assimilate the refugees from Samaria in Judah. This might also explain the scholarly hypothesis of the inclusion of northern religious literature in the Torah.33 The settlement distribution in Samaria following the Assyrian conquest to the Persian period is complex and unclear. Despite extensive archaeological surveys and a considerable number of excavations conducted in Samaria, the archaeological picture is ambiguous, and makes only a modest contribution to our understanding of the settlement processes following the Assyrian conquest. The city of Samaria, which was apparently not destroyed by the Assyrians, became the center of the Assyrian satrapy. In the Sargon II inscription discovered at Calah, written on a prism, the Assyrian monarch boasts: “The city of Samaria I resettled and made it greater than before. People of the lands conquered by my own hand I brought there. My courtier I placed over them as a governor and duties and tax I imposed upon them as on Assyrians.”34 In addition to the pottery vessels defined as Assyrian, the city of Samaria yielded a stele fragment with an Assyrian inscription ascribed to Sargon II, a cylinder seal bearing an Assyrian inscription, and a letter in Babylonian written in hieroglyphics. The city of Samaria became the military and administrative center of the satrapy of Samaria until its destruction by Alexander the Great.35 The complex agricultural picture derived from the surveys and excavations conducted in the region of Samaria precludes unequivocal conclusions about what occurred following the Assyrian conquest. The most extensive survey in Samaria was conducted by A. Zertal,36 who defined the period between the conquest of Samaria and the Persian period as Iron Age III (commonly called the Iron Age IIc). He discerned a steep decrease in the number of sites after the Assyrian conquest in some areas, such as the Shechem syncline. Zertal’s definition of the Iron Age III is based on wedge-decorated bowls that he defined as Cuthean

[10]

from the Babylonian exile were different from those who had left it and from the remnant that had not left Judah; they differed both in their practices and, mainly, in regard to their openness to other peoples. In exile, the significant melting pot paradoxically produced a people with isolationist religious and national worldviews. The return of the first exiles to Judah was to have signaled the beginning of a new era in relations between Jews and Samaritans. When the exiles began to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, the “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” asked Zerubbabel to take part in its reconstruction, but were rebuffed: “they came to Zerubbabel and to the heads of the families and said, ‘Let us help you build because, like you, we seek your God and have been sacrificing to him since the time of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here’” (Ezra 4:2). The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, like Kings, do not mention the remnant in Samaria, but only the peoples exiled to Samaria by the Assyrian monarchs. Josephus identifies the “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” with the Samaritans (Ant. 11:84).43 Thus, two states––the satrapies of Judah and Samaria––took shape in the hill country in the fifth century BCE. At this time, an additional satrapy, composed of Edomites and Kedarites might also have come into being, headed by Geshem the Arab (Neh. 2:19); this satrapy would later be known as Idumea.44 Samaria was a large and populous satrapy that grew over the course of many years after the destruction of the city of Samaria.45 The satrapy of Judah was limited in territory, concentrated mainly around Jerusalem and in Benjamin, while southern Judah and the Hebron Hills were inhabited by Edomites, who had encroached upon Judah shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem.46 For the most part, the satrapy of Judah was inhabited by exiles who had returned from Babylonia following the declaration of Cyrus. Surveys and excavations conducted in the regions of Judah and Benjamin show that Judah was a poor land, with small, meager settlements and very limited territory.47 The Persian-period sites discovered in the regions of Judah and Benjamin are also small, with sparse construction, and covering limited territory.48 In the Return to Zion period, Judah was not the same state that had been ravaged by the Babylonians.

number of settlements. Notwithstanding this, Samaria was not completely abandoned, and settlement activity continued there in the seventh century BCE. We cannot know if this consisted of the Israelite remnant, or of the peoples whom the Assyrians settled in the region, who left hardly any imprint upon the material culture of Samaria.42 Significantly, the wedge-decorated bowls that Zertal found in many of the sites that he surveyed, and which he believes allude to “Cuthean” settlement, were not found in other sites excavated or surveyed in Samaria. The settlement distribution in Samaria further declined in the Iron Age and Persian period, possibly indicating harm wreaked by the Babylonian conquest. Without an understanding of what happened to the people of Samaria over the course of 200 years, from the destruction of Samaria until the Persian period, we cannot understand the Persian period in Samaria. Nor can we understand the creation of the Samaritan nation — whose early offshoots we meet during the Persian period at Mt. Gerizim and with the establishment of the temple — is a consequence of the years between the destruction of Samaria and the Persian period, which, as noted, are shrouded in obscurity. A noteworthy point that I will already emphasize at this stage is that in the archaeological excavations on Mt. Gerizim, there are no finds whatsoever that can be attributed to the Iron Age, early or late, and the earliest finds are to be attributed to the Persian period.

The Samaritans during the Persian Period The rapprochement between Samaria and Judah initiated by Hezekiah and Josiah, kings of Judah, did not endure, and Judah suffered a fate similar to that of Samaria: It was destroyed and its inhabitants were exiled. In the late sixth century BCE, after the return of the exiles to the Land of Benjamin, the Land of Judah, and Jerusalem, two states were created: The northern Israelites underwent major ethnic changes resulting from the integration of the peoples brought by the Assyrian monarchs into the firm Israelite nucleus that continued to preserve its ancient heritage. In Judah, in contrast, the returning exiles apparently had the upper hand and dictated religious concepts in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Those who returned to Judah

[11]

37 32 33

34 28 31

29 30

27 35 6 36

7 5

26

3 4 2

1

8 22

17 18

21

15 13 10 12 9

20

11 14

16

Persian Period Hellenistic Period Late Roman Period Byzantine Period—Reign of Zeno (476–491 CE) Byzantine Period—Reign of Justinian I (527–565 CE) Samaritan Holy Site

19

24

25

23 0

50 m

1 Church of Mary Theotokos and fortress

20 Public building (Building J)

2 Gate of the fortified church enclosure

21 Winepress

3 4 Northern gates of the sacred precinct

22 “Eternal Hill”

5 Gate of the church enclosure from the reign of Justinian

23 Mansion including oil press, dwelling and shops (Complex P I)

6 Fortress 24 Oil press 7 Northeastern tower of the fortress

tomb of Sheikh Ghanem 25 Public building (Building P II)

8 Plastered pool 26 Southeastern citadel 9 The “Twelve Stones” 27 30 Courtyards for accommodating pilgrims within the walls of the sacred precinct

10 Foundations of the Samaritan temple

31 Tower protecting the ascent to the sacred precinct 11 12 Walls of the sacred precinct 32 Paved street leading to the lower eastern gate of the sacred precinct 13 14 Courtyards in the corners of the sacred precinct 33 Hellenistic lower eastern gate of the sacred precinct 15 Northwestern tower of the sacred precinct



16 Fortified enclosure

34 Monumental staircase leading to the eastern gate of the sacred precinct

17 Public building

35 Eastern gate of the sacred precinct

18 Western gate of the sacred precinct

36 Remains of an ancient altar, apparently dating to the Persian period

19 Tower protecting the western gate of the sacred precinct

37 Late Hellenistic residential quarter (Area S)

General of the sacred Fig 4 plan General plan o theprecinct. sacred



] [12

In the first stages of the Return to Zion period, the satrapy of Judah was not a significant political or military entity, and the exiles’ return there was met by the vehement opposition of the “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” (Ezra 4:1), and of the people of neighboring lands. Zerubbabel’s refusal to allow these adversaries to participate in the rebuilding of the Temple provoked them to write venomous letters to the authorities and to harm the construction work in Jerusalem and the Temple (Ezra 4:4–6). This resulted in the opening of an investigation by Tattenai, the governor of Beyond the River, of the legality of the construction of the Temple and the renewal of the settlement in Jerusalem (Ezra 5:1–6, 15). Nehemiah’s arrival in 445 BCE changed the international and political balance of power between Judah and its neighbors, with a resultant rise in the tensions between them. Nehemiah was not the first governor of Judah; he had been preceded by Sheshbazzar, who was also a prince of Judah (Ezra 1:8, 5:14), Zerubbabel (Hag. 1:1), and others (Neh. 5:15).49 Nehemiah, however, was different. He had been a cupbearer to King Artaxerxes I of Persia (464– 424 BCE), that is, he was close to the Persian royal court. He came to Judah with the official sanction of the Persian king and of the governor of the satrapy of Beyond the River, and was accompanied by a Persian military force. His mission’s aim was predominantly political and military: the strengthening of the walls and gates of Jerusalem.50 Nehemiah remained in Judah for 12 years before returning to Babylonia; then, “after certain days,” he came back to Jerusalem (Neh. 13:6). The restoration and construction work on the walls of Jerusalem triggered a harsh response from the three governors of the surrounding satrapies: Sanballat, governor of Samaria, Tobiah, governor of Ammon, and Geshem, governor of southern Judah, the Negev, and the Kedarites—Hellenistic-period Idumea (Neh. 2:19). Sanballat harassed Nehemiah and even threatened his life.51 Sanballat and Tobiah had close ties with the Judahite nobility and leadership, who opposed Nehemiah, and many in Judah were Tobiah confederates (Neh. 6:17–19). These persecutions might have been the reason for Nehemiah’s return to Babylonia. When he again returned to Jerusalem he learned that all the reforms he had instituted and all

the effort he had invested had been in vain (Neh. 13). Nehemiah’s second term of office was characterized by administrative reforms and by the purification of the Temple and the priesthood. The Temple’s standing had declined when he was abroad, and the priests, who found themselves without a livelihood, left Jerusalem in order to tend their fields (Neh. 13:10– 11). Tobiah had been given a chamber in the Temple close to that of Eliashib the High Priest. Nehemiah was outraged and had all of Tobiah’s household gear thrown out of the room, which he then purified before having the Temple equipment put back (Neh. 13:7–9). Tobiah was most probably the governor of the Ammonites and held the title of “the king’s attendant,” which was a high rank at the time. He was apparently one of the progenitors of the Tobiah line that played an important role in Judahite political life in the Hellenistic period.52 Additional rivals of Nehemiah were Eliashib the High Priest in Jerusalem and the members of his family who, like many other notables in Judah, had close ties with Tobiah and with Sanballat, to whom he was related by marriage—the latter’s daughter, as noted, was married to Eliashib’s grandson (Neh. 13:28) and surprisingly, the Jerusalem priesthood saw nothing wrong with this marriage. Tobiah was similarly related by marriage to Judahites (Neh. 6:18). It apparently was not exceptional for the son of a high priest to marry a Samaritan woman, in light of the proliferation of intermarriages at the time between Jews and individuals from the surrounding peoples, as described in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Eliashib’s grandson was driven out of the Temple by Nehemiah (13:28), not for religious reasons, as Josephus thought (Ant. 11:306–308), but out of political concerns. Marriage between ruling families was a political act, not a religious. Marriage to Samaritans was not prohibited by Ezra and Nehemiah, nor had such unions been banned by the Torah. Nehemiah’s ire was raised because the grandson of the high priest had married the daughter of a military and political foe, not because of his struggle to purify the priesthood (Neh. 13:29). Nehemiah’s conflict with Tobiah and Sanballat was not a dispute between the governors of foreign states, but between rulers of common descent who possibly professed a similar religious faith. Eliashib came from an old priestly family that either had returned to the

[13]

The monumental staircase that ascended to the sacred precinct, northeastern view.

the true descendants of the Chosen People were Land of Israel in the time of Zerubbabel or had come formulated in exile. They also advocated religious from the remnant in Benjamin that after decades was assimilated into life in the Land of Israel. Tobiah  isolationism and the purity of Jewish descent. These elements preserved the Jews in the Babylonian exile, and Sanballat did not pose a threat to the Jerusalem and enabled them to survive without assimilating Temple or to the Jewish religion. They were part into the local pagan population; and they brought this of the extended Land of Israel and of the people of worldview with them when they returned to Judah and Israel that had survived the Assyrian and Babylonian Benjamin. They regarded the surrounding governors exiles. Samaria and Beyond the River were presumed and peoples as gentiles and as a threat to the future to be part of the Land of Israel, and their inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. This sectarian view caused belonged to the extended Israelite people. This Sanballat, Tobiah, and the local Jewish leadership perception of Eliashib, and most likely of the people’s to challenge Nehemiah. Thanks to the royal backing leadership as well, is emphasized by Zechariah enjoyed by Nehemiah, however, he was successful in (10:6–10), and in Chronicles. It reflects the view of his struggle against his opponents, and especially in the Judahite religious leadership prior to the arrival the uncompromising battle that he and Ezra waged of Ezra and Nehemiah, and most likely afterward, as against intermarriage, which abounded in Judah at the well. Ezra and Nehemiah came from the “returned time. Sanballat understood that Nehemiah’s religious exiles,” the “congregation of the returning exiles” extremism and the Samaritans’ continued religious (Ezra 10:8), the “holy seed” (Ezra 9:2), with a different connection to Jerusalem could exact a political price. religious and spiritual conceptual world. The idea of According to the archaeological finds from Mt. their ethnic uniqueness, the belief in monotheism Gerizim, the first phase of the sacred precinct was and the Torah, and the consciousness that they were

[14]

built in the Persian period, in the fifth century BCE, leading us to assume that Sanballat the Horonite, Nehemiah’s adversary, built the first phase of the temple there. The critical question, for which we have no answer at this point, is whether the temple at Mt. Gerizim was built before or after the arrival of Ezra and Nehemiah in Judah. What we know for sure is that the historical and archaeological background of the erection of the temple is firmly entrenched in the fifth century BCE, at the time of Nehemiah and Sanballat, and that its construction was an integral part of the political struggle between Judea and the satrapies surrounding it. Despite his foreign name, Sanballat the Horonite, like Tobiah, was descended from the Israelite population. There are many hypotheses concerning his origin; according to one view, he came from Hauran, and according to another, from Beth Ḥoron, in Benjamin.53 It can hardly be assumed that Sanballat came to Samaria in the Assyrian exiles, or that he came from Beth Ḥoron in the territory of Benjamin. It is more likely that he was a scion of one of the early Israelite families in Samaria. Perhaps he was from the remnant after the destruction of Samaria, possibly from the settlement of Hawara at the foot of Mt. Gerizim, which might be the Beth Ḥoron mentioned in the Book of Judith.54 This could explain why Sanballat elected to build the temple at Mt. Gerizim. Perhaps he and his family lived at the foot of the mount, which he regarded as a sacred site from time immemorial. Sanballat succeeded, under mysterious circumstances, in being appointed governor of Samaria—the head of the Samaritan force (Neh. 3:34). He might have begun as a Persian military commander and later received the title of governor of Samaria, as he is called in various sources. The Persians, unlike the Assyrians, preferred to appoint indigenous governors.55 After receiving his commission as governor, he transferred his residence to the central city of Samaria, but his roots remained in the Samaritan settlements around Mt. Gerizim inhabited by the early Israelite remnant. When Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem, Sanballat had already been governor for several years. He was known by the Akkadian name Sin-uballit (“the god Sin gave life”), despite his family origins in the early Israelite population in Samaria. We have

no knowledge of governors of Samaria or of other governors prior to his term in office. Although names appear on Samaritan coins, there is no certainty that these were of governors of Samaria.56 Nehemiah’s actions and religious isolationism left no possibility of religious cooperation between Judah and Samaria, and Sanballat was compelled to establish a separate religious center to the God of Israel at Mt. Gerizim. I Kings (12:26–27) records the sentiments of Jeroboam, who was apparently revered by the inhabitants of Samaria in the Persian period as well: “Jeroboam thought to himself, ‘The kingdom will now likely revert to the house of David. If these people go up to offer sacrifices at the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem, they will again give their allegiance to their lord.’”57 Sanballat understood that a militarily, politically, and administratively independent province could not be established without an independent religious center. Cognizant of the connection between religious rites and the satrapy’s independent existence, he feared that because of the Israelites’ ties to the Jerusalem Temple, they would not waive their links to the city and their religious connection would lead to political dependency. Sanballat wanted to transfer the religious center of the God of Israel from Jerusalem to Mt. Gerizim and its temple, thereby giving Samaria religious superiority over the satrapy of Judah. Let us not forget that most of the sacred sites mentioned from the time of Joshua until the destruction of Samaria and Judah were concentrated in Samaria. Sanballat controlled the sacred site of Mt. Gerizim, with its ancient tradition untainted by paganism, which had flourished in Samaria before and after the Assyrian conquest, and was one of the most ancient sacred sites in the Land of Israel. He most probably received the Persians’ permission to build the temple, just as the Jewish authorities were authorized to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:2–3); but he lacked religious functionaries, Levites and priests of Aaronite stock. Chronicles relates that during the time of Jeroboam and his sons, the priests and Levites living in Israel left their homes and holdings and came to Jerusalem, and that Jeroboam appointed priests for the shrines in their place (II Chron. 11:13 –15). The passage also mentions that some of the population

[15]

groom as Manasseh, and Sanballat’s daughter as Nikaso. He also tells of the promise that Sanballat made to his Jewish son-in-law, as follows:

of Israel came to pray at the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem (v. 16). Therefore it can hardly be imagined that Aaronite priests or Levites remained in Samaria, despite the fact that Shechem itself was a city of refuge (Josh. 20:7), a Levite city (Josh. 21:20–21; I Chron. 6:52), and, as the biblical text asserts, the site of a temple to YHWH (Josh. 24:25–26). Sanballat preferred to employ priests of the most distinguished lineage possible, from the family of the high priest in Jerusalem, which gave added importance and prestige to the temple at Mt. Gerizim, and he refuted any argument against the validity of the priests or temple. He thereby fulfilled two conditions for the existence of a temple to the God of Israel: a site with a tradition of holiness, and priests from the elite of the high priesthood in Jerusalem. Sanballat, however, was not satisfied with having priests from the family of the high priest. He went a step further—he desired that these priests would eventually be part of his own family, and that his descendants would officiate in the temple at Mt. Gerizim. That is why he chose the grandson of Eliashib the High Priest to marry his daughter, as Nehemiah attests: “One of the sons of Joiada son of Eliashib the high priest was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite. And I drove him away from me” (Neh. 13:28). This was a marriage of state, as was common between states and reigning dynasties, to strengthen the relations between them; but this union also had the religious aim of increasing the prestige of the Mt. Gerizim temple priesthood. In the context of the high rate of intermarriage with the surrounding peoples at that time, even priests married gentile women (Ezra 10:18–19), and this was probably not considered a grievous act. Intermarriage, even that of the high priest’s grandson, with Samaritans, did not arouse the opposition of the Temple establishment, except for Nehemiah, who attacked it on political grounds, and because of Sanballat’s negative attitude toward him. Nehemiah argued that the removal of Eliashib’s grandson was meant to cleanse the priestly stock (Neh. 13:29). Josephus provides additional details of the marriage of Sanballat’s daughter to the grandson of the high priest, which he dates to the late fourth century BCE, and not the fifth century, as the Book of Nehemiah indicates. He names the

And then Sanballat promised him not only to preserve to him the honor of his priesthood, but to procure for him the power and dignity of a high priest, and would make him governor of all the places he himself now ruled, if he would keep his daughter for his wife. He also told him further, that he would build him a temple like that at Jerusalem, upon Mount Gerizzini [Gerizim], which is the highest of all the mountains that are in Samaria; and he promised that he would do this with the approbation of Darius the king. (Ant. 11:310) We do not know Josephus’ source of this information, which does not appear in Nehemiah, whether he had additional sources or simply interpreted the marriage mentioned in Nehemiah in his own way. Josephus continues: Whereupon Alexander gave Sanballat leave so to do, who used the utmost diligence, and built the temple, and made Manasseh the priest, and deemed it a great reward that his daughter’s children should have that dignity. (Ant. 11:324) If Josephus correctly understood Sanballat’s motives, then the latter’s main aim was not only to build a temple and man it with a Jewish priest of high standing, but to marry his daughter to a Jewish priest so that his descendants, as well, would become priests of distinguished lineage. For the families of the high priests, family lineage was of great importance, both for the Jews and almost certainly for the Samaritans.58 It should be stressed that membership in the Jewish priesthood is patrimonial. If Sanballat married his daughter to a Jewish priest, this would assure that their descendants would be priests. Sanballat held the high priesthood and the temple in no less esteem than the post of governor and, according to Josephus, desired to combine the two, since he understood that turning Mt. Gerizim into a religious center would yield important advantages for the satrapy of Samaria, and might serve as replacement sacred site for Jerusalem. Sanballat’s act raises many questions. How did he ensure the position of governor of Samaria for

[16]

the Samaritan temple at Mt. Gerizim rather than rulers of Samaria. This supposition would explain why the Jews of Elephantine did not write to Sanballat, but to his sons. They first turned to Johanan the High Priest and the priests in Jerusalem, and when they received no answer, they wrote to the priests of the Samaritan temple at Mt. Gerizim. When the latter, too, were not responsive, the Elephantine community contacted Bagohi, governor of Judah. If Delayah and Shelemyah were the secular successors of the governor of Samaria, how could they both have been governors? Why did the people of Elephantine, the writers of the letter, not mention this title, but stated only that they were Sanballat’s sons? Their presumed service in the temple at Mt. Gerizim as priests would explain why the people of Elephantine first turned to the priests in the Jerusalem Temple, and then to the priests (Sanballat’s sons) in the temple at Mt. Gerizim. This proposal sounds a bit far-fetched, but explains why Sanballat’s sons had Hebrew names and why the people of Elephantine addressed Sanballat’s sons, not Sanballat himself. It may be assumed that people seeking aid for their ruined temple would first turn to those who were in charge of temples, such as the priests, and only afterward to the governors. It is not inconceivable that Sanballat’s sons officiated in the Mt. Gerizim temple. The temples of the Jews and Samaritans in Egypt might have had religious ties with those in the Land of Israel, in Jerusalem and at Mt. Gerizim. One of the seal impressions from Wadi ed-Daliyeh, dated to the fourth century BCE, bears a Hebrew inscription in Neo-Hebrew script: “[yš‘?]yhw bn [sn’] blṭ pḥt šmrn.”63 The Mt. Gerizim inscriptions show that all inscriptions belonging to priests or connected with the priesthood were written in Neo-Hebrew script.64 Could this have been a seal impression of Sanballat’s son, who was a priest and officiated in the temple at Mt. Gerizim? Sons of Sanballat also bore Hebrew names other than those discovered on Samaritan bullae and impressions.65 It is unclear how these names came to Samaria and to Sanballat’s family. Where did the peoples brought to Samaria by the Assyrians disappear to, and how did the Israelite remnant become the dominant element in this region?66 The period between the destruction of Samaria and the establishment of

his son-in-law, and why did his sons not follow in his footsteps? Did he have no sons of his own? Was what Josephus said (Ant. 11:206–312) taken out of its historical context, or is this simply his expansion of Neh. 13:28? Did this marriage make an impact on Sanballat’s family, and did they produce a line of priests who officiated at Mt. Gerizim? The inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim are incontrovertible proof that in the third to second centuries BCE there were people who bore the titles of “priest” and “Levite.”59 How did these priests come to Mt. Gerizim? Were they from the early priests in the Northern Kingdom who had been exiled by the Assyrians, one of whom was returned (II Kings 17:27–28)? Were these the priests of the shrines (II Kings 17:32)? Or perhaps they were descendants of Sanballat’s Jewish son-in-law and the many priests who must have accompanied him upon his arrival at Mt. Gerizim, as related by Josephus (Ant. 11:312)? The body of Jewish names among the Samaritans also raises many questions.60 In document no. 30 from Elephantine, dated to year 17 of Darius II (408 BCE), the Jews of Elephantine wrote that they sent a letter to the sons of Sanballat governor of Samaria.61 Most scholars believe that Sanballat I, Nehemiah’s adversary, came from the early Israelites in Samaria, since the names of Sanballat’s sons, Delayah and Shelemyah, are biblical Jewish names. According to this scholarly theory, the people of Elephantine addressed their letter to Sanballat I’s sons, either because he was still alive but of advanced age in 408 BCE, or he had recently died and his sons ruled in his stead. According to these scholars, the “Sanballat” mentioned in the letter was Nehemiah’s contemporary.62 This hypothesis seems unreasonable. If we assume that Sanballat was 40 to 50 years old when he ruled Samaria and when Nehemiah came to Judah in 445, he could have had a daughter of marriageable age. However, this would mean that in 408 BCE he was in his eighties, a very advanced age for that time, and it is far-fetched to imagine that he was still alive. If he had already died, why was one of his sons not appointed governor in his stead? Why was the letter addressed to both of his sons? It is more feasible that the letter referred to a later Sanballat, possibly his grandson. Delayah and Shelemyah might have been priests in

[17]

are ascribed by some scholars to the period of Nehemiah, apparently after his return to Babylonia or possibly following his death. Malachi expands on all the negative phenomena mentioned by Nehemiah, such as carelessness in bringing tithes and priestly gifts, and disregard for the purity laws and the laws regulating the offering of sacrifices. This seems to indicate that Malachi was depicting the reality in the Temple during Nehemiah’s absence, or in the following period (Mal. 2). Accordingly, Sanballat had no difficulty in persuading additional priests who served in the Jerusalem Temple to move and fill a similar function in the temple at Mt. Gerizim. Joiada’s son, the grandson of Sanballat, almost certainly did not arrive at Mt. Gerizim alone, but brought additional priests and Levites with him to officiate at the northern temple. Josephus attests that Manasseh was not the only one to take a Samaritan wife, and that additional priests and other Jews followed his lead. Sanballat gave them money f d e and land onf which to dwell and

the satrapy of Samaria and the erection of the temple at Mt. Gerizim is cloaked in mystery due to the lack of historical and archaeological testimonies regarding Samaria and the Samaritans. The condition of the Temple in Jerusalem declined after Nehemiah’s return to Babylonia. Tobiah was given a chamber in the courtyard of the House of YHWH (Neh. 13:7–9). The Levites had left the Temple and returned to their lands because they could find no livelihood as religious functionaries: I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given them; so that the Levites and the singers, who did the work, were fled everyone to his field. Then contended I with the rulers, and said, ‘Why is the house of God forsaken? I gathered them together, and set them in their place.’ (Neh. 13:10–11) The complicated state of the Temple and the neglect of Theitss rites cr d that rec are nct described so t w st in rn the viewBook T e of H lMalachi e stic p

The eastern wing of the sacred precinct, eastern view. Note the munumental staircase and the courtyards flanking it from the north and south.

[18 ]

in Asia Minor, dated to 450–400 BCE; a silver coin, apparently from Lydia in Asia Minor, dated to the fifth century BCE; three silver coins from Philistia, one dated to 450–400 BCE, the second, to ca. 420– 333 BCE, and the third, to 353–290 BCE; two bronze Rhodian coins, one dated to ca. 408–394 BCE, and the other to 394–304 BCE; a silver Athenian coin, dated to 353–295 BCE; a bronze coin from Pontus, in Asia Minor, dated to the fourth to third centuries BCE; 24 Samaritan silver coins, dated to the fourth century BCE; 36 Sidonian coins, 17 of which are silver coins of Baʿalsillem II, dated to 401–366 BCE; four silver coins of ʿAbdʾastart I (365–352 BCE), two of them dated, one to 363/362 BCE, and the other to 354/353 BCE; seven silver coins of Mazday, dated to 353–333 BCE; seven silver coins of Evagoras, two of them dated, one to 345/344 BCE, and the other apparently dated to 344/343 BCE; a silver coin of ʿAbdʾastart II (342–333 BCE), apparently dated to 338/337 BCE; two additional silver coins from Sidon, dated to 401–333 BCE; six Tyrian coins, five silver and one bronze—two dated to ca. 400–333 BCE, two to ca. 393–358 BCE, and one to 357–333 BCE. One unresolved issue is the dating of the construction of the temple at Mt. Gerizim to the fifth century BCE. It is more likely that the temple was built either before Nehemiah’s arrival in the city, that is, before 445 BCE, or during the first interregnum, when he returned to Babylonia in 433 BCE (Neh. 13:6). We assume that the erection of the temple at Mt. Gerizim preceded Nehemiah’s arrival in the Land of Israel, and that the marriage of Eliashib’s grandson to Sanballat’s daughter was a fait accompli, since, as noted, Nehemiah would not have permitted such a union. Nehemiah’s report of this marriage in the last chapter of his book gives the impression that the marriage occurred toward the end of Sanballatʼs term in office. The silence of the Book of Nehemiah and of other books written or redacted in the fifth to fourth centuries BCE concerning the existence of the temple at Mt. Gerizim has not been satisfactorily explained. Every people and every populace worshiped some god; why, then, would it be exceptional for the governor of Samaria, one of the three most important governors who ruled at that time in the Land of Israel, to build a temple to the God of Israel at Mt. Gerizim?

work, wanting to please his son-in-law (Ant. 11:312, 346). Could these priests who came from Jerusalem have been the same priests and Levites whom we find memorialized in the Mt. Gerizim inscriptions? Given the above, it is not surprising that the temple at Mt. Gerizim was built in accordance with the plan of the Jerusalem Temple (Ant. 11:310; 13:256; War 1:62). The nucleus that established the temple included a group of priests and Levites who had officiated in the Temple in Jerusalem. Sanballat realized his ambitions: He built a temple to the God of Israel at Mt. Gerizim in which Aaronite priests from Jerusalem officiated; his daughter was married to the grandson of the high priest; and his descendants became priests. We see a direct connection between the state of Jerusalem and the Temple at the time of the Return to Zion and the establishment of the temple at Mt. Gerizim. If the Temple in Jerusalem had been at the height of its glory, Sanballat would not have dared to build an alternative temple on Mt. Gerizim, and Jewish priests would not have gone to serve there. We state as an unequivocal fact that the Mt. Gerizim temple was built during the Persian period, in the time of Sanballat the Horonite, the fifth century BCE. This is based on the archaeological evidence at Mt. Gerizim—mainly the finds in the sacred precinct. In my opinion, the debate is over as to when the temple at Mt. Gerizim was built and whether Josephus was correct in saying that it was built in the days of Alexander the Great, although a few scholars are still trying to cling to Josephus’ version, ignoring the conclusive evidence found at Mt. Gerizim.67 The pottery vessels found in the sacred precinct at Mt. Gerizim are dated with certainty to the Persian period before the Land of Israel was conquered by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE.68 Evidence of the site’s dating was also provided by carbon-14 testing at the site, which demonstrated unequivocal evidence that the site preceded Alexander’s conquest.69 Ninety silver and bronze coins were found, 12 of which could not be identified, all of them prior to Alexander the Great’s conquest. Like the pottery vessels and samples of wood and bones that underwent carbon-14 testing, some are dated to the fifth century BCE and others to the fourth century BCE. The coins discovered consisted of a Cypriot silver coin dated to ca. 480 BCE; a bronze coin from Caria,

[19]

We do not presume to initiate a new historical discussion on all the issues raised by scholarly research, and hope that in the future, historians will meet the challenge raised by the conclusions of the excavation of the temple. Nonetheless, we wish to relate to two cardinal subjects discussed in the literature. When did the final ritual-religious split between the Samaritans and the Jews take place? How and when did the Samaritans receive the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch? These two questions are a consequence of the determination that the Jews and Samaritans were linked religiously during the Persian period, e.g., the request of Judah and Benjamin’s adversaries to participate in the construction of the Temple. Another example is the involvement of the inhabitants of Israel in the rites in Jerusalem following the destruction of Samaria (see above). Another unresolved issue is the origin of the Samaritan religion. It might have developed independently among the Israelite remnant that had survived the destruction of Samaria and coalesced with the Samaritan people, whose religious center was at Mt. Gerizim. Alternatively, perhaps the Samaritan religion and the Torah, on which the rites at Mt. Gerizim were based, originated with the group of priests who came to the mount from Jerusalem in the fifth century BCE together with the grandson of Eliashib the High Priest; in this latter case one must assume that the Samaritans are a sect of Judaism. From the Assyrian exile to the Roman period the Samarian population was heterogeneous, and the Samaritans were only part of it. In contrast with Judah, whose population and religion were homogeneous, in the region of Samaria there were pagan populations that, even in the Hellenistic period, when the temple to YHWH was the central ritual element, assimilated into Hellenistic religion and culture. Sanballat, a descendant of the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, successfully renewed the nationalism of the kingdom of Samaria, with an important addition: Jewish priests who established the temple to YHWH at Mt. Gerizim. He established the temple at a site untainted by paganism. Most importantly, he brought Aaronite priests to officiate there and renewed the early national tradition of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The latter is indicated by

In the Iron Age and Persian period temples were found everywhere; the exiles who went to Babylonia and Egypt almost certainly prayed in temples and the Elephantine was not the only one. We may assume that the Jewish and Samaritan communities in Egypt and in other places of exile continued to worship YHWH at some sort of altar or temple. The sole acceptable fashion of worshiping a deity, whether YHWH or some other god, was by the construction of altars, shrines, and temples, offering sacrifices and burning incense.70 In this respect, the ritual mode that had been prevalent in the First Temple period continued in the Persian period. Indeed, this was the only way for Jews to maintain their Judaism. A passage in Malachi is noteworthy: “My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations,’ says the Lord Almighty” (Mal. 1:11). To which nations does the prophet refer? Did the pagans offer a pure oblation to YHWH, or was Malachi speaking of the Jews who were exiled after the destruction of the First Temple, but continued worshiping YHWH and offering Him incense and a pure oblation from their place of exile? The second explanation seems more plausible; we believe that the temple in Elephantine was only one of a series of temples to YHWH in the various diasporas.71 Consequently, the establishment of a temple at Mt. Gerizim should not have aroused any special interest, since it was merely one of the numerous temples established during the Persian period, both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora; and we must also mention the Temple of Onias in Egypt, at an even later period (Ant. 12:388, 13:62–63; War 7:423–425). The establishment of the Samaritan temple and the events that overtook the Samaritans in the Persian and Hellenistic periods have occupied many generations of scholars. Every discovery that has come to light has led to a new wave of studies, and opened new research channels and perspectives on Samaritan history. The discovery of the temple at Mt. Gerizim and the fact that it was established in the fifth century BCE72 shed new light on many questions discussed in the scholarly literature.

[20]

The persian-period “Twelve stones,” situated west of the sacred precinct, western view.

religious rift that occurred upon the establishment of the temple at Mt. Gerizim in the fifth century BCE was not the result of any single event; this split was well thought out and planned by Sanballat the Horonite, Nehemiah’s foe.73 How did the Samaritans receive the Pentateuch? There is a remote possibility that the remnant in Samaria already possessed it before the Persian period. According to another view, the Pentateuch entered the Samaritan religion following the Hasmonean conquest by John Hyrcanus, who also attempted to convert the Idumeans.74 According to this view, after the destruction of the Samaritan temple the Samaritans probably adopted Jewish religious practices, such as immersion in ritual baths, a typical Jewish custom unknown at Mt. Gerizim before its destruction by John Hyrcanus. Although this proposal is possible, we reject it, since it is unlikely that the rites and the offering of sacrifices could have been conducted in

the name Jeroboam appearing on the coins of Samaria. In the biblical account, Jeroboam was the standard bearer of political and religious independence for the Kingdom of Israel during the time of the united monarchy (I Kings 11:26–40; 12:1–3, 20–21). We maintain that all of the above indicates that Sanballat and the Samaritans’ separation from Judah was not a spontaneous act triggered by the rejection of their request to participate in the construction of the Jerusalem Temple. It was a well-considered political act meant to give independent religious coloration to the satrapy of Samaria and end its inhabitants’ religious dependency upon the rites of YHWH in Jerusalem. Sanballat probably did not force the worship of YHWH on the inhabitants of Samaria, but rather gave tangible expression to the religious sentiment of the Samaritan remnant that believed in YHWH, and simply institutionalized this inclination with the erection of the temple at Mt. Gerizim. The main

[21]



Around the time of this chain of events, Alexander the Great invaded the Land of Israel and Sanballat decided to swing his support to the Greek monarch. He assembled his army and marched to Tyre during the siege of the city. Sanballat offered his submission to Alexander, and took advantage of this meeting to ask permission to build a temple at Mt. Gerizim. Permission was granted, and Sanballat invested all his energy in the construction of the temple; he died immediately afterward (Ant. 11:321–325). When Alexander the Great visited Jerusalem, the Samaritans requested that he also come to their city and honor their temple with his presence, which he promised to do (Ant. 11:340–345). At the end of this passage, Josephus laconically reports that after Alexander’s death the empire was divided among his heirs, while the temple at Mt. Gerizim remained in the hands of the Samaritans (Ant. 11:346). Many scholars who investigated the question of Sanballat’s establishment of the temple have raised doubts concerning the historical accuracy of Josephus’ depiction of the events leading up to the construction of the Samaritan temple at Mt. Gerizim. There are also doubts about the accuracy of Josephus’ account of Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem.76 Josephus wrote the history of the temple’s establishment some five hundred years after the events themselves. We do not know if he possessed sources other than the account in the Book of Nehemiah. The reasons for Josephus’ erroneous dating of the temple to the time of Alexander were fully discussed by D. Schwartz.77 If we examine Josephus’ report of the establishment of the temple, we see that he was wrong regarding both the dating of its construction and various details concerning the cities of Shechem and Samaria. Josephus’ mistake is also related to the paucity of his knowledge of the Persian period. In the early stages of the study of Mt. Gerizim, before the discovery of the remains of the Persian period temple, we suggested that the temple built by Sanballat might have been situated in the city of Samaria, and not at Mt. Gerizim.78 This hypothesis was accepted by H. Eshel, and a lively debate developed concerning this temple.79 Now, in light of the latest discoveries at Mt. Gerizim, this debate is no longer relevant.80 Two temples were built at Mt. Gerizim: one in the Persian period, and the other in the Hellenistic

the Mt. Gerizim temple over the course of three and a half centuries without a written Torah. These practices probably came to Mt. Gerizim in the first phases of the establishment of the temple in the Persian period, or in the early Hellenistic period, when the priests in Jerusalem still maintained ties with descendants of the Jewish priests who had come to Mt. Gerizim in the fifth century BCE. We also find it difficult to accept the view of E. Eshel and H. Eshel concerning a similarity of the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch to the prevalent version of the Jewish Pentateuch in the second century BCE,75 at the height of the Jewish-Samaritan controversy. It is particularly hard to imagine that the Samaritans would accept the Jewish Pentateuch in that period. Because of their common descent, the priests in Jerusalem might have cooperated with their counterparts at Mt. Gerizim in the early stages, before the harsh rivalry between the temples. We assume that most of the changes introduced in the Samaritan Pentateuch originated in the Mt. Gerizim temple in the Hellenistic period and possibly after its destruction. Josephus’ Account of the Establishment of the Samaritan Temple at Mt. Gerizim

In Josephus’ narrative of Sanballat’s construction of the Samaritan temple at Mt. Gerizim, Sanballat “the Cuthean” was sent to Samaria as governor by King Darius of Persia; the reference is to Darius III (336– 331 BCE). Sanballat had his daughter Nikaso married to a Jerusalem priest named Manasseh, the brother of Jaddua the High Priest (Ant. 11:302). The elders of Jerusalem and Jaddua complained about Manasseh’s marriage to a Samaritan woman, whom they viewed as gentile, and gave him an ultimatum: separate from his Samaritan wife, or not approach the altar. Manasseh went to Sanballat, his father-in-law, and informed him that although he loved his wife, he did not desire to waive the high priesthood, which was a legacy from his father. Sanballat promised to build a temple for him at Mt. Gerizim and appoint him as his successor to govern all of Samaria. Josephus further relates that many Jews were married to Samaritans and moved to Mt. Gerizim, which caused great consternation in Jerusalem (Ant. 11:306–312).

[22]

Sanballat, who was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, existed under the Roman temple to Zeus at Tell er-Ras, in the northern part of Mt. Gerizim.87 The Samaritan temple was uncovered at the center of the city of Mt. Gerizim, and it was erected in the Persian period, before Alexander’s conquests, as mentioned above. An analysis of the Ptolemaic-period finds from Tell Balatah raises many doubts about the validity of Wright’s and Cross’ theory. According to the excavators, Shechem was rebuilt in Stratum IV (331– 250 BCE), after having been abandoned in Stratum V (the Persian period).88 The initial settlement of the site was dated on the basis of a hoard of coins from the late fourth century BCE of Ptolemy I Soter (304–282 BCE) to Ptolemy V Epiphanes (203–181 BCE).89 One of the Hellenistic-period buildings contained a coin of Alexander the Great. The excavators concluded that this assemblage dated the beginning of renewed settlement at the site to the reign of Alexander, immediately following his conquest of the Land. This phase of the city is characterized by the secondary use of Middle Bronze Age walls and the continued use of the eastern gate, strong fortifications, and good quality construction with solid foundations and plastered rooms that were painted in different colors. The city from Stratum III (250–190 BCE) was rebuilt. The method of fortification and the nature of the buildings remained unchanged. Strata II–I of the Seleucid period (190–107 BCE) show construction that differed entirely from that of the preceding period. The construction in these strata is poor, and the fortifications vanished. Biblical Shechem, according to this theory, was built after having been abandoned for most of the Persian period; however, this too is doubtful.90 Examination of a majority of the central sites in Samaria from the Persian period reveals the absence of building remains. Most of the finds at these sites, including at Samaria itself, came from fill strata and cisterns. Massive construction in the Hellenistic period completely destroyed the Persian-period strata; a similar picture presents itself at the archaeological site at Qedumim,91 in the city of Samaria and at other sites.92 Pottery vessels from the Persian period discovered at Tell Balatah and in the Achaemenian tomb in Shechem, which most likely contains the remains

period, during the reign of Antiochus III.81 It has not been determined why Josephus mistakenly attributed the temple to the time of Alexander the Great and not to that of Nehemiah. This may have been due to fact that the surrounding city was built in the Seleucid period. Until the Hellenistic conquest, only the temple and the surrounding sacred precinct and chambers stood at Mt. Gerizim.

The Samaritans at the Time of Alexander the Great and under Ptolemaic Rule The archaeological finds from the sacred precinct at Mt. Gerizim unequivocally prove that the temple was built about a century before Josephus’ dating. The compound remained in existence in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods, until the conquest of Mt. Gerizim by John Hyrcanus. Following the excavations at Shechem (Tell Balatah), the discoveries from Wadi ed-Daliyeh, and the excavations of the Roman temple at Tell er-Ras, both G.A. Wright and F.M. Cross proposed a theory that sought to link Alexander’s destruction of the city of Samaria and Josephus’ account of the erection of the temple.82 According to Curtius Rufus,83 the Roman historian from the early period of the empire, Samaria rebelled against Alexander when he was in Egypt, and its inhabitants burned Andromachus alive, the procurator of Coele-Syria. Alexander quickly returned to the city, where he punished the perpetrators of the murder and appointed Menon in Andromachus’ stead. Late sources state that Alexander punished the city and settled Macedonians there.84 According to Wright’s and Cross’ theory, as a result of the conquest of Samaria, the Samaritan nobility fled to a cave in Wadi ed-Daliyeh, where they were captured by Alexander’s troops, who put them to death.85 Based on R. Bull’s claim to have unearthed a Samaritan temple underneath the Roman temple at Tell er-Ras, the Samaritans, whose capital city was in ruins, sought a new center and chose biblical Shechem at the foot of their temple on the northern slopes of Mt. Gerizim.86 This multifaceted theory, which was accepted by many scholars, does not withstand archaeological criticism. No Samaritan temple from the period of

[23]

Samaria to the territory of the Jews that was exempt from tribute because of their favorable attitude toward him. This might have been an allusion to Alexander’s attitude to the Samaritans after their rebellion and his destruction of their city.94 Tell Balatah was therefore built close to Alexander’s time, almost certainly by his successors. It was not a Samaritan center, but a Macedonian administrativemilitary center that controlled movement at the crossroads of Samaria, and probably replaced a fortress manned by a Persian garrison force. The very limited area of Tell Balatah is noteworthy, as at its largest phase, the biblical city, the tell, covered less than 50 dunams, and the establishment of a populous Samaritan city there would have been out of the

of Persian soldiers,93 hint that Tell Balatah was not completely abandoned in the Persian period, and that in order to control the central crossroads of Samaria, a fortress for the Persian garrison was probably built within it. These facts preclude our acceptance of Wright’s theory that the Samaritans established their capital in Tell Balatah after the destruction of Samaria. It is unlikely that Alexander or his heirs would have permitted the Samaritans to establish a new capital at Tell Balatah at the central junction of Samaria (shortly after their rebellion), to renew the Bronze Age fortifications, and to build a city in the Hellenistic style. Against Apion (2:43) recorded that according to Hecataeus of Abdera, Alexander the Great added

rn ate andprecinct’s the staircase ad gate ng t and it, we view.leading The towe The sacred westl rn the tern staircase to it,hat western view. The tower that protected this entrance was built across from the gate.

 



[24]



question. The flaw in Wright’s and the others’ theory ensued from another error made by Josephus, who identified Shechem as the Samaritan capital at the time of Alexander the Great’s conquest (see below). In the first stage of the conquest of the Land of Israel, Alexander and his successors needed Macedonian outposts to control the tremendous areas that had fallen into their hands. This was especially crucial in Samaria, whose capital had rebelled and whose inhabitants would likely rise up yet again. The Greeks did not harm the inhabited cities, nor, when building a fortress or military or administrative center, did they expel their populations without cause, which would have fueled the inhabitants’ hatred for the conquerors. However, they showed no mercy to cities that revolted, like Samaria, Gaza or Tyre, which they turned into Macedonian centers. The Ptolemies made numerous attempts to integrate into the local population through the establishment of colonies and military outposts.95 The Tell Balatah site was probably settled in the Persian period by an Achaemenian garrison force, which facilitated the establishment of a Ptolemaic settlement or fortress in the Hellenistic style immediately after the conquest of the Land. In this instance, the Ptolemies did not have to dispossess an indigenous populace and build a Hellenistic administrative-military center in its stead. Biblical Shechem (Tell Balatah) was established as a Ptolemaic outpost, fortified, and became a Macedonian administrative center. It was damaged during the Fifth Syrian War between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies and its status declined, as is attested by the condition of Strata II–I. If it had been a Samaritan city in the Ptolemaic period, it would have continued to flourish under the Seleucids, as did the city at Mt. Gerizim. There is no discernible reason why Shechem, which was populated by Samaritans who believed in the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim, would have become marginalized in the second century BCE, while the city at Mt. Gerizim would develop and grow. The difference between the two sites hints at a difference in populations. Shechem and the northern slopes of Mt. Gerizim, and Maʿabarta, on which the city of Neapolis would eventually be established, were probably not inhabited by a populace that was part of the Samaritan people who believed in the temple of YHWH at Mt. Gerizim; or at least not a

priestly population like that residing near the temple. When discussing Shechem, it is necessary to include settlements beyond Tell Balatah, which was limited in area. It appears that the entire valley, where the city of Neapolis was located in the Roman period, was also settled in one form or another in the Hellenistic period, and was called Shechem.96 The fate of Mt. Gerizim following Alexander’s conquests has not been determined. Was the temple on the mount influenced by the destruction of the city of Samaria? Did the rites cease? Were the priests who lived around that temple persecuted? The ceramic and numismatic finds indicate that the Persian-period temple continued to function in the time of Alexander. The excavations yielded three coins of Alexander and Ptolemaic coins dated to the late fourth century BCE. It is not apparent whether there was a settlement gap at Mt. Gerizim between the period of Alexander and the reign of Ptolemy I Soter, whether the temple was abandoned following the destruction of Samaria, or continued its activity without interruption. We do know that for the Samaritans who believed in YHWH, Mt. Gerizim replaced the destroyed capital city, Samaria. It should be emphasized that Samaria, the coastal plain, and Idumea already had a mixed population in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods, unlike Judah, where the process of Hellenization was slow. The city of Samaria had a heterogeneous population even before being conquered by Alexander, and the rural population around it may also have had the same characteristics. Therefore, when we talk about Samaritans in the Hellenistic period in Samaria we must differentiate between pagans, whose origins we cannot know, and YHWH-worshipping Samaritans.97 Following Alexander’s destruction of the city of Samaria and the loss of political independence that the Samaritans had enjoyed as a Persian province, the YHWH-worshipping Samaritan population concentrated around Mt. Gerizim and their high priests. The Persian-period province had had many political, military and economic freedoms, such as responsibility for ongoing security, the minting of coins and foreign relations. Sanballat was commander of the Samaritan military force (Neh. 3:34). But in the wake of the Samaritan revolt, the Samaritans were stripped of these rights by the Ptolemaic government. The minting of coins was one outstanding sign of

[25]

provincial independence, and this activity ceased after Alexander’s destruction of Samaria. Judah, in contrast, continued to strike its own coins during the Ptolemaic period.98 Mt. Gerizim and its temple were now the glue that held the Samaritan people together, and replaced the central administration of the province of Samaria, whose capital had been the city of Samaria. Perhaps in this period the Samaritans who worshiped YHWH at Mt. Gerizim were distinguished from the remainder of the peoples brought to Samaria by the Assyrians, who continued their pagan practices, and from the other pagan populations brought by the Persians and Greeks. Private construction around the temple began at the end of the Ptolemaic period, when Mt. Gerizim became the Samaritans’ religious, administrative and economic capital. In effect, Alexander’s destruction of Samaria unified the Samaritans who believed in the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim and YHWH.

Josephus does not even hint at the transformation of Samaria into a Macedonian city by Alexander the Great. After ending the narrative of the meeting between Alexander and Sanballat and the permission granted the latter to establish the temple, he gives a detailed description of the meeting between the high priest and Alexander after the conquest of Gaza (Ant. 11:326–339). Much has been written regarding the reliability of the narrative, and we need not discuss this question here.99 Josephus then tells of the Samaritans, whose city was Shechem, not Samaria, and who, upon seeing the honor Alexander afforded the Jews, met him near Jerusalem, and invited him to come to their city and honor their temple with his presence. Alexander agreed to their request (Ant. 11:340–345). Josephus especially emphasizes that Shechem, which lay beside Mt. Gerizim, was the Samaritan central city prior to the destruction of Samaria (Ant. 11:340). Vd s could this have been so when we know that the n How

The southeastern citadel, western view.

[26]

The southern quarter and the southern city gate, southwestern view.

had brought with them to Egypt (Ant. 11:344–345).101 city of Samaria was the center of the province when the Samaritans had proper relations with Alexander, The invitation to visit Samaria, their capital city, [ before its destruction? Why did they invite him to  was patently extended before Samaria’s destruction; visit Shechem, and not Samaria?100 Josephus neither consequently, Samaria was their capital, and not Shechem, as Josephus would have us believe. stated, nor was he aware, that Samaria was the Josephus’ confusion between Shechem and Mt. capital of Sanballat and the Samaritans. He is silent Gerizim as a Samaritan city, his omission of Samaria regarding Sanballat, the contemporary of Nehemiah, as a Samaritan city before its destruction, and the and the first “Sanballat” he mentions is the one sent fact that he ignores its rebellion and destruction raise by Darius III immediately preceding Alexander the the suspicion that he conflated historical facts and Great’s conquest of the Land of Israel (Ant. 11:302). prevalent anti-Samaritan stories and legends. The Nor does Josephus portray the destruction of the narrative of the high priest’s meeting with Alexander city of Samaria by Alexander. He does state that and the insertion of the Samaritans into the story raise the Samaritans asked Alexander for tax relief in the serious questions regarding its credibility, especially Sabbatical year, in which they did not sow their fields since the Sidonians reappear in the Samaritans’ letter and that the Samaritans told Alexander that they were to Antiochus IV (Ant. 12:258–261). The meeting Hebrews who were called “Sidonians in Shechem.” between the Samaritans and Alexander the Great, if Alexander asked them again if they were Jews, it happened at all, obviously took place before the and they responded that they were not. Alexander destruction of Samaria, when the city of Samaria, not assured them that he would deal with this matter after Shechem, was the capital. How did Shechem become his return, and took with him the soldiers that they

[27]

Israelites of Delos, who bring offerings to sacred Mt. Gerizim [Hargerizim], and crown Sarapion son of Jason of Knosos for acting beneficently toward them. The writers refer to themselves as “Israelites,” and Mt. Gerizim is written as a single word, indicating that the inscription was written by Samaritans. The second inscription, earlier in terms of its paleography, is dated to 250–175 BCE. It tells of the Israelites of Delos, who bring offerings to sacred Mt. Gerizim [Hargerizim], and honor Menippos son of Artemidoros of Heraclion and his descendants for the establishment and donation of a votive offering by crowning him with a golden wreath. Here as well, the Samaritans are termed “Israelites,” and Mt. Gerizim is written as a single word. The early dating of the second inscription is not surprising. The temple at Mt. Gerizim existed at the time, and the city had begun to rise up around it. The Delos inscriptions and the finds from Mt. Gerizim reveal the presence at Mt. Gerizim of a temple and of a developing settlement in the late fourth and third centuries BCE, and that the Samaritans in the Land of Israel and the Diaspora sent offerings and monetary donations to this temple. What then is the historical picture that emerges from the Ptolemaic coins of Mt. Gerizim? The continuity of coins from the Persian to Ptolemaic periods continues unbroken after Samaria was captured, from Alexander the Great to Ptolemy VI. Three coins of Alexander the Great were found: two coins from Macedonia, one silver and one bronze dated to 336– 323 BCE, and one silver coin from Tarsus, dated to 327–323 BCE. These coins, in addition to the coin found at Tell Balatah–Shechem, indicate that there was a Hellenistic presence at Mt. Gerizim and in Shechem immediately after Alexander’s conquest, and that there was no gap in settlement as a result of the conquest. Three silver coins of the Diadochi were found: one from Sardes, dated to 323–319 BCE; one from Colophon, a city in Asia Minor, dated to 310–301 BCE; and the third from Sidon, also dated to 310–301 BCE. In addition, a bronze coin of Demetrius Poliorketes, king of Macedonia, was found, dated to 299/298–294 BCE. From the Ptolemaic regime, 489 coins were found, 387 of which can be fully identified. From the period of Ptolemy I Soter, 15 coins were found, including

involved in this story, and where is Samaria, the capital, which even appeared on Samaritan coins of the time? It seems that this part of Josephus’ account is not based on historical sources. He attempted to link the Samaritans to the legend of Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem in order to besmirch them and show that the gentiles treated the Jews well, while belittling the Samaritans. Josephus further relates that Ptolemy I Soter, the son of Lagus, took captives from Samaria and Mt. Gerizim and settled them in Egypt, but makes no reference to Shechem, the city of the Samaritans previously mentioned (Ant. 12:7). During the reign of Ptolemy I Soter, Samaria was a Macedonian city. Why would Ptolemy take captives from a Ptolemaic city and not from Shechem, the Samaritan capital at the time, unless we assume that Josephus was referring to the region of Samaria and not to the city itself. Josephus then describes the controversy that erupted between the Samaritans and the Jews as to where the sacrifices were to be sent. The Jews wanted them to go to Jerusalem, while the people of Shechem were in favor of Mt. Gerizim (Ant. 12:10). Some scholars have questioned the reliability of this depiction, and especially its early dating from the late fourth to early third centuries BCE. Others sought to connect this report with another report of the JewishSamaritan controversy in Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometer (Ant. 13:74–79).102 It appears that Josephus is nevertheless speaking of two different disputes between the Jews and the Samaritans. Conflicts between these two groups concerning their temples began in the Persian period with the erection of the Samaritan temple, intensified during the Hellenistic period, and continued until the temple’s destruction by John Hyrcanus. These disagreements were conducted mainly in Egypt, where Jews and Samaritans lived in close proximity. After the destruction of Mt. Gerizim and Jerusalem, similar disputes arose between the Jews and the Samaritans in the Roman cities of the Land of Israel in which they lived as neighbors. We should also ascribe two inscriptions from Delos that were dedicated to Mt. Gerizim [Hargerizim] by “Israelites,” to the Ptolemaic period; both belong to a Samaritan public structure that stood there.103 The first inscription, dated to 150–50 BCE, tells of the

[28]

rest of the coins are dated to ca. 230–222 BCE: 123 coins were minted in Tyre, 12 in Alexandria and 3 in Joppe. Two bronze coins of Ptolemy III or Ptolemy IV Philopator were found, dated to 240–220 BCE, one of them minted in Alexandria. Nine bronze coins of Ptolemy IV were found. Of two coins dated to 220–204 BCE, one was minted in Tyre and the other, in Alexandria. Seven coins, dated to ca. 217–204 BCE, were minted in Tyre. Eight bronze coins of Ptolemy IV or Ptolemy V Epiphanes were found, dated to 220–197 BCE, for which it is impossible to identify where they were minted. Six silver coins of Ptolemy VI Philometor were found: one minted in Alexandria and dated to 180– 170 BCE; one from Aradus, dated to 169/168 BCE; and one from Kition, dated to 164/163 BCE. Three other coins are from Palestine or ʿAkko-Ptolemais: one dated to 162/161 BCE, the second to 158/157 BCE, and the third to 156/155 BCE. In addition, one bronze coin was found, dated to 261–197 BCE  cm (Ptolemy II–V), and a silver Yehud coin, dated to 283/282–270 BCE.

two silver coins, dated to 305–283/282 BCE, and one gold coin, dated to 295–283/282 BCE. The rest of the coins are of bronze: two from Alexandria and two from Tyre, dated to 315–301 BCE; one from Alexandria, dated to 305–283/282 BCE; and seven from Tyre, dated to 294–283/282 BCE. One hundred and twenty bronze coins were found, belonging to Ptolemy I or Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and dated to 305–261 BCE. A large number of them were minted in Alexandria, and three, in Tyre. Twenty-four bronze coins of Ptolemy II were found: fourteen minted in Alexandria, dated to 275–261 BCE; nine minted in Tyre, dated to 275/274–266/265 BCE; and one, dated to 261–246 BCE, minted in Sidon. Sixty-one bronze coins attributed to Ptolemy II or Ptolemy III Euergetes were found, dated to 261– 240 BCE: 34 minted in Alexandria; 5 in Tyre; and 11, apparently in Sidon. The mints of 11 coins cannot be identified. One hundred and forty bronze coins were attributed to Ptolemy III; two were dated to 240–220 BCE, one minted in Alexandria and the other in Cyprus. The

0

 cm

0

Coin of Alexander the Great (– Bce).

0. cm

coin of ptolemy i soter (0– Bce).

] [29

of government they had, and how the destruction of Samaria and the transformation of its capital into a pagan Macedonian city influenced the standing of the Samaritans. What were the relations between the Ptolemies and the Samaritans, and between the Seleucids and the Samaritans? We will attempt to fill out the deficient historical information on this period based on the archaeological discoveries. The city at Mt. Gerizim began to flourish and expand in the Ptolemaic period, before reaching its zenith at the time of the Seleucids. It extended over more than 400 dunams; the sacred precinct was rebuilt, and encompassed by fortified walls, towers, and fortresses. Its area doubled and it was surrounded by private and public structures of unprecedented scope and size. As Josephus relates, the Jews aided Antiochus III in his conquest of the Land of Israel when they realized that the Ptolemies had lost the war (Ant. 12:130–134). They willingly joined forces with Antiochus III, provided him with food, and fought against the Ptolemaic garrison that remained in the citadel of Jerusalem. In return, Antiochus III granted extensive rights to the Jews and to Jerusalem (Ant. 12:137–146).105 Scholarly opinion is divided on the question of the attitude of the inhabitants of the Land of Israel to the struggle between the Ptolemies and Seleucids.106 We know that the Gazans withstood a protracted Seleucid siege. The historian Polybius writes that a majority of the inhabitants of Coele-Syria were loyal to the Ptolemies.107 Some groups in the Land of Israel had ties to the Ptolemies, for example Hyrcanus son of Tobiah, and apparently to the Greek cities, including Samaria.108 Inhabitants of the various regions, however, mainly those of Semitic descent, hated the Ptolemies. Any subjugation that endures for many years arouses hatred, and throughout the course of human history, every individual and people hoped their servitude would end, even if relations were good at first. The repressive rule over the monotheistic peoples whose religion and culture differed from those of the Greeks was harder on them than it was for the pagan cities that embraced Greek culture and religion. The Ptolemaic authorities and the subsequent Seleucid rulers sought not only to impose their authority on the Jews and Samaritans; they also attempted to instill their religion and culture

Most of the Ptolemaic coins, 239 in number, were found in Area S—the area of the sacred precinct, and 75 coins were found in Building P-I, near the sacred precinct wall. Building P-I was built at the end of the second century BCE. In Area B, on the slope, 82 Ptolemaic coins were found, giving rise to the following question: Were buildings present there before than the construction of the Hellenistic city, in the Seleucid period, or did the coins come from the sacred precinct as a result of flooding following snowmelt? Only a small number of coins were found in the other areas. In the discussion of the Seleucid coins presented below, I tried to compare the number of coins found for each ruler, the length of time each ruler was in power, and the historical events that occurred at the time. Regarding the Ptolemaic period, the comparison is more complicated. While the Ptolemaic kings ruled for a long time, there were no notably weighty historic events during their reigns. Ptolemy I ruled for 22 years, Ptolemy II for 39, Ptolemy III for 24, and Ptolemy IV for 18. Toward the end of the third century BCE two fateful wars took place between the Seleucids and Ptolemies: the Fourth Syrian War in Raphia in 217 BCE, in which the Seleucids and Antiochus III suffered a resounding defeat; and the Fifth Syrian War in 200 BCE, in which the Seleucids defeated the Ptolemaic kingdom and captured the Land of Israel and Coele-Syria. Immediately afterward, contact between Mt. Gerizim and the Samaritans in Egypt, and between the Ptolemaic kingdom and the Land of Israel in general, was apparently broken off. The number of Ptolemaic coins decreased until they ceased altogether. As mentioned, six coins were found from the time of Ptolemy VI (180–145 BCE), only one of which was minted in Alexandria.

The Samaritans and Mt. Gerizim in the Seleucid Period In the early second century BCE, after a series of incessant wars between the Ptolemies and Seleucids, the Land of Israel and Coele-Syria came under the power of the Seleucid monarchs.104 There is very limited information about the Samaritans in the period between the Fifth Syrian War and the reign of Antiochus IV. We do not know what form

[30]

century BCE, and the excavators dated finds from the Seleucid period to the time of the Hasmoneans.112 The massive construction at Mt. Gerizim in the early second century BCE and the documents cited by Josephus concerning the privileges Antiochus III granted the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the Jews, including restoration of the Temple, are testimonies that correspond closely with the account in Ben Sira of the construction of a temple at the time of Simeon the Just, who is dated to the reign of Antiochus III. According to Ben Sira, Simeon the Just rebuilt the ruins of Jerusalem, established and strengthened the Temple, and also dug a ritual bath (Ben Sira 50:1– 4).113 Simeon the Just applied the rights approved by Antiochus III, and his meeting with that ruler has been seen by some as the historical basis for the meeting between the high priest and Alexander the Great recorded by Josephus.114 A tremendous amount of construction work was conducted during the period of the repairs to the Jerusalem Temple.115

in these peoples. As the penetration of Hellenism was part of Greek rule in the Land of Israel,109 the Jews and Samaritans were united in their hostility toward the Ptolemies. Both professed monotheistic religions that worshiped YHWH and opposed the gods and culture of the Greeks. The Seleucid conquest of the Land therefore planted hopes for change, although this expectation would later prove futile.110 Josephus painted an inaccurate picture of the Greek authorities’ attitude to the Jews and the Samaritans, according to which Alexander met with Jews and with the high priest, and even visited Jerusalem and the Temple, while he ignored the Samaritans. Josephus reported that Antiochus III granted the Jews special privileges to rebuild their Temple but said nothing about the Samaritans. The archaeological finds from Mt. Gerizim, however, reveal the establishment of the sacred precinct and the construction of the second phase of the temple at the beginning of Antiochus III’s reign, which indicates that the Seleucids’ attitude to the Samaritans was good, and undoubtedly no different from the position they took toward the Jews. Among the Samaritans, there was sweeping support for Antiochus III, and so his attitude toward them was as good as toward the Jews. Josephus’ one-sided historical depictions of the Samaritans prevent us from obtaining reliable information concerning the Samaritans in this period. There is no reason to assume there was a different policy toward each of the two peoples and their temples; the Greeks almost certainly had difficulty distinguishing between the Jewish and Samaritan religions and the fine details that separated their temples. If Antiochus III wanted to act beneficently toward the inhabitants of the new land who had aided him, he had no reason to discriminate between Samaritans and Jews. Closely following his description of Antiochus III and his attitude to the Jews, Josephus adds the vague passage (Ant. 12:156): “Now at this time the Samaritans were in a flourishing condition, and much distressed the Jews, cutting off parts of their land, and carrying off slaves.” The Seleucids generally allowed the establishment and development of cities. From the time of Antiochus III, we see growth in most of the settlements in Samaria and Judea, including the rural sector.111 The Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem was first built in the second

The Samaritans in the Second Century BCE: from Antiochus III to John Hyrcanus I

The meager historical information concerning the Samaritans and Mt. Gerizim in the second century BCE, including the attempts by Josephus to downplay the Samaritans’ importance does not reflect the importance of the city and the temple in the Hellenistic period. Based on the rich archaeological discoveries from Mt. Gerizim, especially the coins, we will attempt to reconstruct the annals of the second century BCE. The 90 years from the conquest of the Land of Israel by Antiochus III to the destruction of Mt. Gerizim by John Hyrcanus in 110/109 BCE were the Samaritan people’s most outstanding period. During this time Jewish-Samaritan disputes intensified in the large Jewish and Samaritan communities in the Land of Israel and in Egypt. Jews arrived in Egypt after the destruction of the First Temple, and Samaritans came as mercenaries in the time of Alexander the Great (Ant. 11:345) and as prisoners of war in the time of Ptolemy I Soter (Ant. 12:7). In addition to the controversy between the Samaritans and the Jews in the time of Ptolemy I Soter (see above),

[31]

Josephus also describes a disagreement during the time of Ptolemy VI Philometer concerning which of the temples was the original one, built in accordance with the Mosaic code, the one at Mt. Gerizim or the one in Jerusalem? (Ant. 13:74–79). The question came for arbitration before Ptolemy, who eventually favored the arguments of the Jews. Josephus lists only the Jews’ claims, and does not repeat the arguments of the Samaritans for the antiquity of their temple, which certainly must have borne considerable weight. We do not know whether, after the Fifth Syrian War in 200 BCE, the Jews and the Samaritans living in Egypt continued to freely visit the temples at Mt. Gerizim and in Jerusalem. In any case, Ptolemaic coins ceased to be used not only on Mt. Gerizim, but throughout the Land of Israel. Ben Sira’s characterization of the Samaritans (Ben Sira 50:25) as an “impious nation dwelling in Shechem” belongs to this period. Some scholars seek ypl

to connect this characterization with the statement about Simeon ben Johanan the priest (Simeon the Just) at the beginning of the chapter (50:1–2): “in whose time the House was renovated, and in whose days the Temple was fortified.” On the one hand, Ben Sira praises Simeon the Just, who executed the edicts of Antiochus III and renovated the Temple, while, on the other hand, he curses the Samaritans who concurrently built and restored their temple. The Prayer of Joseph from Qumran, which apparently refers to the temple at Mt. Gerizim, should possibly be dated to this period.116 One of the knottiest issues is the fate of the Samaritans at the time of Antiochus IV’s decrees. Did they suffer like the Jews and, like them, wage war against the Greeks? The archaeological finds from Mt. Gerizim hint that the city continued to flourish during the reign of Antiochus IV. Among the coins represented at Mt. Gerizim, Antiochus III’s gof n Ve rulers

Building A-I, comprising a cenral courtyard surrounded by residential and service wings, northern view.

[32]

tasked with enforcing Antiochus IV’s decrees and suppressing any opposition by the local populace. Mt. Gerizim therefore had the same standing as Jerusalem, and the Seleucids unquestionably considered the Samaritans an integral part of the Jewish people. When the repressions and the Jewish rebellion began, they feared the Samaritans would rise up together with the Jews, and in the first phase, the authorities’ decrees and persecutions were also directed against the Samaritans and their temple. The passage in II Maccabees 6:2 about an Athenian who came to Jerusalem to persuade the Jews to name the Temple in Jerusalem after the Olympian Zeus and establish pagan rites there is to be ascribed to this period.121 The text notes that the name of the temple at Mt. Gerizim had already been changed, and was now named after Zeus Xenios (the Hospitable). That Athenian might very well have first gone to Mt. Gerizim to speak to the Samaritans, and after having succeeded there, gone on to Jerusalem. Surprisingly, Maccabees does not demonstrate an anti-Samaritan attitude, but rather indicates the shared fate of the two peoples. This is in sharp contrast to the views expressed by Josephus regarding the Jews’ attitude to the Samaritans in the late Second Temple period. We do not know if the Greeks were successful in inculcating Hellenism in Samaritan society,122 and whether a Seleucid garrison was stationed at the mount. Large public structures were erected around the temple, and a Seleucid military presence there is not inconceivable. The archaeological evidence, however, indicates that Mt. Gerizim continued to grow and develop, and no signs of a pagan presence have come to light there. Mt. Gerizim, unlike Jerusalem, did not assume the character of a polis, in the accepted sense of this term in the Hellenistic period. It was an open temple city, and the lack of a wall assuaged any Seleucid fears of insurrection. Mt. Gerizim could be dominated from the central northern road from Shechem, where a pagan Hellenistic settlement probably already existed in the time of Antiochus III, if not earlier. A garrison could be situated on Mt. Gerizim’s northern slopes and control the mount without being stationed within the city itself. A military force could quickly be summoned to Mt. Gerizim from Samaria, Shechem, or the other nearby pagan settlements. Thus, Seleucid control of

coins are the greatest in number, followed by those of Antiochus IV. At this point we have no evidence of the presence of Hellenistic elements at Mt. Gerizim. There are neither statues, imported pottery, “Rhodian stamped handle” amphorae in which wine was imported from the Greek islands, nor any other finds that might allude to the presence of a Greek garrison at Mt. Gerizim at the time of Antiochus IV or to the penetration of Hellenistic religion and culture.117 Mt. Gerizim and the Samaritans, unlike Jerusalem and the Jews, were situated in an area in which the pagan-Hellenistic element had been strong and perhaps even central since Alexander’s conquests, and perhaps even after the destruction of Samaria by the Assyrians. The city of Samaria and its extensive territory, biblical Shechem–Tell Balatah, and Mt. Gerizim’s northern slopes (Maʿabarta), were most likely partially inhabited by pagans.118 It can hardly be assumed that only the city of Samaria was pagan; more likely, many additional rural villages within the city’s territory and in the Shechem region were pagan. There might have been mixed Samaritan-pagan settlements. The inscriptions revealed at Mt. Gerizim show that in the pagan city of Samaria itself there were Samaritans who revered Mt. Gerizim, participated in its rites, and contributed to their temple, and they specify their place of residence as “Shamrayin” (Samaria).119 Samaritans and pagans living together in Samaria led to incessant struggles and friction, but also to coexistence, and thus the Samaritans might not have revolted against Seleucid rule during the reign of Antiochus IV, and might not have fared as badly under his decrees as did the Jews. While maintaining their religious freedom and the sanctity of their city and temple, the Samaritans apparently succeeded in assimilating into Hellenistic culture. They most likely survived Antiochus’ repressions without open revolt by making compromises with Hellenistic culture and religion. In the authentic testimonies concerning Mt. Gerizim and its temple in Maccabees, we hear that Antiochus IV appointed Philip the Phrygian as epistates in Jerusalem and Andronicus at Mt. Gerizim (II Macc. 5:23).120 The official in Jerusalem who led the Phrygian mercenary troops was in charge of the city’s garrison and represented the king. He was

[33]

the following answer, in an epistle: ‘King Antiochus to Nicanor. The Sidonians, who live at Shechem, have sent me the memorial enclosed. When therefore we were advising with our friends about it, the messengers sent by them represented to us that they are no way concerned with accusations which belong to the Jews, but choose to live after the customs of the Greeks. Accordingly, we declare them free from such accusations, and order that, agreeable to their petition, their temple be named the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius.’ He also sent the like epistle to Apollonius, the governor of that part of the country, in the forty-sixth year, and the eighteenth day of the month Hecatorabeom Hyrkanios. (Ant. 12:257–264)

Mt. Gerizim was much simpler, and did not require a constant physical presence at the mount, as did Jerusalem. Probably even the epistates appointed by Antiochus IV at Gerizim lived in Shechem or Samaria, rather than in the city at Mt. Gerizim. Two letters cited by Josephus are illustrative of the relations between the Samaritans and Antiochus IV: When the Samaritans saw the Jews under these sufferings, they no longer confessed that they were of their kindred, nor that the temple on Mount Gerizzim [Gerizim] belonged to Almighty God. This was according to their nature, as we have already shown. And they now said that they were a colony of Medes and Persians; and indeed they were a colony of theirs. So they sent ambassadors to Antiochus, and an epistle, whose contents are these: ‘To king Antiochus the god, Epiphanes, a memorial from the Sidonians, who live at Shechem. Our forefathers, upon certain frequent plagues, and as following a certain ancient superstition, had a custom of observing that day which by the Jews is called the Sabbath. And when they had erected a temple at the mountain called Gerrizzim [Gerizim], though without a name, they offered upon it the proper sacrifices. Now, upon the just treatment of these wicked Jews, those that manage their affairs, supposing that we were of kin to them, and practiced as they do, make us liable to the same accusations, although we be originally Sidonians, as is evident from the public records. We therefore beseech thee, our benefactor and Savior, to give order to Apollonius, the governor of this part of the country, and to Nicanor, the procurator of thy affairs, to give us no disturbance, nor to lay to our charge what the Jews are accused for, since we are aliens from their nation, and from their customs; but let our temple, which at present hath no name at all be named the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius. If this were once done, we should be no longer disturbed, but should be more intent on our own occupation with quietness, and so bring in a greater revenue to thee’. When the Samaritans had petitioned for this, the king sent them back

Josephus, as noted, had already mentioned the “Sidonians in Shechem” in relation to Alexander the Great (Ant. 11:344). Some scholars consider these letters authentic documents that were written in the spirit and style of the Hellenistic period,123 while others maintain they are forgeries.124 We do not want to enter this scholarly dispute, nor can we determine the reliability of the documents. We find it difficult to believe that the inhabitants of Mt. Gerizim, most of whom were officiating priests, headed by the high priest, would compose such documents, even though Menelaus was so wicked that he might have been worse for his people and Temple than the Seleucids.125 Even if these letters were not bona fide, and Josephus used forgeries produced by the Jewish community in Egypt, they were written neither by the YHWH-worshiping Samaritans from Mt. Gerizim, nor even by Samaritan Hellenists,126 but by other residents of Shechem who were pagans, possibly of Sidonian descent. Why did the Samaritans call themselves Sidonians from Shechem rather than from Mt. Gerizim? Is this the same mistake that Josephus repeats in his narrative from the time of Alexander? Clearly, the Samaritan leadership, headed by the high priest, resided at Mt. Gerizim, around the temple, and not in Shechem. Shechem in the Seleucid period (Strata II–I) was a very meager settlement, and certainly not the Samaritan capital city. How, then, are we to understand their attempt to deceive the Seleucid ruler

[34]

concerning their origin? It is similarly far-fetched that the very pious Samaritans would offer to change the rites at the mount, lie, and call themselves Sidonians. In light of the recent archaeological discoveries in Shechem and Maʿabarta, we surmise that a pagan settlement stood on the northern slopes of Mt. Gerizim in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods that, together with biblical Shechem, controlled the central Samarian crossroads. It was settled with pagans, possibly soldiers or Sidonians brought there in the Hellenistic period. Then there might have been a Sidonian community in Shechem, which under pressure from the decrees of the Seleucids, sought to disassociate itself from the Samaritans who lived on the mount, and argue that they were Sidonians, not Samaritans or Jews. These Sidonians might even have participated in the Mt. Gerizim rites as proselytes. This pagan community T ple existed like other communities in Samaria that

accepted Hellenistic culture and religion after Alexander’s campaign and the destruction of Samaria, as did the gentile cities in the Land of Israel. These residents were influenced by the Samaritan temple, and, in a sort of pagan-Samaritan religious syncretism, perhaps even participated in its rites, sacrifices, and pilgrimages; or were proselytes who accepted some of the rites. Put to the test, when Antiochus IV threatened the Samaritan people and temple, and included the Sidonians, the latter attempted to distance themselves from the Samaritans. The presence of Sidonians in Maresha127 and in Yavneh-Yam,128 in addition to Josephus’ problematic reference to people from Maresha in Samaria (Ant. 13:275),129 and the establishment of Antiochian centers in the Land of Israel,130 suggest the presence of a pagan Sidonian population on the northern slopes of Mt. Gerizim, where the pagan city of Neapolis would later arise. n d Vii This theory is as legitimate as the claims of the falsity

B ildinge-i e (the i (t “Bakers’ e “Bak citadel”) rs cit del”) and above it, Building e-i view. , ea B ilding and above it, Building e-ii, eastern

[35]

or authenticity of the documents, or that they were written by Hellenistic Samaritans from Mt. Gerizim. It is implausible that the Samaritan communal leaders who were high priests of the Mt. Gerizim temple wrote the documents. One of the inscriptions of the tribes at the Roman amphitheater in Neapolis contains the Greek inscription: “(Belongs to) the tribe of Antiochus.” Moreover, there were additional tribes named after gods and the Flavian dynasty.131 These might have been a pagan population, perhaps from Antiochia, that originated in the Hellenistic period. The large and important spring of Neapolis that is called ʿEin Daphna is located in eastern Shechem.132 We assume that this water source outside the city limits reminded the Antiochians of the ritual center of Daphne near Antiochia, which also had abundant water. It too was connected with the Seleucids, especially with Antiochus III and Antiochus IV. The theater yielded an additional intriguing find. The first and largest tribe listed on the theater benches is that of Hercules: “(Belongs to) the tribe of Hercules.”133 Since Hercules does not appear as one of the gods of Roman-period Neapolis, why choose a god absent from the Neapolis pantheon as the name of the most central and largest tribe? A plausible explanation is that Hercules was one of the early gods of a certain important population group in the city. Hercules is identified with the Tyrian god Melqart, who was known as the god of the gymnasium, and was also somehow connected to the penetration of Hellenism during the time of Antiochus IV. Could the tribe of Hercules mentioned in the theater be a remnant of the Tyrian-Sidonian tribe that already lived in Shechem during the Hellenistic period and revered the god of their homeland, MelqartHercules?134 A gymnasium might have been built in his honor in Samaria or in Shechem, as happened in Jerusalem. The populace of Samaria in the Persian and Hellenistic periods was composed of different peoples who were joined, after the destruction of Samaria, by Phoenicians and Greeks brought by Alexander the Great and the Ptolemies. After its destruction, the city of Samaria was populated by Greek settlers, some of whom were Greek mercenaries and soldiers. A similar situation reigned in Shechem. In the Hellenistic period pagan elements were also settled in Maʿabarta and Samaria.135

Only the existence of a large pagan element in Shechem in the Hellenistic to Roman period could explain Neapolis’ speedy transition to total paganism at the end of the first century CE. There are many Hellenistic-period finds from Neapolis, such as coins and pottery, some of which were imported ware, the likes of which are absent on Mt. Gerizim. This might possibly point to a difference between the population that inhabited Neapolis, which was situated at the foot of Mt. Gerizim, and that on the mount itself. From the Seleucid period, which lasted some 90 years at Mt. Gerizim, thousands of coins of the various rulers of Coele-Syria and the Land of Israel at that time were found. How are these coins commensurate with the historical events taking place at the time, and with the activities of the different rulers; and in particular, with the history of the Samaritans during the Seleucid period as described above? Does a large or small number of coins or the absence of coins hint at internal events at Mt. Gerizim, or at external political events taking place in the region or in the ruling empire? Is the number of coins related to local or regional commercial or agricultural development, or to global occurrences unconnected with local prosperity? Is the length of the reign of an imperial ruler a factor in the number of coins found? In the Mt. Gerizim excavations, we have been given an opportunity to examine these issues, or at least to hold them up against the background of the Seleucid period. As noted, in 200 BCE the Land of Israel and CoeleSyria were conquered by the Seleucids. The absence of Ptolemaic coins after the Seleucid conquest was a result of the military and commercial disconnection between Coele-Syria and the Land of Israel and Egypt, and we cite the third century BCE Zenon Papyri as an example of the extensive commercial ties between the Ptolemaic kingdom and Syria and the Land of Israel.136 At Mt. Gerizim six coins were found from the time of Seleucus III Soter (226–223 BCE), minted in Antioch. From the time of Antiochus III, who reigned from 223–187 BCE and, as mentioned, captured Coele-Syria and the Land of Israel from the Ptolemaic kingdom, 3,268 coins were found. Antiochus III ruled for 39 years, and spent almost his entire reign making war, making alliances with the Romans, and in particular, fighting the Ptolemaic

[36]

to his wars against the Ptolemaic kingdom, and his own attempts to rob temples to fill his empty treasury, including from Jerusalem (II Macc. 4:8–9), he began a process of Hellenization of the Land of Israel, which led to the Hasmonean war. He ruled for 12 years (175– 164 BCE); and therefore, in light of his extended, intensive and violent actions in the region, and the many army units he maintained, it is not surprising to find many of his coins, 2,069 in number. Of these, 2,015 were minted in ʿAkko-Ptolemais, which became an important Hellenistic city in the Seleucid period, and, as a center of activity of the Seleucid Empire in the Land of Israel, began minting coins.141 From the time of Antiochus V Eupator, only eight coins were found. He ruled as a boy between 164– 162 BCE, and was murdered by Demetrius I Soter, the son of Seleucus IV. From the time of Demetrius I Soter (162–150 BCE) 152 coins were found, and from Alexander I Balas (152–145 BCE), who followed him, 24 coins. There were unending struggles between Demetrius I and Alexander Balas. It should be noted that in the time of Demetrius I the fight against the Hasmoneans continued, and Bacchides, one of the top Greek commanders, succeeded in defeating the rebel army near Elasa. This was the battle in which Judas Maccabeus fell (I Macc. 9:1–18). Demetrius I eventually fell in battle in his fight against Alexander Balas. His two sons reigned after him: Demetrius II Nicator, who ruled between 146–138 BCE (first reign) and 129–125 BCE (second reign), and in between those periods, his brother Antiochus VII Euergetes Sidetes (138–129 BCE), who was also killed while besieging cities in Syria (Ant. 13:252). From the time of Demetrius II (first and second reign), 227 coins were found, and 268 from the time of Antiochus VII. Both were active in the Land of Israel, in particular against the Hasmoneans.142 A single silver coin was found from the time of Antiochus VI Dionysus, dated to 142/141 BCE, and two coins of Diodotus Tryphon, dated to ca. 142–138 BCE. From the time of Alexander II Zabinas, who ruled between 128 and 122 BCE, 455 coins were found. Forty-three coins dated to the time of Antiochus VIII Epiphanes Grypus and his mother Cleopatra Thea (125–121 BCE), and another 240 coins were of Antiochus VIII, who ruled from 121/120–96 CE. From the time of Antiochus IX Eusebes Cyzicenus

dynasty, which forced him to maintain a large army. It was in his time that the city was built on Mt. Gerizim, in addition to the temple. He gave Jerusalem assistance in exchange for its help in the Fifth Syrian War (Ant. 12:138–144). The historical sources relate that he helped and enabled the construction of new towns and the restoration of damaged ones, sometimes enlisting his soldiers.137 His unending wars and the maintenance of tens of thousands of soldiers on the one hand, his generosity in freeing a number of towns and temples from taxation, as described by Josephus, and his major commitments to the Roman Empire to which he owed considerable taxes, all brought him to the point of bankruptcy. This led to his attempt to loot the Temple of Bel at Elymaïs, from which he was expelled in disgrace.138 His son Seleucus IV Philopator, who ruled after him for eight years (187–175 BCE), inherited empty coffers and heavy debts, mainly to the Romans.139 He rarely went to war, and never came to the Land of Israel, but he did try to fill the coffers of the Seleucid Empire with money from temples and from the treasury of the Temple in Jerusalem (II Macc. 3:7), and almost certainly also from the temple on Mt. Gerizim. It is therefore not surprising to discover just 37 coins from the time of Seleucus IV at Mt. Gerizim. Since construction on Mt. Gerizim almost certainly continued in his time, it can be argued that the many coins of his father, Antiochus III, continued in use in his time as well, and therefore he had no need to mint additional currency. A direct connection does not always exist between the quantity of coins and the scale of building. A case in point is the paucity of Herodian coins found in the Land of Israel.140 Herod, who engaged in wars and in unparalleled building throughout the Land of Israel, collected vast taxes from commerce, and was one of the richest of kings, leaving behind a fortune, minted very few bronze coins. With regard to silver coins, the Romans almost certainly did not permit him to mint them, since this was a privilege the empire kept for itself. Neither John Hyrcanus I nor Alexander Jannaeus minted silver coins, apparently for the same reason, and Herod appears to have made use of Tyrian silver coins. The period of Antiochus IV was a high point in Seleucid involvement in the Land of Israel. In addition

[37]





 

 

 0



 cm

0

 cm



  coin of antiochus Vii sidetes   Bce). (–

  coin of demetrius i soter (–0 Bce).

  





0

0

 m





 

0. cm

c an iochus grypus iochu Vii Vi sidetes (– Bce) Bce). (–

coin of John hyrcanus i (–0 Bce).   

 

 [38] 

of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which you have not known; then shall you inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is done in the midst of you, you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein and the cattle of it, with the edge of the sword. You shall gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street of it, and shall burn with fire the city, and all the spoil of it every whit, to Yahweh your God: and it shall be a heap forever; it shall not be built again. There shall cleave nothing of the devoted thing to your hand; that Yahweh may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show you mercy, and have compassion on you, and multiply you, as he has sworn to your fathers. (Deut. 13:13–17)

(114/113–95 BCE), who came to the assistance of Sebastia in the Hasmonean siege, and in whose time Mt. Gerizim may have been captured, in 110/109 BCE, just four coins were found. It should be noted that many coins found at Mt. Gerizim were minted in ʿAkko-Ptolemais: from the time of Antiochus III (377 coins); from the time of Antiochus IV, as mentioned (2,015 coins); from the time of Demetrius I (32 coins); apparently from the time of Antiochus VII (41 coins); as well as 1,217 coins from ʿAkko-Ptolemais (autonomous) that are the latest ones found at the site before its destruction. In my opinion, most of the coins found at Mt. Gerizim from the Seleucid period are the result not only of wars, but mainly the result of building the city and the many pilgrims coming to the site, which became a national and religious center for the Samaritans. The same is true of the multiplicity of coins of Alexander Jannaeus, which are related to the flourishing of the Temple in Jerusalem, the large-scale construction of palaces and fortresses, and the many wars in which he was involved, for which he maintained mercenaries. John Hyrcanus I and Alexander Jannaeus, who minted coins, may have paid in local bronze coinage for the mercenary troops they maintained and the building enterprises they undertook, and the same might have been true for Herod.

The Hasmoneans viewed the building of the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim as a grave religious deviation on the soil of the Land of Israel—the worshiping of other gods—and therefore they fulfilled the mandate of Deuteronomy to burn the city and turn it into an everlasting ruin. It is worth mentioning that Deuteronomy refers to a city that was part of the division of the Land of Israel into tribes, one of the cities that God gave, and moreover, Mt. Gerizim is the Mount of the Blessing. The city seems not to have been burned in the heat of battle. The fire was started after the booty and the bodies of the dead had been collected. The relatively sparse archaeological finds that are of value are not reflective of a large and wealthy city. There were very few glass vessels, precious metal vessels, pottery lamps, or other vessels. Such portable implements might have been taken by the Samaritans who fled before the city was besieged and burned. The absence of bodies in the ash layer is additional significant testimony. For both halakhic and health reasons, the Hasmoneans collected all the bodies and buried them, apparently in mass graves close to the city. The removal of bodies from the city was necessary for another reason as well: Until the time of Alexander Jannaeus, and possibly even later, a Hasmonean garrison remained in the city to prevent

The Conquest of Mt. Gerizim by John Hyrcanus

The city at Mt. Gerizim was destroyed in a conflagration that left its mark everywhere. The unique construction method of bedroom roofs and floors— brackets supporting wooden beams—meant that wood was the major element in private and public construction. John Hyrcanus’ vengeful decision to burn the city down reflected fierce Jewish hatred of the Samaritans and their temple at Mt. Gerizim. The protracted siege that took its toll on John Hyrcanus’ soldiers was also a factor behind this fierce reprisal. The burning of the city implies that there was no intent to resettle it, or to allow its inhabitants to return. The following passage is relevant in this context: Certain base fellows are gone out from the midst of you, and have drawn away the inhabitants

[39]

the Samaritans from returning to Mt. Gerizim. Leaving the dead without burial was a very cruel act in antiquity. Even a criminal sentenced to death had to be buried after his execution. The Torah explains (Deut. 21:23): “his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him the same day; for he who is hanged is accursed of God; that you do not defile your land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance.” Notwithstanding, the Bible contains accounts of dishonorable burial, which is a severe affront and curse, not only to the dead but to their killers, as well. Because the city at Mt. Gerizim was a temple city, not a capital, a wall and towers did not surround it. The walls of the city’s outer houses formed a means of protection for the city’s inhabitants against marauders and provided ongoing security, and wereinnot intendedT he oil press Building

to withstand regular armies. The sacred precinct was the only part of the city with significant fortification, and was surrounded by an integrated array of walls, fortified courtyards, and fortresses. The Samaritans would certainly have wanted to build a fortified wall around the city, and we surmise that the Ptolemaic and Seleucid rulers did not permit them to do so. The erection of a city wall would have been considered an expression of political and military independence, which unlike Jerusalem and other Hellenistic cities, was denied the Samaritans throughout the Hellenistic period. When John Hyrcanus began his siege of Mt. Gerizim, it was too late to raise a wall. Although the erection of thickwalled, tall public structures at strategic positions around the city (such as the building in the east and those flanking the southwest gate and around

The Hellenistic eastern city gate. Note the burnt paving stones, a result of the conflagration of the gate’s massive wooden doors.

[40]



and besides these, Shechem and Gerizzim [Gerizim], and the nation of the Cutheans, who dwelt at the temple which resembled that temple which was at Jerusalem, and which Alexander permitted Sanballat, the general of his army, to build for the sake of Manasseh, who was son-in-law to Jaddua the high priest, as we have formerly related; which temple was now deserted two hundred years after it was built. Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews. (Ant. 13:254–257)

the sacred precinct) aided in its defense, these buildings could not replace a fortified wall. When the Hasmoneans began their siege, the Samaritans realized that it was too late to build an encompassing wall, and they began preparing internal fortifications. Streets were blocked, at times with a number of barricades on a single street. Each house became a defensive stronghold; entrances and windows were sealed, structures were raised and extended, and roof areas were reinforced by the addition of internal retaining walls to stabilize them and enable the defenders to remain on them for a longer time. This form of defense, invisible to the enemy, utilized the store of building stones within the city, and could be implemented during the siege itself. Major changes were made in many houses. In addition to evidence of the blockage of entrances and streets, reinforcement of roofs, and the erection of barricades, the excavations uncovered scores of ovens in the city’s houses and many jars for drinking and storage. The southeastern citadel of the sacred compound did not have its own independent water supply, and the dozens of jars discovered on the pavement of the central hall apparently provided the defenders with water. The private houses exhibit a very poor phase that probably belongs to the siege. We do not know whether the population of Mt. Gerizim was besieged within the city. We surmise that most were able to flee, replaced by Samaritan men from nearby villages who defended the temple and the city. The changes evident in the private houses point to major reinforcements streaming into the city. We see a similar phenomenon in Jerusalem before the destruction of the Second Temple. Josephus depicts John Hyrcanus’ first series of conquests in Antiquities of the Jews, and in an abbreviated fashion in The Wars of the Jews:

In the shorter but similar description in War 1:62, Josephus states that John Hyrcanus’ conquests began after Antiochus VII Sidetes went to war with the Parthians. The defeat Antiochus VII Sidetes suffered at their hands had far-reaching consequences for the Seleucid Empire and for Judah. Josephus uses the Greek word εύθέως, meaning that John Hyrcanus began his wars “immediately” after the death of Antiochus VII. Scholars understand this word to mean that Mt. Gerizim was conquered in 128 BCE.143 Other scholars questioned this early dating of the beginning of John Hyrcanus’ conquests. M. Stern144 doubted whether John Hyrcanus began his campaigns immediately following Antiochus VII’s death, which he found inconsistent with the making of a pact with Rome at that time. In his discussion of the time when I Maccabees was written, B. Bar-Kochva145 also relates to John Hyrcanus’ campaign of conquest, and argues that it was not conducted as an uninterrupted military operation, but continued over several years. He further observes that, in contrast with the detailed portrayal of the conquest of Samaria in 107 BCE, Josephus actually says nothing about the conquest of Shechem and Mt. Gerizim, except for his description of the temple structure and the Sanballat-Manasseh episode, which he mentions elsewhere. Such a repetition is characteristic of Josephus’ writings when he felt that the information he possessed was insufficient. Although Josephus found only a laconic description of the first phase of the conquests in the book by Nicholaus of Damascus,146 the brevity of the passage

But when Hyrcanus heard of the death of Antiochus, he presently made an expedition against the cities of Syria, hoping to find them destitute of fighting men, and of such as were able to defend them. However, it was not till the sixth month that he took Medaba, and that not without the greatest distress of his army. After this he took Samega, and the neighboring places;

[41]

difficult access would have seriously challenged any army. It also was surrounded by a large Samaritan population in the neighboring villages. Consequently, the conquest of the city would not have been easy, and a protracted siege and great efforts would be needed to force its surrender. The primary approach to Mt. Gerizim was from Shechem, and it can hardly be assumed that the Hasmoneans would have begun the siege of the mount before subduing Shechem and considerable parts of Samaria, which were inhabited by pagans and by Samaritans who worshiped YHWH and revered the temple at Mt. Gerizim. That kind of military operation would have exposed those besieging the city to attacks by Samaritans from the surrounding villages. It would therefore be reasonable that before or during the siege of Mt. Gerizim, John Hyrcanus’ armies would have taken all the Samaritan settlements near Mt. Gerizim and Samaria, including the low-lying city of Shechem. They might have begun by taking Samaria, and only later conquered Mt. Gerizim. The latest discovery of coins at Mt. Gerizim and Shechem makes it difficult to agree with the two-conquest theory. We are compelled to say that Samaria, Mt. Gerizim, and Shechem were not conquered immediately following the death of Antiochus VII, but in the time of Antiochus IX Cyzicenus, after 111–110 BCE. John Hyrcanus took advantage of the incessant and undecided war of succession between Antiochus VIII Grypus and Antiochus IX Cyzicenus to amass strength and attack the Samaritans and Mt. Gerizim. Mt. Gerizim was conquered by John Hyrcanus as part of his grand offensive against the land and city of Samaria (Ant. 13:275–278) which, according to some scholars, was conquered in 107 BCE. Could Mt. Gerizim, Samaria, Shechem, and the city of Samaria all have fallen in a single military campaign in 111–110 BCE, in which John Hyrcanus’ sons also participated? It is strange that when Josephus tells of the conquest of the city of Samaria, he mentions that its inhabitants were Samaritans, and that hunger forced them to eat non-kosher food. How does this coincide with the conquest of the Samaritans’ temple and center immediately following the death of Antiochus VII in 129 BCE? Although Samaritans who believed in the sanctity of Mt. Gerizim lived in Samaria, the city itself was a pagan city—a Greek polis.

does not attest to the amount of time needed to complete these activities. To date, John Hyrcanus’ campaign of conquests has not been the subject of archaeological inquiry. Doubts concerning the proposed date of 129/128 BCE were first raised during the excavations of Tell Balatah, where the excavators note that they discovered coins of   ʿAkko-Ptolemais from 112–111 BCE.147 Shechem is mentioned together with Mt. Gerizim in the conquest by John Hyrcanus, immediately following the death of Antiochus VII. The site excavators speak of two conquests. The first conquest took place in 128 BCE, but the Samaritans returned and resettled Shechem. The city was conquered for the second time in 107 BCE, after which it was not rebuilt.148 Mt. Gerizim yielded hundreds of coins dated after 128 BCE; the last coins from the site are dated to 112–110 BCE, and one coin to 110/109 BCE. Many coins were also found of “Yehoḥanan the High Priest” that were attributed to John (Johanan) Hyrcanus who, according to most scholarly opinions, was the first Hasmonean to mint coins.149 Coins of Alexander Jannaeus also came to light. The presence on Mt. Gerizim of coins of John Hyrcanus indicates that the mount was not conquered immediately in 129 BCE. It probably took John Hyrcanus a number of years following Antiochus VII Sidetes’ death and the stabilization of the Hasmonean kingdom until he began minting coins. It is therefore more likely that Mt. Gerizim was destroyed in 111–110 BCE than in 129 BCE, in contrast to the proposal that the city was conquered twice, once soon after the death of Antiochus VII Sidetes in 128 BCE. The excavators of Shechem claim that the Samaritans returned to the mount and resettled it, and then it was conquered a second time, together with Shechem and Samaria, at the end of John Hyrcanus’ reign. We doubt this chronology. We do not discern that the city at Mt. Gerizim was conquered in two phases. The renewed excavations at Maresha revealed that it, too, was not conquered in 128 BCE, as Josephus claimed, since coins dated to 113 BCE were discovered in the city.150 There is also evidence of the conquests of the Hasmoneans in Idumea.151 The city on Mt. Gerizim was the largest and strongest in Samaria, despite the absence of a fortified city wall. In addition, its location on a high hill and

[42]

0

iron and bronze arrowheads found at Mt. gerizim.

0

 cm

lead projectiles found at Mt. gerizim.

[43] 

 cm

the time of the Great Revolt. The hoard contains: 25 silver coins of Antiochus VII, dated to 136/135 until 130/129 BCE, the time of his death; 103 coins of Demetrius II, dated to 130/129–126/125 BCE; and a coin of Antiochus VIII from ʿAkko-Ptolemais, dated to 120/119 BCE. The continuity of the coins in the hoard and the existence of a coin from 120/119 BCE are proof that the destruction of Mt. Gerizim took place after 119 BCE, and as we will see later in this review, some nine years later. Interestingly, this hoard may shed light on the question of donations brought to the temple. Mt. Gerizim was a temple city. The priests were supported and the temple maintained by donations, and, in addition to the many different donations that appear in the Torah is the half shekel. This donation, mentioned in Exodus 30:11–16, is for the Tent of Meeting, as “an offering to the Lord.” Although this was a temporary precept, its observance continued even afterward, for example, on Passover.153 The contribution of a half

The destruction of Mt. Gerizim by John Hyrcanus I caused a deep national, religious, and social crisis among the Samaritans. The destruction is well documented in the historical sources, and the burning of the city and temple has been revealed in the archaeological excavations at the site. In Building P-II, adjacent to its northwestern wall, a hoard of silver coins was found in a well-decorated and designed bronze vessel. It may have been hidden in one of the walls, and remained intact after the walls’ collapse. The hoard includes 129 coins, all but one minted in Tyre: 121 tetradrachmas, each weighing an average of 14 gm (4 drachmas), and 8 didrachmas, each weighing an average of 7 gm (2 drachmas). The weight of the tetradrachma is the same as the average weight of a silver shekel found in Jerusalem from the time of the Great Revolt, the “shekel of Israel” (War 7:216–218).152 The didrachma is identical in weight to a half shekel, and the drachma to a quarter shekel, coins that were also found in Jerusalem from

0

 cm

decorated bronze vessel containing a hoard of silver coins found in Building p-ii.

[44]

shekel for the Temple continued in the days of the First and Second Temple (II Kings 12:5–17; II Chron. 24:4–14; Neh. 10:33–34).154 Donations in the First Temple period were in the form of silver: not in coins, which were not yet part of the financial market, but in pieces of silver weighing a shekel or a half shekel. In the Second Temple period, coins were donated—half shekels made of silver minted in Tyre. The Mishnah (Shekalim 1:1) mentions that an announcement was made in every city in the Land of Israel regarding the population’s duty to donate a half shekel, both in cities and in the Temple. The shekels of Tyre donated to the Temple apparently referred to the shekel mentioned in the Book of Exodus, as written in Tosefta, Ketubot 12:14. If this assumption is correct, the vessel contained silver shekels and half shekels, which were the main component of the obligatory donations to the Temple to YHWH. Do we possibly have here the vessel from the treasury of the Samaritan temple that had been hidden in Building P-II? If so, it may indicate that money was kept in the temple treasury in the form of shekel and half-shekel coins. Another hoard, containing 61 bronze coins, was found in the southeastern fortress of the sacred precinct. It included a coin of Antiochus III, two of Antiochus IV, two of Demetrius II Nicator’s first reign, dated to 145/144 BCE, one of Antiochus VII, dated to 138/137 BCE, one of Demetrius II’s second reign, dated to 129/128 BCE, 46 of Alexander II Zabinas, more than half dated to 125–122 BCE, four of Antiochus VIII and Cleopatra Thea, dated to 122/121 BCE, three of Antiochus VIII, dated to 121/120 BCE, and another coin from the Seleucid period dated to 125–120 BCE. Here too, the hoard contained coins post-dating the reign of Antiochus VII, possibly indicating that the destruction did not take place immediately after his death in 129 BCE. At Mt. Gerizim, 1,217 coins from autonomous ʿAkko-Ptolemais were found, dated from 169–164 BCE: 411 coins dated from after the death of Antiochus VII, after 126 BCE, and up to 110 BCE; 240 of Antiochus VIII, dated to 121/120–113/112 BCE; four of Antiochus IX, one dated to 110/109 BCE; 455 of Alexander II Zabinas, dated from 125–122 BCE. There is no doubt that the number of coins at Mt. Gerizim dated after 120 BCE is significantly reduced. The

latest coins are dated, as mentioned, to 112–110 BCE, so it is reasonable to assume that the destruction took place around this time, and certainly not after the death of Antiochus VII. Coins of the Hasmoneans were found: 68 of John Hyrcanus I (129–105/104 BCE), three of Judah Aristobulus I (105/104 BCE), and 528 of Alexander Jannaeus (104/103–76 BCE). The conquest apparently did indeed take place at the time of John Hyrcanus I, as Josephus says. The Hasmoneans set a guard force on Mt. Gerizim to prevent the Samaritans from returning to the mountain and the temple. They also built a fortress in the northern part of the mountain, close to the main ascent from Shechem to Mt. Gerizim, where a Roman temple was later built.155 Based on the archaeological finds, this fortress was built during the Hasmonean period and continued in use in the Roman period.

The Samaritans in the Roman Period Reconstructing the annals of the Samaritans in the Roman and Byzantine periods is a daunting task, due to the paucity of reliable historical sources and the small number of archaeological excavations. As noted, the destruction of Mt. Gerizim and the serious damage done to the Samaritan people has led to a deficiency in the historical sources concerning them. While the commandments were meticulously observed at Mt. Gerizim in the Hellenistic period, the Samaritan religious and social worldview underwent a marked change in the Early Roman period. The destruction of the temple at Mt. Gerizim decisively influenced Samaritan religious perception, as had occurred in Judaism after the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem. Extensive assimilation of the Samaritan community began in the Roman period; its entry into Roman society and culture was so profound that we cannot distinguish between the material culture of the Samaritan and pagan settlements or populations. The Mt. Gerizim excavations have provided surprising data concerning the city and the temple, but the extent and nature of Samaritan settlement in the region of Samaria are still nebulous. Moreover, the term “Samaritan” is not an ethnic definition like “Jew,” and when “Samaritans” are mentioned in

[45]

and after that, Mt. Gerizim. The excavations at Mt. Gerizim reveal that the Hellenistic city was not restored or rebuilt after its destruction. A Roman temple to Zeus Hypsistos was erected on the northern summit of Mt. Gerizim in the mid-second century CE.160 In the third to fourth centuries CE the Samaritans restored the sacred precinct at Mt. Gerizim,161 and toward the end of the fourth century, a Roman public building was built: a fortress typical of the many fortresses built by Theodosius I in Judea and Samaria.162 The sacred precinct was seized in 484 CE by Emperor Zeno, who built a Church to Mary Theotokos at the site.163 Surprisingly, no sources, including those of the Samaritan religion, mention the fateful events of the destruction and loss of the national center at Mt. Gerizim, unlike the documentation following the destruction of Jerusalem. This silence can be explained by the Samaritans’ lack of authentic religious literature and historical writings. Protracted Hasmonean rule did not allow the Samaritans any religious and national expression (at least not in the public realm). That, as well as the establishment of the city of Neapolis, and life in the shadow of the now-abandoned Mt. Gerizim, with no possibility of rebuilding, forced the Samaritans to regard Mt. Gerizim merely as a hallowed site (John 4:20), and to refrain from emphasizing its nature as a religious center. Despite this, events during the Roman period prove that in private, the Samaritans preserved their religious sentiments and their unyielding desire to renew their center.

historical sources, it is not always clear whether the intent is to the entire population of Samaria, or only to members of the Samaritan religious community. Josephus often uses the term “Samaritan,” but when wishing to emphasize ethnic origin, he states that the Samaritan is a Cuthean (e.g., Ant. 11:88). When mentioning Herod’s wife he observes she came from the Samaritan people (Ant. 17:20). The destruction of the Samaritan religious and national center resulted in a severe crisis in Samaritan religion and society. The temple was destroyed; the city, which had housed thousands of inhabitants, lay in ruin, and its residents had fled or had fallen by the sword.156 The Hasmoneans almost certainly did not stop with the destruction of the city and the temple, and either coaxed or forced the Samaritans to follow Judaic practices. Typical Jewish religious and ritual elements that later became prominent in Samaritan culture, like the ritual bath (miqweh), a paramount Jewish Hasmonean-period installation,157 entered the Samaritan religion in the wake of religious pressure exerted by the Hasmoneans. Based on the writings discovered at Qumran and comparison of Jewish and Samaritan versions of the Torah, some scholars assert that the Samaritan Torah reflects the Torah version prevalent in the Hasmonean period.158 Were the Samaritans compelled to accept the Hasmonean Torah text following the destruction of Mt. Gerizim and prolonged Hasmonean rule in Samaria? We assume that the resemblance of the two versions of the Torah had its origin in the Samaritan temple at Mt. Gerizim as far back as the Persian period. As noted, it is implausible that the rites and the offering of sacrifices began at the Mt. Gerizim temple without a written Torah. In contrast with the Greek cities liberated by Pompey and restored by Gabinius, the Samaritans were not part of the Roman reconstruction program (Ant. 14:75–76, 87–88; War 1:155–158, 165–166)159 and were not permitted to rebuild their temple and national center. Nonetheless, Roman conquest freed the Samaritans from the Hasmonean yoke. Although the Samaritans were not allowed to rebuild their temple, they could renew their religious and independent national existence. Within the space of two centuries, the Samaritans lost their national centers: first, the city of Samaria,

From the First Century BCE to the First Century CE

No written testimonies from the Hasmonean period and the reign of Herod exist concerning the fate of the Samaritans in Shechem and at Mt. Gerizim. As mentioned, it is said that Alexander Jannaeus, son of Aristobulus, marched through the Land of Israel with a large army, killed the Romans he encountered, and besieged those who escaped to Mt. Gerizim (Ant. 14:100). This passage is vague, and the location of the Romans at Mt. Gerizim is similarly unclear. Possibly they were located in abovementioned fortress built by the Hasmoneans that guarded the road to the mount, on the northern slope of Mt. Gerizim that overlooks Neapolis.164

[46]

in the Temple Court (Ant. 18:29–30). Their arrival in Jerusalem on the eve of Passover might imply that following the destruction of Mt. Gerizim, they had been permitted to participate in the Passover sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem.170 The Mishnah (Tamid 1:3) states that after that episode, nocturnal entry to the Temple was forbidden, and the Temple guards were reinforced. The most serious clash between Jews and Samaritans occurred during the years 48–52 CE, in the reign of the procurator Cumanus. The Samaritans lay in wait in the area of Ginea (Jenin) for Jewish pilgrims from Galilee, killed some of them, and attacked a number of villages inhabited by Jews close to the ʿAqraba district. The Jews fought back, the matter came before the emperor, and representatives of the two peoples confronted one another. Apparently, only Agrippa II’s intervention saved the Jewish delegates from execution (Ant. 20:118–136; War 2:232–246).171 The Samaritans’ antagonistic attitude to the Jews also emerges from the narrative of their refusal to host Jesus when he wanted to pass through Samaria (Luke 9:52–53), and from the conversation between him and the Samaritan woman (John 4:3–26). The Mishnah mentions the Samaritans’ sabotaging of the signal fires that announced the proclamation of the New Moon (Rosh Hashanah 2:2), an additional incident that graphically illustrates the Samaritans’ inimical attitude to the Jews at the time. The strengthening of the Samaritan community and its total severance from the Jews after the death of Herod, and possibly even earlier, after the conquest of the land by Pompey, reinforced their national and religious sentiment and spurred tangible efforts to renew the national center at Mt. Gerizim. The first attempt took place during the time of Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE). Following a rumor that the sacred vessels buried by Moses were located on Mt. Gerizim, the Samaritans assembled in a village named Tirathaba, possibly near the road leading to Mt. Gerizim, and maintained an armed presence there (Ant. 18:85–89). According to a similar and still-current Samaritan tradition, after the Tabernacle vanished, its sacred vessels were buried in a cave at Mt. Gerizim, and will be revealed only upon the advent of the Messiah (whom they call the “Taheb”).172 The Samaritans planned to march en masse on Mt. Gerizim, but

The conquests by John Hyrcanus I and Alexander Jannaeus drastically reduced the numbers and standing of the Samaritans, so that by the end of the Hasmonean period their importance was minimal. Despite exclusion from the Roman reconstruction program during the time of Pompey and Gabinius, their liberation led to separate Samaritan religious and national development: The removal of the Hasmonean religious and military threat enabled them to return to their previous religious and national foundations that were linked to Mt. Gerizim.165 The Samaritans’ situation remained unchanged during the reign of Herod, who continued the Hasmoneans’ hostile attitude, as shown by his establishment of Sebaste, a pagan city meant to provide him with refuge, if needed, from the Jews. Here, Herod settled many people who had aided him in his wars, also giving them lands around the city (Ant. 15:292–293, 296–298).166 Sebaste was not built as a Samaritan city, nor did Herod regard the Samaritans as allies. Josephus relates that Herod had a Samaritan wife named Malthace, whose children were Antipas, Archelaus, and Olympias (Ant. 17:20; War 1:562–563). However, some scholars suggest she might not have been of Samaritan origin, but from a pagan family in Sebaste.167 In any event, despite his marriage to a Samaritan woman, Herod did not permit renewed Samaritan settlement and reconstruction of their religious and national center at Mt. Gerizim.168 Samaritans were not involved in the dispute concerning the division of Herod’s legacy, nor did they participate in the disturbances that erupted in the Land of Israel at the time. Josephus notes that the Samaritans were granted an exemption from the fourth part of the taxes imposed on Idumea, Judea, and Samaria. The emperor granted them this concession because they did not take part in the riots (Ant. 17:319).169 Following Herod’s death, reports increased of Samaritan participation in struggles against, and disputes with, the Jews and the Romans. During the reign of Archelaus, in 6 CE, the Samaritans joined the Jews in their complaint to the emperor against Archelaus’ despotism and cruelty (Ant. 17:342; War 2:111). Josephus further relates that during the rule of the procurator Coponius (6–9 CE), the Samaritans came to Jerusalem on Passover, infiltrated the Temple Mount in the dead of night, and spread human bones

[47]

he sent Cerealis, commander of Legio V, with 600 cavalrymen and 3,000 infantry soldiers. Although there were tremendous numbers of armed Samaritans, they were defeated by the Roman army (War 3:307– 315). The high quality and quantity of troops sent to quell the Samaritan rebellion illustrates the sense of urgency felt by the Romans to prevent the opening of an additional front against them in Samaria. This was no innocent mass pilgrimage to Mt. Gerizim, but rather a revolt that erupted throughout Samaria. The Roman action is connected with the general stance taken by rulers in the region, beginning in the Hasmonean period, not to allow the Samaritans to return to Mt. Gerizim and renew their rites at the mount. The reason for this was military: A large and populous fortified city at Mt. Gerizim that controlled the central crossroads of Samaria (and in fact, the entire region), would be a military threat for any army, and especially for the Roman forces, which were also engaged in a harsh struggle against the Jews. Therefore, we should reject the argument that Neapolis was initially established as a Samaritan city by the Flavian emperors for the benefit of the Samaritans, when the former strove so vigorously to repress the Samaritan uprising.176 The Roman province of Judea, established after Archelaus was deposed in 6 CE, also included Samaria.177 After the conquest of Jerusalem, the Romans decided to change the status of the province, in terms of the rank of its procurator and of its garrison. A regular Roman legion, commanded by the province’s procurator, was sent to Judea, replacing the auxiliary units previously stationed there. Judea became an imperial province, directly subordinate to the emperor rather than to the procurator of Syria.178 After the Great Revolt, the Flavian emperors took steps to prevent additional uprisings in the Land of Israel. Caesarea, capital of the province, was given the status of colonia. Jaffa, an important Jewish port that had been destroyed during the Great Revolt, was rebuilt by Vespasian as a pagan Roman city, and was given the additional title of “Flavia” (Flavia Ioppe), to highlight its establishment by the Flavian emperors.179 A settlement of army veterans was established in Emmaus (War 7:216–217). The list of building projects by the Flavian emperors is not especially impressive; neither is there

Pontius Pilate preemptively seized the ascent and killed many of them. The Samaritan boule (senate) complained to Vitellius, governor of Syria and Carthage, against Pontius Pilate and the carnage for which he was responsible, which resulted in his deposition.173 Pilate’s vigorous and violent response left no doubt that the Roman objective was to prevent the Samaritans’ return to the mount. Meager historical testimonies present only a fragmentary picture of the Samaritans in this period. No written testimonies have been found concerning this community, from the destruction of Mt. Gerizim by John Hyrcanus to the end of Herod’s reign. They appear as a distinct people with a collective leadership, engaged in a hostile relationship with the Jews only from the time of Archelaus. It is interesting that there are no testimonies of a Samaritan center at Shechem before the foundation of Neapolis and during its existence, despite Shechem’s proximity to Mt. Gerizim, which was deserted and in ruin during the entire period.174 Between the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt

No Roman-period sources describe the people and settlement in the region of Samaria, although this period was undoubtedly the apex in the annals of the Samaritans. Numerous reports exist from the period when contacts were maintained between the Samaritans and nearby peoples, such as Jews or Christians. Roman-period Samaritan history must therefore be reconstructed primarily from rabbinic sources, archaeological excavations, and historical analogies, rather than from historical information.175 The first encounter between the Flavian emperors and the Samaritans bore the seeds of disaster. The latter, not properly appreciating the political and military determination of the Romans, sought to utilize the Roman-Jewish conflict to establish military and political facts at Mt. Gerizim. Josephus relates that during the Great Revolt of the Jews against the Romans, Samaritans took advantage of Vespasian’s preoccupation with the siege of the Galilean city of Jotapata, and on the 27th of Sivan, 67 CE, multitudes of Samaritans marched on Mt. Gerizim. Vespasian did not rely solely on the Roman military force in Samaria;

[48]

evidence of extensive building enterprises by this dynasty in Syria.180 How then are we to explain the establishment of Neapolis as a Roman polis by these emperors? Flavian construction activity in the Land of Israel was apparently fueled by lessons learned from the uprisings, and not by any desire to benefit the inhabitants of the land. Roman emperors applied the lessons of the revolts in the province to the structure and standing of the garrison they maintained there. To preclude a renewed Jewish insurrection, they stationed Legio X in Jerusalem. All actions taken by Flavians in Judea were related to the lessons of the Great Revolt.181 We may thus assume that the establishment of Neapolis was linked to lessons the Romans learned from the Samaritan uprising at Mt. Gerizim. The establishment of Neapolis on the northern slopes of the mount, near the major route leading to Mt. Gerizim, thwarted further Samaritan mutiny and the establishment of a Samaritan city on Mt. Gerizim; and by ensuring Neapolis’ total domination of Mt. Gerizim and the road leading to it, they attained control of the central crossroads in Samaria. The territory of Neapolis similarly splintered Samaritan settlement continuity around the mount, further weakening the Samaritan hold on the land. The pagan Roman cities of Sebaste and Neapolis dominated most of the territory of Samaria, and ensured Roman administrative and military control of the region. The establishment of Neapolis would have farreaching influence over the future of the Samaritans in the Roman and Byzantine periods. The Samaritans found it difficult to maintain their independence and territorial continuity within the territories of the two Roman cities, and consequently assimilated into these cities. In hindsight, we can confirm the correctness of the Flavian military and political perception: The Samaritans neither revolted nor rebuilt their capital and temple at Mt. Gerizim until the beginning of the Byzantine period. Neapolis, established as a pagan Roman city, was almost certainly populated by veterans and other gentiles. While we assume that Samaritans inhabited this city at some stage, as they did other Roman cities, we argue that Neapolis was not established as a Samaritan city from the outset, since all its administrative and religious foundations were clearly pagan.

In his account of Vespasian’s campaign from Emmaus to the region of Samaria, Josephus writes that the Roman commander passed through a city named Neapolis, which its inhabitants called Mabartha (or Mabortha; War 4:449); while Pliny the Elder comments that the city’s previous name was Mamorth.182 Josephus, as a Hebrew speaker, might have pronounced the city’s former name more accurately than Pliny. The names Mabartha and Neapolis do not appear prior to the time of the Flavian emperors. The change of names from Mabartha to Neapolis apparently occurred upon the establishment of the latter, not during Vespasian’s Emmaus campaign six years previously. Josephus’ use of the name Neapolis, instead of Mabartha, is therefore anachronistic. The year in which Flavia Neapolis was proclaimed a city clearly emerges from the numismatic evidence. The city’s first coins were minted by Domitian (81–96 CE), and bore the number of years from the city’s founding: AI=year 11 (83 CE), and EI=year 15 (88 CE). Neapolis is depicted on the coins as “Flavia Neapolis which is in Samaria,” that is, its establishment is attributed to the Flavian dynasty. The same count appears on the coins of Antoninus Pius—year 88 of the city’s establishment (=160 CE); and on the coins of Marcus Aurelius, struck in the first year of his rule—year 89 of the city’s founding (=161 CE). According to these emperors’ coins, the city was founded in 72 CE, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the repression of the Jewish revolt.183 From the time they were first minted until the reign of Philip the Arab (244 CE), the coins of Neapolis are in Greek, as befitted a provincial city whose standing was inferior to that of a colonia. After the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, the Land of Israel was annexed to Syria; the description of Neapolis on the coins of Antoninus Pius (138–161 CE) was accordingly changed, and it was now known as “Flavia Neapolis which is in Syria-Palestina.” Some scholars maintain that Neapolis coins from the reign of Domitian indicate that Neapolis was a Samaritan city.184 The depictions on the coins do not consist of pagan symbols, as on those of other Roman cities. Instead, one side of the coin presents an image of the emperor, and the other, various depictions: a laurel wreath, a pair of cornucopiae, a date palm tree,

[49]

We do not claim that Neapolis, unlike other Roman cities (Sebaste, Scythopolis, Caesarea, Emmaus and others), contained no Samaritan population; it may possibly even have had a large Samaritan community. Rather, we claim that the Flavian emperors established Neapolis to restrain the Samaritans, not to support them. It is incomprehensible that Domitian, who might personally have participated in putting down the Samaritan insurrection, would have founded a city on their behalf at the foot of Mt. Gerizim, while not allowing them to renew their sacred precinct on the mount itself. The establishment of Neapolis and the temple of Zeus thwarted any possible future Samaritan attempt to take control of Mt. Gerizim, and ensured Roman control of the road to the mount to prevent an additional insurrection.187 Neapolis, founded as a pagan Roman city, was almost certainly settled by veteran Roman soldiers. Its establishment was one of the lessons of the Samaritan and Jewish rebellions learned by the Roman authorities.188 The Romans thus restrained the Samaritans and precluded additional uprisings. Cultural (and possibly religious) assimilation of the Samaritans in the villages, as well, in the second and third centuries CE, demonstrated that from the Roman viewpoint, the decision to establish Neapolis as a pagan city was correct. The existence of two major Roman cities in Samaria, Neapolis and Sebaste, disrupted the geographical continuity of Samaritan settlement, which the rabbis referred to as “a strip of Cutheans” (BT Ḥagigah 25a). Samaria was now divided between the territories of these two cities, which were clearly gentile in character, and the Samaritan population in the towns and villages was caught in the cultural, military and religious vise of these cities.189 The situation of the Samaritans in the second century CE leads us to an additional historical question, that of Samaritan participation in the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. The revolt, primarily a Jewish insurrection concentrated in southern Judea during the reign of Hadrian, broke out mainly due to the establishment of Aelia Capitolina and the erection of the Temple of Jupiter on Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem.190 The sources that connect the Samaritans to the uprising are Jewish midrashei aggadah from the fifth century CE that have no historical basis, and the

two sheaves, and a grapevine with a leaf and a cluster of grapes. A similar phenomenon can be seen on the city coins of Sepphoris and Tiberias from the time of Trajan. Scholars presume that these two emperors took into account the religious sensibilities of the Jewish and Samaritan populations in these cities, and did not use pagan images such as idols or temples, on their coins. Instead the coins bore only Jewish-Samaritan symbols, thereby resembling the coins minted during the Great and Bar-Kokhba Revolts.185 If we were to accept this hypothesis, we would have to assume that Maʿabarta (Mabartha), which became Neapolis, was a Samaritan city, and that the Flavian emperors sought to act beneficently to the Samaritans, founded a city for them, and furthermore, were considerate of their sensibilities when minting their coins. We believe that the symbols on the coins of Neapolis are neither Jewish nor Samaritan, and do not resemble the Jewish designs on coins from the Great and BarKokhba Revolts; rather, these are floral ornaments that were the prevalent fashion in the Land of Israel at the time. A palm tree also appears on the Judaea Capta coins issued by Domitian to commemorate the Roman victory over the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem.186 He is not suspect of having attempted with these coins to appease the Jews or take their feelings into account. None of these three cities was a polis, and therefore, even if they had a pagan population, they had neither a municipal pagan tradition nor pagan temples. The first temple in Neapolis was built only toward the end of the reign of Antoninus Pius, in the middle of the second century CE. Consequently, the ornamental designs on the coins of Neapolis do not indicate the ethnic composition of the city’s population, and cannot attest to the Romans’ attitude toward it. In effect, neither the historical sources nor the archaeological finds attest to Maʿabarta being a Samaritan settlement before it was established as a city. Moreover, in the second century CE, Neapolis was a gentile city with its own pagan temple, a Roman administration, and no hint of a dominant Samaritan population, culture, or religion. During the few decades from the time of Domitian to the middle of the second century CE, could the city’s Samaritan population have undergone such a radical process of assimilation that the Samaritan religion and culture completely disappeared?

[50]

Samaritan assimilation began in the Roman period: The Samaritans took Greek and Roman names, and adopted Roman culture, and apparently paganism as well. Paradoxically, the rise of Christianity saved the Samaritans from total assimilation.

Samaritan Chronicles, which were composed more than a thousand years after the events. One midrash states that Hadrian wanted to establish a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, but the Samaritans frustrated this aim (Gen. Rabbah 64:10). Another source tells of a Samaritan who handed over the city of Bethar to Hadrian (JT Taʿanit 4:68d; Lam. Rabbah 2:4). Some scholars find that these sources are indicative of Samaritan participation in the Bar-Kokhba Revolt.191 All historical reports appearing in the late Chronicles, such as the building of the city and the temple at Mt. Gerizim by Hadrian, lack any historical or archaeological basis.192 These accounts are a Samaritan attempt to link themselves with the revolt that erupted during the time of Bar-Kokhba, as portrayed in Jewish midrashic sources. In actuality, the Samaritans had no reason to take part in this revolt, which was certainly irrelevant for the inhabitants of Neapolis, which was founded from the outset as a gentile city under Roman authority and administration.193 The consequences of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt were disastrous for Judea: It was almost totally emptied of Jewish inhabitants, Jerusalem became a gentile city, and the Temple of Jupiter was probably established on the Temple Mount. In Samaria, in contrast, there are no traces of harm suffered by the Samaritan population following the Bar-Kokhba Revolt.194 On the contrary, rural Samaritan settlement began expanding in the second century CE, in a process that reached its peak in the early third century, when the Samaritan population breached the boundaries of Samaria and began settling in all the Roman cities.195 According to the rabbis, the Samaritans entered Jewish towns abandoned after the “time of antiJewish persecutions” (the Bar-Kokhba Revolt), as is related in the Jerusalem Talmud: “R. Abbahu said: Thirteen towns were settled by Cutheans during the time of anti-Jewish persecutions” (Ḳiddushin 4:65d; Yebamoth 8:9d). We conclude that the Samaritans and the inhabitants of Neapolis did not rise against Hadrian, nor did they participate in the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Neapolis and Sebaste greatly influenced the fate of the Samaritans. These gentile Roman cities, built in the Samaritan area, completely altered the Samaritans’ lives, culture, and religion. Extensive

From the End of the Second Century CE to the Fourth Century CE

A bloody struggle between Pescennius Niger and Septimius Severus took place in 193 CE. The Samaritans remained aloof from this contest that was limited to the pagan city of Neapolis, which had a Samaritan minority. Neapolis sided with the eventual loser, and forfeited its Ius Civitatis, and was therefore forbidden to strike coins.196 The decision to support Pescennius Niger rather than Septimius Severus, taken by the Neapolis boule, and the punishment for not backing Severus, imposed after the latter’s victory, was inflicted on the city of Neapolis, not on the Samaritan people.197 Eusebius contains a puzzling report that Mt. Gerizim and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem were destroyed by Titus Vespasian and Hadrian, as was stated by Jesus (Matt. 24:2–3).198 There is no archaeological evidence of any event that took place at Mt. Gerizim during the time of these emperors, and only Josephus tells of the Samaritans’ ascent to Mt. Gerizim during the Great Revolt. The source for Eusebius’ account concerning Mt. Gerizim has not been determined. Eusebius further tells of a war waged in 197 CE between Jews and Samaritans.199 The reference is unclear, especially since this took place after the conflict between Pescennius Niger and Septimius Severus, in which Neapolis and Sebaste were involved. As mentioned before, however, Neapolis was a pagan rather than Samaritan city, and should therefore not be linked to this report. The historical and archaeological picture of the annals of the Samaritan people in the second century CE is unclear, despite numerous excavations and surveys conducted in Samaria. The construction of the two Roman cities of Sebaste and Neapolis in the Samaritan heartland began in the second century CE. Although these cities had Samaritan populations, they were pagan cities, with Roman administration, culture, and religion. They were established following

[51]

   

Áma sù[n tÖ oÍkœ aÛtôn. theu³Ö Samaritan attempt to regain control of Mt. Gerizim during the Great Revolt, when were forced ]  off One (is) the on y G d (who   they elps to Naum [ thef mount by the Romans, which resulted in the her and P tin s ?  hi  s n  toge her with  he r  Samaritan house uprising, with its grave consequences for Samaritan settlement.

                   

   

   

 

   

       

   

   

   

   

   

The Samaritans did not participate in the BarKokhba Revolt, and therefore did not experience the almost complete destruction inflicted on Judean settlement following the failed uprising. Samaritan settlement flourished along with the growth of the Roman cities: Villages, towns, and agricultural estates that engaged in oil production began to spring up. This trend continued and reached its peak in the third and fourth centuries CE.200 We cannot distinguish between Samaritan and pagan settlements during this long period. Neapolis and Sebaste were almost certainly surrounded by pagan as well as Samaritan towns and villages,201 but they all shared the same material culture. Until the third and fourth centuries, synagogues were not built, and ritual baths were not installed in Samaritan settlements, and the only e xCava ionsof the existence of a local Samaritan clear indications e xCavat on population are the Samaritan names inscribed on tombs or sarcophagi.202 Conversely, however, the existence of Roman or Greek names does not necessarily indicate the presence of a pagan population, as is shown by the Samaritan synagogue in El-Khirbe, where none of the names are Samaritan biblical ones.203 We propose that until Christianity replaced paganism as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and a Samaritan renaissance ensued under the leadership of Baba Rabbah (see below), the Romans considered the Samaritans pagans, and the Samaritans did not enjoy religious privileges afforded the Jews. Samaritan assimilation into Roman religion and culture in the second and third centuries (which the rabbis defined as being “spoiled”) led the Romans to distinguish between them and the Jews, and the rights granted the latter were not given to the Samaritans. The Samaritans suffered religious persecution when they refused to obey the dictates of pagan rites. Circumcision was an important privilege granted the Jews, but withheld from the Samaritans. The ban on circumcision, imposed on the Jews by Hadrian during the time of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, was most likely lifted by Antoninus Pius (138–161 CE), and circumcision of Jews, but not of Samaritans, was accepted in the Roman Empire.204 Origen notes that the Samaritans suffered persecution because of their faith; rights given the Jews were withheld from the 0 of circumcision 10 cm former, was a Fig 335 and insc their iptio observance no 5 g 33 i ip 205 capital crime.

   

 

0 20 m Fig. 334. inscript on no. 4. from the Samaritans Greek inscriptions fourth century 0 20 CE.

[52]

   

   

           

   

   

       

       

   

   

       

       

vice versa. This situation affected the Samaritans, and might provide a better explanation for their expansion into the Roman cities, the Sharon, and the coastal areas than the Bar-Kokhba Revolt and the emptying of the land of its Jewish inhabitants.210 The war between Pescennius Niger and Septimius Severus was a portent of events in the Roman Empire in the third century CE, which was characterized by political and military instability, the assassination of emperors, and the seizing of power by legion commanders. The Land of Israel suffered greatly from this instability, and as a result, the structure of Neapolis and its garrison underwent significant changes.211 Philip I, known as “Philip the Arab” because of his origin in Arabia, took power in 244 CE, after murdering Gordian III.212 This emperor, like his counterparts, was short-lived; he was assassinated in 249 CE by Trajanus Decius, another legion commander. During the reign of Philip, Neapolis attained colonia status, and was called “Colonia Flavia Iulia Sergia Neapolis.” After a hiatus of 18 years, the city again struck coins. The coins from Philip’s reign were inscribed in Latin rather than Greek, as had previously been the practice. They featured all the symbols of a colonia, such as “Marsyas of the Forum,” a depiction of a drunken figure bearing a wineskin. In the eyes of the population of the provinces, this represented the new standing of the city, which enjoyed the same rights as the imperial capital. The coins of Philip’s wife, Octacilia Severa, portray the ceremony of the founding of the colonia with a depiction of an oxenpulled plow drawing the line of the planned wall that would be built when Neapolis was proclaimed a colonia. Another coin from the time of Philip shows a she-wolf nursing Romulus and Remus, symbolizing Neapolis’ status as a Roman colonia. The she-wolf was also the symbol of Legio VI Ferrata. Coins with the markings of Legio X (such as a wild boar), and Legio III continued to appear during the reigns of the emperors who took power after Philip: Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian. A coin of the latter depicts ZeusAmmon, a sheaf, and a legion standard representing the encampment of Legio III Cyrenaica in Neapolis.213 The reason for Philip’s elevation of Neapolis to colonia has not been determined. Although this

According to late Samaritan sources, the Samaritans suffered greatly at the hands of the Roman emperors in the second and third centuries CE. The Roman religious distinction between Jews and Samaritans was not unprecedented, and is reminiscent of Josephus Flavius’ account concerning the Samaritans in the time of Alexander the Great, when they requested rights like the Jews during the Sabbatical year. They were asked whether they were Jews, since these rights were given only to the latter (Ant. 11:343–344).206 During the reign of Diocletian (284–305 CE), the Samaritans were forced to offer idolatrous libations like all the other peoples, and therefore their wine was forbidden (JT ʿAbodah Zarah 5:44d).207 The late and unreliable Samaritan Chronicles tell of persecution and discrimination against the Samaritans by the emperors ruling from the mid-second to the third centuries CE. Various emperors are mentioned by name: Antoninus (apparently Antoninus Pius), Commodus, Severus Alexander, Gordian (most likely Gordian III, 238–244 CE), Philip the Arab, and Trajanus Decius.208 The Samaritan sources attempted to connect these emperors to the activity of Baba Rabbah, who most probably lived at the end of the third to the fourth centuries CE. It is noteworthy that in the Roman period, the Samaritans were seen as a problematic and significant element that needed supervision. Unlike the Jews, who were scattered in different and remote locations, the Samaritans lived in the heart of Samaria. Although the pagan cities of Neapolis and Sebaste broke the territorial continuity of the Samaritan region, Samaritan villages encompassed these two cities and were a buffer between them and the rest of the land. The Samaritans controlled Samaria’s roads and economy, especially in the agricultural sphere, which emphasized the cultivation of olives and oil production. The Samaritans’ failure to spread southward beyond the Shechem–Qalqiliya line indicates that the Romans were aware of the threat they posed, and accordingly bounded their territory with a line of fortifications and settlements that barred Samaritan expansion and appropriation of extensive imperial lands.209 The harsh economic and security conditions prevailing in the third century CE caused many people to stream from the cities to the villages, and

[53]

status had lost a great deal of its significance in the third century, the commemoration of the Roman legions on the city’s coins during Philip’s reign and that of succeeding emperors shows that this change in the city’s standing was related to the stationing of the legions there. This is also connected to the establishment of the amphitheater in Neapolis, and with the discovery of the Roman soldiers’ tombstones in Shechem.214 The amphitheater was established in the second half of the third century CE, and as in other places in the Land of Israel and Syria, its construction was linked to the army. It was built by soldiers of legions stationed in the city, who were in need of a venue for amusement and sport, as was the practice in the western part of the Empire.215 An inscription mentioning the Mezucrion, a military fortress erected by army officers in Neapolis, dates to this period.216 We do not know with certainty whether the changes Neapolis underwent and the stationing of troops in the city were related to the Samaritans. We can only assume that the Roman authorities viewed the Samaritans as problematic and that the military reinforcement of Neapolis was connected to their apprehensions.

of this sacred precinct during the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century CE, in the time of Constantine I (307–337 CE). Dozens of Samaritan inscriptions in Greek were found at the site,219 which had again become sacred to the entire Samaritan people who, in light of their general religious awakening, conducted pilgrimages to it from all parts of the Land of Israel. The four religions present in the Land of Israel in the early fourth century were Judaism, the Samaritan religion, paganism, and Christianity. Paganism lost its preeminence to Christianity when the latter became the official religion of the Roman Empire, but did not completely disappear. Only a concerted effort by Christianity over the course of many years would uproot idolatry from the Land of Israel.220 The Samaritans flourished in the period between the decline of paganism and the entrenchment of Christianity. The new religion initially gained a foothold in the major cities, but neither attempted nor succeeded in penetrating the Samaritan rural population, which would have entailed forced conversions and a violent struggle (as would later come to pass). In this early stage, Christianity was not prepared for a far-ranging religious struggle against the Samaritans, especially since early Christians felt an affinity to the latter, as to the Jews, because of the elements common to both religions.221 The abrogation of state paganism in Neapolis and the cancellation of the rites in the temple dedicated to Zeus at Mt. Gerizim paved the way for a renewal of the Samaritan rites. Nascent Christianity ascribed no religious significance to Mt. Gerizim, and therefore posed no obstacles to a renewal of the Samaritan rites there. The archaeological finds attest that only the sacred precinct was reinstated, but not the entire Samaritan city, indicating that the Byzantine emperor gave religious permission to renew the holy site, but not to rebuild the Samaritan settlement. The Christians built a church at the site only at the time of Zeno, in the late fifth century CE, within the context of their struggle against the Samaritans.222 Mt. Gerizim was not hallowed by the Christians, and Procopius distorted the narrative of the encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in order to justify the erection of a church at the site.223

The Byzantine Period The end of the third or first half of the fourth century CE marked one of the shining periods in the annals of the Samaritans. Samaritan sources connect the religious reform to the leadership of Baba Rabbah, whose influence was great in the religious, administrative, and political-military spheres. Some scholars date his activity to the fourth century CE, while others place him in the third century.217 Magnificent synagogues, with unique architecture and high quality mosaics, were first built in this period.218 They were established as a consequence of the religious renaissance led by Baba Rabbah, which intensified followed the ascent of Christianity, and of the broad distribution of Samaritan settlements both in Samaria and beyond. The most important religious undertaking of this period was the rebuilding of the ruined Samaritan sacred precinct at Mt. Gerizim, after a hiatus of more than four centuries. Numismatic findings show that the Samaritans began construction

[54]

The Samaritan population was not harmed in the first stages of Christian penetration; on the contrary, it flourished and grew, magnificent synagogues were constructed, and the sacred site at Mt. Gerizim was renewed. The Samaritan religion thrived in the vacuum created between the period during the reign of Constantine when Christianity became the official religion of the empire, and the time when it began to make serious inroads among the inhabitants of the land (a period that lasted for many decades). Pagan temples were razed, and their stones used to build magnificent Samaritan synagogues. As noted, the Roman authorities were troubled by the Samaritans’ presence in central Samaria, their dominance over extensive agricultural areas that produced agricultural items essential to the land’s economy, as well as their reverence of Mt. Gerizim (the site controlled the main crossroads of Samaria and the city of Neapolis). The establishment of Neapolis, the strengthening of Sebaste, and the establishment of areas of administrative control around these cities, curbed the Samaritans’ territorial continuity and weakened their dominance over Samaria. The Romans likewise halted their southward expansion by erecting a series of fortresses in southern Samaria and Mt. Gerizim.224 However, the transformation of Christianity into the official religion of the Roman Empire and the delegitimization of paganism removed the restraints placed on the Samaritans in the Roman period. Pagan Rome perceived the Samaritans as a political and military threat, rather than a religious one. While circumcision was forbidden to them and they were compelled to offer idolatrous libations like all the other peoples, the Samaritans did not pose a threat to paganism. They were pliable and submissive to it and assumed (whether willingly or under duress) the Roman culture and way of life to a much greater degree than did the Jews.225 The ascent of Christianity brought about major changes in the attitude of the central government to the Land of Israel. The Christians viewed themselves as the successors of the Jews, with a resultant shift in their disposition to the Land of Israel and its inhabitants: Sites connected with historical events from the biblical period and from the life of Jesus assumed additional sanctity and importance.226 Consequently,

the Christian struggle against the Samaritans took on an additional, historical-religious, dimension beyond its scope during the Roman period. As Christian penetration increased, the struggle between Christians and Samaritans intensified, and at a certain juncture the Christians viewed the Samaritans as a threat to their continued existence and expansion in the land. This was not a philosophical struggle over beliefs and creed, like that with the Jews at the time; rather, it was a territorial conflict over holy places and a conflict over the custody of biblical characters and historical events. Constantine’s religious activities at the beginning of his reign were restrained and limited: He proclaimed Christianity the official religion, but did not engage in religious persecution, and his reign was characterized by religious freedom. For decades after Christianity became the state religion and until the early fifth century, there is evidence from the Land of Israel of pagans and their temples.227 The edicts that Constantine issued were a continuation of those from the Roman period. Religious construction projects were relatively modest, and the emperor restricted himself to the erection of churches in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron (Elonei Mamre). In its first phase, Christianity entered Roman cities and areas inhabited by pagans, banned the latters’ religion, and required them to accept the Christian rites. Christianity also infiltrated places connected with biblical narratives and the life of Jesus, as well as unpopulated areas, such as the desert’s edge. No anti-Samaritan or anti-Jewish religious activity can be discerned in this phase. The Samaritans utilized this interim period to institutionalize their own religion: They began to build synagogues and renew the abandoned ritual site at Mt. Gerizim. We may assume that the authorities approved rebuilding the Samaritan sacred precinct once the pagan religion lost its legitimacy. According to Samaritan sources,228 Julian the Apostate’s anger at the taking of the temple gates might possibly hint at the abandonment of this shrine in the early fourth century CE, upon the rise of Christianity, and at its repair during the reign of Julian; its rites might even have been re-established, but this was short-lived. Samaritan sites in which synagogues were discovered are evidence of the phenomenon of the destruction of Roman structures,

[55]

the339. church enclosure the early western view Fig the church in nclosure in phase the ea of ly excavations, phase of excavations, wes

The church enclosure and the extension built during the reign of Justinian, notrhern view. Seen in the lower left is the Late Roman fortress.

51] [56

z0

25 d m s

Plan of the church enclosure from the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods.

ig 2. econs uc ion enclosure f the chu from ch e the c su e f ofmZeno. the Seen ign ofto its e north see is othe i extension orth is he extensionduring construct d Reconstruction of the church reign constructed the reign 3 t r i f h i f s hi i tr dFi ring of Justinian. i th

[57]

down during the Samaritan revolt; and the church at Mt. Gerizim. Christian historical sources attest that the Samaritans marched on Mt. Gerizim during the reign of Anastasius and overpowered the guards there. The excavations at the site confirm the very severe damage inflicted at the time: The church and the structure north of it were destroyed in the conflagration. Justinian applied lessons learned from the rebellion, and fortified the northern part of the compound and rebuilt the church.235 The Samaritans wreaked havoc on Christian sites, and large sums of money were required for their rehabilitation.236 A large portion of the funds for restoration of damaged churches throughout the Land of Israel came from the expropriation of Samaritan property.237 The Samaritans were the chief victims of these uprisings. The Byzantine authorities did not stop with the construction of a large church in the center of the Samaritan sacred precinct; they fortified it with towers and massive retaining walls. Either to enable the construction, or in order to offend Samaritan sensibilities, they completely razed the sacred compound. The Samaritan sacred precinct, and possibly also parts of the temple itself, had stood almost in their original Hellenistic-period form, until the fourth century CE. The construction of the church was not an innocent act of replacing a synagogue with a church, as both Samaritan and Christian sources hint. The Samaritan sacred precinct, razed to its foundations, dealt a severe blow to the Samaritan people.238 Christian Byzantine sources minimized the devastation suffered by the Samaritan people and to Mt. Gerizim, and Procopius argued that Mt. Gerizim had never been sacred to the Samaritans, and that the unreliable Samaritan sources similarly report, neither in detail nor at length, the havoc wrought at Mt. Gerizim. The Samaritan rural sector suffered most. Samaritan settlement had reached its apex in the late fourth and fifth centuries: Synagogues were built that had magnificent mosaics; settlements expanded; and large oil presses were established. The excavations of four Samaritan sites (El-Khirbe, Kh. Samara, Ḥ. Migdal, and Qedumim) revealed that these sites developed and grew in the fourth and fifth centuries, but were destroyed and abandoned in the early sixth century, most likely in the wake of the rebellion in 529 CE. The

primarily temples, and the reuse of their stones for the construction of synagogues. In its early stages, Byzantine rule allowed the Samaritans to renew their sacred site, but not to build the Samaritan city at Mt. Gerizim; Constantine’s permission was limited to religious needs. Several factors led to an uncompromising struggle between the Christians and the Samaritans. On the one hand, there was the Samaritan religious renaissance and the consequent extremism; the establishment of synagogues and the transformation of the sacred site at Mt. Gerizim into a pilgrimage site; and the halting of Christian penetration into the rural sector in Samaria. On the other hand, there was the intensifying religious zeal of the Christian emperors; the struggle over the holy places (Jacob’s Well and Joseph’s Tomb)229; and the activity of extreme monks, such as Bar Tzoma of Netzibin. Christians regarded Samaritans, Jews and pagans as a real and present danger to their continued religious existence230; while Samaritans battled Christians for their temple, their homes, their religion, and their land. The struggles began over the holy places in Samaria—Jacob’s Well and Joseph’s Tomb—and eventually spread to the sacred site at Mt. Gerizim (which had been of no interest to Christianity in the first phase). The journeys of the monk Bar Tzoma to Samaria231 in the late fourth century, his provocations of the Samaritans, and the wars that erupted in the Land of Israel during the reign of Emperor Marcian, both before and after the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE), also drew them into the fighting. The struggle was first expressed by the construction of the Church of Mary Theotokos at the peak of the Samaritan sacred precinct at Mt. Gerizim, and ended with the physical elimination of many Samaritans and of the expulsion of those that survived from Samaria. The Samaritans rebelled a number of times, the most serious rebellion occurring during the time of Justinian.232 The Samaritans did not sit idly by, and attacked Christian sites in the region. Christian sources relate that Samaritans assaulted churches and estates in the vicinity of Neapolis, and even entered the city and harmed its Christian residents. At least three Christian sites were attacked and burned down by Samaritans during this period: Kh. el-Burak, which contained a church233; the church at Shiloh,234 which was burned

[58]

Alexander Jannaeus, indicating the end of Samaritan settlement on Mt. Gerizim until modern times. After being destroyed, the site was abandoned for around 400 years, and when the Samaritans were permitted to renew their ritual worship on Mt. Gerizim at the end of the Roman period, no new Samaritan settlement was built, but only a place of worship. Two post-destruction coins were found. One is of the Emperor Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE), dated to 7 BCE. Another coin, dated to 9/10 CE, is of the Roman Prefect Ambibulus, who served in Judea after the reign of Archelaus, son of Herod, and during that of Augustus. Three coins were found, dated to 58/59 CE, of Festus, Procurator of Judea in 58–62 CE, who served under the emperor Nero. In addition, one coin of Nero dated to 68 CE was found, and a coin of an autonomous Roman province, dated to the end of the first century CE. No coins have been found from the two Samaritan attempts to ascend and take control of Mt. Gerizim, in the days of Pontius Pilate, 26–32 CE, and Vespasian, in 67 CE. The seven coins mentioned above are not related to historic events occurring at the site, but came there by chance. Few coins have been found from the second century CE. There are three coins of Hadrian (117–138 CE), two of Antoninus Pius (138–161 CE), and one, dated to 158–161 CE, of Faustina Junior, wife of Marcus Aurelius. After a break of another hundred years, other than one coin from the beginning of the third century CE of Alexander Severus (222–235 CE), the sequence of coins at Mt. Gerizim was renewed from the second half of the third century CE and continued until the Islamic period. In the sacred precinct (Area S, L844) a hoard of silver coins was found, containing 44 coins from the time of Aurelian until Diocletian: 4 coins of Aurelian (270–275 CE), 1 of Severina (270–275 CE), 1 of Tacitus (275–276 CE), 17 of Probus (276–282 CE), and 3 of Numerian (283–284 CE); 8 of Maximianus Herculius (286–305 CE), 4 dated to 285–295 CE, and 4 dated to 293 CE; 10 coins of Diocletian (284–305 CE), 3 dated to 284 CE, 2 dated to 285 CE, and the remainder to 293–295 CE. Additional coins found at this site are attributed to the period until the end of the third and beginning of the fourth centuries CE, before Christianity became

settlement at Qedumim, burned almost in its entirety, yielded a mass grave in which scores of victims massacred at the site were buried.239 Following the revolts, the Samaritans’ civil rights were revoked, and edicts were issued forbidding them to build or restore synagogues, along with many additional restrictions pertaining to religion, lands and inheritances.240 The Samaritans became tenant farmers on their own lands; a large number of Samaritans fell by the sword, while others were deported or fled to other regions in the Land of Israel and abroad. The uprising in 529 CE was not the last; additional insurrections took place in the middle of the sixth century.241 Excavations of Samaritan sites show that Christians did not settle these sites, nor were churches built at these locations. They were abandoned and were resettled only during the renewal of Samaritan settlement in the late Byzantine and Early Islamic periods. Although this determination is based on only four sites, we believe it is reflective of all the Samaritan communities. The reason Christians did not move into these settlements, which had been demolished and often burned as well, may have been because they could not relocate enough coreligionists to populate them. Despite Christian testimony that Samaritans converted to Christianity, we maintain that this was not a mass phenomenon, and that the Samaritans preferred to die or flee rather than convert as a condition for continuing to dwell on their lands. There is no evidence of mass conversion of the entire Samaritan community.242 The bitter revolt during Justinian’s reign did not lend itself to mass conversions, which would have required a certain degree of compromise and reconciliation on both sides. To the present, no Samaritan settlement has come to light that became Christian after being abandoned.

The coins from the Roman and Byzantine periods The numismatic finds from the Roman and Byzantine periods correspond to the historic events that occurred at Mt. Gerizim involving the Samaritan people during these periods, described above. As mentioned, the latest coins found at Mt. Gerizim related to the destruction of the city and the temple are the coins of

[59]

the official religion in the Roman world: 26 coins of Probus (276–282 CE), 1 of Carinus (283–285 CE), 2 of Constantius I (305–306 CE); 3 of Licinius I (308– 324 CE), 3 of Licinius II (317–324 CE), those of the two latter rulers dated between 317 and 320 CE; 4 of Crispus (317–326 CE), dated between 318 and 320 CE, 8 of Constantine I (307–337 CE), dated between 313 and 322 CE, and 3 of Constantine II (337–340 CE), dated between 316 and 322 CE. The existence of coins from this period, after a gap of hundreds of years, raises the question of whether the coins indicate the return of the Samaritans and the renewal of ritual worship on Mt. Gerizim at the end of the third century CE, or whether they are the result of Roman activity on the mountain. Might they indicate that the Samaritans began to return only after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, after the state-sponsored pagan temples were removed and the Samaritans could go up to the mountain without the disturbance of the Romanpagan temple that stood on the main road between Neapolis and Mt. Gerizim. The presence of coins from this period after a centuries-long hiatus, the historical sources, and the archaeological finds, including dozens of Samaritan inscriptions in Greek found on Mt. Gerizim and dated to the fourth century CE, strengthen our hypothesis that the return to Mt. Gerizim and the renewal of Samaritan ritual took place at the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century CE. At this time, synagogues began being built as a result of the Samaritan renaissance. The dating of the numismatic finds from the end of the third and beginning of the fourth century CE is similar to that of the building found next to the sacred precinct in the north of the mountain, close to the stairs that ascend to Mt. Gerizim. With regard to the building, there are doubts as to whether it is a pagan building or a Samaritan synagogue built after the Roman temple fell out of use.243 In a hoard in Area G, 24 bronze coins were found from the time of Licinius I, previously mentioned, until the time of Constantius II. In the period before the rise of Christianity, two coins were found of Licinius I, dated to 316–320 CE, one of Crispus, dated to 317–320 CE, and two others, dated to 324–326 CE; four coins of Constantine I dated to 317–320 CE, one

dated to 327/328, and six to 324–330 CE; one coin of Constantine II dated to 317 CE, and four coins dated to 324–330 CE, before he was crowned emperor in 337–340 CE; one coin of Fausta, dated to 324–326 CE; and two of Constantius II, 324–330 CE, before he was crowned emperor in 337–361 CE. This hoard should be dated to 330 CE on the basis of the latest coins from the period after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A total of 26 coins of Constantine I were found at the site, from both before and after Christianity became the official religion in 324 CE. From the time of his son Constantine II, 337–340 CE, 10 coins were found, 7 of which are dated to after 324 CE. The coins from the third and fourth centuries CE found at Mt. Gerizim are important for our understanding of a historic event in the life of the Samaritan nation. After 400 years, the Samaritans went up to Mt. Gerizim and renewed their ritual worship there. In addition to the coins in the hoards, some 200 were found from the fourth century CE, half of which can be dated in general to this century. Among the coins of the rulers in this century, four were found from the time of Constans I (337–350 CE), seventeen from the time of Constantius II, four from the time of Julian II (360–363 CE), one from the time of Valentinian I (364–378 CE), one from the time of Valens (364–378 CE), and eight from the time of Valentinian II (375–392 CE). Eleven coins were found from the time of Theodosius I (379–395 CE); one of his wife Flacilla from 383 CE; and thirteen of his son Arcadius, nine dated to 383–395 CE, before he became emperor in 395–408 CE; and one coin of his wife Eudoxia. Over 170 coins are dated in general terms to the fourth to fifth centuries CE. Two hundred and fifty coins were found from the fifth century CE, half of which can be dated generally to the fifth century CE, as well as many coins of the anonymous imitative issues type. Five coins were found from the time of Honorius (393–423 CE), only one of which is dated with certainty to the fourth century CE. Eight coins were found from the time of Theodosius II, one from the time of Valentinian III (425–455 CE), and twenty-two from the time of Marcian, 450–457 CE. Thirty-one coins were found of Leo I (457–474 CE), and thirteen of Zeno (474–491 CE), in whose

[60]

especially the Samaritans, suffered; in each of the four Samaritan excavated sites, settlement ceased to exist in this period and was not renewed. Cessation of settlement is characteristic of many regions in the Land of Israel in the end of the Umayyad period; and the Samaritan population in the land began to decrease rapidly, culminating in its grave state in the late nineteenth century. Historical testimonies concerning the Samaritans in the Early Islamic period come from Samaritan sources, primarily the Kitab al-Taʾrikh of Abu l’Fath, which was composed in the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries, and apparently faithfully presents the annals of the Samaritans in the Islamic period. Archaeological finds show that the Samaritan population was not harmed following the Arab conquest of the Land of Israel. Evidence in other regions of the Land of Israel reveals that the Jewish and Christian populaces continued to exist until the eighth century. According to the Samaritan Kitab al-Taʾrikh, some Samaritans inhabiting the coastal cities fled to Byzantium, together with the local population, and especially Byzantine officials and military commanders; while the people residing in the interior of the land remained and continued to thrive. In the abovementioned Samaritan source, Muhammad is portrayed in a positive light, and his name is even written in Samaritan letters. It has not been determined, however, if this view of the founder of Islam reflects the Umayyad period, or the time in which the Samaritan Chronicle was penned. The cultivation of olives and oil production was one of the main agricultural branches in Samaria in the late Byzantine and Umayyad periods.247 It has become increasingly clear that this branch made exceptional progress, specifically in the Early Islamic period, when olive cultivation and oil production moved southward to the Hebron area, where olives had never before been grown. The Muslims transformed the Land of Israel, and especially Samaria, into major exporters of olive oil. Not only did a considerable portion of the oil presses found in Samaria continue to exist in the Umayyad period, existing presses were expanded and new presses built. The rise to power of the Abbasids in the mideighth century CE marked the beginning of the end of the Samaritan people and of Jewish and Christian

days the church and surrounding complex began being built. Prior to the construction of the church complex, the Samaritans were apparently permitted to go up and pray in the sacred precinct, until the Samaritan revolts began. From the sixth century CE, 293 coins were found. This is a relatively small number compared to the large scale of activity taking place at the site, such as the enlargement of the fortress in the time of Justinian I, as mentioned in the sources. Sixty coins of Anastasius I (491–518 CE), were found, as well as 25 of Justin I (518–527 CE), 50 of Justinian I (527– 565 CE) at the height of construction of the second stage of the fortified Byzantine complex, 22 of Justin II (565–578 CE), 5 of Tiberius II, and 20 of the time of Maurice Tiberius (582–602 CE). The continuity of coins on the mountain continues through the Byzantine period, and includes four coins from the time of Phocas (602–610 CE), sixteen of Heraclius (610–641 CE), ten of Constans II (641–668 CE), and three from the time of Constantine IV (668–685 CE).

The Early Islamic Period Exactly when in the late Byzantine and Early Islamic periods Samaritan settlements began to be cannot be determined, but we know that Samaritans inhabited these sites.244 The late stratum of every site excavated contained many ritual baths and renovated synagogues, definitely proving that a Samaritan population returned to dwell in its land.245 The outstanding characteristics of these sites are major site expansion and poor construction, which was typical of the late Byzantine and Early Islamic periods. Antoninus of Placentia, who visited the Land of Israel in 570 CE, tells of Samaritan villages in the Samaria region.246 Archaeological finds at excavated Samaritan sites indicate that the settlements continued to exist in their Byzantine format throughout most of the Early Islamic period. The Islamic conquest did not result in the direct destruction of these settlements and the expulsion of their residents; rather, they continued to develop and grow, probably until the end of the Umayyad period. All this changed during the Abbasid period, when the governmental center moved from Damascus to Baghdad and a process of religious extremism set in. The Land of Israel as a whole, and

[61]

Chronicles charge the district governor with ordering the burning of the church in order to blame the Samaritans and then extort money from them, it seems that the Samaritans had long awaited the destruction of the church erected by Zeno in their sacred precinct. In any event, the arson raised tensions between Samaritans and Christians. This account indicates the continued existence of a Christian community in Neapolis, and of the Church of Mary Theotokos, until the middle of the seventh century CE. The situation further deteriorated, and the Samaritan community continued to wane, due both to conversions to Islam and to harsh economic and security conditions. By the Crusader conquest, the large Samaritan population, which had succeeded in surviving the revolts and their bloody aftermath and had even grown and expanded over the course of some two centuries, had almost disappeared. Only a few thousand out of the tens of thousands of Samaritans remained.

settlements in the Land of Israel. This period also witnessed the earthquake that struck the Land of Israel in 749 CE, a plague of locusts, and transfer of the Abbasids’ capital from Damascus to Baghdad, as well as repressive local governors who oppressed the population and exploited it. The removal of the center of government brought anarchy and wars between the various Arab tribes, which led to a deterioration of security and severe harm to the population of the Land of Israel, the collapse of its economy, the depletion of its population, and mass conversions to Islam.248 It should be noted that these conditions were not limited to the Samaritans, and were characteristic of the Jews and Christians, as well. The extensive Christian community of the southern Hebron Hills that comprised hundreds of monasteries and villages ceased to exist in the late eighth century. One of the events that had devastating consequences for the Samaritans was their apparent burning of the church at Mt. Gerizim. Although the Samaritan

Notes 1

Macdonald 1964: 14–21; Bóid 1989a; 1989b; Crown, Pummer and Tal 1993: 108–111; Pummer 2016: 231–239. 2 Gaster 1925: 96–158; Tal 1989; 2002: 521–536; Pummer 2016: 241–249. 3 Stenhouse 2002: 539–543; Adler and Seligsohn 1902: 90–91. 4 Dexinger 1989: 272–276; 2002: 514–516. See also: Crown, Pummer and Tal 1993: 224–226; Pummer 2002: 9, 26–29. Although belief in the Messiah began later than the destruction of the Second Temple, it existed from the end of the Second Temple period (Ant. 18:85–87); Collins 1972; Mor 2003: 159–161; Kalimi and Purvis 1994. 5 Magen 2008a: 97–164. 6 For the Aramaic and Hebrew inscriptions, see Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004. 7 Forthcoming, volumes IV–V: Private Architecture and the Archaeological Finds from the Excavations at Mount Gerizim. 8 Magen 2008b. 9 Tadmor 1973: 69–71; 1984; Demski 1983: 40–56; Talmon 1983: 28–29; Cross 1983: 81–82; 2002; Ephʿal 1991; 2002: 43–44; Lipschits 2004a. See also Diakonoff 1991: 18–20. 10 For Beth Ḥoron at the border of Ephraim, see Josh. 15:5. See also: Press 1942; Grintz 1957: 100–102. 11 Lie 1929: 10–17, 23–26; Tadmor 1958a: 33–40. See also:

Tadmor 1958b; 1983; Coggins 1975: 17; Ephʿal 1982: 125– 127; Naʾaman 1990; Becking 1992: 25–38. 12 Oded 1978a; 1978b; 1979; Naʾaman 1989a; 1993a. See also Malamat 1954. 13 Tadmor 1973: 70–71; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 208–213; Becking 1992: 21–45. 14 Tadmor 1958a: 34, 36; Naʾaman 1989a: 55. 15 Cogan 2002: 28–30; Talmon 2002: 9–27. 16 We cannot accept A. Zertal’s opinion that wedgedecorated bowls found in the survey in Samaria belong to the Cutheans, who were brought by the Assyrians; see Zertal 1989. 17 Becking 1992: 112 –118; Ephʿal 2002: 38–40, notes 27– 30. 18 Cogan 2002: 29–30. For the reforms of Josiah and the borders of Judah, see Lipschits 2004a: 159–164, and bibliography there. See also: Naʾaman 1989b: 53–71; 1991: 33–60. 19 Japhet 1977: 279, note 223. In the Assyrian sources, the inhabitants of Samaria who were deported to Assyria were defined as Samaritans: Becking 1992: 61–93; Ephʿal 2002. 20 Cogan 2002: 29. 21 Rosenbaum 1979: 33 –36. 22 Concerning the attitude toward the Samaritans, see Japhet 1977: 278–279, 284–285, note 244. See also: Japhet 1968:

[62]

353 –354; 1983: 194–196; 1995: 129–130, 140–141; Gil 1968; Cogan 2002: 30; Cross 2002: 47–50. 23 Cogan 2002: 32. The author of Chronicles accepts both the remnant of the Israelite tribes and the people brought by the kings of Assyria as equal in status to the Israelites. 24 Concerning the later addition of Chapter 17 to II Kings, the exile of the inhabitants of Samaria, and the importation of other people in the Return to Zion period, see: Cogan 2002; Talmon 2002. Even if we assume, as S. Talmon suggests, that Chapter 17 was added in the Return to Zion period, the question remains as to why the author of the Book of Kings ignores the Israelite remnant, as do the authors of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. 25 Cross 2002: 55–58; see also Japhet 1985. 26 Lipschits 2004a: 123 –137, 272 –291. 27 An additional Jewish political entity that should be mentioned is the satrapy of Ammon, created in the Persian period. Apparently, following the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests (Ant. 10:181), and the exiles from Gilead, the ethnic composition of Ammon changed and the Ammonite population decreased. In the Ammonite satrapy there was a Judahite or Israelite population that may have arrived there following the destruction of Samaria and Judah (Jer. 40:11). The Ammonite satrapy also included southern Gilead and the area of Tobiah’s family. In the Hellenistic period the satrapy was terminated and there was still a large Jewish population in its western part, which was called Perea. Judah the Maccabee fought to save the Jews living in the area (I Macc. 5:6–29). See Rappaport 2004: 170–178. See also Kasher 1988a: 29–33. The Book of Nehemiah mentions Tobiah the Ammonite servant who was of Jewish origin, and held a high position in the Persian administration of the satrapy of Ammon (Neh. 2:10). It appears that he had more connections with Judah and Jerusalem than any other ruler mentioned in Nehemiah. This connection expressed itself in Eliashib the High Priest giving him a chamber in the Temple (Neh. 13:7), which aroused the ire of Nehemiah when he returned to Jerusalem. One must assume that Nehemiah’s anger over the action of Eliashib the High Priest was political rather than religious because Tobiah was of Jewish origin. Tobiah had many who were loyal to him in Judah. He was the son-in-law of Shecaniah the son of Arah; and his son Jehohanan had married the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah (Neh. 6:18). See: Mazar 1956; 1957a; 1957b; 1974: 270–290; Oded 1971: 265; Kochman 1980: 243–245; Stern 1992a; Gera 1993; Herr 1999: 219–228, 233 –235; Lipschits 2004b. 28 Grintz 1959: 138–140; Mantel 1983: 37–51, 52– 60; Cogan 2002: 31–32. For the differences between the books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, see: Mazar 1965; Liver 1970; Segal 1971; Williamson 1982: 5–11, 67. 29 Segal 1971: 150.

30

Cross maintains that the Assyrians exiled only the elite class of the city of Samaria, see Cross 2002: 46. For a comparison of the number of people exiled from Samaria versus those who stayed behind, see Mor 2003: 21–22. We maintain that his assessments are exaggerated. 31 Finkelstein 1994. 32 Kochavi 1972: 36–193; Magen and Finkelstein 1993. The intensive settlement in the Jordan Valley in the beginning of the seventh century BCE is probably a consequence of the destruction of Samaria and the flight of its inhabitants to the fringe areas. See also: Lipschits 2000: 32 –34; 2004a: 26–27; Magen 2004: 1–2; Magen and Peleg 2018: 101–104. 33 Nicholson 1967: 58–106; Weinfeld 1972: 366–370. See also Naʾaman 1993b: 25–42. 34 Tadmor 1958a: 34. 35 Becking 1992: 61–93; Avigad 1993; Cross 2002: 45–50. 36 Zertal 1992: 55; 1996: 56; Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 48. 37 See note 16 above. 38 Gal 1990: 142–143. 39 Dar 1986a. 40 Riklin 1997; see also Eitam 1992. 41 Finkelstein 1981. See also Faust 1995: 24–28. According to Faust, the farms were the economic hinterland of the coastal plain’s cities, and the inhabitants there took advantage of turmoil in the Samarian settlements that was the result of the Assyrian conquest to expand their area of control toward the slopes of Samaria. 42 Naʾaman 1989a: 56–57; Becking 1992: 61–93; Ephʿal 2002: 38–44, notes 27–38. 43 See Mor 2003: 28–32. 44 For Idumea, see Magen 2008c. See also: Cross 1955; Kochman 1980: 255–259; Ephʿal 1984: 210–214; Kokkinos 1998: 44, note 38. 45 Zertal 1990. Zertal points out, in light of the surveys conducted in the region, the significant development of the Samarian region in the Persian period and a decline of settlement in the early Hellenistic period caused by the conquest of Ptolemy I (Ant. 12:7). See also: Zertal 1992: 56– 58; 1996: 86–87; Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 48–49. Because of the difficulty distinguishing between the pottery of the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods (fourth and beginning of the third centuries BCE), Zertal’s conclusions are difficult to accept. There is no doubt that Samaria flourished in the Persian period, and perhaps a decline followed the destruction of Samaria by Alexander the Great and by Ptolemy I Soter after him, but Samaria continued to flourish in the Hellenistic period, and the Samaritan city on Mt. Gerizim was at its center. Except for Mt. Gerizim, there are almost no settlements from the Persian period that contained Persian architectural remains: neither Samaria, nor biblical Shechem, nor the settlement of Qedumim. As most of the archaeological finds

[63]

were found in layers of fill and in cisterns, it was impossible to prove that there was, in fact, development in settlement in the Persian period, except for Zertal’s findings in his surveys. 46 Ephʿal 1971: 130–146; Kochman 1980: 158–201; Kasher 1988a: 1–6; Ronen 1988; Lipschits 2004a: 180–202; Magen 2008c: 2–12. 47 Rachmani 1964: 209–214; Stern 1982: 29–38; Magen and Finkelstein 1993; Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997. 48 Hizmi and Shabtai 1994; Dadon 1997a; Magen and Dadon 2003: 124–25. Most of the sites in Judah and in the Land of Benjamin from the Persian period are small and poor compared to those from the Iron Age before it and the Hellenistic period after it, see Magen and Finkelstein 1993: Maps 6–8. 49 Bullae and seals were discovered with names of governors like Elhanan, etc.; Avigad 1976: 5–7, 11–13; Cross 2002: 52, notes 26–28. 50 Segal 1968: 818–819; Demski 1983: 52–55; Tadmor 1984: 265, 271–276; Cross 2002: 59–61. 51 Cross does not accept Alt’s assumption that Sanballat harassed and resisted Nehemiah because the satrapy of Judah was under the rule of the satrapy of Samaria before Nehemiah’s arrival in Judah, and Nehemiah tried to rebel against this. See Cross 2002: 52–53, notes 24–25. See also Alt 1953: 333–337. 52 Mazar 1974: 270–290; 1957a. 53 Feigin 1926: 58; Liver 1968; Grintz 1969: 37, note 10; Zadok 1985: 569–570. He assumed that Sanballat the Horonite originated from Beth Ḥoron, a place in Benjamin to which exiles and Assyrian officials were brought. 54 See note 10 above. 55 Cross 2002: 59, note 59. 56 Eshel 2007. Different names appear on other coins; could they be the names of the governors of Samaria? See Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 17–18. 57 The name Jeroboam appears on Samaritan coins; there was apparently a Samaritan ruler by this name. See: Spaer 1979; 1980. 58 Yankelevitch 1983: 151–156. 59 See Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004. Six inscriptions with the title “Cohen” were found at Mt. Gerizim: nos. 21, 24–25, 382, 388–389; and others with the title “Levi,” nos. 56, 165. See also: Naveh and Magen 1997: 43–44; Magen, Tsfania and Misgav 2000: 130–132. 60 Eshel 1997: 19–30. 61 Cowley 1923: 108–119, no. 30. The name Delayah was also found in Mt. Gerizim inscriptions; see Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004: nos. 30, 147. 62 Cross 1974: 21; Schwartz 1990: 178; 2002: 108–113; Eshel 1999: 8–9. 63 Cross 1974: 18, Pl. 61. 64 Naveh 2002; Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004: 30–36.

65

Meshorer and Qedar 1991: 11–12; 1999: 15–16; Stern 2002; see also Cross 1974. 66 Naʾaman 1989a: 62. He presumes that the lack of finds related to the people brought by the Assyrian king points to their nonexistence. 67 Kasher 2002a: 154, note 3. 68 Magen 2008a: 167–168, Pls. 1–6. 69 Magen 2008a: 169. 70 For sacrificing and the altar, see Cowley 1923: 122–124, no. 32; see also Porten 1968: 118–122. 71 We cannot accept the opinion that following the Babylonian and other exiles after the destruction of the First Temple, prayers were developed as substitutes for sacrifices. Synagogue rites developed only at the end of the Second Temple period, especially after the destruction of the Second Temple, as did prayer as a replacement for sacrifices. See the different views of Kaufmann 1977: 32–35; and of Smith 1984. 72 Magen 2008a: 167–169, Pl. 1–6. 73 Kent 1917: 218–223; Schalit 1940: 259; Luria 1977: 55–56. Most scholars think that the split began with the construction of the temples at Jerusalem and Mt. Gerizim in the Persian period. See: Coggins 1975: 66; Tov 1989; Cross 2002: 55. 74 Cross 1961a; 1966: 210–211; 2002: 66, note 92. Based on the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, Cross reached the conclusion that the split between the Samaritans and the Jews took place at the end of the Hasmonean period. In his opinion, John Hyrcanus forced the Samaritans to accept the principles of Judaism, as he had forced the Idumeans. See also: Wright 1965: 183–184; Purvis 1968: 10–98. 75 Eshel and Eshel 2002. The article strengthens H. Eshel’s claim about the unification of the Samaritan community in the third century CE. However, this claim proved to be incorrect in light of the excavations; see Eshel 2002. 76 Many scholars have dealt with this issue and there is a wide variety of opinions concerning it. It is worth noting that most scholars reject Josephus Flavius’ testimony about the establishment of the temple in the days of Sanballat at the time of Alexander the Great’s campaign in the Land of Israel. Most of them see the story of Alexander visiting Jerusalem and meeting the high priest as a legend. On this matter, see: Gutman 1940: 281–290; Schalit 1940; Golan 1983: 37–55; see also Kasher 1975: 199–208. In Kasher’s opinion, Josephus’ testimony about the establishment of the temple by Sanballat in the time of Alexander the Great and his meeting with the high priest are to be accepted. Kasher also believed that the archaeological remains found by R. Bull in the northern part of Mt. Gerizim beneath the temple of Zeus are of the Samaritan temple. See: Kasher 2002a: 154, note 3; Mor is also of this opinion: Mor 1993; see also: Marcus 1937a; Rowley 1955–1956; Momigliano 1979; Cohen 1983: 62. For the finds and a discussion about Alexander the Great,

[64]

93

Sanballat’s temple, and the end of the Persian period, see also Marcus 1937b. Following the findings in Wadi ed-Daliyeh, both Cross and Wright accepted Josephus’ testimony concerning the building of the temple. See: Cross 1963: 121; 1966; 2002: 62–70; Wright 1965: 170–184; Coggins 1975: 129; Grabbe 1987: 236–243; Mor 1989a: 4–5. 77 Schwartz 1990: 192–198; 2002: 108–127. 78 Magen 1989: 60–64. 79 Eshel 1991: 131–132; 1994: 142; 1996: 360–361; Mor 1993; 1994: 45–64. 80 Mor 2003: 72–94. In his book, Mor continues discussing the temple in the city of Samaria, which is clearly irrelevant today. It is difficult for Mor to admit that Josephus erred, and he therefore makes a series of claims about the dating of the remains on Mt. Gerizim without ever having seen the finds that were discovered. 81 Magen 2008a: 97–164, 167–205. 82 Wright 1956: 14–15; 1962: 360–366; 1965: 170–184; see also: Cross 1963: 119–121; 1966: 202–203; 1974: 20– 22; Purvis 1974: 28–30. See also Coggins 1975: 106. He criticizes G.E. Wright’s historical analysis, and doubts that Shechem was built as a consequence of the destruction of Samaria and the fleeing of Samaritans to Wadi ed-Daliyeh after the revolt, during the reign of Alexander the Great. 83 Curtius Rufus IV, 8: 9–11. 84 Eusebius, Chronicon: 114; Hieronymus, Chronicon: 123. See also: Pummer 2002: 194, no. 79; Schürer 1979: 160–161. 85 Cross 1974: 17–18. 86 Magen 2009 I: 243–257. For Bull’s excavations, see also p. 260, note 23. 87 Magen 2009 I: 248–255. 88 On the site’s stratigraphy, see Toombs 1972: 102–110. 89 Sellers 1962: 89. This kind of hoard does not necessarily reflect the beginning of the Hellenistic period, and certainly does not reflect the time of Alexander the Great, because silver coins were continued to be valuable long after the period of their minting. We think that this hoard should be dated based on its latest coin, of Ptolemy V Epiphanes, rather than on its earliest coin. 90 The fact that a stratum of life from the Persian period was not found at Tell Balatah does not necessarily indicate that there was no settlement at the site at that time. The pottery discovered at the site is similar to that discovered at Mt. Gerizim and was dated by us to the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. In Shechem, it was dated to some 100 years earlier. The excavators’ claim that the city was abandoned at the end of the Persian period must be regarded as very dubious; see Lapp 1985: 19. 91 For the Persian-period finds in Qedumim, see: Magen 1982; 1993b: 167–180; Stern and Magen 1982: 194–195; 1984: 24. 92 Stern 1982: 29–31.

Stern 1981: 323–325. Bar-Kochva 1996: 113–121; Kasher 1996: 330–334. 95 Tcherikover 1974a: 60–61. In his opinion, it was common in the Ptolemaic period to settle soldiers and give them land. See also Klozner 1959: 114; the latter believes that the Ptolemies founded military colonies as garrison towns. See also: Fuks 1983: 13–19; Kasher 1988b: 16–28. On the importance of Samaria as a military stronghold, see Schürer 1979: 160–161. 96 Hellenistic pottery was found at Ḥuzn Yaʿqub; see: Magen 2009 I: 30; 2009 II: Pl. 1:3–16. Persian pottery was found at Kurum Ashur, see Pl. 1–2. 97 Stern 1992b: 4–5, 9. 98 Rappaport 1981; Meshorer 1982: 20, 31–32. 99 Rappaport 1990: 376–377; see also note 73 above. 100 Mor’s opinion that Josephus relates to the new capital built after the destruction of Samaria is unfounded; see Mor 2003: 61–62. How could the Samaritans have invited Alexander the Great to visit the city of Shechem and their temple? Shechem was built after the destruction of Samaria, when Sanballat was no longer alive and the Samaritans had been expelled from their capital city and fled to the caves of Wadi ed-Daliyeh. 101 Bar-Kochva 1989: 131, note 3. He doubts that 8,000 Samaritan soldiers were transferred to Egypt under the command of Alexander the Great. 102 Mor 1980: 72–81. He argues that there were two disputes, one in the reign of Ptolemy I Soter, and the other in that of Ptolemy III Euergetes. See also: Fraser 1972: 445–446, note 793; Rappaport 1990: 378, note 19. Rappaport claims that the dispute in Ant. 13:74–79 is the same one that appears in Ant. 12:10. 103 Bruneau 1982: 465–475. 104 Bevan 1964: 37; Gera 1998: 10–34. See also Golan 1983, the Battle of Raphia (Gaza), pp. 410–413, and the Fifth Syrian War, pp. 435–438. 105 Bickerman 1980a: 44–52. 106 Mor 1993: 326. In his opinion there is evidence neither of the Ptolemies’ negative attitude toward the Samaritans nor of the Seleucids’ positive attitude toward them. See also Rappaport 1990: 376–377. 107 Polybius V, 86: 8–9; Tcherikover 1974b: 59–60. 108 Stern 1962: 43; Tcherikover 1974b: 57; Kasher 1980: 27–29; 1988a: 19. 109 Hengel 1974; Kasher 1988b: 31–49. 110 Tcherikover 1974b: 59–62. 111 Most sites in northern Judea with finds from the Second Temple period revealed settlement from the Seleucid period in the second century BCE. This was one of the greatest periods of settlement in the area of Judea and Samaria. The surveys and excavations in the territory of Benjamin revealed that most of the sites began to flourish in the Seleucid period. 94

[65]

These sites continued to flourish in spite of the Hasmonean revolt. See Magen 2004: 6–11; for the archaeological survey of the Land of Benjamin, see Magen and Finkelstein 1993. 112 Avigad 1980: 63, 95; see also: Avigad 1970: 5; 1972: 198– 200; Geva 1985: 29–30. Geva assumes that settlement of the Upper City of Jerusalem began in the Hasmonean period and that the pottery and numismatic finds from the Seleucid period were in secondary use in the Hasmonean period. It appears that wide-scale construction from the Hasmonean period until the destruction of the Second Temple devastated the Hellenistic strata of the Upper City. There is no doubt that intensive construction in Jerusalem had already begun with the Seleucids. See also: Tsafrir 1975; 1980: 22–24, notes 11–13. 113 Tzeitlin 1935: 137–139, note 96; Yadin 1967: 4, note 15; Segal 1972: 340–341; Kahana 1978: 438; Mor 2003: 95–102. See also Purvis 1965: 89. He dates the Book of Ben Sira to 180 BCE. See also: Moore 1927: 353–354; Marcus 1943. See also: Megillat Taʿanit for 21 Kislev, “the day of Mt. Gerizim,” with a parallel tradition in BT Yoma 64a. 114 Rappaport 1990: 376–377. See also the opinion of Purvis 1965: 89. 115 Y. Tsafrir relates the building of the Second Temple to Alexander Jannaeus and opposes the idea that the Temple was built in the days of Simeon the Just. See Tsafrir 1980: 34, note 46. 116 Schuller 1990: 352–354, 376. 117 We cannot accept S. Schwartz’s opinion that the temple at Mt. Gerizim remained dedicated to Zeus until its destruction by John Hyrcanus I. According to her view, we must presume that the “Sidonians in Shechem,” who sent the letter to Antiochus IV (Ant. 12:258), were in charge of the temple; see Schwartz 1993: 15. The archaeological finds show no traces of paganism on Mt. Gerizim and the temple. 118 In the archaeological excavations conducted on the northern slopes of Mt. Gerizim, the place where the city of Neapolis was to be built, imported pottery vessels were discovered that were found at the site at Mt. Gerizim; see Magen 2009 II: Pl. 1:3–16; for the local pottery from Mt. Gerizim, see Magen 2008a: 209–210, Figs. 286–287. In the Roman period the administrative district “territory of Sebaste,” mentioned in the Rehov Inscription was mainly pagan; see Magen 2008d: 91–94 and bibliography there. It was also mentioned by Eusebius; see Onomasticon, 893. 119 Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004: 59–60, nos. 14–15. 120 Golan 1983: 808. The Hellenistic rulers gave the title epistates to the person representing them who was responsible for various civil areas in the administrative units in the various cities of the kingdom. He was responsible for the finances of temple properties and their estates in Ptolemaic Egypt, and even functioned as an inspector and administrator for specifically defined tasks.

Doran 1983: 482–483. See also: the discussion about II Macc. 6, Schwartz 2004: 147–148, 301–302. 122 Hengel 1974: 263–266, 285–286. 123 Bickerman 1980b; see G. Alon’s criticism: Alon 1977: 169–172. See also: Stern 1972: 60–66; Mor 2003: 106–122. 124 Rappaport 1990: 386–389. 125 Tcherikover 1974a: 146–155; Bickerman 1979: 43–44. It seems that Bickerman’s opinion is more realistic. 126 Bevan 1964: 173–174. He claims that those who sent the letter to Antiochus IV were Hellenized Samaritans who were not related to the Samaritan community, as happened in Jerusalem. 127 Tcherikover 1974b: 84; Fuks 1983: 29–34. 128 Isaac 1991: 139–140; Kasher 1992: 13 –14. 129 It seems that Josephus meant the “Sidonians in Shechem,” whom he had mentioned earlier. 130 Tcherikover 1974a: 146–155. Gerash was also called “Antiochia on the Orontes;” see Bickerman 1979: 38–42. 131 Magen 2009 I: 124–129. 132 Magen, Misgav and Tsfania 2004: 68– 69, no. 26; Magen 2009 I: 66–67. 133 Magen 2009 I: 127. 134 Hercules was associated with Alexander the Great’s family. See: Schor 1935: 103 –104; Gutman 1940: 282 –284. Gutman thinks that the Macedonian royal family and Alexander the Great were related to Hercules and that they were therefore connected to the city of Tyre, because the Greeks identified Melqart with Hercules; see Herodotus 2.44. 135 Kasher 1988b: 21–28. 136 Tcherikover 1974a: 33–134. 137 Golan 1983: 481. 138 Golan 1983: 706–707. 139 Golan 1983: 707. 140 Ariel 2012. 141 Tcherikover 1974b: 72–73; Kasher 1988b: 35–38; Stern 1992c: 132. 142 Kasher 1988b: 88–98, 113–117; see also Tcherikover 1974b: 191–197. 143 Bevan 1964: 249; Kasher 1988b: 115–116; Hall 1989: 34; Schwartz 1993: 9–11; see also: Flusser 1978: 115–116; Klozner 1981: 147–148. 144 Stern 1961: 8–9. 145 Bar-Kochva 1989: 162–163. 146 Bar-Kochva 1989: 162. 147 Wright 1957: 27–28. Several coins of Antiochus VIII dated to 120–121 BCE and one coin from 112–111 BCE were found; see: Toombs and Wright 1961: 46–47; Wright 1962. 148 Campbell 1991: 97. 149 Y. Meshorer believed that the first to mint coins was John Hyrcanus II. Perhaps he changed his opinion following the discoveries at Mt. Gerizim and elsewhere in recent years. 121

[66]

(from the Great Revolt to the fourth century); see Zertal 1996. Zertal found, in his survey of Naḥal Iron to Naḥal Shechem, a general decline in settlement in the Hellenistic period, probably due to the devastation caused by the conquest by Alexander the Great. The number of settlements rose greatly in the Early Roman and Herodian periods, due to the growth of the Narbata district. The number of settled sites was stable during the Late Roman and Byzantine periods; see Zertal and Mirkam 2000. The survey of eastern Samaria from Naḥal Bezeq to Mt. Sartaba showed settlement recovery in the Hellenistic period, with a decline in the Early Roman period before rising in the Late Roman period; see Zertal 2005. The many surveys conducted in Samaria do not present a uniform and conclusive portrait of settlement distribution in each period. A different picture emerges from the archaeological excavations conducted in Samaria: The Hasmoneans, not Alexander the Great, conquered and destroyed Shechem and Mt. Gerizim, expelled their inhabitants, and garrisoned forces in a few places in these regions, to prevent the Samaritans from rebuilding their temple. Samaritan rural settlement distribution also most likely declined after the Hasmonean conquest. The Samaritan site at Qedumim presents a settlement gap between the Hellenistic period and the first century CE; see: Magen 1985; 1993a. Two additional Samaritan sites, Kh. Samara and El-Khirbe, did not yield finds from the first century BCE, with a probable settlement gap in the wake of the Hasmonean conquest of Samaria; see Magen 1993b. 157 Reich 1990; Netzer 2001: 39– 43; Magen 2008f. 158 Cross 1961b: 192–193; Eshel and Eshel 2002: 132–152. Their view regarding the acceptance of the Samaritan version from the Jews in the second century BCE is neither acceptable nor logical. See also Purvis 1968: 117–118. 159 Kasher 1988b: 168–173; Stern 1999: 203–227; Magen 2009 I: 43. 160 Magen 2009 I: 243–257. 161 Di Segni 1990: 343, 348; Magen 2008a: 246–249. 162 Magen 2008a: 264–269; 2008e. 163 Chronographia L.XV.34; Chronicon Paschale: 603–604; Adler and Seligsohn 1903: 74–75; Magen 2008a: 249–252. 164 Magen 2009 I: 257, 260–261. 165 The conquest by Pompey and his liberation and restoration of the Hellenistic cities resulted in a significant reduction in the areas conquered by the Hasmoneans, who were almost certainly forced to retreat and were expelled from Samaria and the Samarian areas they had controlled; see Kasher 1988b: 170–171. 166 Josephus relates (Ant. 1:403) that Herod settled 6,000 farmers in the city and gave them prime lands. See also: Schalit 1964: 97–100; Isaac 1986; Kasher 1988b: 182, 189–192. 167 Montgomery 1968: 83. See also: the opinion of Kokkinos

See: Meshorer 1974; 1982: 35–40. See also: Kanael 1950– 1951; Hanson 1974: 21; Barag and Qedar 1980. 150 Kloner 1991: 82 –83. In the site there were found coins dated from after 128 BCE, a coin from 115–114 BCE, and one from 112–111 BCE. 151 Finkielsztejn 1998: 40–42, 45–52. 152 Meshorer 1967: 155–158, nos. 154, 158, 164. See also Safrai 1965: 131–132. In Schalit’s opinion, the head tax imposed by Jannaeus may have been related to the half-shekel tax; see Schalit 1964: 140. 153 The Sages mention both “Pesah Dorot,” the Passover of succeeding generations, and “Pesah Mitzrayim,” the Passover of Egypt (M Pesachim 9:5). See also Liver 1971. 154 Temple treasuries were a source of great wealth (Ant. 20:219–220), and members of the Diaspora also contributed the half shekel (Ant. 18:312–314). 155 Magen 2009 I: 257–261. 156 The numerous surveys conducted in Samaria do not provide a clear and distinct picture of settlement distribution from the late Hellenistic period to the early second century CE. We do not possess reliable data concerning the condition of the Samaritan community during the Hasmonean conquest, the time of Herod, the Great Revolt and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, until the early second century CE. The survey conducted in Judea and Samaria in 1968 did not distinguish between the Hasmonean, Herodian, and Early Roman periods. The surveyors combined the Roman and Byzantine periods, which adds nothing to our knowledge of settlement distribution in the periods under discussion; see Kochavi 1972: 200. A survey conducted by S. Dar in western Samaria discerned no settlement gap after the Hasmonean conquest. Moreover, according to Dar, settlement growth in western Samaria continued in this period, as a result of Alexander Jannaeus’ building projects, an opinion that we regard as doubtful; see Dar 1986b: 119–121. The chronological division of settlement distribution during the Persian to Roman periods is to be viewed critically, especially since Dar provides no ceramic or numismatic tables to prove his pronouncements; see Dar 1986b. The extensive survey conducted by Zertal in Samaria gave a clearer settlement picture, but the historical analysis underlying a rise or decline in the distribution of settlements is less clear. In the survey of the Shechem syncline, Zertal notes a decline in settlement in the Hellenistic period compared to the Persian period, and a steeper decrease in settlement distribution in the Early Roman period (63–62 BCE–70 CE); while he finds an increase during what he defines as the Late Roman period (70–313 CE); see Zertal 1992. In his survey of the eastern valleys and the desert’s edge, he finds a decline in settlement in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, a certain rise in the Early Roman period (from the Herodian period to the Great Revolt), and a further rise in the Late Roman period

[67]

1874: 434. Montgomery cited the historian Dio Cassius, who did not claim that Hadrian built the temple at Mt. Gerizim. In actuality, Montgomery’s conclusions are based on the Chronicles; see Montgomery 1968: 91. Abel accepts the attribution of the temple to Hadrian, but observes that Dio Cassius mentions the erection of a temple by Hadrian only in Jerusalem, and not at Mt. Gerizim; see Abel 1933: 365. On the Samaritan Chronicles, see Adler and Seligsohn 1902: 81– 82. The internal contradiction in the Chronicles concerning Hadrian’s attitude to the Samaritans most likely ensues from the confusion caused by the similar names, Hadrian and Herod. According to Josephus, Herod married a Samaritan woman, but she was probably from the city of Samaria, not of the Samaritan people (War 1:562); see also Montgomery 1968: 83, 92–93. 193 Mor 2003; his view is neither acceptable nor plausible. 194 The surveys conducted in Samaria did not reveal any definite damage to the Samaritan villages in the wake of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, as they did in Judea. See above, note 156. 195 Safrai 1984. 196 Historiae Augustae XVI.7.171; Abel 1952: 135–144; Alon 1984: 683–684; Avi-Yonah 1984: 41; Stern 1980: 623. See also: Mor 2003: 186–198; Amit 2003: 630–667. 197 Historiae Augustae IX.5. 198 Eusebius, Theophania IV.23; Pummer 2002: 89–91. 199 Eusebius, Chronicon: 221; Avi-Yonah 1984: 77–78; Pummer 2002: 198. 200 Magen 2008d: 83–91. 201 Weiss 2002; Magen 2008d: 91–97. 202 Magen 2008g: 198–199; 2009 I: 301, 305, sarcophagi nos. 8, 10. 203 Magen 2008b: 127–142, especially pp. 135–141. 204 Linder 1987: 99–102; 1997: 127; Rabello 2002. 205 Origen 2.13; Pummer 2002: 56. 206 On the ambiguity surrounding the origin and essential nature of the Samaritan religion, see Ant. 12:258–264, which speaks of the “Sidonians living at Shechem” who send a letter to Antiochus IV, claiming that they are not Jews, in order to avoid the persecution suffered by the latter. 207 Rabello 1984: 147–155. 208 Montgomery 1968: 89–98; Hall 1989: 50–53. 209 Magen 2008d: 97–99. For Late Roman fortresses dated from the end of the fourth to early fifth centuries CE, see Magen 2008e: 185–198, 204–206, 210–211. 210 Alon 1984: 742–746; Safrai 1984: 206–208. On the expansion from the villages to the cities, see: Levin 1982: 130; Bar 2002: 53. 211 Abel 1952: 199–203; Rostovtzeff 1957: 442; Gibbon 1960: 90–91. 212 Hill 1914: XXV–XXXIV, Pls. V–VII; Kindler 1971: 37– 38; Meshorer 1985: 50. 213 Kindler 1971: 37–38.

1998: 223–235; and of Kasher 2002b: 180–181. 168 Samaritan sources disagree about Herod, but most have a negative attitude toward him. See: Thomson 1919: 37; Safrai 1965: 236–237; Montgomery 1968: 82–84. 169 On Varus’ War, see: Ant. 17:220–222, 288–289; War 2:16–17, 66–69; Kasher 1988b: 204–208. 170 Safrai 1965: 100, notes 133–135; Smith 1999: 244. 171 Schürer 1973: 459. 172 On the “Taheb,” see: Dexinger 1993; 2002: 515–516; Collins 1972: 98–116; Kalimi and Purvis 1994: 683. 173 Schwartz 1982. 174 Magen 2009 I: 29–30, 355–358. 175 Montgomery 1968: 82–103; Hall 1989; Magen 2008a, especially pp. 245–272. 176 Magen 2009 I: 358–359. 177 Stern 1971: 278. 178 Stern 1982; Tsafrir 1982. 179 Meshorer 1985: 24, 111, Coin 35. 180 Bowersock 1973; Isaac 1988: 11–12. 181 Schürer 1973: 512; Isaac 1980: 350–352; 1988: 12–13. 182 Plinius, Historia Naturalis V.XIV:69; Stern 1992d. 183 Hill 1914: XXV–XXXIV, Pls. V–VII; Meshorer 1985: 48; Kindler 1971: 33–35. 184 Jones 1937: 278; 1940: 81. See also Schürer 1973: 520–521. 185 Meshorer 1985: 34, 36, 48; Mor 2003: 165–169. 186 Meshorer 1967: no. 239. 187 Herr 1984: 308; Magen 2008a: 3–4. 188 Alon 1980: 144. 189 Safrai 1980: 147–148; 1986: 92–117; Avi-Yonah 2002: 153–154. 190 Isaac 1984: 106–108. 191 According to Applebaum, the Samaritan rural population participated in the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, from which the urban Samaritan populace remained aloof; see Applebaum 1983: 239–240. Büchler connects this with a more complex issue (which would exceed the purview of the current discussion), namely, Samaritan participation in the Bar-Kokhba Revolt and Hadrian’s true attitude toward the Samaritans. A considerable number of scholars thought that the Samaritans took part in the first phase of the revolt, and found evidence of this in the Samaritan Chronicles and in the Samaritan version of the Book of Joshua. Others, however, find Samaritan participation in the fighting to be no more than a legend; see: Yeivin 1952: 178–179; Kircheim 1970: 10; Büchler 1980; Applebaum 1983: 239–240; Alon 1984: 603–604; Safrai 1984: 206–208; Mor 2003. Mor’s view is implausible; see also Mor 1989b. 192 Guérin was probably the first to draw a connection between Hadrian and the temple at Mt. Gerizim, based on the Samaritan Chronicles published by Fr. Bargés, which tell that Hadrian built a city named after his father on Mt. Gerizim, and a temple at the end of the mount; see Guérin

[68]

Avi-Yonah 1967: 130–132; Dan 1982: 282–289; Di Segni 2002. 233 Dar 1988: 232–237; 1993: 163. In contrast to the excavator’s view, we believe that the site at el-Burak was Christian rather than Samaritan. Samaria was divided by a geographical line that separated Samaritan and Christian settlements, with the Samaritan region extending north of el-Burak. El-Burak is part of a series of Christian sites discovered in this region; see Dar 1986b: 73–76. 234 Dadon 1997b. 235 Magen 2008a: 268–269. 236 Procopius, Buildings V.7.11–15; Pummer 2002: 303–304. 237 Pummer 2002: 315; Di Segni 2005: 205–206. 238 The Christian emperors destroyed the two sacred precincts of the major monotheistic religions: the compound at Mt. Gerizim; and the sacred precinct at the Temple Mount, which was apparently razed by Justinian. On Jerusalem, see: Mayer and Assaf 1944: 16–19; Ben-Dov 1985: 185–187, 225, 229–241; Gil 1992: 65–74; Tsafrir 1999: 324–325. On Mt. Gerizim, see Magen 2008a: 97–137, 249–269. 239 Magen 2008b: 170–171; 2008d: 85. 240 The Byzantine emperors, beginning in the reign of Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius II, and mainly during that of Justinian, issued these laws; see: Linder 1997: 96–98, 214, 234; Di Segni 2002: 468–470. 241 The first revolt erupted in 484 CE, during the reign of Zeno. In 495 CE, during the time of Anastasius, the Samaritans marched on Mt. Gerizim and attacked the Church of Mary Theotokos. The rebellions were renewed in the reign of Justinian in 529 CE and in 556 CE, and in the reign of Justinian II in 572 CE. 242 The survey conducted in Samaria clearly shows that outside of the Roman cities, not a single church was discovered in Samaria or north of it; see Magen 2012: 18–27. 243 Magen 2009 I: 258–266. 244 The Muslim coins found on Mt. Gerizim will be published separately. 245 The devastation in the Samaritan rural sector wreaked agricultural havoc in Samaria, and also harmed Christian estate owners. In 572 CE, Samaritan farmers were granted some relief, and consequently Samaritan settlement was renewed. See Dan 1982: 288, note 58. 246 Ish-Shalom 1979: 219; Limor 1998: 223; Wilkinson 2002: 135. 247 Magen 2008h. 248 Schur 2002; Levy-Rubin 2002: 566–586; see also Gil 1992: 280–284, 292–297.

214

232

Magen 2009 I: 191–222, 333–339. Magen 2009 I: 222–225. 216 Clermont-Ganneau dates it to the fifth century CE, the time of Zeno and the Samaritan revolt; see ClermontGanneau 1896: 318–319. A. Renan dates the inscription to the fourth century; see the description in Di Segni 1997: 575–577. 217 Cohen 1981: 102–109. 218 Magen 2008b. 219 Di Segni 1990; Magen 2008a: 247–249. 220 Despite Christian conversion efforts in the Land of Israel, large parts of the pagan settlement continued to maintain their former religion more than a century after the proclamation of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. The attempts to convert the Samaritans and the Jews failed; this was in part related to the small numbers of the pagan minority in rural areas, which were dominated by the Samaritans and to some degree by the Jews. 221 Geiger 1982: 218–233; Rubin 1982. 222 Magen 2008a: 249–269. 223 Procopius, Buildings V.7.1; Pummer 2002: 302–304. 224 See note 209. 225 The statements by Origen and by the Talmud (JT ʿAbodah Zarah 5:44d) do not show that Diocletian’s forcing the Samaritans to offer idolatrous libations like the other peoples was anti-Samaritan persecution, but rather confirm Samaritan assimilation into Roman culture and religion. They also show that the Romans did not view the Samaritans as part of the Jews, and thus did not grant them the privileges enjoyed by the latter. See Di Segni 2002: 454, notes 4–6. 226 Magen 2012: 16–29. 227 Edicts and laws against heretics and pagans were issued already in the reign of Justinian, thus indicating the existence of these groups some two hundred years after the ascent of Christianity. The law against pagan temples enacted in 407 CE teaches of the continued existence of such shrines; see Linder 1997: 223–224. 228 Adler and Seligsohn 1903: 72–73; Montgomery 1968: 108 and note 94. 229 A struggle over control of the holy places, and especially of Joseph’s Tomb, was waged during the reign of Emperor Marcian (450–457 CE); see: Adler and Seligsohn 1903: 74–75; Montgomery 1968: 110–113; Stenhouse 1985: 236– 239; Crown 1989: 69–70; Di Segni 2002: 456, notes 18–19; Magen 2009 I: 32, 36–38. 230 Di Segni 2002: 455, note 11. 231 Nau 1913: 274; 1914: 118. 215

[69]

References Abel F.M. 1933. Géographie de la Palestine I: Géographie physique et historique, Paris. Abel F.M. 1952. Histoire de la Palestine depuis la conquête d’Alexandre jusqu’a l’invasion arabe II: De la guerre juive a l’invasion arabe, Paris. Adler E.N. and Seligsohn M. 1902. “Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine,” REJ 45: 70–98. Adler E.N. and Seligsohn M. 1903. Une nouvelle chronique samaritaine, Paris. Alon G. 1977. Jews, Judaism and the Classical World. Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud, Jerusalem. Alon G. 1980. The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 C.E.) I, Jerusalem. Alon G. 1984. The Jews in their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 C.E.) II, Jerusalem. Alt A. 1953. “Die Rolle Samarias bei der Enstehung des Judentums,” Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II, Munechen, pp. 316–337. Amit M. 2003. A History of the Roman Empire, Jerusalem. Applebaum S. 1983. “The Bar-Kokhba War and Its Consequences,” in U. Rappaport (ed.), The World History of the Jewish People 11: Judea and Rome—Revolts of the Jews, Jerusalem, pp. 229–262 (Hebrew). Ariel D.T. and Fontanille J.-P. 2012. The Coins of Herod. A Modern Analysis and Die Classification (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 79), Leiden–Boston. Avigad N. 1970. “Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of old City of Jerusalem, 1969/70 (Preliminary Report),” IEJ 20: 1 –8. Avigad N. 1972. “Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, 1971,” IEJ 22: 193–200. Avigad N. 1976. Bullae and Seals from a Post-Exilic Judean Archive (Qedem 4), Jerusalem. Avigad N. 1980. The Upper City of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Avigad N. 1993. “Samaria (City),” NEAEHL 4: 1300–1310. Avi-Yonah M. 1967. “The Samaritan Revolts against the Byzantine Empire,” Eretz-Israel 4: 127–132 (Hebrew). Avi-Yonah M. 1984. The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule. A Political History of Palestine from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest, Jerusalem. Avi-Yonah M. 2002. The Holy Land. A Historical Geography from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 BC to AD 640), Jerusalem. Bar D. 2002. “Was there a 3rd-c. Economic Crisis in Palestine,” in J.H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East 3 (JRA Supplementary series 49), Portsmouth, Rhode Island, pp. 43–54.

Barag D. and Qedar S. 1980. “The Beginning of Hasmonean Coinage,” INJ 4: 8–21. Bar-Kochva B. 1989. Judas Maccabaeus. The Jewish struggle against the Seleucids, Cambridge. Bar-Kochva B. 1996. Pseudo-Hecataeus, On the Jews. Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora, Berkeley. Becking B. 1992. The Fall of Samaria. An Historical and Archaeological Study (Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East 2), Leiden. Ben-Dov M. 1985. In the Shadow of the Temple. The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem, Cambridge. Bevan E.R. 1964. The House of Seleucus II, London. Bickerman E. 1979. The God of the Maccabees. Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 32), Leiden. Bickerman E. 1980a. “La Charte sèleucide de Jerusalem,” in E. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History II, Leiden, pp. 44–85. Bickerman E. 1980b. “Un document relatif à la persecution d’Antiochos IV Epiphane,” in E. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History II, Leiden, pp. 105–135. Bóid I.R.M. 1989a. Principles of Samaritan Halachah (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 38), Leiden. Bóid I.R.M. 1989b. “The Samaritan Halachah,” in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen, pp. 624–649. Bowersock G.W. 1973. “Syria under Vespasian,” JRS 63: 133–140. Bruneau P. 1982. “Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne,” BCH 106: 465–504. Büchler A. 1980. “The Samaritan Participation in the BarKokhva Revolt,” in A. Oppenheimer (ed.), The Bar-Kokhva Revolt, Jerusalem, pp. 115–121 (Hebrew). Campbell E. 1991. Shechem II. Portrait of a Hill Country Vale: The Shechem Regional Survey, Atlanta. Clermont-Ganneau C. 1896. Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873–1874 II, London. Cogan M. 2002. “The Early Biblical Polemic concerning the Residents of Samaria,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 28–33 (Hebrew). Cogan M. and Tadmor H. 1988. II Kings: A New Translation (Anchor Bible 11), New York. Coggins R.J. 1975. Samaritan and Jews. The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered, Atlanta. Cohen J.M. 1981. A Samaritan Chronicle: A Source-Critical Analysis of the Life and Times of the Great Samaritan Reformer, Baba Rabbah, Leiden. Cohen S.J.D. 1983. “Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to Josephus,” AJS Review 7/8 (1982 /1983): 41–68.

[70]

Dar S. 1993. “Archaeological Evidence of Byzantine Samaritan Rebellions,” in A.D. Crown and L. Davey (eds.), New Samaritan Studies of the Société d’études samaritaines III–IV, Sydney, pp. 157–168. Demski A. 1983. “The Days of Ezra and Nehemia,” in H. Tadmor (ed.), The World History of the Jewish People 6: The Restoration—The Persian Period, Jerusalem, pp. 40– 65 (Hebrew). Dexinger F. 1989. “Samaritan Eschatology,” in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen, pp. 266–292. Dexinger F. 1993. “Taheb,” in A.D. Crown, R. Pummer and A. Tal (eds.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen, pp. 224–226. Dexinger F. 2002. “The Beliefs of the Samaritans in the Byzantine Period,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 496–518 (Hebrew). Diakonoff I.M. 1991. “The Cities of the Medes,” in M. Cogan and I. Ephʿal (eds.), Ah, Assyria. Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (Scripta Hierosolymana XXXIII), Jerusalem, pp. 13–20. Di Segni L. 1990. “The Church of Mary Theotokos on Mount Gerizim: The Inscriptions,” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land. New Discoveries (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36), Jerusalem, pp. 343–350. Di Segni L. 1997. Dated Greek inscriptions from Palestine from the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Di Segni L. 2002. “Samaritan Revolts in Byzantine Palestine,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 454–480 (Hebrew). Di Segni L. 2005. Cyril of Scythoplolis. Live of Monks of the Judaean Desert, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Doran R. 1983. “2 Maccabees 6:2 and the Samaritan Question,” HTR 76: 481–485. Eitam D. 1992. “Khirbet Khaddash—Royal Industry Village in Ancient Israel,” in Z. Erlich and Y. Eshel (eds.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting—1991, Jerusalem, pp. 161–182 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XVIII –XIX). Ephʿal I. 1971. The Nomads on the Border of Palestine in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary, pp. I –XXVI). Ephʿal I. 1982. “The End of the Kingdom of Israel,” in A. Malamat (ed.), The World History of the Jewish People 4: The Age of the Monarchies — Political History, Jerusalem, pp. 121–130 (Hebrew). Ephʿal I. 1984. The History of Eretz Israel. Israel and Judah in the Biblical Period, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Ephʿal I. 1991. “The Samaritans in the Assyrian Sources,”

Collins F.M. 1972. “The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Tradition,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 3 (2): 97–116. Cowley A.E. 1923. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford. Cross F.M. 1955. “Geshem the Arabian, Enemy of Nehemiah,” BA 18: 46–47. Cross F.M. 1961a. “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” in G.E. Wright (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, London, pp. 133–202. Cross F.M. 1961b. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies, New York. Cross F.M. 1963. “The Discovery of the Samaria Papyri,” BA 26: 110–121. Cross F.M. 1966. “Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in the Late Persian and Hellenistic Times,” HTR 59 (3): 201–211. Cross F.M. 1974. “The Papyri and Their Historical Implications,” in P.W. Lapp and N.L. Lapp (eds.), Discoveries in the Wâdī ed-Dâliyeh (AASOR 41), Cambridge, pp. 17–29. Cross F.M. 1983. “Samaria and Jerusalem. The History of the Samaritans and their relations with the Jews,” in H. Tadmor (ed.), The World History of the Jewish People 6: The Restoration—The Persian Period, Jerusalem, pp. 81–94 (Hebrew). Cross F.M. 2002. “Samaria and Jerusalem during the Persian Period,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 45–70 (Hebrew). Crown A.D. 1989. “The Byzantine and Muslem Period,” in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen, pp. 55–81. Crown A.D., Pummer R. and Tal A. (eds.). 1993. A Companion to Samaritan Studies, Tübingen. Dadon M. 1997a. “Har Adar,” ʿAtiqot 32: 63–79 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 39*–40*). Dadon M. 1997b. “The ‘Basilica Church’ at Shiloh,” ʿAtiqot 32: 167–175 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 49*). Dan Y. 1982. “Eretz Israel in the Fifth and the Sixth Centuries,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 265–299 (Hebrew). Dar S. 1986a. “Hirbet Jemein—A First Temple Village in Western Samaria,” in S. Dar and Z. Safrai (eds.), Shomron Studies, Tel Aviv, pp. 13 –73 (Hebrew). Dar S. 1986b. Landscape and Pattern. An Archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 B.C.E.– 636 C.E. (Bar International Series 308 [i]), Oxford. Dar S. 1988. “Archaeological Evidence on the Samaritan Revolts of the Byzantine Period,” in D. Jacoby and Y. Tsafrir (eds.), Jews, Samaritans and Christians in Byzantine Palestine, Jerusalem, pp. 228–237 (Hebrew).

[71]

BAIAS 16: 33–63. Flusser D. 1978. The Josippon [Josephus Gorionides], Jerusalem (Hebrew). Fraser P.M. 1972. Ptolemaic Alexandria II, Oxford. Fuks G. 1983. Scythopolis—A Greek City in Eretz-Israel, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Gal Z. 1990. The Lower Galilee. Historical Geography in the Biblical Period, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Gaster M. 1925. The Samaritans. Their History, Doctrines and Literature, London. Geiger J. 1982. “The Rebellion during the Reign of Gallus and the Temple Affair in the Reign of Julian,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 202–233 (Hebrew). Gera D. 1993. “For the History Credibility of Tobiah’s Family,” in U. Rappaport and I. Ronen (eds.), The Hasmonean State. The History of Hasmoneans during the Hellenistic Period, Collection of Articles, Jerusalem, pp. 125–141 (Hebrew). Gera D. 1998. Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 B.C.E., Leiden. Geva H. 1985. “The ‘First Wall’ of Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period. An Architectural-Chronological Note,” Eretz-Israel 18: 21–39 (Hebrew; English summary 65*–66*). Gibbon E. 1960. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, New York. Gil M. 1968. “‘Israel’ in the Book of Chronicles,” Beth Mikra 32 (1): 105–115 (Hebrew). Gil M. 1992. A History of Palestine, 634–1099, Cambridge. Golan D. 1983. A History of the Hellenistic World, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Grabbe L.L. 1987. “Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 106 (2): 231–246. Grintz Y.M. 1957. Sefer Yehudith, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Grintz Y.M. 1959. “Aspects of the History of the High Priesthood,” Zion 24: 124–140 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. I–II). Grintz Y.M. 1969. Chapters in the History of the Second Temple Times, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Guérin V. 1874. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine II —Samarie, Paris. Gutman J. 1940. “Alexander the Great in the Land of Israel,” Tarbiẓ 11: 271–294 (Hebrew). Hall B. 1989. “From John Hyrcanus to Baba Rabbah,” in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen, pp. 32 –54. Hanson R.S. 1974. “Toward a Chronology of the Hasmonean Coins,” BASOR 216: 21–23. Hengel M. 1974. Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, London.

in M. Cogan and I. Ephʿal (eds.), Ah, Assyria. Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (Scripta Hierosolymana XXXIII), Jerusalem, pp. 36–45. Ephʿal I. 2002. “The ‘Samaritans’ in the Assyrian Sources,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 34–44 (Hebrew). Eshel H. 1991. “The Prayer of Joseph. A Papyrus from Masada and the Samaritan Temple on ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΙΝ,” Zion 56 (2): 125–136 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XII). Eshel H. 1994. “The Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim and the Historical Research,” Beth Mikra 139 (2): 141–155 (Hebrew). Eshel H. 1996. “Wâdi ed-Dâliyeh Papyrus 14 and the Samaritan Temple,” Zion 61 (3): 359–365 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XXVI). Eshel H. 1997. “Israelite Names from Samaria in the Persian Period,” in A. Demsky, J.A. Reif and J. Tabory (eds.), These Are the Names. Studies in Jewish Onomastics, Ramat Gan, pp. 17–31 (Hebrew). Eshel H. 1999. “The Rulers of Samaria during the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE,” Eretz-Israel 26: 8–12 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 226*). Eshel H. 2002. “The Development of the Attribution of Sanctity to Mount Gerizim,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 192–209 (Hebrew). Eshel H. 2007. “The Governors of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E.,” in O. Lipschits, G.N. Knoppers and R. Albertz (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., Winona Lake, pp. 223–234. Eshel E. and Eshel H. 2002. “The Date of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the Light of Biblical Scrolls from Qumran,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 129–152 (Hebrew). Faust A. 1995. “Settlement on the Western Slopes of Samaria at the End of the Iron Age,” in Z.H. Erlich and Y. Eshel (eds.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting–1994, Kedumim–Ariel, pp. 23–29 (Hebrew; English summary, p. IX). Feigin S. 1926. “Etymological Notes,” AJSL 43: 53–60. Finkelstein I. 1981. “Israelite and Hellenistic Farms in the Foothills and in the Yarkon Basin,” Eretz-Israel 15: 331– 348 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 86*). Finkelstein I. 1994. “The Archaeology of the Days of Menasseh,” in M.D. Coogan, J.C. Exum and L.E. Stager (eds.), Scripture and Other Artifacts. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, Louisville, pp. 169–187. Finkelstein I., Lederman Z. and Bunimovitz S. 1997. Highlands of Many Cultures. The Southern Samaria Survey: The Sites, Tel Aviv. Finkielsztejn G. 1998. “More Evidence on John Hyranus I’s Conquests: Lead Weights and Rhodian Amphora Stamps,”

[72]

Period,” in D.R. Schwartz (ed.), Studies in Jewish History of the Second Temple Period, Jerusalem, pp. 127–145 (Hebrew). Jones A.H.M. 1937. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, Oxford. Jones A.H.M. 1940. The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian, Oxford. Kahana A. 1978. Apocryphal Books to the Bible and Other Apocryphal Books—Commentaries II, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kalimi I. and Purvis J.D. 1994. “The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan Literature,” CBQ 56 (4): 679–685. Kanael B. 1950–1951. “The Beginning of Maccabean Coinage,” IEJ 1: 170–175. Kasher A. 1975. “Some Suggestions and Comments concerning Alexander Macedon’s Campaign in Palestine,” Beth Mikra 62 (2): 187–208 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 311–312). Kasher A. 1980. “Milestones in the History of Gaza in Second Temple Times,” Cathedra 15: 21–37 (Hebrew). Kasher A. 1988a. Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, Tübingen. Kasher A. 1988b. Canaan, Philistia, Greece and Israel. Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic Cities (332 BCE–70 CE), Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kasher A. 1992. “A Second-Century BCE Greek Inscription from Iamnia,” Cathedra 63: 3 –21 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 190). Kasher A. 1996. Joshephus Flavius, Against Apion. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary II, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kasher A. 2002a. “Samaritan in Hellenistic Egypt,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 153 –165 (Hebrew). Kasher A. 2002b. “On the Character and Origin of the Herodian Dynasty,” Cathedra 103: 165–184 (Hebrew). Kaufmann Y. 1977. History of the Religion of Israel IV. From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of Prophecy, New York. Kent C.F. 1917. A History of the Jewish People during the Babylonian, Persian, and Greek Periods, New York. Kindler A. 1971. “The Coins of the City of Neapolis,” in S. Dar and Y. Roth (eds.), Samaria. Articles and Sources, Tel Aviv, pp. 33–40 (Hebrew). Kircheim R. 1970. Vineyards of Samaria, Frankfurt (Hebrew). Kloner A. 1991. “Maresha,” Qadmoniot 24 (95–96): 70–85 (Hebrew). Klozner (Klausner) J. 1959. Second Temple History, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Klozner (Klausner) J. 1981. “John Hyrcanus the 1st,” in A.

Herr L.G. 1999. “The Ammonites in the Late Iron Age and Persian Period,” in B. Macdonald and R.W. Younker (eds.), Ancient Ammon (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 17), Leiden, pp. 219–237. Herr M.D. 1984. “Roman Government in Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Temple to the Bar-Kosba Rebellion,” in M. Stern (ed.), The History of Eretz Israel 4: The Roman Byzantine Period—The Roman Period from the Conquest to the Ben Kozba War (63 B.C.E.–135 C.E.), Jerusalem, pp. 301–320 (Hebrew). Hill G.H. 1914. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Palestine (Galilee, Samaria and Judaea), London. Hizmi H. and Shabtai Z. 1994. “A Public Building from the Persian Period at Jabel Nimra,” in Z. Erlich and Y. Eshel (eds.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting—1993, Kedumim–Ariel, pp. 65–86 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XIII–XIV). Isaac B. 1980. “Roman Colonies in Judaea: The Foundation of Aelia Capitolina,” in A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport and M. Stern (eds.), Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, Jerusalem, pp. 340– 360 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XX). Isaac B. 1984. “The Revolt of Bar-Kokhva as described by Cassius Dio and Other Revolts against Romans in Greek and Latin Literature,” in A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), The Bar-Kokhva Revolt. A New Approach, Jerusalem, pp. 106–112 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. VII–VIII). Isaac B. 1986 “Jewish Land in Judaea after the First Revolt,” in A. Kasher, A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), Man and Land in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity, Jerusalem, pp. 87–94 (Hebrew). Isaac B. 1988. “Roman Administration and Urbanization,” Cathedra 48: 9–16 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 94). Isaac B. 1991. “A Seleucid Inscription from Jamnia-on-the-Sea: Antiochus V Eupator and the Sidonians,” IEJ 41: 132 –144. Ish-Shalom M. 1979. Christian Travels in the Holy Land. Descriptions and Sources on the History of the Jews in Palestine, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Japhet S. 1968. “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemia Investigated Anew,” VT 18: 330–371. Japhet S. 1977. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Japhet S. 1983. “Biblical History in the Persian Period,” in H. Tadmor (ed.), The World History of the Jewish People 6: The Restoration—The Persian Period, Jerusalem, pp. 176–202 (Hebrew). Japhet S. 1985. “The Historical Reliability of Chronicles. The History of the Problem and its Place in Biblical Research,” JSOT 33: 83 –107. Japhet S. 1995. “People and Land in the Return to Zion

[73]

Macdonald J. 1964. The Theology of the Samaritans, London. Magen Y. 1982. The Archaeological Discoveries at Qedumim –Samaria, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magen Y. 1985. “The Miqvaot at Qedumim and the Purification Standards of the Samaritans,” Cathedra 34: 15–26 (Hebrew). Magen Y. 1989. The History and Archaeology of Shechem (Neapolis) in the 1st–4th Centuries A.D., Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magen Y. 1993a. “Mount Gerizim and the Samaritans,” in F. Manns and E. Alliata (eds.), Early Christianity in Context. Monuments and Documents (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 38), Jerusalem, pp. 91–148. Magen Y. 1993b. “Qedumim—A Samaritan Site of the RomanByzantine Period,” in F. Manns and E. A lliata (eds.), Early Christianity in Context. Monuments and Documents (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 38), Jerusalem, pp. 167–180. Magen Y. 2004. “The Land of Benjamin in the Second Temple Period,” in Y. Magen, D.T. Ariel, G. Bijovsky, Y. Tzionit and O. Sirkis, The Land of Benjamin (JSP 3), Jerusalem, pp. 1–28. Magen Y. 2008a. Mount Gerizim Excavations II (JSP 8), Jerusalem. Magen Y. 2008b. “Samaritan Synagogues,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 117–182. Magen Y. 2008c. “Idumea and the Jewish Settlement in Daroma (Southern Jude) in the Roman and Byzantine periods,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 1–58. Magen Y. 2008d. “The Bounds of Samaritan Settlement in the Roman and Byzantine Periods,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 79–104. Magen Y. 2008e. “Late Roman Fortresses and Towers in Southern Samaria and Northern Judea,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 177–216. Magen Y. 2008f. “Immersion in Ritual Baths and the Maintenance of Purity among the Samaritans,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 183–196. Magen Y. 2008g. “Samaritan Burial,” in Y. Magen, The Samaritans and the Good Samaritan (JSP 7), Jerusalem, pp. 197–218. Magen Y. 2008h. “Oil Production in the Land of Israel in the Early Islamic Period,” in Y. Magen, Judea and Samaria. Researches and Discoveries (JSP 6), Jerusalem, pp. 257–343. Magen Y. 2009. Flavia Neapolis. Shechem in the Roman Period I–II (JSP 11), Jerusalem.

Schalit and U. Rappaport (eds.), The World History of the Jewish People 7: The Hellenistic Age, Jerusalem, pp. 145– 151 (Hebrew). Kochavi M. 1972. Judaea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kochman M. 1980. Status and Extent of Judah in the Persian Period, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kokkinos N. 1998. The Herodian Dynasty. Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 30), Sheffiled. Lapp N.L. 1985. “The Stratum V Pottery from Balâṭah (Shechem),” BASOR 257: 19–44. Levin L.I. 1982. “Eretz Israel in the Third Century,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 119–143 (Hebrew). Levy-Rubin M. 2002. “The Samaritans during the Early Muslim Period according to the Continuatio to the Chronicle of Abu ’I-Fath,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem 2002, pp. 562–566 (Hebrew). Lie A.G. 1929. The Inscription of Sargon II, King of Assyria. I—The Annals, Paris. Limor O. 1998. Holy Land Travels. Christian Pilgrims in Late Antiquity, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Linder A. 1987. The Jews in the Roman Imperial Legislation, Detroit, Mich. Linder A. 1997. The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages, Jerusalem. Lipschits O. 2000. “Was There a Royal Estate in En-Gedi by the End of the Iron Age and during the Persian Period?,” in J. Schwartz, Z. Amar and I. Ziffer (eds.), Jerusalem and Eretz Israel (Arie Kindler Volume), Tel Aviv, pp. 31–42 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 101*). Lipschits O. 2004a. Jerusalem between Destruction and Restoration—Judah under Babylonian Rule, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Lipschits O. 2004b. “Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province,” BASOR 335: 37–52. Liver J. 1968. “Sanballat,” in E.L. Sukenik and U.M.D. Cassuto (eds.), Encyclopedia Biblica V, Jerusalem, pp. 1057–1061 (Hebrew). Liver J. 1970. “Kings, the Book of Kings,” in E.L. Sukenik and U.M.D. Cassuto (eds.), Encyclopedia Biblica IV, Jerusalem, pp. 1130–1154 (Hebrew). Liver J. 1971. “The Half Shekel Portion in the Bible and in the Scrolls of the Judean Desert Sect.,” in J. Liver, Studies in the Bible and the Judean Desert Scrolls, Jerusalem, pp. 109–130 (Hebrew). Luria B.Z. 1977. “The Beginnings of Separation between Returnees of the Exile and the Samaritans,” Beth Mikra 72 (1): 43 –56 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 127–128).

[74]

Meshorer Y. and Qedar S. 1991. The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century BCE, Jerusalem. Meshorer Y. and Qedar S. 1999. Samaritan Coinage, Jerusalem. Momigliano A. 1979. “Flavius Josephus and Alexander’s Visit to Jerusalem,” Athenaeum 57: 442 –448. Montgomery J.A. 1968. The Samaritans. The Earliest Jewish Sect. Their History, Theology, and Literature, New York. Moore C.F. 1927. “Simeon The Righteous,” Jewish Studies in Memories of Israel Abrahams, New York, pp. 348–364. Mor M. 1980. “Samaritans and Jews in the Ptolmaic Period and the Beginning of the Seleucid Rule in Palestaine,” in B. Oded (ed.), Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel 5, Haifa, pp. 71–81 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. V–VI). Mor M. 1989a. “The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonaean Period,” in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen, pp. 1–18. Mor M. 1989b. “The Samaritans and the Bar-Kokhbah Revolt,” in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen, pp. 19–31. Mor M. 1993. “The Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim,” Beth Mikra 135: 313–327 (Hebrew). Mor M. 1994. “The Samaritan Temple again: Josephus Flavius and the Archaeological Find,” Beth Mikra 140: 43–64 (Hebrew). Mor M. 2003. From Samaria to Shechem. The Samaritan Community in Antiquity, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Naʾaman N. 1989a. “Population Changes in Palestine following Assyrian Deportations,” Cathedra 54: 43–62 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 189–190). Naʾaman N. 1989b. “The Town-Lists of Judah and Benjamin and the Kingdom of Judah in the Days of Josiah,” Zion 54: 17–71 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. I–II). Naʾaman N. 1990. “The Historical Background to the Conquest of Samaria (720 BC),” Biblica 71 (2): 206–225. Naʾaman N. 1991. “The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah,” TA 18: 3–71. Naʾaman N. 1993a. “Population Changes in Palestine following Assyrian Deportation,” TA 20: 104–124. Naʾaman N. 1993b. “Shechem and Jerusalem in the Exilic and Restoration Period,” Zion 58 (1): 7–32 (Hebrew; English summary, p. V). Nau F. 1913. “Résumé de monographies syriaques: Barsauma, Abraham de la Haute Montagne, Siméon de Kefar ʿAbdin, Yaret l’alexandrin, Jacques le Reclus, Romanus, Talia, Asia, Pantaléon, Candida,” ROC 8 (18): 270–276. Nau F. 1914. “Résumé de monographies syriaques: Barsauma, Abraham de la Haute Montagne, Siméon de Kefar ʿAbdi, Yaret l’alexandrin, Jacques le Reclus, Romanus, Talia, Asia, Pantaléon, Candida,” ROC 9 (19): 113–134. Naveh J. 2002. “Script and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria,”

Magen Y. 2012. “Christianity in Judea and Samaria in the Byzantine Period,” in Christians and Christianity I. Corpus of Christian Sites in Samaria and Northern Judea (JSP 13), Jerusalem, pp. 1–92. Magen Y. and Dadon M. 2003. “Nebi Samwil (Montjoie),” in G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcata (eds.), One Land—Many Cultures (Studiun Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 41), Jerusalem, pp. 123–138. Magen Y. and Finkelstein I. (eds.), 1993. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Magen Y., Misgav H. and Tsfania L. 2004. Mount Gerizim Excavations I. The Aramaic, Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (JSP 2), Jerusalem. Magen Y. and Peleg Y. 2018. Back to Qumran: Final Report (1993–2004) (JSP 18), Jerusalem. Magen Y., Tsfania L. and Misgav H. 2000. “The Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim” Qadmoniot 33 (120): 125–134 (Hebrew). Malamat A. 1954. “Assyrian Exile,” in E.L. Sukenik and U.M.D. Cassuto (eds.), Encyclopedia Biblica II, Jerusalem, pp. 500–503 (Hebrew). Mantel H. 1983. The Men of the Great Synagogue, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Marcus R. 1937a. “Appendix B. Josephus on the Samaritan Schism,” in R. Marcus (transl.), Josephus VI (Loeb Classical Library), London, pp. 498–511. Marcus R. (transl.), 1937b. “Appendix C. Alexander the Great and the Jews,” in R. Marcus (transl.), Josephus VI (Loeb Classical Library), London, pp. 512–532. Marcus R. 1943. “Appendix B. The Date of the High Priest Simon the Just (the Righteous),” in R. Marcus (transl.), Josephus VII (Loeb Classical Library), London, pp. 732–736. Mayer L.A. and Assaf S. 1944. Sefer ha-Yishuv. From the Arab Conquest of Eretz Israel to the Crusades II, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Mazar B. 1956. “Ben Tabal and Beth Tuviya,” Eretz-Israel 4: 249–251 (Hebrew). Mazar B. 1957a. “The Tobiads,” IEJ 7: 137–145. Mazar B. 1957b. “The Tobiads,” IEJ 7: 229–238. Mazar B. 1965. “Chronicles, the Book of Chronicles,” in E.L. Sukenik and U.M.D. Cassuto (eds.), Encyclopedia Biblica II, Jerusalem, pp. 596–606 (Hebrew). Mazar B. 1974. Canaan and Israel. Historical Essays, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Meshorer Y. 1967. Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period, Tel Aviv. Meshorer Y. 1974. “The Beginning of the Hasmonean Coinage,” IEJ 24: 59–61. Meshorer Y. 1982. Ancient Jewish Coinage I: Persian Period through Hasmonaeans, New York. Meshorer Y. 1985. City-Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period, Jerusalem.

[75]

Rappaport U. 2004. The First Book of Maccabees. Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Reich R. 1990. Miqwaʾot (Jewish Ritual Immersion Baths) in Eretz-Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmud Periods, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 1–16, Part C). Riklin S. 1997. “Bet Aryé,” ʿAtiqot 32: 7–20 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 37*–38*). Ronen Y. 1988. “Formation of Jewish Nationalism Among the Idumaeans,” in A. Kasher, Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs, Tübingen, pp. 214–239. Rosenbaum J. 1979. “Hezekiah’s Reform and the Deuteronomistic Tradition,” HTR 72: 23 –43. Rostovtzeff M. 1957. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, Oxford. Rowley H.H. 1955–1956. “Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple,” BJRL 38: 166–198. Rubin Z. 1982. “The Spread of Christianity in the Land of Israel from the Time of Julian to the Reign of Justinian,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 234–251 (Hebrew). Safrai S. 1965. Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Safrai Z. 1980. Borders and Rule in Eretz-Israel in the Mishna and Talmud Period, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Safrai Z. 1984. “The Bar-Kokhva Revolt and Its Effect on Settlement,” in A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), The Bar-Kokhva Revolt. A New Approach, Jerusalem, pp. 182–214 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. XIV–XV). Safrai Z. 1986. “Shechem in the Days of Mishna and Talmud 63 B.C.–637 C.E.,” in S. Dar and Z. Safrai (eds.), Shomrom Studies, Tel Aviv, pp. 83–126 (Hebrew). Schalit A. 1940. “Chapter in the History of the Parties War in Jerusalem at the End of the Fifth Century and the Beginning of the Fourth Century,” in M. Schwabe and I. Gutman (eds.), Commentationes Iudaico-Hellenisticae. In Memorian Iohannis Lewy (1901–1945), Jerusalem, pp. 252–272 (Hebrew). Schalit A. 1964. King Herod. Portrait of a Ruler, Jerusalem. Schor A. (transl.), 1935. Herodotos’ Writings I, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Schuller E. 1990. “4Q372 1: A Text about Joseph,” RQ 14: 349–376. Schur N. 2002. “Persecutions of the Samaritans by the Abbasids and the Disappearance of the Samaritan Rural Population,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 587–590 (Hebrew). Schürer E. 1973. The History of the Jewish people in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) I, Edinburgh. Schürer E. 1979. The History of the Jewish People in the

in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 372–381 (Hebrew). Naveh J. and Magen Y. 1997. “Aramaic and Hebrew Inscription of the Second-Century BCE at Mount Gerizim,” ʿAtiqot 32: 37–56 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 9*–17*). Netzer E. 2001. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jerico. Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations I: Stratigraphy and Architecture, Jerusalem. Nicholson E.W. 1967. Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford. Oded B. 1971. “Ammon,” in E.L. Sukenik and U.M.D. Cassuto (eds.), Encyclopedia Bilblica VI, Jerusalem, pp. 254–271 (Hebrew). Oded B. 1978a. “Notes on the Method of Investigating the Mass Deportations in the Neo-Assyrian Empire,” in U. Rappaport (ed.), Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel 4, Haifa, pp. 25–40 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. III – IV). Oded B. 1978b. “Mass Deportations in the Neo-Assyrian Empire—Facts and Figures,” Eretz-Israel 14: 62–68 (Hebrew; English summary, pp. 124*–125*). Oded B. 1979. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the NeoAssyrian Empire, Wiesbaden. Porten B. 1968. Archives from Elephantine. The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony, Berkeley–Los Angeles. Press I. 1942. “Where did Sanballat the Horonite Live?,” Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 9 (4): 106–107 (Hebrew; English summary, p. II). Pummer R. 2002. Early Christian Authors on Samaritans and Samritanism. Texts, Translations and Commentary (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 92), Tübingen. Pummer R. 2016. The Samaritans. A Profile. Grand Rapids, Mich–Cambridge. Purvis J.D. 1965. “Ben Siraʾ and the Foolish People of Shechem,” JNES 24: 88–94. Purvis J.D. 1968. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect, Cambridge. Purvis J.D. 1974. “New Light on Early Samaritan History,” in M. Zohori, A. Tartakover and H. Ormian (eds.), Hagut Ivrit Baʾamerika III, Tel Aviv, pp. 23 –31 (Hebrew). Rabello A.M. 1984. “On the Relations between Diocletian and the Jews,” JJS 35: 147–167. Rabello A.M. 2002. “The Samaritans in Roman Law,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 481–495 (Hebrew). Rachmani L.I. 1964. “A Partial Survey of the Adulam Area,” Yediot 28 (3–4): 209–231 (Hebrew). Rappaport U. 1981. “The First Judean Coinage,” JJS 32: 1–17. Rappaport U. 1990. “The Samaritans in the Hellenistic Period,” Zion 55 (4): 373 –396 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XV).

[76]

Period from Qadum in Samaria,” BASOR 253: 9–27. Stern M. 1961. “The Relations between Judea and Rome during the Rule of John Hyrcanus,” Zion 26: 1–22 (Hebrew; English summary, p. I). Stern M. 1962. “Notes on the Story of Joseph the Tobiad,” Tarbiẓ 32 (1): 35–47 (Hebrew; English summary, p. III). Stern M. 1971. “The Status of Provincia Judaea and its Governors in the Roman Empire under the Julio-Claudian Dynasty,” Eretz-Israel 10: 274–282 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XX). Stern M. 1972. The Documents on the History of the Hasmonaean Revolt, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Stern M. 1980. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism II, Jerusalem. Stern M. 1982. “The Roman Government in the Province of Judea from the War of Destruction to the Bar Kokhba Revolt,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 1–17 (Hebrew). Stern M. 1992a. “Comments on the Story of Joseph ben Tobiah (The Antiquities of the Jews XII, Section 154 ff.),” in M. Amit, I. Gafni and M.D. Herr (eds.), Studies in Jewish History. The Second Temple Period, Jerusalem, pp. 22 –34 (Hebrew). Stern M. 1992b. “Judaism and Hellenism in Eretz Israel during the Third and Second Centuries BCE,” in M. Amit, I. Gafni and M.D. Herr (eds.), Studies in Jewish History. The Second Temple Period, Jerusalem, pp. 3 –21 (Hebrew). Stern M. 1992c. “Judaea and her Neighbors in the Days of Alexander Jannaeus,” in M. Amit, I. Gafni and M.D. Herr (eds.), Studies in Jewish History. The Second Temple Period, Jerusalem, pp. 128–150 (Hebrew). Stern M. 1992d. “The Description of the Land of Israel by Pliny the Elder and the Administrative Division of Judea in the Late Second Temple Period,” in M. Amit, I. Gafni and M.D. Herr (eds.), Studies in Jewish History. The Second Temple Period, Jerusalem, pp. 246–260 (Hebrew). Stern M. 1999. Hasmonaean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Tadmor H. 1958a. “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chorological-Historical Study,” JCS 12 (1): 22–40. Tadmor H. 1958b. “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chorological-Historical Study (Conclusion),” JCS 12 (3): 77–100. Tadmor H. 1973. “On The History of Samaria in the Biblical Period,” in Y. Aviram (ed.), Eretz Shomron. The Thirtieth Archaeological Convention, September 1972, Jerusalem, pp. 67–74 (Hebrew; English summary, p. XV). Tadmor H. 1983. “Some Aspects of the History of Samaria during the Biblical Period,” The Jerusalem Cathedra 3: 1–11.

Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) II, Edinburgh. Schwartz D.R 1982. “Pontius Pilate’s Suspension from Office: Chronology and Sources,” Tarbiẓ 51: 383–398 (Hebrew; English summary, p. VII). Schwartz D.R. 1990. “On Some Papyri and Josephus’ Sources and Chronology for the Persian Period,” JSJ 21: 175–199. Schwartz D.R. 2002. “On Some Papyri and Josephus’ Sources and Chronology for the Persian Period,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 107–128 (Hebrew). Schwartz D.R. 2004. The Second Book of Maccabees. Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Schwartz S. 1993. “John Hyrcanus I’s Destruction of the Gerizim Temple and Judaean-Samaritan Relations,” Jewish History 7 (1): 9–25. Segal M.Z. 1968. “Nehemia,” in E.L. Sukenik and U.M.D. Cassuto (eds.), Encyclopedia Biblica V, Jerusalem, pp. 817–820 (Hebrew). Segal M.Z. 1971. “Ezra and Nehemia, The Books of Ezra and Nehemia,” in E.L. Sukenik and U.M.D. Cassuto (eds.), Encyclopedia Biblica VI, Jerusalem, pp. 143–151 (Hebrew). Segal M.Z. 1972. The Complete Book of Ben Sira, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Sellers O.R. 1962. “Coins of the 1960 Excavation at Shechem,” BA 25: 87–96. Smith M. 1984. “Jewish Religious Life in the Persian Period,” in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism I, Cambridge, pp. 219–278. Smith M. 1999. “The Gentiles in Judaism 125 BCE–66 CE,” in W. Horbury, W.D. Davies and J. Sturdy (eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism III, Cambridge, pp. 192–249. Spaer A. 1979. “A Coin of Jeroboam?,” IEJ 29: 218. Spaer A. 1980. “More about Jeroboam,” INJ 4: 2 –3. Stenhouse P. 1985. The Kitab al-Taʾrikh of Abu ‘l-Fath, Sydney. Stenhouse P. 2002. “Samaritan Chronicles,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 539–561 (Hebrew). Stern E. 1981. “Achaemenid Tombs at Sechem,” Eretz-Israel 15: 312–330 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 86*). Stern E. 1982. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 B.C., Jerusalem. Stern E. 2002. “A Hoard of Persian Period Bullae from the Vicinity of Samaria,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 82–103 (Hebrew). Stern E. and Magen Y. 1982. “A Persian Period Pottery Assemblage from Qadum in the Samaria Region,” EretzIsrael 16: 182–197 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 258*). Stern E. and Magen Y. 1984. “A Pottery Group of the Persian

[77]

Weinfeld M. 1972. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford. Weiss Z. 2002. “New Light on the Rehov Inscription. Identifying ‘The Gate of the Campon’ at Bet Shean,” in L.V. Rutgers (ed.), What Athens has to do with Jerusalem. Essays on Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon Foerster, Leuven, pp. 211–233. Wilkinson J. 2002. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades, Warminster. Williamson H.G.M. 1982. 1 and 2 Chronicles, Grand Rapids, Mich. Wright G.E. 1956. “The First Campaign at Tell Balâṭah,” BASOR 144: 9–20. Wright G.E. 1957. “The Second Campaign at Tell Balâṭah (Shechem),” BASOR 148: 11–28. Wright G.E. 1962. “The Samaritans at Shechem,” HTR 55: 357–366. Wright G.E. 1965. Shechem. The Biography of Biblical City, London. Yadin Y. 1967. “The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada,” EretzIsrael 8: 1–45 (Hebrew; English summary, p. 69*). Yankelevitch R. 1983. “The Weight of the Family Genealogy in the Jewish Society in the Land of Israel in the Mishnah and Talmud Period,” in M. Stern (ed.), Nation and History. Studies in History of the Jewish People I, Jerusalem, pp. 151–162 (Hebrew). Yeivin S. 1952. The Bar-Kokhba War, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Zadok R. 1985. “Samaritan Notes,” Biblotheca Orientalis 42: 567–572. Zertal A. 1989. “The Wedge-shaped Decorated Bowl and the Origin of the Samaritans,” BASOR 276: 78–84. Zertal A. 1990. “The Pahwah of Samaria (Northen Israel) during the Persian Period. Types of Settlement, Economy, History and New Discoveries,” Transeuphratène 3: 9–30. Zertal A. 1992. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey I. The Shechem Syncline, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Zetal A. 1996. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey II. The Eastern Valleys and the Fringes of the Desert, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Zertal A. 2005. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey IV. From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Zertal A. and Mirkam N. 2000. The Manasseh Hill Country Survey III. From Nahal ʿIron to Nahal Shechem, Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

Tadmor H. 1984. “The Return to Zion Days,” in I. Ephʿal (ed.), The History of Eretz Israel 2: Israel and Judah in the Biblical Period, pp. 251–283 (Hebrew). Tal A. 1989. “Samaritans, Literature,” in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen, pp. 413–467. Tal A. 2002. “The Hebrew and Aramaic Literature of the Samaritans,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 519–536 (Hebrew). Talmon S. 1983. “Beginning of the Return to Zion,” in H. Tadmor (ed.), The World History of the Jewish People 6: The Restoration—The Persian Period, Jerusalem, pp. 28–39 (Hebrew). Talmon S. 2002. “Biblical Traditions on Samaritan History,” in E. Stern and H. Eshel (eds.), The Samaritans, Jerusalem, pp. 7–27 (Hebrew). Tcherikover V.A. 1974a. The Jews in the Graeco-Roman World, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Tcherikover V.A. 1974b. Jews and Greeks in the Hellenistic Period, Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Thomson J.E.H. 1919. The Samaritans. Their Testimony to the Religion of Israel, Edinburgh. Toombs L.E. 1972. “The Stratigraphy of Tell Balata (Ancient Shechem),” ADAJ 17: 99–110. Toombs L.E. and Wright G.E. 1961. “The Third Campaign at Balâṭah (Shechem),” BASOR 161: 11–55. Tov E. 1989. “Proto-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch,” in A.D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans, Tübingen, pp. 397–407. Tsafrir Y. 1975. “The Location of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem,” RB 82: 501–521. Tsafrir Y. 1980. “The Site of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem,” Cathedra 14: 17–40 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1982. “The Provinces in the Land of Israel: Names, Boundaries, and Administrative Territories,” in Z. Baras, S. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds.), Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest I, Jerusalem, pp. 350–386 (Hebrew). Tsafrir Y. 1999. “The Topography and Archaeology of Jerusalem in the Byzantine Period,” in Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai (eds.), The History of Jerusalem. The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70–638 CE), Jerusalem, pp. 281–351 (Hebrew). Tzeitlin S.Z. 1935. “Simeon the Just and the Elders of the Land,” Ner Maʿaravi 2, New York, pp. 137–142 (Hebrew).

[78]

SECTION two

THE COINS FROM THE EXCAVATION



the Coins from the Excavations at Mount Gerizim Gabriela Bijovsky To Ya‘akov Meshorer In memoriam agreed-to identification codes. The first versions of the coin database during the 1990s was managed using a Paradox database on a Delphi platform. In the early 2000s, this database was upgraded using the MSACCESS program. These applications were developed by Yoav Tzionit, senior curator, GIS and system administrator of the Staff Officer of Archaeology in Judea and Samaria. Since then, the identifications and data entry of new coin finds from Mt. Gerizim have been supervised by this author. Data entry on coins from earlier excavation seasons was retroactively entered with the assistance of the Staff Officer of Archaeology, Curatorial Department. Today we can say that every coin from Mt. Gerizim has at least a computerized record, which includes stratigraphic details, measurements, photographs (only coins in good condition) and full or partial identifications. Nevertheless, building the immense catalogue for the final numismatic report was problematic, not only because of the size of the project but also because of the different conventions and reference material used to identify the coins over the years. Problems with the lack of uniformity impeded our efforts to achieve accuracy, especially with quantitative issues, such as the total number of specimens bearing a specific control mark on the left side of a precise coin variant of a Seleucid king. In the current volume, accuracy on the level of resolution of the example just given will not always be available to the reader. This was compounded by severe time restrictions. Despite all of these drawbacks, our presentation of the data at the level of numbers of specimens of certain coin types according to ruler, mint and — to a certain degree — dates of minting, is accurate, or at least the error quotient is minimal.

Introduction A total of 14,139 coins were uncovered during the excavations at Mt. Gerizim between 1983 and 2008 and went through the process of cleaning, registration and identification. Another ca. 800 were immediately disregarded due to their poor preservation, and 3,218 coins were defined as unidentifiable. Processing such a large number of coins created significant challenges, both in terms of methodology and more practical issues such as the format of the final report, as will be explained below. While most of the coins discussed in this report are bronze or copper, the number of silver coins is not insignificant, especially those dating from the Persian and Ptolemaic periods. Six gold coins were uncovered. They include a triobol of Ptolemy I Soter (Cat. No. 86), a solidus and a semissis of Tiberius II (Cat. Nos. 643, 644), and three Byzantine solidi of Tiberius II and Maurice Tiberius (Cat. Nos. 648‒650). Moreover, four hoards (or coin assemblages) were uncovered: two of the Seleucid period, a hoard of antoniniani and a hoard dated to the House of Constantine. Finally, a group of 53 Hellenistic lead tesserae found exclusively at Mt. Gerizim closes this report. Methodology

During the 25 years of excavations at the site, staff members came and went, and different methods of registration, identification and storage were employed. The bulk of coin finds were discovered before the era of ‛in-field’ computerization. Between seasons, coins were identified in pen on heavy paper cards, following different conventions, sometimes describing the coin in full and sometimes employing

[81]

1. The general period appears as a title followed by the name of the ruler, his years of reign and the total number of coins of this ruler in the database (all in bold). This last number refers to all the coins discovered at Mt. Gerizim, including the coins from the hoards. 2. The catalogue number is followed by threedimension fields: diameter (mm), axis and weight (gm). 3. The numismatic fields are as follows: material, denomination, mint, date of the coin, obverse and reverse inscriptions and descriptions, bibliographical references and notes. To avoid repetition, the word ‘Sameʼ (the intention is to the field above) is used in these fields. 4. For the obverse and reverse descriptions the following abbreviations are used: stg. (standing); l. (left); r. (right); ex. (exergue). 5. Contextual data of the coin: area, locus and basket. 6. Total number of isolated coins of the same type or variant registered in the database. 7. ADCA registration number (K number). 8. All coin types appear in the plates with the exception of coins where details were completely illegible. Scales are usually 1:1; for the coins of the Persian period and other coins less than 1 cm diameter enlargements are also given (3:1). Plates of the coins of the Persian period, hoards and tesserae are in color.

In publishing this quantity of coins, it became clear that the most viable solution to the above problems entailed a number of compromises. We decided to present a full catalogue of coin types and variants in chronological and typological order, with plates for most of them. The catalogue includes coins from the Persian period (fifth and fourth centuries BCE) to the end of the early Byzantine period (seventh century CE). The Islamic coins, of which many were uncovered at Mt. Gerizim, are unfortunately not published here. This was one of the more painful of the abovementioned compromises. Beyond the typological presentation in the catalogue, information on each coin according to registration numbers (K numbers) is digitally appended to this book. The digital files include only the primary identification categories of each coin (material, period, ruler, date, mint, denomination; IAA library site, title input: Mount Gerizim Excavations III: The Coins). The chronological-typological catalogue noted above is divided into three parts. The first part describes the isolated coins and is divided into the following sections: (a) Persian; (b) Hellenistic including Alexander the Great and his immediate successors, Ptolemaic, Seleucid and miscellaneous coinages; Hasmonean coins; (c) Roman imperial and provincial coins; and (d) Late Roman and Byzantine coins. Each section of the catalogue is preceded by a numismatic discussion. The second part of the catalogue presents the four hoards discovered at the site: two Seleucid hoards (one bronze and one silver), a hoard of third-century antoniniani and a hoard dated to the first quarter of the fourth century CE (the House of Constantine). Finally, the third part of the catalogue covers the Hellenistic lead tesserae found at Mt. Gerizim. All of these sections also include discussions. In cases when more than one specimen of a certain coin type appears, the order of display of the coins in the catalogue will usually follow a similar hierarchy to that used for the digital information, as noted above: ruler, material, denomination, mint, date and type. This structure is also valid for the catalogue of the isolated coins, while the presentation of the four hoards differs slightly in format. The structure of the catalogue includes the following fields:

Personal Remarks and Acknowledgments

I became the numismatist of the Mt. Gerizim excavations almost from the expedition’s inception (Fig. 1). That was in 1984, when I served as the assistant to late Prof. Ya‘akov Meshorer of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. He thought that identifying the coins from Mt. Gerizim would be excellent training for a young numismatist. Meshorer did not know how correct he was about this. The first coin catalogue and numismatic discussion I ever composed presented a group of 104 coins from the early seasons at Mt. Gerizim (it was never published). Based upon those finds, so rich in second-century BCE material and so poor in remains of the first century BCE, I argued there that Hasmonean coins bearing legends

[82]

naming YEHOḤANAN should be attributed to John Hyrcanus I and not to Hyrcanus II, as Meshorer then maintained.1 Yankele, as we used to call him, accepted my arguments but it took him years to bring them to publication. This he did in 1990–1991 in the addendum to his book Ancient Jewish Coinage2 and later in 2001 in his A Treasury of Jewish Coins, where he re-attributed the YEHOḤANAN coins to John Hyrcanus I based on the discoveries from Mt. Gerizim.3 For this and many other reasons, I wish to dedicate this publication to his memory. The finds from Mt. Gerizim brought to light many other interesting and so far unpublished coins from the Persian through Byzantine periods. One example is the group of Hellenistic lead tesserae, which, I believe, were manufactured locally and are published here for the first time in full. Moreover, until the excavations in Kh. Qeiyafa,4 the coin finds dating to the Persian period from Mt. Gerizim constituted the largest assemblage of coins from that period discovered

during controlled excavations in the region. Finally, I cannot conclude these remarks without acknowledging the many people who took part in this complex publication project. I am most grateful to Aaron Goel, my former colleague from the IAA Coin Department, who wrote the chapter on the Ptolemaic coins and the analysis of the two Late Roman hoards. Special thanks to Donald T. Ariel, who read the entire manuscript of this book, contributing invaluable comments. To Haim Gitler for his insights on the chapter on the Persianperiod coins. I also extend my thanks to a number of colleagues who were most helpful regarding the identification of specific coins: Danny Syon, David B. Hendin, Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert, Catherine C. Lorber and Oliver D. Hoover. Last, I am indebted to Yitzhak Magen for his encouragement and support through all these years of mutual cooperation and for always believing that this volume would be published.

Fig. 1. The author seated in a clay bathtub at the site.

[83]

roughly dated to 353‒295 BCE.9 Athenian tetradrachmas were considered the main international currency, being used throughout the eastern Mediterranean. According to Gitler and Tal, they laid the foundations for the use of coins in that region by the mid-fifth century BCE, and consequently the moneyed economy that took hold in our region a century later.10 These Athenian ‘owls’ were prototypes for the manufacture of huge quantities of local imitations in the Levant.

catalogue of the isolated coins The Persian Period

The earliest coins discovered at the site are dated to the Persian period. The evidence includes 90 silver and bronze coins of different denominations and various mints of origin, of which 12 were unidentifiable. Most of the coins were struck locally in the southern Levant, but others arrived from more distant places in Greece and Asia Minor. Their general chronological framework ranges from the first half of the fifth century to the first half of the third century BCE. The catalogue is arranged by series, according to the geographical and ethnic origins of the coins. The early Greek coins are discussed first, followed by the locally minted coin groups found at Mt. Gerizim from Philistia, Samaria and Phoenicia (Sidon and Tyre). Last in the discussion is a Yehud coin dated to the Ptolemaic rule in Judah (Cat. No. 133).5

Philistian coins The discovery of three coins (Cat. Nos. 8–10) from Philistia at Mt. Gerizim is quite exceptional. It is usually thought that local coinage of this period only circulated in the regions where they were struck. Gitler and Tal concentrated a list of all the archaeological evidence for the coinage of Philistia, which shows that most coin finds are located in the southern coastal strip of Israel, the Gaza strip and the southern Judean foothills.11 However, they stated that Philistian coins had wider circulation than coins from other mints operating in our region from that time – the Samarian and Yehud classes. This statement needed further research since the authors based their conclusion on hoards of non-archaeological provenance, whose origin and composition are less secure.12 Gitler and Talʼs conclusion has been corroborated by Ariel with new evidence of isolated Philistian coins from archaeological excavations in Israel.13 One of the Philistian coins found at Mt. Gerizim, a silver drachma, can be attributed with certainty to the city of Gaza (Cat. No. 8). This coin is dated to 450‒400 BCE.14 The other two have been identified based on stylistic grounds. They belong to the classical profiled-eye style showing the ‘head of Athena / owl’ (Cat. Nos. 9, 10); they are dated toward the end of the Persian period.15

Early Greek coins It is assumed that these coins arrived at the southern Levant with traders and mercenaries in the service of the Achaemenid rule and that they circulated as bullion.6 The earliest coin discovered at the excavations (Cat. No. 7) is a silver drachma from Cyprus (Soli?), roughly dated to 480 BCE. Two other coins are related to the fifth century BCE: a bronze coin (Cat. No. 2) from the mint of Idyma in Caria, and a silver tetraobol depicting a ‘boarʼs head-like prow / a wheel with unclear symbols in each compartment’ (Cat. No. 3). Unfortunately, I was not able to identify this coin with certainty. I adopt here Wolfgang Fischer-Bossertʼs suggestion that the coin is probably a Lydian imitation from Phaselis on the southern coast of Asia Minor.7 In addition are two Rhodian bronzes, one dated to ca. 408‒394 BCE and the other to 394‒304 BCE (Cat. Nos. 5, 6), and a coin that was most likely struck in Amaesus at Pontus, roughly dated to the fourth or third centuries BCE (Cat. No. 4). With the exception of the Rhodian issues, all the coins described above are very rare finds in the southern Levant and have no parallels from other excavations in our region.8 Catalogue No. 1 is a silver-plated Athenian tetradrachma of the pi-style group, characterized by a special type of helmet with a palmette ornament,

Samarian coins A total of 24 Samarian coins (Cat. Nos. 11–34) were discovered during the excavations at Mt. Gerizim, most of them come from Area S, the sacred precinct. This is the largest number of coins of this series ever found in controlled archaeological excavations. Due

[84]

and Qedarʼs were found in both the Mt. Gerizim excavations and the Samaria hoard,22 there is no coin type in common between the material from the Mt. Gerizim excavations and the Nablus hoard. This might imply that at least the Nablus hoard belongs to a later minting stage. Samarian coinage is commonly dated to the fourth century BCE, namely 375‒332 BCE. Based on an analysis of the affinities in style between the Athenian portraits of Athena and male and female portraits on Samarian coins, Gitler and Tal were able to refine the chronology of this local coinage. They concluded that the main eye design that influenced Samaria coinage was that of the profile eye. However, since a third of the Samarian types bear a three-quarter profile eye, it seems likely that the first phase of this coinage had already begun during the last decade of the fifth to the first decade of the fourth centuries BCE.23 As mentioned above, the 24 Samarian coins discovered at Mt. Gerizim are the largest concentration of coins of this series from controlled archaeological excavations. Together with the Nablus and Samaria hoards they indicate that this series circulated mainly close to the place of minting. However, in a comprehensive study of the circulation of coins from all eight local mints of Persian coins (Ashdod, Ascalon, Gaza, Philistia, Dor, Yehud, Samaria and Edom), Ariel noted another eight Samarian isolated coins. All but one of these coins were found outside Samaria.24 Ariel concluded that “there was more of an overlap between the circulation zones of the Yehud and Samarian series than that of the Philistian and Samarian series…”25

to the rarity and excellent preservation of the coin finds, rather than presenting them only typologically they all are presented in detail in the catalogue below. Most specimens of Samarian coins known so far come from two hoards acquired in the antiquities market in 1968, allegedly found in the vicinity of Samaria.16 One is reported from Nablus (biblical Shechem; 965 coins) and the other from Samaria (334 coins). This material constituted the basis for the publication of the two standard references for Samarian coinage by Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar.17 Their first book contained 108 coin types, while the second included 224 coin types and variants. Recently, a catalogue of 53 Samarian coins in the Abraham and Marian Sofaer collection was published by W. Fischer-Bossert with new suggestions for internal nomenclature and typology.18 All Samarian issues are small coins made of silver on a local standard of ca. 3.90 gm to the drachma. Coins are attributed to this group by their Aramaic, Greek and paleo-Hebrew legends, naming the district (ŠMRYN and its abbreviated forms) and its governors. Their rich iconography derives from various sources. The coins imitate Athenian, Cilician and Achaemenid prototypes as well as motifs on coins from the Phoenician cities of Sidon, Aradus and Tyre, often being combined in different and new mixtures of obverse and reverse types. In addition, there are some unique types.19 The problem of identification arises when the coins bear no legends or these are illegible, and especially when the coins depict foreign prototypes, such as the Athenian-styled ‘head of Athena / owlʼ type, or the Sidonian ‘galley / king slaying lionʼ types. Moreover, the same phenomenon applies to coins from Philistia and Yehud where the same prototypes were adopted for the local coinage. Catalogue No. 12 is a good example of a Samarian coin that could have been Sidonian as well.20 All types of the Samarian coins discovered at Mt. Gerizim are well known from the numismatic literature. Gitler and Tal compare the Samarian coin types that appear in both Nablus and Samaria hoards with the types found at Mt. Gerizim.21 The results are surprising, showing that the types from Gerizim are almost entirely different from those present in the two other hoards. While only two coin types of Meshorer

Phoenician coins Four different Phoenician mints struck coins during the Persian period. The earliest was Byblos, followed by Tyre, Sidon and last by Aradus. Phoenician coins are uncovered in quantity in Palestine as excavation finds, in hoards and in the antiquities market. Sidonian and Tyrian issues are the most popular, and coins from these two mints also appear at Mt. Gerizim, where they circulated together with the locally minted coinages (Philistian, Samarian and Yehud) and the imported Greek coins. This currency combination is typical of fourth-century BCE pre-Alexandrian Palestine.26

[85]

Tyrian issues

A comprehensive survey of Phoenician coin finds in our region was first compiled by J. Élayi and Lemaire, who included finds from excavations, stray finds and hoards.27 Results of a second survey by Élayi and Élayi did not much change the general picture.28 The distribution of Phoenician coins in Palestine presents a consistent pattern where coins of Tyre predominate in the Galilee and coins of Sidon are attested from Samaria southward. This pattern is directly related to the colonial division of territories in our region by the two Phoenician cities.29 Phoenician coins however, are hardly found in the area of Jerusalem and the Negev.30

Only six coins (Cat. Nos. 73–77)32 of this mint were discovered at Mt. Gerizim, which is not surprising, based upon the distribution patterns of Tyrian coinage described above. Élayi and Élayi concluded that Tyrian coin finds are mainly concentrated in the upper Galilee and the northern coast of Israel, indicating that these areas were under Tyrian influence.33 The silver and bronze coinage of Tyre during the Persian period is extensive. Coins were based on a Phoenician standard (ca. 14 gm to the shekel) until ca. 365 BCE. Then coins were struck according to a heavy Attic standard (ca. 8.5 gm). Early coins depict a ‘dolphin and a murex-shell / an owl with Egyptian crook and flail’ (Cat. No. 73). In this early period the murex-shell, symbol of the cityʼs industry and trade in purple, was already the mintmark par excellence of the Tyrian mint.34 A tiny bronze coin of the early period depicts the ‘dolphin and shell / head of a lioness’ (Cat. No. 74). Coins of this type have been studied by Élayi and Élayi35 and Ariel.36 On later Tyrian issues the obverse was replaced with the image of a male bearded deity riding on a seahorse (1/16 silver staters, Cat. Nos. 75 and 76). The latest coin is a silver shekel depicting the same motifs and roughly dated to 357‒333 BCE (Cat. No. 77).

Sidonian issues Thirty-eight tiny silver coins were discovered, covering the fourth century up to 333 BCE (Cat. Nos. 35‒72). Seventeen coins belong to king Baʿalsillem II (401‒366 BCE), four were struck by ʿAbdʾastart I (365‒352 BCE), seven by Mazday II (353‒333 BCE), seven by Evagoras (346‒343 BCE), and one coin belongs to ʿAbdʾastart II (342‒333 BCE). The ruler in Cat. Nos. 71 and 72 is uncertain. Sidonian coins are the most numerous Phoenician issues appearing in our region. According to Lemaire and Élayi and Élayi they are mostly concentrated on the Mediterranean coast (e.g., Dor and Jaffa, which were Sidonian colonies), but they are also frequent in the area of Samaria and less so in the Galilee.31 The finds at Mt. Gerizim are consistent with this pattern. Sidonian silver coinage was the most extensive of all Phoenician coinages in terms of circulation. The coin types however, are very few and are in accordance to the different denominations and metrology (Phoenician standard of 13.75 gm to the shekel, reduced to ca.13 gm after 365 BCE). The motifs on the coins are based on Assyro-Babylonian and Persian iconography. The obverse of all Sidonian silver coins depicts a galley while the reverse varies according to the denomination. All Sidonian coins found at Mt. Gerizim — with one exception, Cat. No. 52, which depicts an archer — are tiny 1/16 shekels, they all show on the reverse the Persian king slaying a lion. In addition, the abbreviated name of the Persian king may appear on the reverse and the date according to years of reign on the obverse.

Yehud coin A single coin bearing the paleo-Hebrew inscription YHD was discovered at Mt. Gerizim (Cat. No. 133). It belongs to the later series of Ptolemaic coinage of Judah and is found in this section by virtue of its close relationship to the Persian-period Yehud series. The diademed head of Ptolemy I is depicted on the obverse and the head of Berenice on the reverse together with the inscription YHD.37 Until Gitler and Lorberʼs reattribution in 2006, this type was related to Ptolemy I. The coin is a silver quarter obol (Attic weight standard) minted by Ptolemy II and dated to 283/282‒270 BCE. The attribution to Ptolemy II is based on the assumption that the type with portraits of Ptolemy I and his wife Berenice fit in with Ptolemy II Philadelphusʼ dynastic policy, indicating that this type was minted soon after Philadelphusʼ accession to the throne as sole king.38

[86]

Ptolemaic coins of Judah are extremely rare finds in archaeological excavations. Out of the corpus gathered by Gitler and Lorber only two other coins are known to have been discovered in controlled excavations: one from Ḥ. ʿEtri and one from excavations at Road 9 in Jerusalem.39 Two additional coins of this group were published recently from excavations at Kh. Qeiyafa.40 However, none of these coins belongs to the type from Mt. Gerizim. The Gerizim coin is the northernmost find of a Yehud coin in Israel; most Yehud coins are concentrated in Judah.41

Athena Promachos holding a shield and prepared to cast a lance. This motif was copied from silver issues of Ptolemy I. The inscription reads [ΒΑΣ]ΙΛ[ΩΣ Δ]ΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ. The attribution to the mint of Tarsus in Cilicia is based on style and fabric but also on the monogram that should appear on the left field of the coins, which, unfortunately, is not preserved on our coin. Furthermore, other candidate mints in Phoenicia, Syria and Cyprus were eliminated by Newell based on historical considerations.44 Newell dates our coin to the period between 299 and 298 and until 294 BCE when Demetrius held the province of Cilicia.45 As stated above, this coin is a particularly rare find in our region. Only two other coins, both of different types of this king, are registered in the IAA Coin Department. One from the mint of Salamis was discovered at the Southern Wall excavations by B. Mazar in Jerusalem (IAA 43965) and the other is a coin of unknown provenance minted in Caria (IAA 6021).

The Early Hellenistic Period

This group includes seven coins minted in the name of Alexander the Great and his successors, the Diadochs. The first three coins bear the head of Alexander with lion skin on the obverse; a silver tetradrachma minted in Amphipolis, Macedonia (Cat. No. 78), a bronze coin depicting a club and bow with quiver (Cat. No. 79) and a bronze from Tarsus dated to 327‒323 BCE (Cat. No. 80). The coins of Alexanderʼs successors are all silver. They include a drachma minted in Sardes ca. 323‒319 BCE (Cat. No. 81), and two didrachmas dated to 310‒301 BCE from the mints of Colophon (Cat. No. 82) and Sidon (Cat. No. 83).

THE PTOLEMAIC PERIOD (Aaron Goel)

The Mt. Gerizim excavations provide an important and interesting opportunity for the study of Ptolemaic coinage in the southern Levant during the Lagid occupation and administration. The Ptolemaic coin profile at Mt. Gerizim seems to contain all of the bronze series circulating in the region until the Ptolemaic defeat and withdrawal from there in 200–198 BCE. It continues with less intensity into the first half of the second century BCE. The robustness of Ptolemaic coin finds is clearer here than at any other site in our region. Moreover, most of the 489 Ptolemaic coins uncovered at Mt. Gerizim were preserved in good and often even very fine condition and 387 of them were included in the catalogue.46 Fig. 2 summarizes the material, denominations and quantities of the coins, according to series numbers and other criteria. The preservation is certainly due to the nature of the Samarian terra rossa soil. Three-hundred and seventy-seven of the coins in the catalogue are bronze, nine are silver, and one is gold (Cat. No. 86).47 Almost all regular bronze denominations are present, according to period. Silver denominations consist of five tetradrachmas, three didrachmas and one quarter obol; the gold find is a triobol.

Demetrius Poliorketes The last coin in this group is an extremely rare find in our region that deserves special comment. The coin is a bronze of the Macedonian king and military leader Demetrius Poliorketes of the Antigonid dynasty (Cat. No. 205). A number of events related to the wars of the Diadochs connect him to the southern Levant. In 313 BCE he was appointed by his father as Strategos over Syria and Phoenicia, and in 312 BCE he was defeated by Ptolemy I at the battle of Gaza. In 297 BCE, Demetrius fought against Ptolemy in CoeleSyria and captured Samaria. In 294 BCE he was proclaimed king of Macedonia.42 The iconography of the coin found at Mt. Gerizim is most peculiar and was introduced for the first time by Demetrius Poliorketes. On the obverse is a laureate bearded head attributed to Poseidon, since Zeus never figured in Demetriusʼ coinage. Moreover, Poseidon was Demetriusʼ patron god.43 The reverse shows

[87]

The chronological range of the catalogue begins from 315 BCE with some of the first bronze issues of Ptolemy I Soter, and comes to an end in 156/155 BCE with a silver didrachma of Ptolemy VI Philometor. In general, more coins were produced at the mint of Tyre than that of Alexandria. But Tyrian predominance is particularly high from Ptolemy III Euergetes’ reign onward. Alexandria provided the bulk of Ptolemaic coins from the century before Ptolemy III’s reign. Other mints that appear in fewer numbers are: Sidon, Cyprus, Ioppe, Aradus, Kition, and perhaps ʿAkko-Ptolemais. The catalogue numbers of the standard reference work by Svoronos within each chronological division is used here.48 However, despite my citation of Svoronos’ numbers, the coins have actually been identified through recent studies of modern scholars. These include a variety of tools, some quite different from the classic identification by ruler. New chronological insights have been published, especially during the past decade, built upon discernible intrinsic and extrinsic numismatic charac-

Series or Ptol. I rulers

Ptol. II

Series 1

Series 2

teristics. Some common types of Ptolemaic Tyrian bronze issues that appear very frequently at Mt. Gerizim, for example, were reviewed and reinterpreted by Lorber.49 Earlier works remain helpful especially for the Ptolemaic silver.50 In addition, some ingenious tools and websites have been very useful for identifying Ptolemaic bronzes.51 The classification for bronze issues developed by Picard and Faucher consists of a division of those Ptolemaic coins into chronological series.52 Ten series were designated, based on historical events (using ancient literature, archeological finds, inscriptions and papyrology) and numismatic developments (e.g., monetary reforms, the use of central cavities, bevelling and special issues). Since this method is based on events and other parameters instead of dating by ruler, a bronze series can include more than one ruler in its chronological range. Series 1 for example (dated to 315–312 till 301 BCE) includes issues of Ptolemy I Soter alone, but the following series (Series 2; from 305 to the 261 BCE monetary reform) incorporates two different rulers: Ptolemy I Soter until his death

Series 3

Series 3–5 Series 4 (Unknown)

Denom. Date (BCE):

323–283 283/282– 315–301 305–261 261–240 261–197? /282 246

Chalkous Æ

Series 5 (‛trial issues’)

Series 5

Ptol. VI

ca. 240– ca. 230– 220–197 181/180– 220 222 145

3

Dichalkon Æ

1

3

61

29

56

25

33

4

1

Trichalkon Æ

27

3

11

Hemiobol Æ

1

Obol Æ Trihemiobol Æ

1

53

6

40

3

5

1

1

3

1

Diobol Æ

1

Triobol Æ Drachma Æ

1

Unknown Æ

1

1 1

Quart. Obol

1

Didrachma

3

Tetradrachma

2

Triobol

1

353

Total: 387 identifiable coins

Fig. 2. Quantities of Ptolemaic coins found at Mt. Gerizim for each denomination (organized by series and rulers).

[88]

in 283/282 BCE and Ptolemy II Philadelphus till his reform of 261 BCE. The Mt. Gerizim coin catalogue thus is based not only on ‘Svoronos numbers’ but on the Picard/ Faucher classification system. The following discussion will present chronology, the main historical events, technology and economic considerations that influenced the dating of the coins.

period onward, the inscriptions on the coins’ reverses ascribe royalty to Ptolemy I. In all likelihood, this came as a reaction to the first royalty claim of his Antigonid enemy. The reverse inscription inaugurated the formula ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ, which remained on the bronze (and some silver issues) throughout the Ptolemaic period. Eight coins of this series from Mt. Gerizim definitely belong to Ptolemy I’s issues (Cat. Nos. 90–92), because of their dates (305–283/282 BCE). All of the other coins are dated within the range of 305–261 BCE and therefore can be related to either Ptolemy I or II. One coin is ascribed to Series 2 because of a technological error associated with this series (Cat. No. 121); it is an uncommon double-struck bronze obol showing both Alexander’s head in elephant headdress and the eagle standing left on thunderbolt with spread wings on both obverse and reverse (Fig. 3).

Silver and gold coins The first coins in the catalogue are silver and gold coins of Ptolemy I Soter (315–301 BCE). These include two tetradrachmas (Cat. Nos. 84, 85) and one gold triobol (Cat. No. 86). This presence of highvalue coins at the outset of the Ptolemaic hegemony in Coele-Syria (even if few were actually discovered) reflects a high level of administrative and monetary links between Alexandria and its distant province in the southern Levant, especially during the early days of the kingdom.

Series 1 (Ptolemy I Soter; 315–301 BCE) The bronze issues of Series 1 uncovered at Mt. Gerizim appear in very small quantities (Cat. Nos. 87–89). All are common denominations for this series: three chalkoi and one hemiobol. All of them bear on their obverses the head of Alexander the Great with short hair, wearing a horn. The reverses depict an eagle standing to the left on a thunderbolt, with spread wings, and sometimes with a short inscription, as seen on first bronze denominations of Series 1. These features are characteristic of this first series. The brief span of Series 1 may explain the low quantity of coins from this series at Mt. Gerizim.

0

1

cm

Fig. 3. Coin No. 121. Ptolemaic, Series 2, uncommon doublestruck bronze obol.

The last group of coins of Series 2 present at Mt. Gerizim dates between 275 and 261 BCE, falling into Ptolemy II’s reign alone. The year 275 BCE marks the minting of the Galatian shield symbol by Ptolemy II, found here on diobols and obols; the symbol may be related to the king’s hiring of Galatian mercenaries.55 Many coins from the full Series 2 range (305–261 BCE), related to both Ptolemy I and II, are commonly found in the southern Levant. Their long span has two explanations. The first is their worn condition and the consequential absence of details such as control marks (e.g., Cat. Nos. 119, 131, 144)56 that could have refined their dating. The second is the lack of historical data that could provide a more refined dating for these types. Hemiobols, obols, and diobols of all Series 2 are well represented, and in large quantities. The coins with precisely dated types — such as the

Series 2 (Ptolemy I Soter / Ptolemy II Philadelphus; 305–261 BCE) One hundred and fifty-one coins from Series 2 were uncovered at Mt. Gerizim (Cat. Nos. 90–132, 134– 146). The dating of Series 2 is based on historical/ economic events. From 305 BCE (after Ptolemy I’s defeat against Demetrius I of Macedonia in 306 BCE and his monetary reform) to 261 BCE (end of the series and Ptolemy II’s own reform).54 From this

[89]

at Mt. Gerizim. In contrast, at Kh. Qeiyafa, coins of Series 2 mark the end of the Ptolemaic numismatic profile; coins of Series 3 are absent.60

bronzes minted from 275 BCE with the Galatian shield symbol — are less plentiful. In the later series, features such as the beveled shape of the flans, the presence of central cavities (not found in Series 2), and specific obverse and reverse types, make their identification more obvious.

Series 4 (Ptolemy III Euergetes / Ptolemy IV Philopator; ca. 240–220 BCE)

Trident-head punchmark

This series is very poorly represented at Mt. Gerizim. The low quantities do not merely relate to the long chronological range of the series. Four coins from this series were found, the first two are a trihemiobol and a dichalkon (Cat. Nos. 174, 175) of Ptolemy III only. The two others (Cat. Nos. 187, 188) date to the entire period. One of them is a diobol, and the second denomination is unclear. The small quantities of Series 4 found at Mt. Gerizim, and at other sites in Israel, must have some economic or political explanation, as coins of this series are quite common in Egypt.

Ptolemaic bronze coinage from the Mt. Gerizim excavations includes a significant number of trident (trident-head) punchmarks on bronze currencies from Series 2. Out of the 151 coins of the series, nine such coins were discerned. The punchmark appears on the area of the eagle’s wing on the reverse. Five diobols and four obols bear traces or sometimes very clear signs of these deep, large punchmarks (Cat. Nos. 103, 120, 139, 140). The trident punchmark’s dimensions vary and differ in style. The fact that a large number of punches were used may suggest that they were applied on different occasions and at several mints. It has been suggested that the application of trident punchmarks specifically on currency dating before the 261 BCE reform means that the punchmarks served to revalidate the pre-reform coins.57 It has also been suggested that the trident symbol indicated that such coins were related to the financing of naval activity.58 The mint or mints where the punchmarks were applied is still uncertain due to the wide geographical distribution of the coins in Cyprus and Israel, as well as other countries in the southern Levant. Significantly, the types of three coins punchmarked with the tridenthead design found at Mt. Gerizim are Ptolemy II diobols bearing the Galatian shield and therefore date between 275 and 261 BCE (Cat. Nos. 139, 140).

Series 5 (Ptolemy III Euergetes / Ptolemy IV Philopator and/or Ptolemy V Epiphanes; 220–197 BCE and the ‘trial issues’ of ca. 230– 222 BCE) Series 5 begins from the reform of the Lagid administration during the 220s BCE through all of Ptolemy IV’s reign. During this time, both the costs incurred by the Fourth Syrian War and the Egyptian civil riots following the Battle of Raphia caused an economic crisis and price hikes. This crisis continued until another monetary reform took place, in 197 BCE. That reform marked the end of the Series 5.61 One hundred and fifty-five Ptolemaic coins with features characterizing Series 5 were excavated at Mt. Gerizim. The main group, dated to ca. 230–222, consists of 138 Tyrian, Alexandrian and Joppe bronze issues (most are from Tyre) in all of the denominations used in Series 5. Curiously, this group was issued earlier, during a specific range of the Series 4 period, apparently as a trial issue before production of Series 5, but belongs technologically to Series 5. The trial issue is consensually associated with Ptolemy III’s reign.62 From this group, 123 coins come from Tyre (Cat. Nos. 176–180, 182, 185) showing the common type of the club in the left field on the reverse, without additional control marks. These Tyrian issues constitute the single most common Ptolemaic type found in excavations in Israel. Because of its huge

Series 3 (Ptolemy II Philadelphus / Ptolemy III Euergetes; 261–240 BCE) Sixty-two coins of Series 3 were found at Mt. Gerizim (Cat. Nos. 147–172), which extends from 261 to 240 BCE. All regular denominations are found, but obols and hemiobols are predominant. A central cavity — a technological feature of the flan — characterizes this series. It began with the 261 BCE reform and continued in the later series emissions.59 Most of the coins of Series 3 are related both to Ptolemy II Philadelphus and Ptolemy III Euergetes. Series 3 is very prominent

[90]

special currencies were found that fit chronologically with Series 6 lacking at the site. Indeed, at the end of the catalogue six silver coins, three tetradrachmas and three didrachmas are presented.65 The dates of these coins seem to range from 180 to 156/155 BCE. They belong to Ptolemy VI Philometor and one of them is contemporary to the joint rule with his brother Ptolemy VIII Physcon (Euergetes II) (Cat. No. 201). The three didrachmas found at Mt. Gerizim each bear a specific date. The first (Cat. No. 202) seems to read the year 101 (162/161 BCE), the second (Cat. No. 203) year 105 (158/157 BCE) and the last (Cat. No. 204), year 107 (156/155 BCE) of the common Ptolemaic era. One of the didrachmas (Cat. No. 202) seems to bear some unclear graffiti.66 The second century BCE Ptolemaic silver at Mt. Gerizim may be related to a number of historical events. These include the Sixth Syrian War, the rivalry between the two Lagid brothers, the split of the kingdom between them in 163 BCE and the eventual political and diplomatic competition for domination of Cyprus, and the Maccabean uprising against Seleucid domination (167–160 BCE). The short invasion of Coele-Syria by Ptolemy VI Philometor in 147 BCE (in an attempt to defend Alexander Balas from Demetrius II), however, does not seem to conform to the finds and their chronology. It is also becoming clear that silver Ptolemaic coins played a monetary role during the beginning of Seleucid hegemony in Coele-Syria.67 A number of hoards of Ptolemaic silver with the same dates have been documented: the Israel 1977 hoard,68 a hoard from the region of Jericho,69 and, from an excavation at Mazor, what appears to be a hoard of five tetradrachms.70 In addition, the Ptolemaic Megadim shipwreck (discovered in 1984), and its Ptolemaic hoard, provides a complex chronological picture that also involves bronze currencies. Also, it partially hints at the presence of silver coinage of Ptolemy VI–VIII.71 The evidence that Ptolemaic silver played a role in the currency of the southern Levant in the first half of the second century BCE needs further research.

production, Series 5 is the most highly represented series at Mt. Gerizim (slightly more than Series 2). The second, smaller group of emissions of Series 5 (220–197 BCE) consists of 17 coins, of regular denominations: triobols, obols, hemiobols, dichalkoi. Half of them are datable to Ptolemy IV’s reign (ca. 217–204 BCE), from the king’s victory against the Seleucid army at Raphia until his death. The other half spans the full range of years of Series 5. This relatively small number of coins marks the end of Ptolemaic hegemony in Coele-Syria with the Ptolemaic defeat by Antiochus III in the Battle of Paneion in 200 BCE. An ivy-leaf countermark appears on the only bronze triobol from Tyre (Cat. No. 177). This type of countermark was struck on a coin of Ptolemy III with a club in the left field and without any control mark between the eagle’s legs (Fig. 4). This find differs from the common ivy-leaf countermark issues from the end of Ptolemy IV’s reign, with ΛI or ΔI control marks between the eagle’s legs.63 The reason for this unusual countermarked coin should be further explored.

0

1

cm

Fig. 4. Coin No. 177. Ptolemaic, Series 5, ivy countermark on reverse.

After Series 5 (200 BCE and later) The Battle at Paneion in 200 BCE marks the beginning of the Seleucid conquest of Coele-Syria, completed in 198 BCE. The total absence at Mt. Gerizim of bronze Ptolemaic coinage of Series 6 (197–150 BCE) and thereafter conforms to the historical events. Likewise, Ptolemaic bronze currencies from this period are very rarely found in other sites in Israel. Silver currencies however, continue to be found in hoards from CoeleSyria even after the battle of Paneion and up to 146 BCE.64 This phenomenon is quite relevant to Mt. Gerizim. Despite the apparent end of Ptolemaic influence and the total absence of bronze issues, some

The Seleucid Period

The coins from the Seleucid period found at Mt. Gerizim constitute the bulk of the numismatic finds at

[91]

of this king on the southern Phoenician coast are surprising and their arrival might be connected to travelers or merchants.74

the site, with a total of 8,257 coins; 96 of them were unidentifiable and are not included in the catalogue. Another 190 coins belong to two hoards, one of bronze (Cat. Nos. 701‒761), and one of silver (Cat. Nos. 762‒890). The hoards were most likely both deposited under the same historical circumstances, during the reign of Antiochus VIII.72 These hoards are discussed separately below. Besides the bulk of coins issued by the Seleucid kings, this period also includes a remarkable quantity of pre-Colonial civic coins from ʿAkkoPtolemais, both dated and undated (a total of 1,217 coins; Cat. Nos. 351‒389). The dated group is of extreme importance for pinpointing the time of destruction of the site by the Hasmoneans. Other autonomous coinages are almost completely absent from the site, with the exception of a group of 14 coins from Side in Pamphylia (Cat. Nos. 347‒350) and three autonomous coins from Ascalon (Cat. No. 390). These groups are discussed under the title ‛Autonomous and Civic coinageʼ (see pp. 100–103). Finally, there is a group of 53 lead tesserae that can be related with certainty to the late Hellenistic period, based on their iconography. This group has its own catalogue and will be discussed separately as well (see pp. 123–127). Without doubt, the Seleucid coin finds from Mt. Gerizim constitute the most comprehensive corpus of coins from this period in our region, both in terms of quantity and variety. The only other site with coins dating from the same period that can be compared quantitatively to Mt. Gerizim is Tel Maresha, in the Judean foothills, whose coin corpus is still unpublished.

Antiochus III (223–187 BCE) This king ascended the throne in 223 BCE after the assassination of his brother Seleucus III. Antiochus III was determined to restore the Seleucid Empire to its size under Seleucus I, and was personally involved in military campaigns during most of his reign. The Fourth (219–217 BCE) and Fifth (202–195 BCE) Syrian Wars brought his army to Coele-Syria and south. Antiochusʼ victory over the Ptolemies at Paneion in 200 BCE led to the annexation of these regions to the Seleucid Empire. Bronze coins of this king, mostly quite small, were the most numerous found in the excavations; a total of 3,268 coins were identified, and this number is even larger considering that many were unidentifiable. Not a single silver coin of Antiochus III was unearthed at the site. His most popular bronze type, showing the ‘head of Apollo / Apollo standing with bow and arrow,’ was of massive emission, struck in many different styles. We can attest that this type is undoubtedly the most common Seleucid coin ever found in the region. Moreover, the type’s quantities outstrip all the other types of bronzes of this king. Interestingly, however, while most of the coins found in the region are now considered to be imitations struck in ʿAkko-Ptolemais, at Mt. Gerizim most of the coins of this type were struck in a mint associated with Antioch. Catalogue No. 208 (15 coins), ascribed to Antioch, depicts the ‘head of Apollo (or the portrait of Antiochus III as Apollo) / Apollo seated on omphalos, holding arrow and bow.’ Since control marks are illegible I was not able to attribute this type to any specific series.75 Catalogue Nos. 209‒212 (14 coins), are examples of the smallest bronze denomination of Series 2 minted in Antioch.76 They depict the more complete version of the type bearing the ‘head of Apollo / Apollo standing with bow and arrow.’ This type and its variants constitute the most numerous issue found at Mt. Gerizim with a total of 3,200 identifiable coins. It was very difficult to classify the enormous amounts of this type into series as Houghton, Lorber and

Seleucus III Soter (226–223 BCE) Six coins of Seleucus III Soter are the earliest Seleucid issues uncovered at Mt. Gerizim (Cat. No. 206‒207). Son of Seleucus II, he first ruled the western parts of the Seleucid Empire and had Antioch as his capital. The coins of Seleucus III from the site belong to the ‘head of Artemis / Apollo seated on omphalosʼ type and were minted at Antioch in Syria Seleucis. The type was struck in large quantities and constituted the contemporary small change for the minting city.73 Based on the discovery of three coins of this king at excavations in ʿAkko, Syon claimed that coin finds

[92]

the striking of the thick flan imitations should be other than ʿAkko-Ptolemais.

Hoover did.77 This is due to the state of preservation of the coins, where details such as control marks were mostly illegible. Moreover, since classification into series and sub-types relies on style, and stylistic considerations are often very subjective, scholars may see classification differently. Not many specimens of Cat. Nos. 209‒212 could be discerned at Mt. Gerizim. These types were eventually to deteriorate into a series of imitations minted in places other than Antioch. Evidence for this phenomenon are the varieties described by Houghton and Lorber, such as coin types No. 213 and 214.78 Catalogue No. 223 is a group (377 coins) of the same obverse and reverse but of very crude style. Almost none carry control marks, inscriptions are incomplete and in many cases the head of Apollo on the obverse is indistinguishable while the head of Apollo standing on the reverse is often off flan. Large quantities of this type have been found in our region, mostly in the northern and central hills. The high frequency of this type among the coin finds from excavations at the ʿAkko Courthouse excavations (Areas TB and TC), led Syon to suggest that these coins are local imitations of their counterparts found in Syria made in ʿAkko-Ptolemais.79 In fact, ʿAkkoPtolemais remained the capital of Coele-Syria after its capture by Antiochus III, and perhaps operated as a subsidiary mint to Antioch. The excavations at Mt. Gerizim yielded many coins of an even cruder version of the same type. Cat. Nos. 224 and 225 (394 coins) are the most distinctive due to their small size and the thickness of their flans (ca. 3–4 mm; Fig. 5). The designs are usually off flan and inscriptions are hardly visible. Coins of this type have been found in excavations at Gan Soreq (in the territory of ancient Philistia), together with issues of the other variants mentioned above.80 Since during the Seleucid period it seems that Mt. Gerizim depended economically on ʿAkko-Ptolemais (see pp. 128–129), I suggested that these crude small coins might have also been local imitative issues made in that city from 198 BCE onward. Interestingly, however, out of the 35 ‘Apollo standing’ imitations recorded by Syon in his report on coins from excavations at the ʿAkko Courthouse excavations (Areas TB and TC), only four specimens could be related to the thick type variant.81 Therefore, it is possible that the mint responsible for

0

1

cm

Fig. 5. Coin No. 225. Antiochus III, thick flan, local imitation.

Catalogue No. 215 depicts the ‘head of Apollo / elephant with mahout.ʼ According to Houghton and Lorber this type was issued following the army during the Fifth Syrian War and was not struck in Antioch but by an uncertain mint in Coele-Syria from 202 BCE onward.82 The nine coins of this type identifiable from the excavation bear two countermarks: an anchor and a horse head. This type circulated mainly in southern Coele-Syria both before and after countermarking. The lack of consistency in style and poor fabric of coins of this type led to the conclusion that they were not struck by a regular mint but more likely by a temporary military mint traveling with the Seleucid army. The same applies to Cat. No. 216 (11 coins), the small module denomination depicting ‘the head of Apollo / elephant standing right.’ A variant of this type with the elephant standing left might have been minted in Sardes (Cat. No. 217, four coins). Catalogue No. 218 bearing ‘the head of Apollo / horse trotting right,’ has been attributed by Houghton and Lorber to a southern mint in Coele-Syria based on the provenance of specimens.83 The nine coins from Mt. Gerizim of this type seem to confirm this assumption. Catalogue No. 219, which shows the horse trotting left might be a variant or an imitation of this issue. Four coins belong to a very rare type depicting a Nike on the reverse (Cat. No. 220) that Houghton and Lorber attribute to a former Ptolemaic facility — uncertain mint 63 in southern Coele-Syria — based on fabric and style.84 The coins from Mt. Gerizim are the first from a controlled archaeological excavation ever found.

[93]

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175‒164 BCE)

Catalogue No. 221 with a palm tree on the reverse (seven coins) and No. 222 depicting a club on the reverse (seven coins), bear both symbols of the mint of Tyre. Until 199 BCE this city was under Ptolemaic control, thereafter it fell into Seleucid hands.

This king is best known for his policy of intervention in Jewish affairs that eventually led to the sack of Jerusalem and looting of the Temple in 167 BCE (II Macc. 5:11, 15–16; Ant. 12:248–252). Antiochus IV’s capital, Antioch, continued to serve as the king’s main mint.87 Significantly, during his reign the volume of bronze coinage issued in mints from our region greatly increased. Bronze coins of this king are therefore second in terms of quantity after those of Antiochus III, in finds in the southern Levant and in particular at Mt. Gerizim (2,069 coins). As noted, Antiochus IV continued minting the serrated coin type of ‘bust of Laodice IV / elephant headʼ (Cat. No. 235; 27 coins) issued by his brother and predecessor Seleucus IV. Houghton, Lorber and Hoover suggested that this type was first struck in Antioch (but with plain edge) and later it was also produced in ʿAkko-Ptolemais (serrated) using different control marks.88 Antioch marked its coins with a tripod symbol and ʿAkko with a prow.89 Under Antiochus IV the mint of ʿAkko-Ptolemais also adopted Seleucus IVʼs serrated ‘head of Apollo / Apollo seated on omphalosʼ Antiochene type — but as a half denomination (Cat. Nos. 236–238; 355 coins).90 Both these serrated types are attributed to the first years of Antiochus IVʼs reign, from 175 BCE to 173/172 BCE. Houghton, Lorber and Hoover also proposed that from this last year onward, the king introduced the radiate portrait on his bronze coinage, alluding to the sun god Helios.91 The most popular coin of this king, however, is a new serrated type introducing on the reverse a ‘veiled female standing facing, holding a long scepter or torch’ (Cat. No. 239). This type, minted in ʿAkkoPtolemais according to the obverse control mark ( ) is also roughly dated to the period 173/172–168 BCE and even later.92 This is the second most numerous of all the coin types uncovered at Mt. Gerizim, with a total of 1,627 coins. It was a massive issue for which imitations are also known from the excavations (Cat. No. 240). Another interesting coin type found at Mt. Gerizim in considerable quantities (49 coins) depicts the ‘radiate head with the control mark / female goddess (Nicephorus?) seated on a high-backed throne, holding

Seleucus IV Philopator (187‒175 BCE) Thirty-seven coins of this king uncovered at Mt. Gerizim are high-quality bronzes, belonging to a series of five denominations issued in Antioch. All were struck on special flans characterized by serrated edges and central cavities similar to the Ptolemaic coins. Each denomination depicts its own distinctive type: ‘head of Apollo / Apollo standing resting on tripod’ (Cat. Nos. 226–228); ‘bust of Dionysos / prow of galley’ (Cat. No. 229); ‘bust of Artemis / Artemis standing with doe’ (Cat. No. 230); ‘bust of veiled female (Laodice IV) / head of elephant’ (Cat. No. 231) and ‘head of Apollo / Apollo seated on omphalos.’ All but the last type were found at Mt. Gerizim. The ‘bust of veiled female / head of elephantʼ serrated type continued in production during the reign of Antiochus IV but with a different inscription and control marks. The woman on the obverse is identified as Laodice IV, wife of Seleucus IV and later also of Antiochus IV, and that explains the continuity of the type. Sometimes a secondary symbol appears on the reverse of the coin: a tripod attributed to Antioch — or a prow — attributed to ʿAkko-Ptolemais.85 The control mark behind the head on the obverse of Cat. No. 231 seems to be an unpublished variant. Catalogue No. 232 is a new unpublished type of Seleucus IV. This small bronze coin bears a diademed head on the obverse and a caduceus with the inscription ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ on the reverse. The type recalls another coin of the second reign of Demetrius II with the same reverse type, which constitutes an unattributed issue from a southern mint in CoeleSyria.86 Houghton, Lorber and Hoover have made this attribution based on its exclusive provenances in Israel and the West Bank, and even suggested Samaria as the place of minting. Our coin from Mt. Gerizim is indeed earlier; the reverse inscription links it undoubtedly to Seleucus IV. Due to its provenance I can suggest that it probably served as a prototype for the later type of Demetrius II.

[94]

a palm tree, flanked by the date 150 of the Seleucid Era (163/162 BCE). In fact, this is the only coin type minted under Antiochus V in Tyre.98

a Nike on her outstretched hand and a bird at her feet.’93 This type was struck in two denominations, both of them found in the excavations at the site (Cat. Nos. 242–244). In 2000‒2002, Barag published a hoard of unknown provenance containing 16 coins of this type. Based on historical considerations, he attributed this issue to a mint in Jerusalem that operated from 167 to 164 BCE.94 Baragʼs suggestion, however, was rejected by Houghton, Lorber and Hoover, who, due to the considerable number of coins of this type found in Samaria (mainly at Mt. Gerizim), suggested that the Macedonian military garrison at Samaria would be a better candidate for the production of this issue.95 I favor a third alternative, one also cited in SC 2: 95. In my opinion, the preeminence of coins minted in ʿAkko-Ptolemais among the Seleucid finds at Mt. Gerizim probably argues for that city having issued the ‘radiate-portrait / goddess-holding-Nike on throne, with bird’ type. This seems reasonable to me, despite the control marks which are not typical from ʿAkko-Ptolemais. The same coin type appears in a series of three denominations struck in Seleucia on the Tigris and in Susa, but their fabric and style are completely different.96 Catalogue No. 233 is a rare issue from the mint of Laodicea ad Mare in Syria. It is the smallest denomination in a series of quasi-municipal issues attributed to ca. 168‒164 BCE. The obverse shows the diademed head of the king but the reverse depicts a dolphin — symbol of this seaport — and an inscription claiming a civic minting authority (ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΗΙ). A contemporary quasimunicipal series was also issued in Sidon, Phoenicia. Catalogue No. 234 (two coins) of this series that appears at Mt. Gerizim, is dated to the same years, ca. 168‒164 BCE. This type is the largest coin in the series, depicting the ‘radiate head of the king / galley.’ On this type, the name of the king is in Greek while the ethnic is written in Phoenician.97

Demetrius I Soter (162‒150 BCE) A total of 152 coins of this king were identified. After defeating his rival Timarchus and reconquering the Babylonian provinces, Demetrius I established himself firmly upon the throne in Antioch. Catalogue Nos. 246 and 247 (96 coins) are the smallest of a series of four serrated coins minted in the capital.99 This type depicts the ‘bust of Artemis / Apollo standing with bow and arrow.’ In order to stress his status as the legitimate heir of Antiochus IV, Demetrius I continued striking coin types already established during Antiochus IV’s reign. This is relevant for the Phoenician mints of Tyre and ʿAkko-Ptolemais. Examples of the quasi-municipal Tyrian series are present at Mt. Gerizim in two of the four denominations: the largest one showing the stern of a galley (Cat. No. 248) and the smallest bearing a palm tree (Cat. No. 249). All of these coins bear dates. Catalogue No. 253 (32 coins) is a small serrated bronze, struck in ʿAkko-Ptolemais, which is frequently confused with its prototype minted by Antiochus IV. The type bears the ‘head of the king / veiled and draped female figure holding a scepter or torch.’100 There are, however, a number of features (besides the name of the king that appears on the reverse inscription) that help distinguishing between the two types: (1) Antiochus IV wears a radiate crown, while Demetrius I wears a taenia (according to Houghton, Lorber and Hoover, not a diadem101); (2) Antiochusʼ coin bears the monogram on the obverse, and the Demetrius coin has no control marks; (3) the coin of Antiochus has a fillet border; and (4) the serrated border on the coin of Demetrius is crude. Until my article on this type was published, these coins were usually listed under Demetrius II (first reign), despite the fact that the historical circumstances favor Demetrius I.102 Moreover, I proved that serrated issues are more characteristic of the early Seleucid kings, and that so far, no serrated coins had been attributed to Demetrius II. Finally, I suggested that by using prototypes of Antiochus IV, Demetrius I was stressing the continuity of the dynastic line and the legitimacy of his reign.

Antiochus V Eupator (164‒162 BCE) This king ruled for only two years, which is clear from the numismatic records at Mt. Gerizim, where only eight coins could be attributed with certainty to him (Cat. No. 245). The coin is a small bronze of the common quasi-municipal Tyrian type depicting

[95]

Balas’ dated series of quasi-municipal bronze coinage in four denominations, of which two are present at Mt. Gerizim. Catalogue No. 265 is of the ‘stern of galleyʼ type and bears the date S.E. 168 (145/144 BCE). The second denomination is represented by a number of bronzes with the ‘palm treeʼ (Cat. Nos. 261–264; 32 coins). There are different dates on the coins. Interestingly, none of the coins just mentioned bear the ‛Lʼ symbol preceding the year.107

Alexander I Balas (152‒145 BCE) A coalition of Ptolemy VI with Ariarathes V of Cappadocia, and under the tacit consent of Rome, claimed the Seleucid throne in favor of Alexander I Balas, who declared himself a legitimate son of Antiochus IV. In 152 BCE he landed at ʿAkkoPtolemais and was welcomed by the Seleucid garrison in the city, which became his royal seat. Eventually, Jonathan Apphus joined Balas and they defeated Demetrius I in 150 BCE. Alexanderʼs reign, during which he married Ptolemyʼs elder daughter, Cleopatra Thea, was short-lived. A total of 24 coins of this king were identified. Alexander I Balas opened two new mints in southern Coele-Syria: Gaza and Marisa, where bronze quasimunicipal coins were issued.103 The identification of Cat. No. 257 found at Mt. Gerizim is uncertain due to its poor state of preservation. The type was originally attributed to Gaza, but Houghton, Lorber and Hoover reattributed it to Marisa.104 The coin is undated and no control marks are visible. It depicts the ‘bust of a female figure (Artemis?) / Artemis? standing with upraised hand.ʼ A single coin attributed to Gaza has been identified as well (Cat. No. 258). It depicts a ‘diademed head / Apollo standing,’ and it seems to be the first specimen from a controlled archaeological excavation.105 Another mint of Balas represented at Mt. Gerizim is Tyre. Catalogue Nos. 254‒256 are quasi-municipal issues showing the palm tree flanked by dates (21 coins).

Antiochus VI Dionysus (144‒142 BCE) Antiochus VI Dionysus, son of Alexander I Balas, was crowned through the support of the general Diodotus Tryphon — who defected from Demetrius II Nicator at the beginning of his reign. Only one coin of Antiochus VI appears at Mt. Gerizim; as far as we know it is a unique specimen (Cat. No. 266). This silver didrachma of the Phoenician eagle type was struck in Ascalon in 142/141 BCE, the first year of silver issues at Ascalon. However, only tetradrachmas of 142/141 have hitherto been known in the numismatic literature.108 Thus, the Mt. Gerizim didrachma is unpublished.

Tryphon (ca. 142‒138 BCE) As noted above, Diodotos Tryphon was the regent of the young Antiochus VI. In 142 BCE the child king died and Tryphon claimed the throne. Tryphon controlled the territories of Antioch, Apamea and other parts of northern Syria, Byblos in Phoenicia and all Coele-Syria with the exception of Gaza.109 He spent most of his reign in military campaigns against Demetrius II, the Parthians and the Hasmonean forces headed by Simon Thassi, John Hyrcanusʼ father. In 138 BCE, Antiochus VII Sidetes, brother of Demetrius II, pursued the usurper along the Phoenician coast and besieged him at Dora. Tryphon was eventually killed in Apamea. Two coins of Tryphon of the same type, from his primary mint, Antioch, were uncovered at Mt. Gerizim (Cat. No. 267). This is a small bronze bearing the ‘head of the king / his signature horned helmet.’110 This type appears both on his silver and bronze coinage. According to Houghton, Lorber and Hoover

Demetrius II Nicator, first reign (146‒138 BCE) In 145 BCE, Demetrius II Nicator, the eldest son of Demetrius I, invaded Antioch aided by Ptolemy V and proclaimed himself the legitimate heir to the throne. Both Alexander I Balas and Ptolemy VI died in battle, leaving Demetrius II the undisputed Seleucid king. All 37 isolated coin finds of this king uncovered at Mt. Gerizim belong to his first reign, and they were all minted in Tyre. Houghton, Lorber and Hoover described the silver production at this city as “especially voluminous.”106 Two silver tetradrachmas of the Phoenician eagle type were uncovered in the excavation (Cat. Nos. 259, 260). Demetrius continued

[96]

ʿAkko-Ptolemais was Tryphonʼs principal silver mint in the area. Interestingly however, no coins of this usurper issued in this mint were uncovered during the excavations at the site.111

the possibility of a mint in Samaria producing bronze coins during the reign of Antiochus VII.114 The fact that so many coins of this type were also found at Mt. Gerizim might strengthen this assumption despite the fact that three coins of this type have been found in excavations at Gamla115 and another one in Maresha (IAA 137468). Tyre was the principal mint of Antiochus VII in Phoenicia, producing abundant quantities of Phoenician standard silver coins for every year of his reign.116 These coins are well represented at Mt. Gerizim. Two Tyrian tetradrachmas (Cat. Nos. 283, 288), three didrachmas (Cat. Nos. 284, 285 and 287) and one drachma (Cat. No. 286) — in addition to the 22 tetradrachmas and three didrachmas from the silver Seleucid hoard — were found at the site (Nos. 762–786, see below). According to Houghton, Lorber and Hoover, the quasi-municipal bronze coinage of Tyre was not produced after 134/133 BCE.117 However, three coins of the palm tree type, bearing the unpublished date ΓΠΡ (S.E. 183 = 130/129 BCE) were uncovered at Mt. Gerizim (Cat. No. 290), suggesting that these coins must have been struck until the last year of Antiochus VIIʼs reign. A bronze type depicting the ‘head of Athena / owl,ʼ dated to S.E. 177 and 178 (136/135 and 135/134 BCE respectively) is now attributed to ʿAkko-Ptolemais, based upon provenances pointing to a mint farther north than Spaer’s original Gaza attribution.118 The 41 coins (Cat. No. 292) uncovered at Mt. Gerizim — all of them dated to S.E. 177— reinforce the reattribution to ʿAkko-Ptolemais, as that mint was the main supplier of coins to the site. Four specimens of the bronze type depicting a ‘lily / anchor’ were uncovered at Mt. Gerizim (Cat. No. 291). All specimens from Gerizim have illegible worn dates. The type was issued in Jerusalem in S.E. 181 and 182 (132/131 and 131/130 BCE respectively) apparently by the Hasmonean High Priest John Hyrcanus I after he surrendered to Antiochus VII following the siege of the city by the latter.119 The geographical distribution of these coins is primarily restricted to Judea. They also are found, albeit in smaller numbers, in Jewish settlements in Galilee.120 After the cessation of this issue, the mint of Jerusalem struck Hasmonean coinage in huge numbers.

Antiochus VII Euergetes Sidetes (138–129 BCE) A total of 268 coins have been identified. The younger son of Demetrius I, Antiochus VII reclaimed the Seleucid throne from Tryphon in 138 BCE, after his older brother Demetrius II Nicator was taken captive by the Parthians. Antiochus VII is mostly known in the region for his connections to the Hasmonean rulers. He personally invaded Judea and besieged Jerusalem. The ruling Jewish high priest, John Hyrcanus I, capitulated and became a vassal of Antiochus VII (Ant. 13:236‒249). Antioch, also Antiochus VII’s principal mint, issued silver and bronze coins in huge quantities. While none of the king’s silver Antiochene coins were uncovered at Mt. Gerizim, his bronze coins are abundant there (170 coins). Of the four Antiochene denominations, only the largest and rarest one, depicting a ‘prow / trident,’ has not been found at Mt. Gerizim.112 One hundred and seven coins belong to the common middle denomination ‘Eros / Isis headdressʼ type, and bear diverse control marks on the reverse: star, aphlaston, cornucopia, etc. (Cat. Nos. 268–275). This type was struck throughout Antiochusʼ reign with the exception of year S.E. 178 (135/134 BCE), a fact confirmed by the Mt. Gerizim finds. Thirty-five coins of the third middle denomination ‘lion head / clubʼ type were identified, bearing different dates of issue (Cat. Nos. 276–279). The smallest undated bronze coin depicts the ‘ram of a ship / pileiʼ and was found in large numbers (28 coins, Cat. No. 280). Seventeen bronze coins of the ‘bust of Artemis / Apollo standingʼ type (Cat. Nos. 281 and 282) have been attributed with some reservations to the new mint opened by Antiochus VII in Damascus in S.E. 175 (138/137 BCE).113 One of them is dated to S.E. 177 (136/135 BCE). Houghton, Lorber and Hoover stated that most of the known provenances of coins of this type are almost exclusively from Jerusalem and Sebaste, and they could not exclude

[97]

Demetrius II Nicator, second reign (129‒125 BCE)

at Mt. Gerizim include six drachmas dated to 129/128 BCE (Cat. Nos. 297‒301), one tetradrachma, one didrachma and a drachma dated to 128/127 BCE (Cat. Nos. 302‒304) and another drachma whose date is illegible (Cat. No. 305).126 Demetrius II was the last Seleucid king to strike coins in Tyre. After his death the city produced its autonomous coinage with a new era, 126/125 BCE.127

One hundred and ninety coins were identified, of them 103 belong to the silver hoard (Cat. Nos. 787–889, see below). Demetrius II was released from his Parthian captivity in 129 BCE and immediately returned to Syria to claim back his throne. This is based on his dated coinage minted in Damascus already in 129/128 BCE (Cat. Nos. 295, 296), Tyre (Cat. Nos. 297‒306), Sidon (no coins in the catalogue). His Antiochean coinage, although undated, must have been struck before 128, when the usurper Alexander II Zabinas conquered the city.121 Demetriusʼ kingdom comprised Cilicia, Seleucia in Pieria, Phoenicia and part of CoeleSyria. Seleucid coins of both rival kings, Demetrius II Nicator and Alexander II Zabinas, appear in large numbers at Mt. Gerizim, both as isolated finds and in hoards, as will be further discussed below. Demetrius IIʼs coinage in Antioch was produced for less than a year during the first year of his second reign, but it was nevertheless very prolific. No isolated silver issues from this mint were found at Mt. Gerizim, but coins of his two bronze series were uncovered in considerable quantities: 30 specimens of the ‘head of Zeus / Nikeʼ type (Cat. No. 293) and two coins of the ‘eagle / thunderboltʼ smaller type (Cat. No. 294). After the loss of Antioch to Alexander II Zabinas, Damascus and Tyre became Demetrius IIʼs major mints.122 Newell tentatively attributed to Damascus the type ‘bearded head of Demetrius / Apollo standingʼ dated to S.E. 184 (129/128 BCE). He reserved the identification until more coins of this issue are discovered.123 Houghton, Lorber and Hoover claimed that most recorded specimens of known provenance come from Israel.124 In fact, 41 coins of this type were found at Mt. Gerizim (Cat. No. 295). This significant amount, together with another 30 coins from a number of excavations in Israel,125 reinforces the assumption that this type was issued in a southern mint in CoeleSyria and not in Damascus. The same applies to the smaller denomination bearing a tripod on its reverse, of which three specimens have been recorded (Cat. No. 296). The mint of Tyre produced silver coins of Phoenician standard with a beardless portrait of the king in all three denominations. Isolated finds present

Alexander II Zabinas (128‒122 BCE) In 128 BCE Alexander II Zabinas was sent by Ptolemy VIII to Antioch with an army to claim the Seleucid throne. He fought against Demetrius II and defeated him in battle in Damascus in 125 BCE. Eventually, Ptolemy VIII favored Cleopatra Thea and her son Antiochus VIII Grypus, who were based in ʿAkko-Ptolemais. Alexander retreated to Antioch but was turned over to Antiochus VIII and executed in 122 BCE. Houghton, Lorber and Hoover described Alexander II Zabinasʼ regular coinage as small, due to his short reign and shrunken kingdom.128 However, coins of this king are remarkably numerous at Mt. Gerizim, with a total of 455 coins, 46 of them from the bronze hoard (see pp. 112–114). It should be mentioned that bronze coins of this king are usually well preserved due to the high quality of their fabric. Alexander IIʼs main mint, Antioch, produced a relative large number of bronze types, and many of these appear at Mt. Gerizim. Zabinas coinage of Antioch was issued until 126/125 BCE. The earliest types bearing dates were struck in two denominations: The ‘diademed head of the king / young Dionysos standing with cantharus and thyrsusʼ type is the larger (81 coins, Cat. Nos. 308‒312) and ‘head of Eros / anchorʼ is the smaller (eight coins, Cat. Nos. 313‒315). Both issues are attributed to the tenure of a magistrate signing with ‘IΣI.ʼ129 Interestingly, only one coin of the ‘head of the king / Nike’ type bronze Series 2 of Alexander II is recorded from Mt. Gerizim (Cat. No. 316), perhaps suggesting that these coins were less intended for circulation in our region.130 However, coins of the undated series dated by Houghton, Lorber and Hoover to the last years of Alexander IIʼs reign, between 125 and 122 BCE131 were quite popular and many were found in the excavations (208 coins, Cat. Nos. 317–328).

[98]

Apamea, citing a number of considerations: The monograms are reminiscent of those of Demetrius II (which suggest a later date), the metrology does not fit the Antiochene issues, and the use of the elephantʼs head should be related to the army headquarters in Apamea. On the other hand, they also admit that the serrated fabric, the epigraphy and control marks are more typical of Antioch and ʿAkko-Ptolemais. In the catalogue here, I have followed Houghton, Lorber and Hoover but in my opinion the attribution of these two types is not yet certain and deserves further research. Catalogue Nos. 334 and 335 are an uncertain and very rare dated issue of S.E. 185 (128/127 BCE) depicting ‘a horseʼs head / a shipʼs ramʼ (three coins). According to Houghton, Lorber and Hoover coins of this type circulated in southern Coele-Syria and are related to the Seleucid army (both cavalry and navy), but their exact place of issuing is unknown.138 All known specimens were acquired in Jerusalem or Samaria and the coins from Mt. Gerizim are the first finds from a controlled excavation. Only one coin of this type, found in Bet Sheʾan, is registered in the IAA Coin Department (IAA 117468). These coin finds might indicate a mint in southern Coele-Syria as proposed by Houghton, Lorber and Hoover.

Catalogue No. 317 depicts a ‘radiate head of the king / double filleted intertwined cornucopia.ʼ Coins of this type appear at Mt. Gerizim with a range of control marks: wreath, caduceus, palm branch, ear of corn, etc. Catalogue No. 324 (four coins) is an unpublished variant of the smaller denomination of series 4. It depicts a ‘prow of galley with pilei / aphlaston with the symbol of a caduceus in the left outer field.ʼ The variant published by Houghton, Lorber and Hoover shows a wreath instead.132 The last coin type from Antioch found in the excavations shows the radiate head of Alexander II on the obverse and two parallel double filleted cornucopiae on the reverse (Cat. Nos. 325‒328; 23 coins). Coins bearing the following control marks were discerned: palm branch, star, ear of corn and club. The two most numerous types described above, bearing the intertwined and the parallel cornucopiae, appear also in similar proportions in other excavations in Israel. At Tel Iẓṭaba, 23 coins of the first and 2 coins of the second have so far been discovered.133 Another 28 coins of the intertwined type are and 6 more coins of the parallel type are registered at the IAA Coin Department.134 The high incidence of these types in Israel might also raise the question about the identity of the mint of origin, Antioch or another location in southern Coele-Syria. The two serrated types struck by Alexander II most likely in Apamea on the Orontes were uncovered during the excavations. Both seem to be linked to the same place of issue by their control marks. The large one was found in considerable numbers (107 coins) and depicts the ‘head of the young Dionysos / winged Tyche standing with tiller’ (Cat. Nos. 329‒332).135 The smaller denomination is quite rare at Mt. Gerizim (four coins) and shows an ‘elephantʼs head / eagle standing on thunderbolt’ (Cat. No. 333). The elephantʼs head recalls Apameaʼs status as the basis of the Seleucid elephant corps.136 Based on previous numismatic literature, I have suggested in the past that the ‘young Dionysos / winged Tyche with tillerʼ type should be related to the mint of Antioch during the reign of Alexander I Balas, mainly because of the use of serrated borders, which seems quite anachronistic in coins of Alexander II Zabinas.137 However, Houghton, Lorber and Hoover prefer an attribution to Zabinas from the mint of

Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII Epiphanes Grypus (125–121 BCE) Cleopatra Thea, widow of Alexander I Balas, Demetrius II and Antiochus VII, claimed the throne for herself in 126/125 BCE. She eventually ruled in coregency with her son (by Demetrius II Nicator), Antiochus VIII, who poisoned her in 121 BCE. Only one bronze type minted in Antioch during the coregency was uncovered at Mt. Gerizim. This coin type however, was found in considerable numbers –– a total of 43 coins, 4 of them from the bronze hoard (Cat. Nos. 754–757, see below). The type, struck between 123 and 121 BCE as shown by the dates on the reverse, depicts a ‘radiate and diademed head of Antiochus VIII / an owl standing over a fallen amphoraʼ (Cat. Nos. 336‒338). The inscription mentions both names of Cleopatra and her son. Fourteen coins of this type are registered at the IAA Coin Department,139 and another twelve have so far been identified at Tel Iẓṭaba.140

[99]

Antiochus VIII Epiphanes Grypus (121/120‒97/96 BCE) This king began his sole reign after surviving a murder attempt by his mother, Cleopatra Thea. The first years of his reign were relatively peaceful, until 114/113 BCE when his half-brother Antiochus IX Cyzicenus occupied Cilicia, Phoenicia and Syria and demanded the throne. From then and until his murder in 96 BCE, Antiochus VIII was at war with his brother. The chronology of the events of the war is well documented by the dated coinage of the cities involved.141 Two different dated bronze denominations from the mint of Antioch were uncovered at Mt. Gerizim. According to the dates on the coins the capital changed hands between Antiochus VIII and IX several times. Therefore, not all of Antiochus VIIIʼs regnal years are represented.142 All of the coins from Mt. Gerizim belong to Antiochus VIIIʼs first reign in Antioch from 121/120 to 113/112 BCE. They are all signed by the chief magistrate whose control was ‘IE.ʼ The large denomination, which was found in large quantities (234 coins, 4 of them from hoard), depicts the ‘radiate head of the king / eagleʼ (Cat. Nos. 339‒341, 758–761). One of the characteristics of this type is that in many cases the flans are smaller than the dies and the dates in the exergue remain off flan. The small denomination is rare (six coins). It shows the ‘bust of Artemis / Apollo standing with bow and arrowʼ (Cat. Nos. 342‒343). Forty-four coins of the large denomination with the ‘head of king / eagle’ are registered at the IAA Coin Department,143 and another 20 were identified at Tel Iẓṭaba.144

Antiochus IX Eusebes Philopator Cyzicenus (114/113‒95 BCE) This is the last Seleucid king whose coins have been found at Mt. Gerizim. Only three coins were identified but they are of extreme importance since they constitute a testimony to the tumultuous events that led to the destruction of the site by John Hyrcanus I (see pp. 103–104, 129). Antiochus IX Cyzicenusʼ reign was as cruel and full of intrigues as those of most of his predecessors. Like his brother Antiochus VIII Grypus, he ruled Syria intermittently, nevertheless, Antioch was his major

mint during the three periods in which Antiochus IX controlled the city.145 The three coins identified during the excavations are dated bronzes of the type ‘diademed head of the king / winged thunderboltʼ (Cat. Nos. 344‒346). The earliest one is dated to 114/113 BCE, the first year of his first rule in Antioch (Cat. No. 344). If the reading of the apparent date on Cat. No. 346 is correct, then this specimen, whose type is consistent with issues of Antiochusʼ first reign, was struck during Antiochusʼ second reign in 110/109 BCE and it provides the terminus post quem for the destruction of the site by John Hyrcanus I (Fig. 6). This variant was not published by Houghton, Lorber and Hoover but appears elsewhere.146

0

1

cm

Fig. 6. Coin No. 346. Antiochus IX, Antioch, dated to 110/109 BCE (ΓΣ? = S.E. 203).

Autonomous and Civic coinage This category includes three groups of coins generally dated to the Hellenistic period and produced by three different mints: Side in Pamphylia, ʿAkko-Ptolemais and Ascalon. The coins were not struck by any royal authority but by some civic entity, and are thus called autonomous. All circulated alongside the regular royal Seleucid coinage and were an integral part of the currency in this period not only at Mt. Gerizim but at other sites in the southern Levant as well. The three groups differ from each other in their general numismatic character and will therefore be discussed separately.

Coins from Side, Pamphylia Fourteen coins from Side were discovered during the excavations. Since the coins are all undated and anepigraphic, the types are described in the catalogue

[100]

according to their relative chronology. Catalogue No. 347 (five coins) depicts the ‘head of Athena facing, wearing a Corinthian helmet / Athena holding a spear and a shield, with a small pomegranate.ʼ Eight coins belong to Cat. Nos. 348 and 349 and depict the same obverse as the preceding type with the head of Athena, and the pomegranate as the main type on the reverse. Catalogue No. 349 of this type bears a circular countermark on the reverse depicting a club. This motif, which may suggest that the coin had been countermarked in Tyre, seems to be unpublished.147 Countermarks are very rare on Sidetan bronze coins. A countermark depicting a bow in a case, struck on the obverse side of a later Sidetan coin type, is known from the numismatic literature.148 Another example is a coin of unknown provenance in the IAA Coin Department, of the ‘head of Athena / Nike standing’ type with a circular countermark on its reverse showing an anchor (IAA 140285). The diversity of motifs on these countermarks might suggest different geographical locations in the southern Levant where the coins were countermarked. Catalogue No. 350 is a silver drachma, dated ca. 190–36 BCE. It shows the same obverse than the previous types — the head of Athena. On the reverse is a Nike advancing to left holding a wreath, and to her right a pomegranate and the legend ΔIO. This is the first specimen of a silver Sidetan coin ever discovered in our region. It seems that there are multiple finds of silver tetradrachmas in hoards in Syria and Asia Minor, while the bronzes are found in higher quantities in the southern Levant.149 In 2000 Ariel published a list of 73 bronze coins of Side from excavations in Israel.150 Since then, more coins have been found and today 92 Sidetan bronze coins are registered at the IAA Coin Department.151 Recently, an updated catalogue including 134 provenanced Sidetan coins from 43 sites in the region was compiled by Johananoff.152 The high frequency with which these coins are discovered at Hellenistic sites indicates that they were an integral part of the currency in circulation. Their incidence in archaeological contexts is generally dated to the second century BCE and the coins are usually worn, indicating a long period of use.153 It is not clear however, if the state of wear of the coins indicates that they arrived in the southern

Levant directly or only after circulating for some time in Side. Based on the numismatic evidence from Marisa, Barkay attempted to date the seven Sidetan coins uncovered at the site according to the Seleucid coins found together at the same contexts: coins of Antiochus III and Antiochus IV. She therefore dated them to the end of the third–second centuries BCE.154 A more difficult question is what function Sidetan coinage served in the currency of the region. The accepted view is that Side was a center for recruiting mercenaries who ultimately participated in the Seleucid military activities in the southern Levant.155 Since Side was not known for any specific commercial export, it seems likely that the supply of military manpower was the main connection between the two regions. Foreign mercenaries in the service of John Hyrcanus I are mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 13:249; War 1:61).156 It is not clear whether the coins were brought individually by the soldiers or used as payment for the troops.157 After the arrival of the coins in the southern Levant, they entered circulation through commercial transactions.

Pre-colonial civic coinage of ʿAkko-Ptolemais

The autonomous coinage of ʿAkko-Ptolemais is a major component in the numismatic evidence from the Seleucid period at Mt. Gerizim, with 1,217 identifiable coins. Seven different types are extant. Two of them appear in significant quantities, both types depicting the ‘heads of the Dioscuri / parallel cornucopiae.ʼ The numismatic literature about the autonomous coinage from ʿAkko-Ptolemais is numerous and varied. The first corpus, still most often cited, was prepared by Kadman in 1961. In 1962 Seyrig published a comprehensive study on the coins of this city, including corrections to Kadman’s catalogue.158 The third source relevant to this discussion is Voulgaridis’ Ph.D. on the Seleucid mints of ʿAkkoPtolemais and Ascalon.159 Finally, Syon included a useful, comprehensive table of all types of precolonial civic coinage from ʿAkko-Ptolemais in his Ph.D. dissertation.160 This table cites all significant previous studies of these coins. It is widely accepted today that the autonomous coinage started during the reign of Antiochus IV. The first series are beveled and undated and bear the

[101]

inscription ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ.161 Dates according to the Seleucid era were added only on the series dating between 125 and ca. 110 BCE. The inscriptions on the reverse of the coins also vary in accordance with the chronology of the types. The first two undated series in the catalogue were struck during the reign of Antiochus IV and they are attributed to 169‒164 BCE. Catalogue No. 351 bearing the ‘head of Tyche / Nike’ is very rare (one coin). Catalogue No. 352 (23 coins) bears the ‘head of Apollo / lyre.’ Control marks are not visible and therefore their attribution is uncertain. Catalogue Nos. 353‒355 are the most common and numerous of the undated series, which is also attributed to 169‒164 BCE. A total of 617 coins have been discovered at the site. The type shows the ‘jugate heads of the Dioscuri / a cornucopia.ʼ Control marks and monograms are varied.162 Catalogue No. 354 seems to bear an unpublished control mark. Coins of this type are usually of good fabric and their enormous output may suggest that they were struck beyond the reign of Antiochus IV, and until the appearance of the series with the same type dated. Voulgaridis explained the large quantities of the undated series as small change supplied to the increasing number of auxiliary troops stationed in ʿAkko-Ptolemais as result of the expeditions of Antiochus IV against Egypt and the Hasmoneans.163 No specimens of the extremely rare undated type depicting the ‘jugate heads of the Dioscuri / a cornucopia,’ with the addition of the title IEPAΣ, ‘sacred,’ to the reverse legend have been discerned at Mt. Gerizim.164 Scholars believe this type shows an intermediate phase when the consecration of the city took place, sometime in the 140s BCE, before the city received the rank of inviolable (ΑΣYΛΟΥ) in the dated autonomous series. The next series that appears in large numbers at Mt. Gerizim (572 coins) shows again the ‘jugate heads of the Dioscuri / a cornucopiaʼ (Cat. Nos. 356‒386). There are, however, a number of important innovations: (1) in terms of technique, flans are smaller and of better fabric; (2) the reverse inscription now reads: ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣYΛΟΥ; and (3) dates according to the Seleucid era appear on the right lower field.165 The repertoire of coins of this series from Mt. Gerizim

presents varied control marks and monograms, some of them published here for the first time (see for instance Cat. Nos. 362‒364). Although a few earlier coins of this series are known (Cat. Nos. 356‒357 dated between 132 and 129 BCE), it seems that the beginning of the series was most likely in 126/125, when, according to Seyrig, Cleopatra Thea declared ʿAkko-Ptolemais as her capital and granted the city the title inviolable.166 One should state, however, that this year also marked the beginning of the autonomous coinage in Tyre, and according to Syon, the beginning of the Hasmonean coinage by John Hyrcanus I as well. Therefore, this date does not seem to be coincidental.167 Seyrig marked the end of the series, based on the specimens that were available to him, to 118/117 BCE. He recalled one coin from a private collection in Israel dated to 110/109 BCE that, in his opinion, was a fake.168 It is in this context that the numismatic evidence from Mt. Gerizim becomes crucial. Coins of this series found during the excavations show all dates in sequence from 125/124 BCE (S.E. 188) almost without gaps to 116/115 (S.E. 197).169 There are two additional coins on which the dates are not completely clear and which seem to read: 113/112 BCE (LΣ = S.E. 200; Cat. No. 383) and 112/111 BCE (LAC = S.Ε. 201; Cat. No. 384; Fig. 7). If the reading of the dates on both coins are correct, then these coins are extremely relevant to discussion of the destruction of the site by John Hyrcanus I (see below).170

0

1

cm

Fig. 7. Coin No. 384. Pre-colonial civic coin of ʿAkkoPtolemais, dated to 112/111 BCE.

The last three autonomous coin types from ʿAkkoPtolemais appearing in the catalogue are very rare issues. Catalogue No. 387 (one coin) depicts the ‘jugate heads of the Dioscuri / Tycheʼ and has no date.

[102]

However, the inscription on this coin is ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣYΛΟΥ indicating that it was struck after 126/125 CE. Catalogue No. 388 (one coin) depicts the ‘head of Apollo / lyre’ (with no visible date) and bears the same long legend. Voulgaridis attributes this type to 187 and 188 S.E., namely from 126 to 124 BCE.171 Catalogue No. 389 (two coins) depict the ‘head of Zeus / Zeus standing’ with the same legend.

Coins from Ascalon Three bronze coins of the same type from the mint of Ascalon were found at Mt. Gerizim (Cat. No. 390). They depict the bust of Tyche on the obverse — indicating that this was an autonomous issue — and the prow of a galley on the reverse with the inscription AΣ. The coins are beveled and are attributed to the second century BCE.172 Forty-five coins of the same type were found in Klonerʼs excavation in Maresha, 32 of which were struck on beveled flans, just like the coins from Mt. Gerizim. Based on the issue of dated beveled coins struck in Ascalon, Barkay concluded that they were characteristic of the period between the reigns of Antiochus IV and Tryphon, namely 175‒139 BCE.173 Hasmonean Coinage

A large number of Hasmonean coins was discovered during the excavations at Mt. Gerizim (682 coins; 6 of them were unidentifiable).174 Together with the evidence from the two Seleucid hoards, the late Seleucid isolated coin finds and the autonomous dated issues from ʿAkko-Ptolemais, the Hasmonean coins contribute important numismatic data toward a better understanding of the date of destruction of the site during John Hyrcanus I’s northern campaign and the subsequent Hasmonean occupation of the site (see p. 129). The appearance of significant numbers of coins in the name of Yehoḥanan in the excavations supports their attribution to John Hyrcanus I only and those in the name of Yehudah to Judah Aristobulus I, as opposed to other alternatives.175 At least sixty-eight coins of John Hyrcanus I were discovered, three coins of Aristobulus I and 528 coins of Alexander Jannaeus.176 Each group will be discussed separately.

John Hyrcanus I (129‒105/104 BCE) At least 68 coins of this ruler have been identified. It is most likely, however, that some of the 77 Hasmonean coins with illegible inscriptions (Cat. No. 410) that were uncovered in the excavations belonged to John Hyrcanus I as well. According to Josephus, as soon as Antiochus VII died, John Hyrcanus I embarked on a military campaign and captured Madaba, Samoga and their surroundings, as well as Shechem and Mt. Gerizim (Ant. 13:254‒255; cf. War 1:61‒65). He later captured the Idumean cities of Adora and Marisa (Ant. 13:257; cf. War 1:63). Josephus further referred to the continuous internal struggle between the contenders for the Seleucid throne, arguing that neither Demetrius II Nicator, Antiochus VIII Grypus nor Antiochus IX Cyzicenus were interested in fighting against the Hasmonean ruler. Moreover, Josephus claimed that John Hyrcanus I maintained friendly relations with Alexander Zabinas (Ant. 13:267‒274).177 Based on these sources Schürer assumed that these events happened during the second reign of Demetrius II Nicator, namely between 129 and 125 BCE; this view was accepted by almost all scholars.178 In an important study, however, Barag demonstrated that the numismatic evidence from archaeological excavations at the main sites mentioned by Josephus, and others, such as Tel Beʾer-Sheba, revealed an entirely different picture. Barag concluded that John Hyrcanus’ campaign should be dated to the last decade of his rule, namely from 112/111 BCE onward.179 With regard to Mt. Gerizim, Barag recorded the coin finds at the site from this particular period and argued that the site’s destruction did not take place before 112/111 BCE, during the reign of Antiochus IX Cyzicenus.180 In a comprehensive article, Shatzman revised and further developed Barag’s research.181 By analyzing the archaeological data from the sites mentioned in the literary sources — Josephus Flavius and Megillat Taʿanit — Shatzman concurred with the later date for John Hyrcanus I’s conquests,182 but concluded that all of the historical sources combined indicated that John Hyrcanus I’s military campaigns north of Judea occurred not earlier than 112 BCE, and may more accurately be dated from 111/110 to 107 BCE.183 This was the most opportune time for the Hasmonean ruler to have taken advantage of the weakening of the

[103]

Seleucid throne due to the struggle between Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX.184 Today we can confirm Shatzman’s suggestion based on the entire numismatic repertoire from Mt. Gerizim. The Hasmonean prutahs of John Hyrcanus I at the site can be analyzed in a broader context together with: (1) the latest isolated Seleucid coins of Antiochus IX Cyzicenus (Cat. No. 344, dated to 114/113 BCE; Cat. No. 345, dated to 113/112 BCE, and Cat. No. 346 most likely dated to 110/109 BCE); (2) the date of deposition of both Seleucid hoards, which were not concealed before 121/120 BCE and 120/119 BCE (Cat. Nos. 758–760 and 890 respectively); and (3) the latest dated autonomous coins of ʿAkko-Ptolemais, dating most likely to 113/112 BCE and 112/111 BCE (Cat. Nos. 383 and 384 respectively). The ratios of coins of Hyrcanus I, Aristobulus I and Jannaeus — 68:3:528 — would appear to raise the possibility that unless these coins (Cat. Nos. 344, 383 and 384) derived from a stratigraphic level dating to before the Hasmonean conquest, they could also have derived from the chronological phase to which the many Jannaeus coins belong. This, however, is not likely, because, as seen below, the overwhelming majority (93%) of Jannaeus’ coins belong to the king’s latest type (490 coins).185 Most, and perhaps even all of those coins might actually date after Jannaeus’ death (below). Without that type, it becomes clear that the number of coins of Jannaeus (38; Cat. Nos. 402–408) is appropriate in quantity and not disproportionate to his father and brother’s coins. Moreover, if we consider only the early coins of Jannaeus found at Mt. Gerizim, some 15 coins (40% of the 38 coins noted above) then it becomes clear that the pre-108 BCE coins noted above (Cat. Nos. 344–346, 383 and 384) most likely derived from before Hyrcanus’ conquest of Gerizim, and not during the period immediately afterward, when the Jannaeus coins were barely circulating at the site. In light of these numismatic considerations, the conquest of Mt. Gerizim by John Hyrcanus I did not take place before 110/109 BCE. All the coins of John Hyrcanus I belong to the standard Hasmonean type depicting a paleo-Hebrew inscription within a wreath — naming the minting authority — on the obverse and a pair of joined and opposing cornucopiae with a pomegranate between the horns on the reverse. There are two main groups,

which differ from one another in their inscriptions: ‘Yehoḥanan the high priest and the council of the Jews’186 and ‘Yehoḥanan the high priest head of the council of the Jews.’187 Both are present at Mt. Gerizim. The internal classification within the above two groups should not be viewed as having chronological importance. Rather, they are epigraphical groups, most likely indicating different styles of the die engravers or different emissions. Catalogue No. 391 belongs to what it is generally accepted as the first type of John Hyrcanus I, depicting the Greek letter A on top of the obverse inscription.188 Scholars agree that the alpha represents the first letter of a number of Seleucid kings with alpha as their first initial: Antiochus VII, Alexander II Zabinas, or even Antiochus VIII Grypus.189 The addition of the alpha is interpreted as a gesture to express recognition of the hegemony of the king, whichever one he may have been.190 Coins of TJC Group B are also present in the excavation (Cat. Nos. 392–395); Cat. No. 395 bears an apparently unpublished monogram on its reverse. Coins of TJC Groups D and G are very common at Mt. Gerizim (Cat. Nos. 396‒398). Last are coins of TJC Group I that show the addition of the word head to the obverse legend (Cat. Nos. 399, 400).

Judah Aristobulus I (105/104 BCE) Coins of this ruler are quite rare; only three were identified during the excavations (Cat. No. 401). On the obverse they show a paleo-Hebrew inscription within a wreath reading ‘Yehudah the high priest and council of the Jews’ and on the reverse is a pair of joined and opposing cornucopiae with a pomegranate between the horns. Syon stated that most provenanced coins of Judah Aristobulus I in the IAA Coin Department originate in Galilee and the Golan. He also claimed that despite Meshorer’s argument that hundreds of his coins are known from the market, only 51 coins of this ruler (30 of these from Gamla) are registered in the IAA Coin Department.191 Most recently, Hendin has shown that there is a stylistic connection between the workshops of Aristobulus’ predecessor — John Hyrcanus I — and his successor — Alexander Jannaeus — confirming

[104]

that the coins with the inscription YEHUDAH belong to Judah Aristobulus I.192

Alexander Jannaeus (104/103‒76 BCE) A disproportionately large number of 528 coins of this king were discovered at Mt. Gerizim. There is no doubt that most coins reached the site after it was destroyed by fire by John Hyrcanus I. According to Y. Magen, a Hasmonean garrison was built at the site to preclude the return of the Samaritan population, and the presence of the garrison explains the large quantities of Jannaeus coins at the site (see p. 33 in this volume).193 Not all Jannaeus types appear at Mt. Gerizim. Those present are mentioned here according to Shachar’s relative chronology.194 Catalogue Nos. 402‒404 (14 coins) are derivative types that follow the coin types of Jannaeus’ predecessors and show a paleo-Hebrew inscription with the name of ‘Yehonatan the High Priest within wreath / double cornucopiae with pomegranate.’195 Catalogue No. 405 (one coin) is an ‘anchor surrounded by ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ / lily flower and the paleo-Hebrew inscription King Yehonatan.’196 It continues the use of the lily from Shachar’s Type 2 (not found at Mt. Gerizim) and was apparently the first to incorporate the Greek version of Alexander Jannaeus’ title.

Catalogue No. 406 (one coin) was overstruck on prutot of group T and bears the YNTN version of the name.197 Catalogue No. 407 (13 coins) is an ‘anchor surrounded by ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ / star with paleo-Hebrew inscription between rays King Yehonatan.’ This was the commonest type circulating in the 80s of the first century BCE.198 Catalogue No. 408 (9 coins) shows an ‘anchor within circle / star within circle, bearing the date L K-E (= year 25),ʼ equivalent to year 80/79 BCE.199 Catalogue No. 409 (490 coins) are degenerative crude imitations of Shachar’s Type 5, showing an ‘anchor within circle / star within circle.ʼ200 These coins are lighter and smaller, and they usually have an irregular shape. There is a wide consensus that this was Jannaeus’ last type, struck after 80/79 BCE (the date of its prototype, Type 5) and it has been suggested that at least some of them were struck by one of his successors during the reign of his widow Salome. As noted, these coins are the most common type of Jannaeus and they constitute 93% of all Jannaeus coins found at Mt. Gerizim (Fig. 8). Moreover, in many other excavations in Judea the same relatively large numbers of coins have been found. For example, in Area E in the Jewish Quarter in the Old city of Jerusalem, 81% of all of the identifiable coins were of this type (674 coins).201

490 500

400 300 200

100 0

10

3

1

1

1

13

Group P

Group Q

Group R

Group N

Group T

Group K

Fig. 8. Breakdown of coins of Alexander Jannaeus according to TJC types.

[105]

9 Group L1-6 Group L7-17

The Roman Period

Based on the numismatic evidence, after the destruction of Mt. Gerizim by John Hyrcanus I it seems that the site was not resettled until the end of the third century CE. This section will discuss the coins dated to the Roman period according to the following classifications: Roman provincial coins and imperial coins.

Roman provincial coins The catalogue includes only 13 coins that belong to this classification. The earliest are four bronze coins of the Roman governors in Judea, one of Ambibulus dated to 9/10 CE during the reign of Augustus (27 BCE‒14 CE; Cat. No. 412), and three of Festus dated to 58/59 CE, during the reign of Nero (54‒68 CE; Cat. No. 413). These coins were minted in Jerusalem. Another coin was minted by Nero in Caesarea and dated to 68 CE (Cat. No. 415). In addition, there is an autonomous coin minted in Ascalon, roughly dated to the first century CE (Cat. No. 414). The next three coins were struck by Hadrian (117‒138 CE). The first is from Gaza of the Apollo standing type (Cat. No. 416). The second is from Aelia Capitolina and depicts the Capitoline triad within a temple (Cat. No. 417). The third coin belongs to type ‛SCʼ within wreath minted in Antioch (Cat. No. 418). The next three coins were all minted in Neapolis, which is not surprising since this is the closest mint to Mt. Gerizim. Two of them belong to Antoninus Pius (138‒161 CE) and depict the view of Mt. Gerizim (Cat. Nos. 419, 420). The other was minted by Faustina Junior, Marcus Aureliusʼ wife (161‒180 CE), and depicts a statue of the Ephesian Artemis flanked by stags (Cat. No. 421). The last coin of this category was struck by Severus Alexander (222‒235 CE) in Caesarea. It is the emperorʼs most common type, depicting an eagle holding a wreath with the legend SPQR (Cat. No. 422).

Roman imperial coins The earliest of this group of 22 isolated coins is a very unusual as of Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE), minted in Rome in 7 BCE (Cat. No. 411). Coins of Augustus

struck in Rome are very rarely found in our region. Only five coins are registered in the IAA Coin Department, all of them of unknown provenance.202 The remaining coins of this category date from the last quarter of the third century CE to the end of the first quarter of the fourth century CE. Two hoards found at Mt. Gerizim belong to the same period: a hoard of antoniniani from Area S, and a hoard of the House of Constantine from Area G (see pp. 117–122). These two hoards complement the scarce information provided by the isolated coin finds on currency during this particular period. The isolated coins include: seven antoniniani of Probus (276‒282 CE) minted in Antioch (Cat. No. 423); one of Carinus (283‒285 CE) minted in Cyzicus (Cat. No. 424); two coins of Constantius I (305‒306 CE) one from Antioch and the other from Cyzicus (Cat. Nos. 425, 426); a coin of Licinius I (308‒324 CE) minted in Antioch (Cat. No. 427); three of Licinius II (317‒324 CE) two from Antioch and one from Nicomedia (Cat. Nos. 428, 429); one of Crispus (317‒326 CE) struck in Heraclea (Cat. No. 430); four early issues of Constantine I (307‒337 CE) minted in Rome, Siscia and Ticinum (Cat. Nos. 431‒434) and last, two coins of Constantine II (337‒340 CE) from Arles and Rome (Cat. Nos. 435, 436). The incidence of mints from the western part of the Roman Empire is still quite significant during this period.

Late Roman This category refers to the 407203 coins issued during the fourth and fifth centuries CE that appear in the catalogue. Another 259 coins are not included and are labeled in the database as ‛Late Roman.ʼ No gold or silver coins of this period were discovered; all coins are bronze. A massive increase in the influx of coins to Mt. Gerizim is noticed during this period. Indeed, many of the coin finds from excavations in Israel are Late Roman bronzes of this period. This phenomenon is directly related to the change in the status of the region, which, from a distant province at the eastern outskirts of the empire, became the Holy Land, a goal of pilgrimage and of imperial investments. Samaria was also part of the Holy Land. And even though most of the population in Samaria were Samaritans, Christians lived there as well: The

[106]

list of bishops that participated at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 CE mentions the presence of Christians in Neapolis and Sebaste.204 Restrictions were imposed on the Samaritan community, and as consequence of the first Samaritan revolt in 484 CE, emperor Zeno prohibited the community’s presence on Mt. Gerizim. He ordered the construction of the church of Mary Theotokos upon the ruined Samaritan temple.205

The fourth century CE This period starts in 324 CE with the recognition of Constantine I as sole ruler of the Roman Empire and the establishment of the capital in Constantinople. Every few years a new series of standard coin types was issued by a number of imperial mints across the empire. Each mint added the abbreviation of its name in the exergue (e.g., CONS for Constantinople, SMANA for Antioch). These mintmarks are often illegible, due to the poor state of preservation of the coins. However, most cases show a predominance of eastern mints such as Antioch, Nicomedia, Cyzicus, Alexandria and Thessalonica. Rome is the most numerous of the western mints found on coins from Mt. Gerizim. Coin types refer in general to the cult of the emperor and the royal family, and his military campaigns. The same coin type could have been minted by more than one ruler. Popular types of the dynasty of the House of Constantine (ca. 324–361 CE) among others are: PROVIDENTIAE AVGG ‘camp gate’ (e.g., Cat. Nos. 438–443); GLORIA EXERCITVS ‘two soldiers standing with one or two standards’ (e.g., Cat. Nos. 444 and 445); FEL TEMP REPARATIO ‘Virtus spearing fallen horseman’ (e.g., Cat. Nos. 458, 472–475); ‘she-wolf nursing twins’ (e.g., Cat. Nos. 463, 464, 468); VICTORIAEDDAVGGQNN ‘two Victories facing each other’ (Cat. Nos. 470 and 471); and SPES REIPVBLICE ‘Virtus standing with spear and globe’ (Cat. Nos. 476 and 477). A very unusual coin is Cat. No. 437, minted by Constantine I in Constantinople, reading CONSTANTINIANA DAFNE on the reverse and depicting a ‘Victory seated on a throne with a captive at her feet.’ Next is a large group struck by the House of Valentinian I and Valens between 364 and 375 CE, which comprises two main coin types: GLORIA

ROMANORVM ‘emperor dragging captive’ (Cat. Nos. 478‒480) and SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE ‘Victory with wreath and palm branch’ (Cat. No. 481). The excavation revealed a significant increase in the number of coins dated to the last quarter of the fourth century. The most common type is SALVS REIPVBLICAE ‘Victory dragging captive’ struck by Valentinian II (Cat. Nos. 485, 486), Theodosius I (Cat. Nos. 488‒490), Arcadius (Cat. No. 496) and Honorius (Cat. No. 509). Unfortunately, in most cases the name of the emperor is illegible (61 coins, Cat. Nos. 507, 508). Other coin types, which appear in smaller numbers, are Vota types dated to 378‒383 CE (Cat. Nos. 493‒495, 502‒504); SALVS REIPVBLICAE ‘Victory seated writing on shield,’ a type attributed to empresses only, such as Flacilla (Cat. No. 492) and Eudoxia (Cat. No. 501). Another rare type worthy of mention is VICTORIA AVG ‘two Victories holding wreaths,’ from the mint of Thessalonica (Cat. Nos. 491 and 506).

The fifth century CE Theodosius I was the last emperor of the unified Roman Empire. After his death in 395 CE, the West and East split. His son Arcadius became emperor in the East with Constantinople as capital, while his other son Honorius received the throne in the West with Ravenna as capital. It is clear that the political events during the fifth century had a very significant effect on coinage. The Barbarian invasion (Goths) mainly in the West, led to the loss of extensive territories and the closing of mints that caused a decrease in the official output of coinage. The eastern empire, which suffered less from the invasion, continued to strike coins, although in reduced numbers.206 The demand for small copper change increased toward the second half of the fifth century and coinage adapted itself to the needs of the market. A huge rise in the minting of tiny copper coins, generally known as minimi, took place while the weight of these minimi decreased dramatically, making their use more difficult. This monetary crisis led to a series of unofficial steps, which encouraged, first: the continuity in use of primarily fourth century coinage together with the fifth century currency; second: the production of local imitative issues; and third: the usage of blank flans as normal

[107]

currency. This whole process is well-evidenced at Mt. Gerizim. The earliest imperial issues found at the site include a number of well-known coin types dating roughly to 395‒408 CE. Worthy of mention are: VIRTVS EXERCITI ‘emperor crowned by Victory’ (Cat. Nos. 497‒499, 511, 516, 517); CONCORDIA AVGGG ‘cross’ (Arcadius, Cat. No. 500; Honorius, Cat. No. 510; Theodosius IIʼs, Cat. No. 522 and illegible ruler Cat. Nos. 513‒515); GLORIA ROMANORVM ‘three emperors standing’ (Cat. Nos. 518, 519). The next group dated to 410‒423 CE comprises VICTORIA AVG ‘Victory with wreath and palm branch’ apparently minted in Rome (Cat. No. 512); GLORIA ROMANORVM ‘two emperors standing’ (Cat. No. 520) and the variant holding a globe between them (Cat. No. 521). Imperial issues of the second quarter of the fifth century comprise coin types of Theodosius II depicting a ‘cross within wreath’ minted in eastern mints (types Cat. Nos. 523‒525) and a coin by Valentinian III, apparently minted in Rome, depicting a ‘camp gate’ (Cat. No. 528). A radical change in typology occurred during the second half of the fifth century with the introduction of imperial monograms as main reverse types. The earliest is a coin bearing the monogram of Theodosius II (Cat. Nos. 526, 527). This is followed by coins with monograms of the emperors Marcian (Cat. Nos. 532‒536), Leo I (Cat. Nos. 542‒545), Basiliscus (Cat. No. 546) and Zeno (Cat. Nos. 547‒549). In addition, Leo I struck a few other coin types that also appear at Mt. Gerizim: ‘empress Verina standing’ (Cat. No. 538), ‘emperor standing with captive’ (Cat. No. 539) and ‘lion crouching’ (Cat. Nos. 540, 541). As stated, parallel to the official coinage large quantities of unofficial imitative issues were produced locally in order to fill the vacuum of coins needed for daily transactions and small change.207 These imitations are clearly distinguishable from their prototypes by a number of parameters: they are usually smaller and lighter, they have an arbitrary axis, their fabric and manufacture is poor, and their style is barbaric. A considerable variety of imitations dated to the fifth century has been found as well at Mt. Gerizim. Some of them imitate popular fourth-century issues, such as FEL TEMP REPARATIO ‘fallen horseman’ (Cat. No. 551), SALVS REIPVBLICAE ‘Victory dragging

captive’ (Cat. No. 552), ‘camp gate’ (Cat. No. 576), and defective Vota types (Cat. Nos. 562–566). Many of this imitation consistently feature the inscription as a circle of strokes instead of letters. Others imitate fifth-century coin types, such as a cross (Cat. Nos. 568‒575), Leo Iʼs lion (Cat. No. 577, cast) and imperial monograms (Cat. Nos. 578 and 579). A group of ten coins also belongs to the category of imitations, but in this case it is a very homogeneous class of tiny cast minimi known as anonymous Aksumite imitations (Cat. No. 581). These small coins were apparently produced in Egypt and they imitate a well-known coin of Ezana, king of Aksum from the fourth century CE. Based on archaeological contexts, these imitations continued to circulate in our region until the mid-sixth century.208 Another integral component of the currency in circulation in our region and the whole Mediterranean basin during the fifth and sixth centuries (ca. 429‒533 CE) are the Vandalic minimi minted in Carthage. Based primarily on coin finds from excavations in North Africa and specifically in Carthage itself, these coins were classified into two main categories: signed coins of Vandal kings and anonymous uncertain minimi. Only one type issued during the fifth century CE, which belongs to a group of anonymous minimi named the Proto-Vandalic series dated to ca. 455‒484 CE,209 is presented here. Catalogue No. 580 depicts an ‘eight-pointed star,’ a relatively common type in Israel. Last are 98 blank flans — many of them cast and made of lead — that often appear in numismatic contexts dated roughly to ca. 450‒550 CE (Cat. No. 582). Such pieces of metal have been published as “unidentifiable” in many coin reports in Israel and the eastern Mediterranean.210 These flans were deliberately left blank and they were put in circulation in large quantities together with all the other groups mentioned above. Therefore, their presence at Mt. Gerizim is not surprising. The correct interpretation of fifth-century CE currency and its complicated composition as I have attempted to describe above, is crucial in analyzing the date of construction of the Mary Theotokos church at Mt. Gerizim. The numismatic evidence related to the foundation phase of the church is meager and many loci yielded Byzantine material mixed with Hellenistic

[108]

coins. A number of sealed loci however, representing material from beneath floors, indicate a date for the construction of the church to sometime during the second half of the fifth century.211 If we consider the total number of coins revealed in the church complex, the majority belong to the fifth century CE, especially to the second half, while the number of fourth-century CE coins is tiny. This picture suggests that activities in this area increased in the course of the fifth century CE. The Byzantine Period

This discussion presents the 293 coins issued during the sixth and seventh centuries CE discovered at the excavations at Mt. Gerizim; 43 of them are not included in the catalogue and are labeled in the database as “Byzantine.” They include official imperial coins of all Byzantine emperors from Anastasius I (491‒518 CE) to Constantine IV (668‒685 CE) as well as Vandalic, Ostrogothic coins and imitative issues dated to this period. Most of the coins are made of copper; five are made of gold (Cat. Nos. 643, 644, 648–650).

Sixth-century CE Imperial official coins The reign of Anastasius I and his monetary reforms mark the beginning of Byzantine coinage. Anastasius introduced a new system of coinage based on multiples of the nummus that made transactions simpler and more convenient since the coins were easier to handle than the old minimi. These, however, continued to be struck at least until the last decade of reign of Justinian I (527‒565 CE) and they retained their value as legal tender. The monetary reform of Anastasius I took place in three phases: from 498 to 507 CE, from 507 to 512 CE and from 512 to 518 CE until the size and weight standard of the coppers were eventually fixed in relation to the gold coins.212 As mentioned above, in the new system the nummus functioned as the lowest unit of reckoning with a series of multiples equivalent to 40 (M, follis), 20 (K, half follis), 10 (I, decanummium) and 5 (Є, pentanummium). Sixty coins of this emperor have been identified at Mt. Gerizim. Forty-six coins (Cat. No. 591) are nummia of Anastasius I struck in Constantinople, which bear his imperial monogram on the reverse, according to the

tradition of his fifth-century predecessors. Catalogue No. 592 is an example of the same monogram with slight changes that was minted in Antioch. These nummia constituted the only denomination issued by Anastasius I during his pre-reform period (491‒498 CE) and they most likely continued to be produced until the end of his reign. Two coins (Cat. No. 583) are small folles dated to the first phase of the reform. Six coins (Cat. Nos. 585‒589) are large folles dated to the third and final phase of the reform. Of particular note is Cat. No. 588 that seems to be an imitation. The flan is too small for the striking of the die, and in terms of weight standard the coin is too heavy to belong to the early issues and too light for the later issues. Twenty-five coins of Justin I (518‒527 CE) were recorded at Mt. Gerizim (one of them unidentifiable), including coins from a number of mints: Constantinople, Nicomedia and Antioch. Catalogue No. 597 is worthy of mention. This is a follis of barbaric style, most probably a local imitation. Only 13 coins from a total of 50 coins of Justinian I found at Mt. Gerizim are dated from 527 to 538 CE, namely before his monetary reform. Two of them are of special interest: Catalogue No. 607 is a very rare variant from Constantinople dated to 537/538 CE, presenting the M flanked by a star and a cross on globe.213 Catalogue No. 613 is an undated follis minted in Nicomedia, bearing a square countermark with an undeciphered and so-far unpublished monogram on the chest of the emperor on the obverse (Fig. 9). Using sixth-century CE coins as hosts for countermarking was a popular practice in the first half of the seventh century CE. The square shape of the monogram on this countermark however, fits the style in use during the fifth and sixth centuries CE, a period when this practice was almost unrecorded.214 This item needs further research. Two decanummia from Constantinople were also discovered; Cat. No. 610 represents the period of undated series coins only and two coins (Cat. No. 611) bear an illegible date that cannot be earlier than 538 CE. Catalogue No. 614 is another dated decanummium from year 550/551 CE, minted in Nicomedia. A small 2-nummia coin struck in Thessalonica (Cat. No. 612) also deserves mention. This type is very rarely found and was apparently not intended for circulation in our region.215

[109]

0

1

cm

Fig. 9. Coin No. 613. Follis of Justinian I bearing an undeciphered countermark.

Catalogue No. 616 is a half follis of Justinian I struck in Cyzicus from the first year of his dated series, namely 538/539 CE. The following types are nummia of Justinian I minted in Carthage according to the Vandalic tradition. Thirteen coins of Cat. No. 618 were recorded, all of which belong to the type dated to 534‒539 CE. In addition are two nummia of illegible Vota type, dated to 539‒541 CE (Cat. No. 619); two nummia of the cross type with two dots (Cat. No. 620); a nummus depicting the letter surrounded by three stars (Cat. No. 621) and three specimens of the N type attributed to an eastern mint (Cat. No. 622).216 Next are 22 coins of Justin II (565–578 CE). Most years of this ruler are represented by a large number of eastern mints: Constantinople, Thessalonica, Nicomedia, Cyzicus and Antioch. Finds show an increase in the incidence of half folles, especially those minted in Thessalonica. This is a tendency that predominated until the end of the reign of Maurice Tiberius.217 Catalogue No. 634 is a half follis from Cyzicus dated to 572/573 CE; the same date appears on a follis from Antioch (Cat. No. 640). Interestingly, a solidus (Cat. No. 643) of Tiberius II (578–582 CE) and three solidi (Cat. Nos. 648‒650) of Maurice Tiberius (582–602 CE) were discovered in L4201, a fill west of the church that yielded many pottery sherds. The excavators did not identify these

gold coins as being part of a hoard. However, the fact that the stratigraphic provenance of four (out of a total of only five Byzantine gold coins ever found during the Mt. Gerizim excavations) in the same locus cannot be coincidental and suggests that the coins were deposited together under the same circumstances. Two of the solidi of Maurice Tiberius (Cat. Nos. 649, 650) are light-weight solidi of 23 and 22 carats respectively. These issues are relatively rarely found in archaeological excavations. While four other specimens of light-weight solidi of 23 carats are registered in the IAA Coin Department, no specimens of the 22-carat type are known from this database.218 Another coin that can be related to Tiberius II is noteworthy. This is an overstrike from Alexandria (Cat. No. 647), which depicts the letter S on the obverse, and the value I+B on the reverse. It is difficult to establish which of the strikes is the undertype and which is the overtype, however, it seems that this is an hexanummium (S = 6 nummia) of Heraclius struck on a dodecanummium (I+B = 12 nummia) of Tiberius II. This practice is known from coin finds in Caesarea and from Egypt in general.219 In addition to the three gold coins, the catalogue includes another 17 coins of Maurice Tiberius: three folles from Constantinople (Cat. Nos. 651‒653), five half folles (Cat. Nos. 654‒658) and a rare decanummium of a type showing a cross instead of the value mark I, flanked by a star and the letter B (Cat. No. 659). Two folles and one half follis from Cyzicus (Cat. Nos. 660‒662) — one of them of crude fabric — were found as well. Last are five coins minted in Antioch (Cat. Nos. 663‒667), among them a follis from the last year of the reign of Maurice (Cat. No. 665).

Sixth-century CE Vandalic coinage Following the discussion on Vandalic coinage of the fifth century CE, a number of issues of this series dated to the sixth century CE are now presented. The first group includes royal issues struck in Carthage by the Vandal kings Thrasamund (496‒523 CE), Hilderic (523‒530 CE) and Gelimer (530‒534 CE), which are all contemporary with the reign of Justinian I. All of them are nummia and follow the Vandalic tradition in terms of fabric and manufacture. Catalogue No. 668 (three coins) bears a crude-style ‘Victory standing,’

[110]

which is so characteristic of Thrasamund. Coins of this type have usually been found in hoards and archaeological contexts of the mid-sixth century CE in our region.220 Catalogue No. 669 belongs to the only type struck by Hilderic bearing a ‘cross within wreath,’ which constitutes the most predominant type among royal Vandalic coins found in excavations in Carthage as well as in our region.221 Catalogue No. 670 (two coins) depicts the monogram of Gelimer, the last Vandal king, who surrendered to the troops under Belisarius, Justinian Iʼs general in 534 CE, when the province was taken by the Byzantines.222 In addition, Cat. No. 671 refers to seven nummia of the anonymous Vandalic type bearing a ‘palm tree’ on its reverse, which is by far the most popular North African type ever found in excavations in our region.223 While the reverse is very clear, the obverse is usually obscure and illegible. The extensive production of this issue as evidenced from coin finds, reinforces the assumption that this type was struck over a long period of time between 534 and 565 CE parallel to the reign of Justinian I.

Sixth-century CE Ostrogothic coins The establishment of this kingdom in Italy lasted for about sixty years, from 490 to 552 CE. Ostrogothic minimi have been found in our region in small numbers and few specimens come from Mt. Gerizim. Catalogue No. 672 showing a ‘V within wreath’ is very rare and apparently belongs to King Theodoric (493‒526 CE). Catalogue No. 673 is an issue of King Athalaric (526‒534 CE) that depicts his royal monogram. Catalogue No. 674 is a more common type struck by King Baduila (541–552 CE), it bears the inscription DNREX/B on its reverse.

Anonymous imitations of the sixth century CE This category refers to a group of ten dodecanummia (I+B, 12 nummia), a denomination that was exclusively minted in Alexandria. To some extent, eventually replaced the role of the minimi as small change, once their production was stopped by the mid-sixth century CE. The coins under discussion however, are poorly cast, smaller (minimi size) and much lighter than their prototypes, indicating that they were locally

manufactured imitations (Cat. No. 675). These cast imitations have been found in Israel particularly in coastal sites such as Caesarea and Ashqelon, and concentrations of them appear in inland cities such as Jerusalem and Scythopolis. Based on coin finds and their geographical distribution I have proposed that these imitations were produced in Caesarea especially during the second half of the sixth century CE.224

Seventh-century CE imperial official coins Only four coins of Emperor Phocas (602–610 CE) have been recorded from Mt. Gerizim. Catalogue Nos. 676 and 677 are folles of this ruler from Constantinople dated to 602/603 and 603/604(?) CE respectively. A half follis from the same mint with illegible date (Cat. No. 678) and a follis minted in Cyzicus in 602/603 CE (Cat. No. 679) were also found. Sixteen coins of Heraclius (610–641 CE) were identified, which cover his whole reign, some of which are noteworthy. Catalogue No. 682 is a follis with the bust of Heraclius dated to 610–613 CE overstruck on a coin of Phocas. Catalogue No. 684 is a follis dated to 626/627 CE,225 is evidence of the decrease in weight to about half the previous standard in 624/625 CE.226 Catalogue No. 685 (two coins) is an example of the largest group of folles of Heraclius found in our region.227 This group, struck in Constantinople between 629 and 631 CE, restores the full weight of the follis and commemorates the Byzantine victory over the Persians, followed by Heracliusʼ visit to Jerusalem and the return of the Holy Cross to the city.228 Catalogue No. 686, dated to 634/635 CE, belongs to the late phase when the follis decreased again to half its weight.229 The coin from Mt. Gerizim also bears a round countermark depicting a star, which was apparently added by the Arabs. Catalogue No. 690 is significant. This is an old sixth-century CE undated half follis (meaning that it was struck between 518 and 538 CE), which was countermarked with the monogram of Heraclius that is dated to 636‒640 CE (Fig. 10).230 Coins bearing this countermark are extremely rare and this specific coin from Mt. Gerizim is the earliest host coin hitherto published to bear such a countermark.231 Catalogue No. 691 is a rarely found follis struck in Nicomedia between 610 and 613 CE.

[111]

This mint closed temporarily in 617/618 and was reopened in 625/626 until 629/630 CE, after which it was permanently closed. Thirteen coins of this type are registered in the IAA Coin Department, all of them of the same early period of 610‒613.232 Catalogue No. 692 (two coins) is a hexanummium (S = 6 nummia) of Heraclius of a type minted between 613 and 618 CE in Alexandria. This denomination was very popular during his tenure.

Seventh-century CE imitative issues This last group includes 13 dodecanummia (12 nummia) that were struck most probably during the reign of Phocas, at an unknown place outside Alexandria, which was not functioning as imperial mint during this period (Cat. No. 680). The coins are struck and they are characterized by their small size and thick flans. Due to their crude fabric many details and part of the blundered inscriptions remain outside the flans.233

SPECIAL FINDS The Seleucid Bronze Hoard

0

1

cm

Fig. 10. Coin No. 690. Worn early Byzantine half follis bearing the countermark .

Next are ten folles (two of them completely worn) of Emperor Constans II (641–668 CE) from Constantinople, which cover most years of his reign. Of particular note is Cat. No. 693, dated to 641/642 CE and overstruck on a coin of Heraclius. Six coins belong to the common type of the imperial standing figure (Cat. Nos. 694‒696). Catalogue No. 697 belongs to Constans IIʼs last series dated to 666‒668 CE. The three latest Byzantine coins discovered during the excavations belong to Emperor Constantine IV (668–685 CE). They include a half follis from Constantinople of his series dating from 674 to 685 CE that was overstruck on a follis of Heraclius dated to year 629/630 CE (Cat. No. 698); a decanummium from the same mint (Cat. No. 699) and a follis from Syracuse in Sicily dated to 668–674 CE. This last coin was overstruck on an earlier coin of Constans II struck between 654 and 659 CE (Cat. No. 700).

A hoard of 61 Seleucid bronze coins was discovered in August 1989 within the southeastern fortress of the sacred precinct (Area S, L4, B565; Fig. 11). A wide range of Seleucid kings is represented, however, coins of Alexander II Zabinas constitute the vast majority. According to the latest three coins of Antiochus VIII, the hoard was concealed not before 121/120 BCE. Coins minted in Antioch are by far the most numerous, followed by coins from Apamea on the Orontes. This is in contrast to the silver Seleucid hoard (see below), where all but one of the coins are Tyrian issues. This seems to fit the regular pattern of circulation of Seleucid coins in Palestine: Silver coinage is usually from Tyre, while bronzes generally come from Antioch and ʿAkko-Ptolemais. Most of the coin types in the hoard also appear among the isolated coins found at Mt. Gerizim. As discussed above, coins of Antiochus III (Cat. No. 701) and Antiochus IV (Cat. Nos. 702, 703) constitute the most common types of Seleucid coins discovered at Mt. Gerizim and in our region, and they remained in circulation as small change for a long period of time. Therefore, their presence in the hoard is not surprising. Catalogue Nos. 704 and 705 of Demetrius II Nicator (first reign) are both of the same type struck in Tyre showing the stern of a galley. This type also appears among the isolated coins (Cat. No. 265); however, in the case of both specimens from the hoard the date of the coins is preceded by the symbol ‘L’ which means “year.” There is only one coin of Antiochus VII of the ‘winged Eros / headdress of Isis’ type, dated to 138/137

[112]

Ruler

Antioch

Antiochus III

1

Apamea on the Orontes

Damascus

ʿAkkoPtolemais

Tyre

1

Antiochus IV

2

Demetrius II Nicator (first reign) Antiochus VII

Totals

2

2 2

1

1

Demetrius II Nicator (second reign)

1

1

Alexander II Zabinas

39

Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII

4

4

Antiochus VIII

3

3

Illegible

1

1

Totals

49

Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII 6%

Antiochus VIII 5%

7

46

7

1

Antiochus III 2%

Uncertain 2%

2

Antiochus IV 3%

2

61

Demetrius II first reign 3%

Antiochus VII 2% Demetrius II second reign 2%

Alexander Zabinas 75%

Fig. 11. Breakdown of the coins in the Seleucid bronze hoard according to ruler and mint.

BCE (Cat. No. 706). As noted in the discussion of the isolated coins, this type is plentiful at Mt. Gerizim; it was struck during a long period in his reign and presents various control marks and symbols (Cat. Nos. 268‒275). The specimen from the hoard has the control mark and a palm branch below the date in the exergue. In addition, the single coin of Demetrius

II Nicator from his second reign (Cat. No. 707) is abundantly represented among the isolated coins at Mt. Gerizim (Cat. No. 295).234 The coin is attributed to Damascus. However, Mt. Gerizim coins and new evidence from Tel Ashqelon suggest this type should be reattributed to a southerly mint in Israel (D.T. Ariel, pers. comm.).

[113]

The most remarkable feature of the Mt. Gerizim bronze hoard is the predominance of issues by Alexander II Zabinas, which constitute 75% (46 coins) of the total.235 This large percentage stands in contrast to the contemporaneous silver hoard also from Mt. Gerizim, which included no coins of this ruler. This phenomenon is related to the patterns of supply and distribution of Seleucid coins in the region. Silver coins arrived primarily from Tyre and Alexander II Zabinas did not strike any silver at that mint. On the other hand, bronze issues of this king from Syrian mints, mainly from Antioch, are plentiful. Four different types of Zabinas’ coins are present in the bronze hoard, three of which were struck in Antioch. All of the types in this hoard are represented among the isolated coins. The earliest Antiochene issue is dated to Alexander’s early years and depicts a ‘diademed head of king / young Dionysos standing with cantharus and thyrsus.’ Three different dates of this type are represented in the hoard: 129/128, 128/127 and 126/125 BCE (Cat. Nos. 715‒719). The most common type of Zabinas in the hoard, also minted in Antioch, is a group of 30 coins of the ‘radiate king head / double filleted intertwined cornucopiae’ (Cat. Nos. 720–749). The specimens in the hoard bear symbols such as a small caduceus, an ear of grain and a wreath. Four coins of the type bearing ‘radiate king head / two parallel double filleted cornucopiae’ are present in the hoard (Cat. Nos. 750–753). The coins show the following symbols: star, club and palm branch. The latter two types are undated but they are attributed to Zabinas’ last years of reign — from 125 to 122 BCE. The last group of this king from Mt. Gerizim are seven serrated coins of the type ‘head of young Dionysos / winged Tyche standing with tiller’ (Cat. Nos. 708–714). As discussed regarding the isolated coins, Houghton, Lorber and Hoover attribute this popular type to the mint of Apamea on the Orontes and they also confirm the attribution to Alexander II Zabinas instead of Alexander I Balas.236 The hoard contains four Antiochene coins of Cleopatra Thea during her regency with her son Antiochus VIII. All four coins belong to the type depicting a ‘radiate and diademed head of king / owl standing over a fallen amphora,’ and bear the same date

(122/121 BCE; Cat. Nos. 754–757). The latest four coins in the hoard belong to the same issue struck in Antioch by Antiochus VIII. Three depicting a ‘radiate head of the king / eagle’ (Cat. Nos. 758–760); they bear the same date, 121/120 BCE. The last coin (Cat. No. 761) depicts two obverse sides, consequently its date is unknown. These coins provide the terminus post quem for the deposition of the hoard. Contrary to silver hoards, which are quite numerous, hoards of bronzes from the Seleucid period are scarce. Only one other hoard dated to the same period (the decade between 130 and 120 BCE) is listed by Houghton, Lorber and Hoover.237 This hoard is known as ‘Northern Israel, 2002ʼ and it was published by Hoover.238 It contains royal Seleucid coins of the monarchs Antiochus III and IV, Demetrius I Soter, Alexander I Balas, Demetrius II Nicator (first reign), Antiochus VII, Alexander II Zabinas, Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII, together with nine Ptolemaic bronzes and a number of civic issues.239 The diversity of rulers and types is common to both the ‘Northern Israel 2002’ hoard and the bronze Seleucid hoard from Mt. Gerizim; they both include early Seleucid coins that precede by many years the deposition date of the hoard. In terms of mints, both hoards contain mostly coins from Antioch and ʿAkko-Ptolemais, while Tyre hardly appears. The ‘Northern Israel 2002’ hoard was closed in ca. 121/120 BCE since it does not include coins of Antiochus VIIIʼs sole reign. The Mt. Gerizim hoard does contain coins of this last ruler, but only from his earliest year of reign, 121/120 BCE. Therefore, the circumstances of deposition for both hoards must have been similar, related to the internal political struggle for the Seleucid throne during the last days of Cleopatra Thea or after she was murdered by her son Antiochus VIII.240 This historical scenario also suits the closing of the silver hoard from Mt. Gerizim, as will be explained below. The Seleucid Silver Hoard

A hoard of 129 Seleucid silver coins was discovered in September 1999 within a decorated bronze vessel apparently hidden in the northwestern wall of structure P-II, which collapsed (Area P, L4749, B47518;

[114]

Ruler and Denomination

Tyre

Antiochus VII Tetradrachmas

22

Antiochus VII Didrachmas

ʿAkko-Ptolemais

Totals 25

3

Demetrius II Nicator (second reign) Tetradrachmas

98

Demetrius II Nicator (second reign) Didrachmas

103

5

Antiochus VIII Tetradrachmas Totals

128

Antiochus VIII 1%

1

1

1

129

Antiochus VII 19%

Demetrius II second reign 80%

Fig. 12. Breakdown of the coins in the Seleucid silver hoard according to ruler, denomination and mint.

Fig. 12). Three Seleucid kings are represented: Antiochus VII, Demetrius II Nicator (second reign) and Antiochus VIII; however, the coins of Demetrius II constitute the vast majority. As noted, the hoard contains no coins of Alexander II Zabinas; this unusual aspect of the hoard will be further discussed below. According to the latest coin, of Antiochus VIII, the hoard was concealed not before 120/119 BCE. All coins in the hoard are silver issues (tetradrachmas

and didrachmas) minted in Tyre, with the exception of one tetradrachma struck in ʿAkko-Ptolemais by Antiochus VIII. This stands in stark contrast to the bronze Seleucid hoard, where all the coins derive from Syrian mints. As mentioned above, the mints of the silver hoard, however, seem to fit the regular circulation pattern of Seleucid coins in our region: Tyre was the main supplier of the silver coinage and Antioch and ʿAkko-Ptolemais of the bronzes.

[115]

The earliest coins in the hoard are 25 Tyrian issues of Antiochus VII of the Phoenician standard; 22 are tetradrachmas and three are didrachmas (Cat. Nos. 762–786). With the exception of the first three years (S.E. 174‒176), the tetradrachmas cover all the years of reign of this king (Fig. 13).

Year

Tetradrachmas

Didrachmas Totals

S.E. 177 = 136/135 BCE

4

1

S.E. 178 = 135/134 BCE

3

3

S.E. 179 = 134/133 BCE

2

2

S.E. 180 = 133/132 BCE

2

2

S.E. 181 = 132/131 BCE

2

S.E. 182 = 131/130 BCE

7

7

S.E. 183 = 130/129 BCE

2

2

Totals

22

2

3

5

Year

Tetradrachmas

Didrachmas Totals

S.E. 183 = 130/129 BCE

9

1

10

S.E. 184 = 129/128 BCE

12

1

13

S.E. 185 = 128/127 BCE

25

2

27

S.E. 186 = 127/126 BCE

35

S.E. 187 = 126/125 BCE

17

1

18

Totals

98

5

103

35

Fig. 14. Breakdown by date of coins of Demetrius II Nicator in the Seleucid silver hoard.

4

25

Fig. 13. Breakdown by date of coins of Antiochus VII Sidetes in the Seleucid silver hoard.

One hundred and three coins of the second reign of Demetrius II Nicator constitute the bulk of the hoard. There are 98 tetradrachmas and five didrachmas, all of the Phoenician standard (Cat. Nos. 787–889). The dates on the coins show a sequence that includes all his years of reign — from S.E. 183 (130/129 BCE) to S.E. 187 (126/125 BCE; Fig. 14). The 18 coins (17 tetradrachmas and one didrachma) struck during the last year are the last issues ever minted in Tyre by a Seleucid king.241 After Demetrius II Nicator was executed in Tyre in 126/125 BCE, that city started minting new series of silver shekels and half-shekels following the autonomous Tyrian era.242 As noted, only one coin of Antiochus VIII was included in the hoard. This is a tetradrachma of Phoenician standard, minted in ʿAkko-Ptolemais and dated to 120/119 BCE (Cat. No. 890). This coin provides the terminus post quem for the concealment of the hoard.

The closest comparison in terms of date of closure is the Tyrian silver hoard found in Ḥ. ʿAqrav in Upper Galilee.243 It differs from our hoard in the fact that it includes not only royal Seleucid issues but also ten autonomous Tyrian shekels, the latest dated most likely to 120/119 BCE.244 However, since the Ḥ. ʿAqrav hoard is incomplete its composition and date of concealment should be taken with caution. When comparing the nature and contents of the silver and bronze Seleucid hoards found at Mt. Gerizim, there are more differences than similarities, with one exception: their dates of concealment, which are very close. The silver hoard was not concealed before 120/119 BCE while the bronze hoard dates not before 121/120 BCE. This does not appear to be coincidental. Houghton, Lorber and Hoover listed 15 Seleucid hoards whose likely dates of deposit fall sometime within the decade from 130 to 120 BCE.245 To this group we add a silver hoard that was recently discovered during excavations in Ḥ. ʿAshun, Modiʾin, which contains 16 coins, silver tetradrachmas and didrachmas, the latest dated to 126 BCE.246 All these silver hoards have very similar compositions: Tyrian tetradrachmas and didrachmas of Phoenician standard dated from the reign of Antiochus VII and the second reign of Demetrius II Nicator. Phoenicianstandard tetradrachmas and didrachmas were produced in immense quantities in Tyre during these two kings’ reigns. On the other hand, Alexander II Zabinas never controlled this or any other Phoenician mint during his reign.247 It is for that reason that silver

[116]

coins of Zabinas are consistently absent from all of these hoards. The silver hoard from Mt. Gerizim is therefore another assemblage of this same group. There are a number of suggestions to explain the circumstances of the hoard’s deposition. One might possibly suggest that it was buried in the context of the Hasmonean penetration into Galilee by John Hyrcanus I, after the political vacuum created by the murder of Demetrius II Nicator in 125 BCE. Another possibility might be that the hoard was concealed at least around a decade later, in connection with the destruction of Mt. Gerizim by fire in 110/109 BCE, but this seems quite unlikely. If this were the case, one would have expected the presence in both hoards from Mt. Gerizim to find late issues of Antiochus VIII Grypus and coins of Antiochus IX. My impression is that the deposition date for both hoards found at Mt. Gerizim — silver and bronze — should be related to the turbulent period of struggle for the Seleucid throne in the early days of Antiochus VIII after the murder of his mother Cleopatra Thea.248 THE HOARD OF ANTONINIANI (Analysis by

Aaron Goel) A late third-century CE assemblage, apparently a hoard, found at Mt. Gerizim in the excavations of June 1995, provides meager but significant information about the currency at the site during this period.249 Curiously, the assemblage was discovered in the long-ruined Hellenistic citadel (Area S), built projecting some 4 m beyond the line of the southeastern corner of the sacred precinct’s eastern wall. The citadel was destroyed toward the end of the Hellenistic period, but was apparently still accessible at the end of third century CE. Many details about the discovery of the apparent hoard are unclear. However, the coins were discovered together in the same locus (L844) and their chronological and typological features suggest that they were brought together to the ruined citadel and were buried there at the end of the third century CE. This assemblage may therefore be related to as a hoard. The hoard comprises a relatively small group of 44 coins. All are either billon, or copper with badly preserved traces of silver plating. Other than the lack of silver coating, these coins are well preserved. They

are almost exclusively radiate antoniniani: on their obverses all of the male busts bear the radiate crown. Only one issue of an empress is present, of Ulpia Severina, wife of Aurelian (Cat. No. 895). In this case, her bust rests above a crescent moon. The antoninianus was a coin introduced by Caracalla around 214–215 CE as an intrinsically low-value debased silver denomination. Over time antoniniani were further debased until they contained little or no silver content, and at that point Aurelian and Diocletian’s reforms were introduced. Both reforms actually tried to provide an economical solution for the high inflation that the antoninianus had originally caused. The chronological span of the hoard is between 270 and 295 CE, starting during the rule of Aurelian and ending before Diocletian’s reform, which commenced in 293/294 and was officially concluded in 296 CE.250 It is difficult to establish when the coins of the hoard began to be collected, but the date of deposition certainly predates Diocletian’s reform, as the coins would have been unusable after this date. It is possible that the hoard was collected during a short period before Diocletian’s monetary reform. The hoarder surely included older currencies still in circulation. All but four coins in the hoard were minted in Antioch (Cat. No. 891 from Serdica; Cat. No. 913 from Tripolis; Cat. No. 914 from Cyzicus and Cat. No. 894, which is illegible). The distribution of mints in the hoard (Fig. 15) reflects to a certain extent, the general pattern of circulation of coins in the southern Levant at the end of the third century CE. In most cases only eastern mints are present and Antioch is the predominant one, owing to its likely position as major supplier of coinage in Syria, Phoenicia and particularly in our region. The prevalence of the mint of Antioch in eastern hoards has been discussed often by scholars. The Qula hoard is a good example, where the Antioch mint accounts for 75% of the coins.251 In the Mt. Gerizim hoard this predominance is found under all rulers. With regard to the relative quantities of emperors’ coins, Probus supplied the most (17 coins), followed by Diocletian (10 coins), Maximianus Herculius (8 coins),252 and the others with much fewer coins. The reason for the high presence of Probus’ issues will be discussed later.

[117]

Antioch

Serdica

Aurelian RESTITVT ORBIS

2

1

Severina CONCORDIAE MILITVM

1

1

Tacitus CLEMENTIA TEMP

1

1

Probus RESTITVT ORBIS

5

5

Probus CLEMENTIA TEMP

11

Rulers and reverse legends

Mints

Tripolis

Cyzicus

Unknown

Total

1

4

1

Numerian CLEMENTIA TEMP

12 1

1

Numerian VIRTVS AVGG

2

2

Maximianus Herculius CONCORDIA MILITVM

4

4

Maximianus Herculius IOV ET HERCV CONSER AVGG

3

3

Maximianus Herculius IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG

1

1

Diocletian IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG

3

3

Diocletian IOV ET HERCV CONSER AVGG

2

2

Diocletian CONCORDIA MILITVM

5

5

Total

40

1

1

1

1

44

Fig. 15. Conspectus of the late third-century antoniniani hoard, with quantities of coins per ruler, mint and reverse legends and types.

Five coins are associated with the period from 270 to 275 CE, four with Aurelian himself (Cat. Nos. 891–894) and one with his wife Ulpia Severina (Cat. No. 895). Three were minted at Antioch, one in an unknown mint (Cat. No. 894) and one at Serdica (Cat. No. 891). Despite the political and military vagaries of his rule, Aurelian’s administration minted coins fairly regularly and his coins circulated well in the eastern regions after their recapture and the reform of 272 CE.253 The presence of very few of Aurelian’s coins in this small hoard may reflect the normal circulation pattern of such issues in the vicinity of Mt. Gerizim. This idea also seems to apply to other short-lived emperors’ issues in the hoard, i.e., their modest quantities seem to represent their circulation in the market.

It may be more correct to call the hoarded coins of Aurelian and Severina aureliani and not antoniniani, because of their relatively higher silver content and because of Aurelian’s monetary reform itself. The four coins that bear the portrait of Aurelian on the obverse (Cat. Nos. 891–894), depict a female crowning Aurelian with a wreath and the inscription RESTITVT ORBIS (‘Restorer of the World’) on the reverse. The type references Aurelian’s victories in his eastern military campaigns. The Severina coin (Cat. No. 895) also reflects Aurelian’s military achievements, with the reverse reading CONCORDIAE MILITVM (‘Harmony with the Soldiers’) and depicting Concordia standing and holding two standards. Catalogue Nos. 892 and 893 have in their exergue the XXI value mark. This mark

[118]

was established during this period 254 and continued to appear on several different coins from the hoard minted at Antioch and Cyzicus; a KA mark on two coins minted in Serdica and Tripolis (Cat. No. 891 of Aurelian and Cat. No. 913 of Probus) represents the same value in Greek. The aureliani/antoniniani of Aurelian’s reign were equal to 20 sestertii.255 In fact, the XXI and KA marks were established to declare the heightened silver percentage of the coins and continued to be employed on later coins. Interestingly, no isolated coin finds of Aurelian were identified at Mt. Gerizim. The ironic reverse legend CLEMENTIA TEMP (‘A Time of Peace and Calm’) on the single coin of Tacitus present in the hoard (Cat. No. 896) refers to the imperial aspiration for peace and stability in such an insecure period. Despite his good will, Tacitus was murdered very soon after his accession to the throne. This coin was minted in Antioch and has ‘Jupiter presenting a globe to the emperor’ on the reverse. Coins of Tacitus circulated in relatively small quantities in the southern Levant. Few such coins were found in hoards from the region: one hoard from close to Antioch, and another hoard from Tiberias (three coins: two from Antioch and one from Cyzicus). Tacitus’ coins are also rare as isolated finds in excavations in Israel.256 Seventeen coins of Probus were identified in the hoard, five of which bear the RESTITVT ORBIT reverse legend and depict a female crowning the emperor with a wreath. As noted, this type appeared during Aurelian’s reign. Twelve coins are of the CLEMENTIA TEMP reverse type legend (Cat. Nos. 902–913), continuing Tacitus’ issues. Ten of the 12 coins of Probus bear the regular value in the exergue, XXI, with different officinae numbers (Fig. 16).

Officina marks

As noted above one of the 14 coins is also a special issue (Cat. No. 913), bearing the KA value in the exergue. It apparently should be ascribed to the mint of Tripolis (Syria). Like his predecessors, Probus was anxious to restore true pax romana: amity among Romans, securing the borders against Barbarians and improving military deterrence, and his administration placed these themes on the emperor’s coins. Probus ruled a few years more than his predecessors did; this allowed him to crush rebellions and repel Barbarian invasion attempts until he was murdered by rebels supporting Carus. Probus’ relatively long reign is perhaps one of the reasons for the predominance of his issues in the hoard. But there might be other reasons: Scholars have proposed that Aurelian’s reform failed and sparked a new inflationary process that began during Probus’ reign and led to a growth in coin minting.257 Others had claimed previously that Probus’ military activity in the East required more financial resources, and as a result the emperor minted more coinage for use in the region.258 Generally, in the East in the last third of the third century CE, Probus’ issues are predominant. This fact was observed in several archeological excavations, at Naḥal Ḥaggit in Israel, as well as in excavations at Antioch itself.259 Three coins of Numerian are present in the hoard. Two were minted in Antioch (Cat. Nos. 915, 916) and bear the reverse legend VIRTVS AVGG (‘Courage of the Two Augusti’). This type shows Jupiter (or Carus the father), giving a Victory on globe to Numerian the son. The AVGG part of the legend may be a reference to the two sons of Carus that were reigning together as Augusti at this time (Numerian and Carinus). The third coin was struck at Cyzicus (Cat. No. 914) —

ΕΔ

Z

S

B•

Δ

A(?)

Γ•

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

T

Illegible Total

In exergue XXI KA Illegible Total:

2

11

1 1 12

Fig.16. Officinae marks on the CLEMENTIA TEMP coins of Probus in the hoard.

[119]

1

the only such coin in the hoard. With the same scene as the VIRTVS AVGG coins above, the inscription was changed to the common CLEMENTIA TEMP. This single coin may relate to some event concerning Numerian and Cyzicus, as it is known that this mint had in fact minted coins in 284 CE a little before the emperor’s death.260 The absence of issues in the hoard from Numerian’s father Carus (282–283 CE) and brother Carinus (283–285 CE) seems to be due to the very short span of Carus’ reign, and to the fact that Carinus had apparently never been active in the East.261 Eight antoniniani coins of Maximianus Herculius are present in the hoard. He was co-ruler with (and subordinate to) Diocletian. Maximianus, however, was more involved in the western part of the empire than the East, even though coins in his name were minted in the East. His many years of ruling are the reason for the large quantity of coins occurring in the small hoard at Mt. Gerizim. All Maximianus’ coins in the hoard were minted in Antioch. Among them, three reverse types are represented. Four coins (Cat. Nos. 917–920), depict Jupiter presenting a Victory on globe to the emperor, and read CONCORDIA MILITVM. They date to 293 CE. Three coins (Cat. Nos. 921–923) read IOV ET HERCV CONSER AVGG, an abbreviation for Iovio et Hercvlio Conservatori Augustorum (‘Jupiter and Hercules Protectors of the Emperors’). The scene shows Jupiter and Hercules standing face to face: The former holds a globe and scepter, and the latter, a Victory, club and lion’s skin. In fact, this type represents the co-emperorship of the two rulers: Diocletian, who called himself Jovius (Jupiter) and Maximianus Herculius (Hercules). The dating of these three issues is 285–295 CE. The third and final reverse type, also dated to the same years, represented by a single coin (Cat. No. 924), depicts Jupiter presenting a Victory on globe to the emperor, and reads IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG (‘To Jupiter the Protector’). Combining Jupiter — evoking Diocletian — with Maximianus’ obverse legend also reflects the co-emperorship of the two rulers. All three reverse legends show the well-organized co-emperorship between Diocletian and Maximianus during this period, and they spread this propaganda through the coins. This situation continued until Maximianus’ reign ended and he became involved in

political conflicts with Diocletian and other imperial subordinates. However, this co-emperorship was used as a means of dealing more easily with the large territory of the empire. Coins were sometimes minted in the name of the predominant co-emperor, and sometimes in the name of the second, as a display of imperial unity. Ten coins of Diocletian are present in the hoard. Although he ruled between 284 CE and 305 CE, the hoard from Mt. Gerizim contains only coins issued until the reform of 293/294–296 CE, with the latest coins dating to approximately 295 CE. Diocletian coins in the hoard exhibit three different reverse types, all minted in Antioch. The first reverse type has the IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG legend, and again, the depiction is of the emperor receiving a Victory on globe from Jupiter. Although the scene continues on reverses during the post-reform period (296–305 CE), the three coins of this type date to 284 CE (Cat. Nos. 925–927) — the first year of the emperor’s reign without Maximianus Herculius as emperor. The second reverse type appears in two specimens (Cat. Nos. 928, 929), and read IOV ET HERCV CONSER AVGG, with Jupiter and Hercules standing face to face. This type is dated to 285 CE only. The last reverse type is a CONCORDIA MILITVM type; it appears on five coins of Diocletian (Cat. Nos. 930–934). A part from the officinae marks, the obverse legend and the date, the type is identical to the four coins of Maximianus Herculius (Cat. Nos. 917–920). Diocletian’s coins in the hoard may be linked to Maximianus Herculius’ issues. As a unified group, the 18 coins outnumber Probus’ issues by one coin. Appropriately, these latest coins in the hoard are therefore the most numerous (Fig. 17). The coins span the period from 284 CE (Diocletian’s first year of reign alone) until 295 CE, just before the monetary reform introduced by Diocletian. Antoniniani from Diocletian and Maximianus Herculius’ co-emperorship are quite limited in number, based upon other hoard evidence and published isolated finds. Data on hoards from the East indicate that the general circulation of these issues was very small (4% or less). The Qula hoard, one the largest hoards of antoniniani found in Israel, is an example.262 In the

[120]

Reverse types Rulers

CONCORDIA MILITVM

IOV ET HERCV CONSER IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG/GG Total AVGG Jupiter presenting Victory on Jupiter and Hercules standing Jupiter presenting Victory on globe globe to the emperor face to face to the emperor

Maximianus Herculius

4 293 CE

3 285–295 CE

1 (GG) 285–295 CE

8

Diocletian

5 293–295 CE

2 285 CE

3 (G) 284 CE

10

Total

9

5

4

18

Fig. 17. Reverse types of the Maximianus Herculius-Diocletian co-emperorship found in the hoard.

case of Mt. Gerizim, however, the picture is different: Eighteen of the 44 coins belong to this period, namely 44% of the hoard. More research on this subject must be undertaken in order to illuminate this finding. THE HOUSE OF CONSTANTINE HOARD –– ROMAN IMPERIAL (Analysis by Aaron Goel)

The early fourth-century CE hoard found in August 1992 in the Mt. Gerizim excavations is a modest but not-insignificant group for understanding the chronology of the site. The hoard was discovered in the citadel (Building G) located 180 m south of the city wall, at the edge of a ridge. The building was apparently constructed during the initial phases of the Hellenistic period and was reused thereafter in the fourth century CE. The coins were discovered within the southeastern wall of the building (W1011). The hoard consists of 24 bronze coins dating from 316 to 330 CE,263 and the last range of dates (324–330 CE) provides the terminus post quem for the hoard’s deposition. The presence of a hoard of this period hidden in a wall of the citadel suggests that the building was in use during the Late Roman imperial/early Byzantine period. There is good reason to believe that this small assemblage, which was very homogeneous, was buried by a Roman soldier of the garrison, or by some other functionary there in 330 CE or perhaps shortly thereafter. All of the coins were minted during Constantine I’s reign (d. 337 CE) and, apart from Licinius I and Fausta, all were issued by sons of Constantine I. This was a time — until 324 CE — of civil war. In 324, with the victory of Constantine I against Licinius I and Martinian at Chrysopholis,264 Constantine I became the sole ruler of both western and eastern parts of the Empire.

All the coins in the hoard are bronze folles — regular emissions of the beginning of the fourth century CE, after the reform of Diocletian in 293/294–296 CE put an end to the antoniniani coinage. The mints represented in the hoard show a preference for eastern mints (Fig. 18). Only two coins of Rome (Cat. Nos. 938 and 943) and one of Siscia (Cat. No. 939) come from western mints. Heraclea has the majority of (six) coins, followed by Antioch and Cyzicus with four coins each. The most common type in the assemblage is the ‘camp gate with turrets,’ appearing on 19 coins. Three legends, PROVIDENTIAE AVGG, PROVIDENTIAE CAESS and VIRTVS AVGG, share themes of co-emperorship, between Constantine I and the other rulers. The camp gate motif was very popular on coins of this period. It is coincidental, of course, that the camp gate type found on most of the coins in a hoard was hidden in a fortification. Three contemporaneous hoards have been discovered in excavations in Israel that fully overlap the period of 316–330 CE, all from the Jewish village of Qaṣrin in the Golan. They are dated between 309/310 and 375 CE.265 In addition, several other hoards in Israel date to the earliest part of the 316–330 CE range: the Carmel coast hoard, with coins ranging from 308/309 to 318 CE,266 a hoard found beneath the Dionysos mosaic in the eponymous Roman mansion at Sepphoris (dated to 307/308–318 CE),267 an unpublished hoard recently discovered in 2016 at the Caesarea port,268 and another hoard, from Qaṣrin village, with dates between 294–296 and 324 CE.269 However, these four hoards do not resemble the Mt. Gerizim hoard in their mint profiles, probably because of their slightly earlier horizons, when western mints still predominant.

[121]

Rulers

Licinius I

Crispus

Constantine I

Fausta

Constantine II

Constantius II

Total

1

1

2

1

1

Mints Rome Siscia Heraclea

2

1

1

Constantinople

1

Nicomedia

2

Cyzicus

2

Antioch 2

1

1

3

11

6 1

1 1

2

Alexandria Total

2 1

1 1

4 4

1

4 2

1

5

2

24

Fig. 18. Breakdown by ruler and mint of the coins of the House of Constantine hoard.

Two coins of Licinius I in the hoard are ‘camp gate’ types minted in Heraclea (Cat. Nos. 935 and 936) and date to 316–320 CE. This was the time when the empire was ruled by Constantine I in the West and by Licinius I in the East. The inscriptions on the coins, PROVIDENTIAE AVGG, an abbreviation of Providentiae duorum Augustorum (‘for the providence of the two emperors/Augusti’), may demonstrate Licinius’ conciliatory attitude toward Constantine in a time of conflict.270 Twenty-two coins struck in the name of Constantine I, his wife and his sons, were found in the hoard. Three coins of Crispus include some of the earliest coins represented in the hoard (Cat. No. 937, dated to 317–320 CE). The hoard also contained two late coins of Crispus (Cat. Nos. 943, 944) that date between 324 and 326 CE. In 326 CE Crispus was executed together with his mother Fausta upon orders of Constantine I. Eleven coins of Constantine I (Cat. Nos. 938–941, 945–951) constitute the largest number of coins of any ruler in the hoard. The coins were struck in all eight of the mints represented in the hoard. Catalogue No. 945 is the most uncommon coin in the hoard— and very rare among finds in Israel — it was struck in Constantinople. The reverse legend reads LIBERTAS PVBLICA, and depicts a ‘Victory standing on galley, holding a wreath in both hands.’ The coin was minted in 327/328 CE. Five coins of Constantine II of the type PROVIDENTIAE CAESS ‘camp gate’ appeared in the hoard (Cat. Nos. 942, 953–956). His mother Fausta appears on coins only during the period

when she was Augusta, from 323 till 326 CE. Only one coin in the hoard, dated to 324–326 CE and minted in Cyzicus, bears her name (Cat. No. 952). The reverse legend is SPES REIPVBLICAE, and the coin depicts the ‘empress standing and breastfeeding two babies.’ This symbolic motif of the ‘good mother’ of the imperial family and of the empire in general, is appropriate as a type of the emperor’s wife. Constantius II, one of the sons of Constantine I and Fausta, became emperor from his father’s death in 337 CE until his death in 361 CE. The hoard includes only two of his coins, dating from 324 until 330 CE. Both bear the reverse legend PROVIDENTIAE CAESS and have the camp gate motif. Found in a fortified building at the base of Mt. Gerizim, the House of Constantine hoard may actually suggest the date of that building. Given the fortified nature of the building, the hoard itself may have been deposited by soldiers. The coins’ reverse legends seem to reflect a propaganda message of good will and imperial unity. Coins of Licinius I in the hoard are relatively scarce, perhaps because they were issued earlier than most of the others in the assemblage. Concerning the mints, Heraclea is quite predominant. This may be a random occurrence, or it may suggest that that mint had a higher production than the others during this period. The lack of western mints in the Mt. Gerizim hoard, in comparison to other hoards found in Israel, seems to derive from the slightly earlier dates of most of the other hoards.

[122]

Hellenistic Lead Tesserae The discovery of a large group of lead tesserae (tokens) from the excavations at Mt. Gerizim constitutes a unique phenomenon in the region and deserves attention.271 These tesserae have been discovered as isolated finds in all areas of the excavation with greater numbers in Area P, but they are definitively not a hoard. A total of 53 specimens were found. They are classified into eight types (and sub-types) according to their iconography. All bear designs on both sides and on one of the types (Type 3B) they were countermarked on both sides. This suggests that, functionally, these tesserae were used for a purpose that may have required them to undergo revalidation. This practice might also suggest that the types were issued in a certain chronological order. No human or animal images are depicted on the tesserae, but rather only floral and inanimate objects. Some types are anepigraphic (Types 1, 5, 6, 8) while others bear Paleo-Hebrew letters on one side (Types 2–4, 7). A detailed description of each type is given below. My choice of which side was the obverse and which the reverse was completely arbitrary, except for those types with Paleo-Hebrew letters. In those cases, the side with the letters/inscription were defined as the reverse according to the tradition on Seleucid coins.272

0

cm

Fig. 19. Lead tessera Type 1.

Depictions of cornucopiae on the reverse of coins were relatively common in the southern Levant during the late second and early first centuries BCE.274 Nevertheless, the specifics of the type of double cornucopiae that appear on the tesserae from Mt. Gerizim (the symmetric opposition, and their simple tying [without being intertwined] at the bottom) is clearly taken from Hasmonean coinage. At least four different obverse dies and four different reverse dies could be distinguished among seven of the tesserae (the other two are badly preserved). The die links are: O1‒R2, O1‒R3, O2‒ R1, O3‒R1 (Fig. 20).

Type 1 Nine specimens of this type have been found in the excavations; not all of them are well preserved (Cat. Nos. 959‒967). The obverse bears a lily or small palm tree flanked by ears of corn stemming from the stalk. The reverse depicts a double cornucopiae with fillets, between the horns a rod(?). This side is encircled by a double border of dots. The iconography is clearly Hasmonean in inspiration (Fig. 19). This type is the only one of the series that has been published.273 Hendin described two die-linked examples, individually purchased several years apart in the Jerusalem market, and he made the connection to Hasmonean and Herodian symbols on coins.

1

Die

Catalogue K. Nos.

Obverse 1

30462, 32464, 35052, 36374

Obverse 2

34697

Obverse 3

31650

Obverse 4

20788

Reverse 1

31650, 34697

Reverse 2

32464, 35052, 36374

Reverse 3

30462

Reverse 4

20788

Fig. 20. Type 1, die-links.

Type 2 Fifteen tesserae of this type have been found at Mt. Gerizim (Cat. Nos. 968‒982). On the obverse is an amphora flanked by branches and hanging pomegranates. On the reverse is a headdress of Isis on palm branches flanked by three(?) Paleo-Hebrew

[123]

letters: a (yod) to the right, a (mem) above and (ḥei) to the left, all encircled by a border of dots (Fig. 21).

0

1

On the obverse, a rosette is depicted within a triple border, the middle of which is made of dots. On the reverse is a lily flanked by two letters above: an upside down  (?) (shin) on the left and a  (?) (samech) to the right. Only six tesserae of Type 3 were not countermarked (sub-group 3A; Fig. 23). The lily on the reverse very much recalls the one appearing on Yehud coins from the Persian period.277 The rosette on the obverse is not a design known from the local numismatic repertoire. Nevertheless, it is a well-known motif in Jewish iconography of the Second Temple period.278

cm

Fig. 21. Lead tessera Type 2.

While there are no clear parallels for the amphora side,275 the headdress of Isis is inspired by a Seleucid prototype, such as Antiochus VII’s coin from Antioch bearing the same design (see Cat. No. 268).276 At least four different obverse dies and three different reverse dies could be distinguished among six of the tesserae (the other nine are badly preserved). The die links are: O1‒R1, O1‒R2, O2‒R2, O3‒R3, O4‒R1 (Fig. 22). Die

Catalogue K. Nos.

Obverse 1

20790, 34696

Obverse 2

13294

Obverse 3

34689

Obverse 4

21109, 29069

Reverse 1

21109, 29069, 30306, 34696

Reverse 2

13294, 20790

Reverse 3

34689

0

1

cm

Fig. 23. Lead tessera Type 3A.

A die-link study of this group is problematic since a considerable number of tesserae of this group bear countermarks on both sides. At least four different obverse dies and two different reverse dies could be distinguished among six of the tesserae of group 3A and the single tessera of Type 3C. The die links are: O1‒R1, O2‒R1, O3‒R1, O4‒R2 (Fig. 24).

Fig. 22. Type 2, die-links.

Type 3 A total of 17 tesserae of this type have been found in the excavations (Cat. Nos. 983‒999). However, since many specimens of this group bear countermarks, Type 3 was divided into three sub-types: 3A for those without countermarks, and 3B-C for those with countermarks.

Die

Catalogue K. Nos.

Obverse 1

30653

Obverse 2

25289, 36338

Obverse 3

29074

Obverse 4

34693

Reverse 1

25289, 29074, 30653, 36338

Reverse 2

34693

Fig. 24. Type 3, groups 3A and 3C, die-links.

Ten tesserae of Type 3B were discovered. As mentioned, the coins of Type 3B are regular pieces

[124]

of Type 3A except that they are stamped on both sides with a circular countermark depicting a flower or small palm tree. Type 3C is also countermarked but only on the reverse side with the lily. The countermark on Type 3C is the same as that on Type 3B. Only one tessera belongs to sub-group Type 3C. The incidence of countermarking on lead coins or tokens is virtually unknown, with the exception of two specimens published by Hoover bearing the civic mem monogram of Gaza.279 Hoover had difficulty explaining this practice on lead tokens, as do I. Countermarking would seem to indicate that these tesserae circulated in some way similar to coin currency and did not function for one-time use. The circulation of these tesserae could justify a decision to revalidate (by countermarking) them.

Type 5 Five tesserae of this type were uncovered (Cat. Nos. 1002‒1006). The obverse depicts an uncertain object recalling a Macedonian shield or, less probably, a Macedonian helmet within a border of strokes and dots. The closest parallel to these suggestions are the small bronzes of Alexander the Great bearing both symbols.280 On the reverse of Type 5 a single cornucopia with an ear of corn on the right and a palm branch on the left are depicted (Fig. 26). No die links could be discerned among the tesserae mostly due to their poor preservation.

Type 4 Two tesserae of Type 4 were identified (Cat. Nos. 1000‒1001). They were minted on a large flan. On the obverse is a schematic lily flower(?) with two ears of corn stemming from the stalk below. On the reverse is a double cornucopiae with a small lily flower between the horns and the Paleo-Hebrew letter   (yod). Both sides seem to be encircled by a border of dots (Fig. 25). It should be noted that the surface of the tesserae is not smooth and therefore, trying to discern the various elements depicted on it is confusing. The tesserae of Type 4 resemble those of Type 1. As in the latter, the iconographical inspiration for Type 4 is clearly Hasmonean.

0

1

cm

Fig. 26. Lead tessera Type 5.

Type 6 Only one tessera of this type was discovered in the excavations (Cat. No. 1007). The obverse depicts a schematic wreath while the reverse is quite unclear, looking like a bundle of pomegranates and ears of corn.

Type 7

0

Fig. 25. Lead tessera Type 4.

1

cm

Three tesserae of this type were uncovered (Cat. Nos. 1008‒1010). The designs on both sides are quite uncertain. On the obverse is a bundle of plants. The reverse depicts a lily (similar to the one on the obverse of Type 1) on top of an uncertain decorated base or structure (with volutes?). On the right side is the letter ‘ ʼ(ḥei) and on the left field a (?) (yod). The three tesserae were probably made with the same pair of dies.

[125]

Type 8 A single tessera of this type was uncovered (Cat. No. 1011). The designs on both sides are quite uncertain. The obverse depicts a flower or floral bundle and the reverse a seed or a single grain of barley or wheat. Interestingly, a very similar seed motif was struck on a unique coin of Herod Antipas in 1 BCE/1 CE, struck close to a century after the production of the Mt. Gerizim tessera.281 The use of lead in the manufacture of coins and tesserae is well known during the Hellenistic period. Lead is understood to have been the preferred metal for striking trial coin issues, as well as for emergency coin issues when bronze was in short supply. A number of studies on this subject have been published.282 The use of lead for these strikes is characteristic of the Hellenistic period in particular. The specimens from Mt. Gerizim are certainly not such a case but rather evidence of organized production. In this context they recall the early Nabatean series published by Hoover, comprising 61 lead items divided into 12 typological groups.283 In Hoover’s opinion the Nabatean lead issues functioned as tesserae, and were probably minted for special events, festive occasions, or were redeemable for various goods or services.284 The quantities of the lead series of tesserae from Mt. Gerizim are roughly of the same magnitude as those of the Nabatean series, but the Mt. Gerizim material is far richer in iconographical variety and innovation, with new compositions, details and combinations of motifs and a countermarked series (Types 3B and C). Dating the tesserae from Mt. Gerizim is a challenging task. I believe they were produced during the Hasmonean period, but exactly when is uncertain. This suggestion is based not only on the archaeological/ numismatic contexts in which the tesserae were found, but primarily on their iconography, which was inspired by Seleucid and Hasmonean numismatic symbols. The lack of human and animal images on the tesserae clearly indicates that they were used by a Samaritan or Jewish population. If the Paleo-Hebrew letters could be deciphered as easily read words or personal names, they might provide more clarity about the date and ethnic association for these unusual

items. However, the words or names represented by the letters have so far been elusive, as are many of the single letters and letter combinations in the earlier Samarian coinage. It is difficult to establish an inner chronology or order to the different types of tesserae. However, some of the designs help to suggest a general dating. For example, the headdress of Isis of Type 2, in my view, was inspired by the coins of Antiochus VII struck between 139/138 and 130/129 BCE.285 Moreover, the double cornucopiae of Types 1 and 4 cannot predate the prototype of John Hyrcanus I struck from 129 (or 126/125) BCE onward. These prototypes suggest a terminus post quem for the beginning of the whole series, while the destruction of the site, which may suggest the end of the series, was not before 110/109 BCE (according to the last coin of Antiochus IX, Cat. No. 346). These dates leave a period of about 20 years when the tesserae were in circulation at the site, but for what purpose? Obviously, the tesserae are not trial issues, since there are no coins bearing these types. Viewing these objects as an emergency issue is most improbable, since the site did not undergo a drawnout siege by John Hyrcanus I. The possibility exists that the tesserae were produced during the time of Alexander Jannaeus, when a small garrison was established at the site, but, again, in what functional context would they have been produced? The production of this small homogeneous corpus of tesserae would seem to have required an organized local or municipal administration to approve its minting. The presence of die links among several of the pieces, and the discovery of these only at Mt. Gerizim, indicate that they were probably issued for a specific, exclusively internal use, and a connection to the defining structure of the settlement — the Samaritan temple — should be sought. Of all the alternative explanations for this unique group of objects, it seems most plausible to associate it with that centerpiece building. It is reasonable to view the tesserae as having a function related to pilgrimage to the site, or services or ceremonies taking place in the sacred precinct. The use of tokens as means of payment for purchasing offerings is known in relation to the Temple in Jerusalem. There were specific classes of tokens for the different kinds of libation and according to prices, as explained in detail in Mishnah Shekalim 5, 3‒4:

[126]

If one required libations he would go to Yoḥanan who was in charge of the seals, and give him money and receive a seal from him. Then he would go to Aḥiyah who was in charge of the libations, and give him the seal, and receive libations from him. And in the evening these two [officers] would come together, and Aḥiyah would bring out the seals and receive money in exchange for them. And if there was a surplus it belonged to the sanctuary, but if there was a deficit Yoḥanan would pay it out of his own pocket; in order that the Temple have the upper hand.286

— from the earliest stages of settlement at the site (Fig. 27). Few archaeological excavations in Israel have yielded significant numbers of coins from these early periods (e.g., Marisa and Kh. Qeiyafa). Hence, the numismatic material from Mt. Gerizim becomes an indispensable corpus for any scholar interested in Persian and Hellenistic history and archaeology of the southern Levant. The significant number of Persian coins (90 specimens) from the beginning of Mt. Gerizim’s occupation is evidence of a lively settlement whose activities focused around the Samaritan temple. The 24 Samarian coins discovered at the site are the largest corpus of this series ever from controlled archaeological excavations at one site. This may even suggest that the mint that produced them was located in the city itself. The large number of Sidonian coins (38 specimens) attests to commercial relations with this Phoenician city, while the presence of a number of silver and bronze coins from other regions in Greece, Asia Minor and Cyprus might be explained as coming from trade or Samaritan pilgrims.

The Numismatic Profile The coins from Mt. Gerizim constitute one of the richest assemblages ever discovered in the southern Levant because of its chronological diversity and variety of coin types. The enormous quantity of coins makes Mt. Gerizim most probably the site in our region with the most coins excavated by one excavation team.287 Mt. Gerizim is also outstanding in the large number of Persian- and Hellenistic-period coin finds

c. = century * refers to Aksumite imitations and blank flans ** includes Akko Ptolemais, Side, Ascalon and lead tesserae Byzantine (6th–7th c. CE)

293

Late Roman/Byzantine (4th–6th c. CE)*

108

Late Roman (4th–5th c. CE)

666

51

Roman Imperial (1st BCE–3rd c. CE)

13

Roman Provincial (1st–2nd c. CE) Hasmonean (2nd–1st c. BCE)

682

Hellenistic Autonomous/Civic (3rd–2nd c. BCE)**

1,288

Seleucid (3rd–2nd c. BCE)

6,873

Ptolemaic (4th–2nd c. BCE)

489

Early Hellenistic (4th–3rd c. BCE)

7

Persian (5th–4th c. BCE)

90 8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

Fig. 27. Breakdown of the coins according to period.

[127]

0

about half of the whole number of coins discovered at the site — can be attributed to this dynasty (Fig. 28), and indicate, no doubt, that Mt. Gerizim flourished in the second century BCE. Most of the Seleucid coins are the basic bronze small change circulating in the region during that period: particularly two popular types of Antiochus III and IV (‘Apollo standing’ and ‘goddess standing,’ respectively). These two main types continued to be in use for prolonged periods after their striking. In addition to them, however, are a very rich and varied series of Seleucid types, many of them found here in considerable numbers. The numismatic profile of the site (e.g., the many coins of the ‛heads of the Dioscuri/cornucopiaʼ type) suggests that Mt. Gerizim, and the whole region of Samaria, was economically oriented toward ʿAkkoPtolemais and not to Tyre as in the case of the Galilee. The hegemony of ʿAkko-Ptolemais as a source of coinage for Samaria should be seriously considered

After the Persian period, the sequence of coins at Mt. Gerizim throughout the Hellenistic period is uninterrupted. This starts with a group of Macedonian coins of Alexander the Great and the Diadochs — and an unusual coin of Demetrius Poliorchetes — followed by 489 Ptolemaic issues. This last group includes all bronze series circulating in the region from its beginning until the first half of the second century BCE. The mint of Alexandria predominates up to Ptolemy III, while Tyre produced most of the coins from Ptolemy III onward. As discussed above, Sidetan coins were an integral part of the coinage in circulation during the second century BCE. They often appear in sites in Israel dated to this period. Unfortunately, the excavations at Mt. Gerizim were unable to provide a more refined dating for those coins found there. A dramatic increase in the influx of coins into the site took place under the Seleucids. Close to 7000 coins —

3500

3,268

3000 2500 2,069 2000 1500

1000 455

500 152

37

6

268 37

24

8

240

190 43

2

1

4

IX

III us A

nt io

ch us

V

III io ch

nt A

io

ch

us

V

na bi Za

ea Th

tra

nt dA

an

xa le A

eo pa Cl

[128]

s

ig n nd

er

se I,

sI riu

et em D

D

Fig. 28. Breakdown of the Seleucid coins by king.

II

co nd

us ch io

nt A

et em

re

V

II

on ph

Tr y

V

A

nt io

ch

us

re st fir

I, sI

I

n

la Ba

rI riu

xa le A

ig

s

riu sI et

nd e

em

D

A

nt io

ch

us

V

IV

V A

nt

io

ch us

sI uc u

le

us

Se

ch nt io

A

Se

le

uc u

sI

II

III

0

when trying to attribute a mint of origin for several Seleucid coin types, which so far, have been related by default to Antioch, the royal Seleucid seat. The same applies to coins attributed by Houghton and Lorber to “a southern mint in Coele-Syria,”288 sometimes referring to somewhere in Samaria itself. Also in this case ʿAkko-Ptolemais is likely to be a reasonable candidate for the production of those types, both in terms of geographic distance and economic dependence. A number of cases can be cited here: Cat. Nos. 242‒244 of Antiochus IV depicting the ‘seated goddess holding a bird;’ Cat. No. 253 of Demetrius I bearing a ‘female standing;’ and Antiochus VIIʼs Cat. No. 292 depicting ‛head of Athena / owl.ʼ Other ‛Antiocheneʼ types whose mint of origin should be reconsidered based on the large number of specimens found at Mt. Gerizim are: Demetrius IIʼs second reign Cat. No. 295, bearing ‛bearded head / Apollo standing,ʼ and some of the most popular types of Alexander II Zabinas (Cat. Nos. 317‒322, 325‒328, 329‒332, 334 and 335). The date of the destruction of the Samaritan temple at Mt. Gerizim during the reign of John Hyrcanus I is well documented by the numismatic evidence. The many coins of this Hasmonean ruler together with the dates on the coins of the latest Seleucid issues of Antiochus IX, and the dated autonomous/civic coins of ʿAkko-Ptolemais suggest that the site was destroyed and abandoned not before 110/109 BCE. This date is in accordance with the recent literature on the subject. The high incidence of coins of Hyrcanus’ son, Alexander Jannaeus, found at Mt. Gerizim (528 specimens) apparently reached the site after its destruction. They seem to be related to the Hasmonean

garrison built there to avoid the return of the Samaritan population. One of the most exciting finds from Mt. Gerizim is the corpus of 53 lead tesserae discovered during the excavations. Based on the archaeological and historical contexts it is possible to date this group to the years between 129 and 109 BCE. We concluded that the tesserae might have had a function related to the Samaritan temple. The numismatic evidence indicates that the site was only resettled toward the last quarter of the third century CE (see for instance the hoard of antoniniani). A very small number of Roman provincial coins, however, were discovered during the excavations and are most likely random finds. It is not surprising that three of eleven Roman provincial coins were minted at Neapolis, the closest mint to Mt. Gerizim. The fourth century CE saw an increase in the influx of coins into the site that reached a peak toward the end of the fifth century CE with the construction of the octagonal church dedicated by emperor Zeno to Mary Theotokos in 484 CE. The large number of coins dated to the second half of the fifth century CE is quite exceptional for sites in the region and include varied types of nummia bearing imperial monograms. Official coins appear together with local imitations, Vandalic and Ostrogothic nummia, small Aksumite imitative issues and blank flans. As stated, all these coins were part of the small currency in circulation during this period. This tendency toward a rich variety of coin types continues during the sixth and seventh centuries CE as well, making the corpus of Byzantine coinage of Mt. Gerizim an essential reference point for research.

[129]

[130]

9

10

17

15

9

6

7

8

9

12×10

3

5

9

2

12

24

1

4

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

3

9

Axis

0.48

3 59

3.45

1 23

1.41

0 90

2.84

1.06

15.63

Wt. (gm)

Same

Silver

Silver

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Silver

Bronze

Silverplated

Material

Gaza

Drachma

Maʿeh

Soli(?)

Same

Rhodes

Amaesus(?)

Phaselis(?)

Drachma

Maʿeh

Tetraobol

Athens

Tetradrachma

Idyma

Mint

Denom.

353–290

450–400

ca. 480

394–304

ca. 408–394

4th–3rd c (?)

5th c.

450–400

353–295

Date (BCE)

1 coin

Athenian

[ΙΔΥΜΙΟΝ] Fig leaf

Owl stg. r.; in upper left corner, olive leaves and crescent. To r.: AΘE

Reverse

Wheel. In two upper quarters: Π; in lower l. quarter: helmeted head(?); in lower r. quarter: jug(?)

Head of Athena r., with profile eye

Bearded male head r., oriental head style

3 coins

Philistia

Head of lion l., with open jaws

1 coin

Cypriot

Head of Helios r.

Rose with bud on either side; to l.: T

2 coins

Rhodian

Head of Tyche l.

1 coin

Owl stg. r.; in upper left corner, olive leaves and crescent. To r.: A[ΘE]

Owl stg. r.; in upper field, olive spray. Incuse square. In lower field: ‫( עזה‬Gaza)

Ankh within incuse square

[PO] Rose with bud on stem

[PO] Rose with bud on either side

Owl stg. facing with open wings. To l.: Y; to r., star

Pontus uncertain attribution

Prow of galley l., in form of boar’s head

1 coin

Lydian uncertain attribution

Female head r.

1 coin

Caria

Head of Athena r., with profile eye and pi-style palmette ornament

Obverse

the persian PERIOD

CATALOGUE

Cf. Gitler and Tal 2006: 152–154, IX.1, X.1.

Gitler and Tal 2006: 114, V.1D.

BMC Cyprus: 68, No. 2; Magen 2008: Pl. 7:1 (this coin).

SNG Den. 5: Pl. 21:914 (Caria).

SNG Den. 5: Pl. 17:747–749 (Caria).

Unpublished(?). Imitation from the southern coast of Asia Minor(?).

SNG Den 5: Pl. 10:420 (Caria).

Magen 2008: Pl. 8:2 (this coin); cf. Gitler and Tal 2014: 16.

Reference and Notes

S

P

P

S

K2

G

S

S

S

Area

434

4106

4122

840

128

5002

801

498

798

Locus

4179

40970

41013

7243

1568

9

8120

53

9322

Basket

18334

26089

25277

20538

17379

13040

18562

32855

27207

K. No.

[131]

8.70

11.30

11×9

9.50

8

8.60

21

22

23

24

25

9.40

16

20

8.30

15

9.40

10

14

19

9

13

8.80

10

12

18

9

11

10

10

10

17

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

6

6

4

3

7

12

8

12

12

Axis

0.82

0.23

0.63

0.91

0.85

0.59

0.64

0.67

0.63

0.73

0.48

0.82

0.72

0.71

0.68

0.68

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Silver

Same

Material

Same

Same

Same

Half Maʿeh

Maʿeh

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Maeh

Same

4th c.

Samaria

Date (BCE) Same

Mint

Same

Denom.

Palm tree flanked by two climbing goats

Same

Helmeted head of Athena facing

Helmeted male head to l. To l.: ‫( שמר‬ŠMR)

Same. Above: [‫( ]שן‬ŠN)

Lion attacking stag(?)

Persian king fighting lion or wolf(?). Between them: ‫( מז‬MZ) (ŠMRYN) ‫שמרין‬ Sidonian galley to l. over sea waves

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 103, No. 110; CHL: 209, No. 61.

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 102, No. 103; CHL: 209, No. 64.

Cf. Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 102, No. 102 (hemiobol ).

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 101, No. 96.

Cf. Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 100, No. 91.

Illegible

Young male head r. To r.: ‫( שמרי‬ŠMRY)

Magen 2008: Pl. 8:4 (this coin); Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 98, No. 83; CHL: 209, No. 59.

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 98, No. 77; CHL: 207, No. 34.

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 97, No. 75; CHL: 208, No. 46.

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 95, No. 62; CHL: 210, Nos. 76–77.

Same

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 99, No. 85; CHL: 209, No. 60.

Bearded male head l. To r.: ‫( שמרין‬ŠMRYN)

Lion attacking stag to r. Above and l.: ‫שמרין‬ (ŠMRYN)

Forepart of horse to r., to l.: [‫( שמר[ין‬ŠMRYN)

Stag crouching r , head to l. Above, letters: ‫ל‬-‫( ש‬Š-L). Square border

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 93, No. 53; CHL: 210, No. 74.

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 91, No. 41; CHL: 213, No. 108.

Magen 2008: Pl. 9:3 (this coin); cf. Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 87, No. 22. Probably Sidonian.

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 83, No. 1; Magen 2008: Pl. 9:1 (this coin); CHL: 208, No. 44.

Cf. Gitler and Tal 2006: 154, X.1.

Reference and Notes

Same, but no inscription

Same

Forepart of crouching lion r., head facing

Head of Athena l., helmeted

Head of satrap to r , bearded and with Persian tiara

Winged griffin with long horn to r. Above, letters: ‫ל‬-‫( ש‬Š-L). Square border

Same

Two lions stg. facing. Below them, sea waves

Face of Bes facing, flanked by letters: ‫נ‬-‫( ס‬S-N) Same

Drover stg. before bull to r., raising hand

Persian king fighting lion or wolf(?). Between them: ‫ע ע‬ (ayin ayin)

(MZDY) ‫מזדי‬ Sidonian galley to l. over sea waves Bearded male head l. To l.: (HRBM) ‫הרבעם‬

Retrograde inscription: (NRMŠ) ‫נרמש‬ Forepart of winged horse to r.

24 coins

Samarian

Same

Reverse

Retrograde inscription: ΦAPNBAZC Male head with tiara to l.

Same

Obverse

P

S

P

P

S

S

P

S

S

S

E

S

S

S

P

S

Area

5261

7022

4395

5165

484

844

5201

2134

2113

2042

915

2133

785

443

4504

192

Locus

52758

10155

44736

515805

7065

7398

52493

21359

22273

20228

9442

21372

8774

4636

46866

908

Basket

36277

28325

32978

36375

22367

23307

36200

23257

23260

31427

22498

21104

27135

18533

32444

17415

K. No.

[132]

8

7.50

8

8

8.30

7.80

8.70

8

10

8.70

11

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

8

33

38

8.90

32

37

10

31

8

9

30

36

9

29

9

8.70

28

35

8.30

27

9

9

26

34

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

5

12

3

12

12

12

12

4

6

Axis

0.75

0.76

0.76

0.81

0.82

0.83

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.77

0.68

0.32

0.77

0.45

0.72

0.82

0.59

0.83

0.49

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Silver

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Sidon

1/16 Shekel

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Half Maʿeh

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date (BCE)

Persian king holding dagger and fighting lion

Illegible

Bearded male head l.

Female(?) head r.

Young male head r.

Same

Head of lion facing front

Forepart of galloping bull r. To r., traces of inscription(?)

Nude male (Herakles?) stg. r., fighting animal. Above to r., retrograde inscription: [‫שמר[ין‬ (ŠMRYN)

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Galley to l. on double line of sea waves

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

King fighting lion. Between figures: O (ayin)

Persian king holding dagger and fighting lion stg. to r.

Baalsillem II (401–366 BCE) 17 coins

Sidonian

Lion/lioness(?) holding dagger on paw attacking animal to r. Above, illegible letter

Male bearded head with Persian tiara in 3/4 profile

Bearded male head r. with wreath (or flat crown?)

Bearded male head r.

Head of satrap r.

Same

Female face with long earrings, facing front

Head of horned beast r.

Lion head to l.

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 136 ff., group IV.1.3.c., No. 851.

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 130–136, group IV 1.3.a, No. 813.

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 120, No. 204.

Cf. Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 118, No. 193.

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 117, No. 187; CHL: 217, No. 164.

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 117, No. 186.

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 117, No. 185; CHL: 217, No. 169.

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 113, No. 165; Magen 2008: Pl. 8:3 (this coin).

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 113, No. 165; CHL: 219, No. 218.

Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 112, No. 159; CHL: 219, No. 206.

Magen 2008: Pl. 9:2 (this coin); cf. Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 106, No. 127 (but no inscription); CHL: 217, No. 178.

Reference and Notes

S

P

N

P

P

S

P

P

P

P

P

P

E

S

S

S

P

S

P

P

K

S

Area

799

4287

31

4287

4178

499

4287

4176

4289

4287

4287

4178

915

834

East wall of the north gate

720

4460

7000

4619

4001

108

Surface

Locus

9376

1

334

27

41779

63

26

41744

54

13

14

41770

9440

8193

4565

7616

46073

9345

213

40001

1551

21179

Basket

25281

32814

25280

32818

25742

32813

32817

25748

32980

32815

32816

25753

22497

32380

19693

23256

32446

25285

33355

23090

17314

21107

K. No.

[133]

Diam. (mm)

8.90

9

9

11

7

10

9

10.30

10

8.80

10

10

10

9.50

10

10

9.80

10

9

10

10

9.50

Cat. No.

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

8

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

1

12

12

9

12

12

12

12

Axis

0.61

0.65

0.70

0.70

0.73

0 56

0.74

0.69

0.65

0.71

0.73

0.74

0.79

0.74

0.65

0.74

0.70

0 30

0 57

0 58

0.62

0.62

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Silver

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Silver

Same

Same

Same

Silver

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Same

1/16 Shekel

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Sidon

1/16 Shekel Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Sidon

1/16 Shekel Same

Same

Same

Same

Sidon

1/32 Shekel

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

344/343(?)

345/344

354/353

363/362

ca. 365–352

Date (BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

King fighting lion. Between them letters: ‫( מז‬MZ)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same, but date: ‫)?(׀׀׀‬ Same, date llegible

King fighting lion. Between them: O/O (ayin / ayin) Galley to l. on double line of sea waves. Above date: ‫׀׀‬

Evagoras (346–343 BCE) 7 coins

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Galley to l. on double line of sea waves

Mazday (353–333 BCE) 7 coins

Same

Same

Same, above date: ‫─׀׀‬ Same, but date illegible

King fighting lion. Between figures: O/‫( و‬ayin / B)

Archer kneeling right, with long robe, holding bow and arrow; incuse square

Galley to l. on double line of sea waves. Above date: ‫׀׀׀‬

Galley to l. on double line of sea waves

Abd astart I (365–352 BCE) 4 coins

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 260–265, group IV.4.2.b–e.

Magen 2008: Pl. 7:5 (this coin); Élayi and Élayi 2004: 260–265, group IV.4.2.b–e.

Same

Same

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 260–265, group IV.4.2.b–e.

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 263, group IV.4.2.d., No. 1758.

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 262–263, group IV.4.2.c.

Same

Same

Same

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 312–323, group IV.6.2.

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 312–314, group IV.6.2.b.

Magen 2008: Pl. 7:6 (this coin); Élayi and Élayi 2004: 316–320, group IV.6.2.h–m.

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 312–323, group IV.6.2.

Cf. Élayi and Élayi 2004: 212, group IV.2.4.2.

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 212, group IV.2.4 2.f, No. 1410.

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 209–210, group IV 2.4.2.b.

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 130–136, group IV 2.5.i, No. 1459.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reference and Notes

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

P

B

S

E

A

S

L

S

P

S

S

P

S

A

Area

771

3003

7012

7008

785

Surface

2133

625

5184

65

443

915

47

736

420

7051

4211

835

256

5118

7068

104079

Locus

7419

30022

9823

9540

8735

20069

21373

7224B

51888

3142

4773

25743

31423

25287

25286

25274

23253

21106

23387

36194

13034

18715

22496

17007

─

9424

23706

23300

28214

27533

18615

22686

35051

32977

37693

K. No.

7981

3750

10704

42297

8255

5557

51280

11512

528

Basket

[134]

*

10

8

7

73

74

75

See p. 86, note 32.

20

10

72

77

9

71

9

0.90

70

76

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

5

12

12

12

Axis

8.68

0.49

0.61

0.81

0.61

0.73

0.60

0.75

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Silver

Bronze

Silver

Same

Silver

Silver

Material

Shekel Attic standard

Same

1/16 Stater

Same

Same

Same

Same

Tyre

1/16 Stater

Sidon

Obol Same

Sidon

1/16 Shekel

Same

Mint

Denom.

ca. 357–333

Same

ca. 393–358

Same

ca. 400–333

Same

401–333

338/337(?)

Date (BCE) Reverse

King fighting lion. Between them: O/‫( و‬ayin / B)

Tyrian 6* coins

Same

Same

Bearded deity riding on seahorse to r.; below, two lines of sea waves and dolphin r.

Same

Dolphin and shell

Same

Galley to l. on double line of sea waves

2 coins

Same, but in field, letters or numerals illegible

Same

Owl stg. r., with crook and flail on shoulder. Above l. date: ‫׀׀‬

Lioness head facing, drool(?) falling from both sides of mouth

Owl stg. l., with Egyptian crook and flail on shoulder

Same

King fighting lion. Between them illegible letters

Sidonian uncertain attribution

Galley to l. on double line of sea waves. Above date: ‫)?(׀׀׀׀׀‬

Abdastart II (342–333 BCE) 1 coin

Obverse

Graffiti on both sides. Magen 2008: Pl. 8:1 (this coin); cf. Élayi and Élayi 2009: 103 ff., group II.2.1.

Magen 2008: Pl. 7:3 (this coin); Élayi and Élayi 2009: 93–94, group II.1.2.2.c.

Élayi and Élayi 2009: 93–94, group II.1.2.2.c.

Élayi and Élayi 2009: 195–198, group III.2.4.

Magen 2008: Pl. 7:2 (this coin); Élayi and Élayi 2009: 181–185, group III.1.2.a.

Same

Cf. Élayi and Élayi 2004: 323, group IV.7.

Élayi and Élayi 2004: 290, group IV.5.4 c, No. 1921.

Reference and Notes

P

L

S

K

S

B

S

S

Area

4023

914

773/779

101

408

65

256

256

Locus

40116

9233

8534

1019/1

3572

3143

3442

3441

Basket

21110

23305

33476

13076

19618

13035

18116

18561

K. No.

[135]

28

11

13

11

86

87

88

17

82

85

16.80

81

27

18

80

84

17

79

17

24

78

83

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

12

10

12

12

9

4

9

Axis

1.11

3.71

1.74

12.26

14.20

3.52

3 93

4 15

7 12

6.84

17.06

Wt. (gm)

Same

Bronze

Gold

Same

Silver

Same

Same

Silver

Same

Bronze

Silver

Material

Same

Same

Alexandria(?)

Alexandria

Triobol

Hemiobol

Chalkous

Alexandria

Tetradrachma

Same

Sidon

Colophon

Didrachma

Same

Sardes

Tarsus

Macedonia(?)

Macedonia (Amphipolis)

Mint

Drachma

Tetradrachma

Denom.

Same

315–301

295– 283/282

Same

305– 283/282

Same

310–301

ca. 323–319

327–323

Date (BCE) Reverse

Same, above caduceus

ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Quiver bow and club

ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Zeus seated l. on throne, holding scepter and eagle. To l., aphlaston

Series 1

Same

Head of Alexander the Great r., with horn and short hair

Same

Same

Diademed head of Ptolemy I r. aegis, behind ear: ; dotted border

Price 1991: 331, No. 2629a.

Price 1991: 378, Nos. 3060–3063.

Price 1991: 117, No. 266.

Magen 2008: Pl. 10:1 (this coin); Price 1991: 95, No. 75a.

Reference and Notes

Same, but in l. field, crescent

No inscription. Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings

ΒΑΣΙ[ΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ [ΠΤΟ]ΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field: A

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In l. field: R above

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ [Π]ΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In l. field: R above A or a worn

Svoronos 1904: 6, No. 28.

Magen 2008: Pl. 10:4 (this coin); Svoronos 1904: 33, No. 182; BMC Ptol : 23, Nos. 80–81.

Svoronos 1904: 43, No. 255; SNG Ptol : Pl. II:70.

Magen 2008: Pl. 10:3 (this coin); Svoronos 1904: 41, No. 248; SNG Ptol : Pl. II:68.

Price 1991: 255, No. 1813.

Same, but in l. field, crescent and Magen 2008: Pl. 10:2 lion’s head. Below throne: Π (this coin); Price 1991: 254, No. 1812.

ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Zeus seated l. on throne, holding eagle and scepter. Below throne, bee

Ptolemy I Soter (323–283/282 BCE) 15 coins

Same

Same

Head of Alexander r. with lion skin

Diadochs (ca. 323–281 BCE) 3 coins

Same

Same

Head of Alexander r. with lion skin

Alexander the Great (336−323 BCE) 3 coins

Obverse

THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD ‒ Ptolemaic

S

S

S

S

S

B

B

P

S

S

S

Area

2094

7012

2133

2133

2133

1107

1106

4410

7008

770

7004

Locus

21272

9734

21368

21364

21362

556

555

45096

9536

8322

9428

Basket

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Total by type

31527

25661

21108

23268

21103

18733

18732

31075

25636

24419

25275

K. No.

[136]

29

28

27

28

26

30×28

28

28

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

27

93

96

15

92

27

14

91

95

14

90

27

14

89

94

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

11.60

14.98

17.48

15.50

8 38

13.87

16.62

16.12

18.99

12.73

17.58

4 29

2 98

3.70

3.65

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Material

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same(?)

Same(?)

Same(?)

Same(?)

Same(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Alexandria

Diobol

Tyre

Hemiobol

Same

Alexandria

Dichalkon

Same

Tyre(?)

Mint

Same

Denom.

Series 2

Same

Same

Head of Alexander the Great r., with horn and long hair

Same

Obverse

Same, but in l. field, club above

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟ] ΛΕΜΑ[ΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field, club above

[ΠΤΟΛ]ΕΜΑΙ[ΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field:

Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field, club symbol above A [ ]

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

305–261

Same

Same

Same, but on neck of Zeus head: round countermark with eagle(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head of Zeus r., laureate

Series 2

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. Punchmark on wing: trident

Same, but in l. field, unclear monogram

Same, but control mark illegible

Same, but in l. field: A above Σ

Cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. IV:129.

Cf. Svoronos 1904: 48–49, Nos. 298, 300; cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. III:80.

Svoronos 1904: 47, No. 286; SNG Ptol : Pl. III:77.

Cf. Svoronos 1904: 47, No. 285.

Same, but in l. field: ΠP(?)

above

Svoronos 1904: 47, No. 288.

Same, but in l. field: A above

Svoronos 1904: 49, No. 301. above TI

Same, but in l. field:

Cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. III:76. Svoronos 1904: 35, No. 206.

above I

Same, but in l. field:

Svoronos 1904: 48, No. 292; SNG Ptol : Pl. III:83.

Svoronos 1904: 47, No. 285.

Svoronos 1904: 95, No. 630; cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. XVI:479–481.

Svoronos 1904: 94, No. 628.

Cf. Svoronos 1904: 20, No. 114; cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. II:62.

Svoronos 1904: 4, No. 17.

Reference and Notes

Same, but in l. field:

above

Same, but in l. field:

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜ[ΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field: A above ΠP

Ptolemies I Soter–II Philadelphus (323–246 BCE) 120 coins

Same

294– 283/282

305– 283/282

Same

Date (BCE)

P

S

S

S

S

P

S

S

S

S

S

B

S

S

Area

8

2273

2133

801

7000

4613

2133

312

100010

777

791

7012

1329

Surface

195

Locus

605

22712

22007

8121

9358

47123

21359

3328

4

8477

8915

9801

1884

20573

7067

Basket

2

1

1

4

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

6

1

2

Total by type

11849

31246

23286

18268

27964

32456

23241

19287

37877

27892

26301

25589

26267

31510

21904

K. No.

[137]

Diam. (mm)

28

19

20

20

19

23

20

18

20

19

19

21

19

20

18

19

20

22

18

Cat. No.

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

4.65

6.62

7.21

7.15

7.93

7.75

6.50

6.78

6.49

6 94

7.62

8 53

8.01

8 53

8 13

8 18

8.74

8 92

14.96

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Same

Hemiobol

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Alexandria

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Alexandria

Obol

Date (BCE) Same

Mint

Same

Denom.

Head of Alexander the Great r. with horn and long hair

[...] Head of Alexander the Great in elephant headdress r., aegis. Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head of Alexander the Great in elephant headdress r., aegis

Same

Obverse

Svoronos 1904: 37, No. 220. Svoronos 1904: 33, No. 188.

Same, but in l. field: Same, but in l. field: I

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field, aphlaston above helmet

[...] Head of Alexander the Great in elephant headdress r., aegis. Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings

Same, but punchmark on eagle: trident

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings, partly obliterated

Same, but monogram on l. field, not clear

Svoronos 1904: 30, No. 172; SNG Ptol : Pl. II:36.

Double-strike on both sides.

S

S

S

B

S

S

S Same, but in l. field: A

S

Same, but in l. field: Y(?)

Cf. Svoronos 1904: 35, No. 202.

Same, but in l. field: X(?)

B S

Svoronos 1904: 56, No. 356.

Same, but in l. field: EY above KΛ

S

S

S

A

P

S

A

T

S

Area

Same, but in l. field: EY [...]

Svoronos 1904: 56, No. 360.

Svoronos 1904: 59, No. 377; cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. II:53.

Same, but in l. field: EY above (?)

Same, but in l. field: EY above KI above (?)

Svoronos 1904: 59, No. 379.

Svoronos 1904: 38, No. 235; SNG Ptol : Pl. II:54.

Same, but in l. field:

Same, but in l. field: ΣT above KI above

Svoronos 1904: 39, No. 237; SNG Ptol : Pl. II:51.

Svoronos 1904: 57, No. 363.

Cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. III:81.

Reference and Notes

Same, but in l. field:

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field: EY above

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings, partly obliterated

Reverse

2146

796

23

203034

777

2341

7014

790

7026

1329

736

7138

7043

111076

1014

2033

104060

16

796

Locus

21358

9138

1

1015

8486

23378

9779

9033

10158

2045

7979

12681

10625

571

11200

21366

373

489

9223

Basket

6

1

4

20

2

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

1

1

4

4

1

4

6

Total by type

31467

25756

12529

39011

27891

30919

25627

25262

28270

27393

23578

31771

28151

37733

26956

31528

37896

11494

27363

K. No.

[138]

Diam. (mm)

17

16

19

18

16

18×15

14

15

17

20×18

6

24

26

26

27

28

Cat. No.

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

12

12

12

12

12

2

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

13.96

16.59

15.27

15.16

16.60

0 19

4.37

2.89

4.29

2.67

4.08

3.88

3.14

4.67

4

3.65

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Silver

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Alexandria

Diobol

Same

Judah

Same(?)

Tyre

Same(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Quarter obol

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

275–261

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head of Ptolemy I r., diademed

Yehud 1 coin

Aphrodite head wearing stephane(?)

Head of Alexander the Great r., with horn and long hair

Same(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Head of Berenice r., to r.: [‫( ]יהד‬Yhd)

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field, wreath

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head of Zeus r., laureate

Series 2

Same, but I between eagle’s legs

Same, but E between eagle’s legs

Same, but A between eagle’s legs

Same, but Φ between eagle’s legs

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ [ΠΤΟΛΕΜ]ΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field: Σ above Galatian shield; between eagle’s legs

Svoronos 1904: 86, No. 576.

Svoronos 1904: 85, No. 568.

Svoronos 1904: 84, No. 560.

Svoronos 1904: 83, No. 553.

Svoronos 1904: 85, No. 571.

Gitler and Lorber 2006: 34, group 6, No. 21 (this coin); TJC: 200, No. 33.

Cf. Svoronos 1904: 14, No. 80.

Cf. Svoronos 1904: 94, No. 628.

Same. In l. field: (?) [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings, partly obliterated

Cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. XVI:479–481.

Same, but in l. field, club and illegible monogram(?)

Cf. Svoronos 1904: 11, No. 57.

Svoronos 1904: 22, No. 130.

Same, but in l. field: [BA]ΣΙΛ[ΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In r. field: P or wings remains(?)

Svoronos 1904: 22, No. 136.

Same, but in l. field:

Svoronos 1904: 22, No. 135.

Svoronos 1904: 27, No. 163.

Same, but in l. field: above helmet Same, but in l. field: TI

Svoronos 1904: 31, No. 171.

Same, but in l. field: KΛ above helmet or X

Reference and Notes

Reverse

Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283/282–246 BCE) 24 coins

ca. 283/ 282–270

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date (BCE)

S

S

S

S

G

S

S

B

S

S

S

P

S

B

S

S

Area

798

791

7006

7092

5001

2133

13

1226

795

771

484

5080

738

1025

790

2133

Locus

9298

8916

9753

12123

13

21390

614/1

870

9060

8447

7364

50771

8258

364

9034

21389

Basket

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

23

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

5

Total by type

27278

26350

25583

31261

13042

21105

11869

25979

25570

27854

22377

34948

25902

17434

25261

23252

K. No.

[139]

32

30

150

17

145

149

19

144

30

19

143

148

26

142

41

27

141

147

27

140

14

27

139

146

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

21.50

23.56

23.17

64.80

4.49

3.29

8

9.21

16.93

14.61

15.10

15.80

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Alexandria

Diobol

Same

Tyre(?)

Sidon(?)

Sidon(?)

Drachma

Same

Same

Tyre

Hemiobol

Same

Same

Same

Obol

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

Series 3 Head of Zeus-Ammon r.

Same

Head of Alexander the Great r., with horn and long hair

Same

Head of Alexander the Great in elephant headdress r., aegis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Two eagles stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. Double cornucopia on shoulder

Same, but in l. field: Π above club

Same, but in l. field: I(?) above club

Same. In l. field, Galatian shield(?)

Same

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field: Σ above Galatian shield

Same, but Λ between eagle’s legs

ΒΑΣΙΛ[ΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field: Σ above Galatian shield; A between eagle’s legs. Punchmark on eagle’s wing: trident

Same, but between eagle’s legs. Punchmark on eagle’s wing: trident

Reverse

Same

Same

261–240

Same

Same

Head of Zeus r., laureate

Series 3

Central cavities on both sides. Coin very worn.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 112, No. 760; cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. VIII:217.

[ΒΑΣΙΛ]ΕΩΣ [ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In r. field, double cornucopia on shoulder Same, but in l. field, club(?)

Central cavity on obverse only(?) Svoronos 1904: 71, No. 458.

Central cavities on both sides. Magen 2008: Pl. 10:6 (this coin); Svoronos 1904: 111, No. 758.

Svoronos 1904: 96, No. 641; SNG Ptol : Pl. XVII:481.

Cf. Svoronos 1904: 95, No. 635; cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. XVI:479.

Cf. Svoronos 1904: 88, No. 601.

Cf. Svoronos 1904: 88, No. 600.

Svoronos 1904: 86, No. 581; cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. IV:120.

S

S

S

B

S

S

K

A

S

S

S

S

Svoronos 1904: 83, No. 553. Svoronos 1904: 84, No. 561.

Area

Reference and Notes

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. I between eagle’s legs

Ptolemies II Philadelphus–III Euergetes (283/282–222 BCE) 61 coins

261–246

Same

275/274– 266/265

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date (BCE)

390

790

Surface

62

2290

28

119

759

799

7012

256

256

Locus

3453

9091

7715

3108

22867

691/1

1484

573

9327

9829

3447B

3447A

Basket

1

1

1

1

8

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

Total by type

18260

25259

23487

13025

30030

12178

17229

30647

27236

25659

18119

18118

K. No.

[140]

24

19

20

160

161

162

24

156

24

24

155

159

23

154

23

24

153

158

23

152

22

29

151

157

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

7.18

6.55

10.51

9.08

6.72

10.08

12.78

10.99

11.01

12

10.21

23.45

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Same

Same

Same

Same

Alexandria

Hemiobol

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Tyre

Sidon(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Alexandria

Obol

Date (BCE) Same

Mint

Same

Denom.

Same

Head of Zeus-Ammon r.

Head of Alexander the Great in elephant headdress r., aegis

Same

Head of Zeus r., laureate

Same(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head of Alexander the Great in elephant headdress r., aegis

Same

Obverse

Same, but A between eagle’s legs

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ Π[ΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. Λ between eagle’s legs

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ Π[ΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings

Same, but in l. field, double cornucopia oriented r., above club

ΒΑΣΙΛ[ΕΩΣ] ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field, double cornucopia oriented r.

Same, but E or other variant between eagle’s legs

or Λ between

between eagle’s

Same, but A or eagle’s legs

Same, but legs

Same, but Λ between eagle’s legs

Same, but A between eagle’s legs

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ [ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙ]ΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. between eagle’s legs

[...] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings

Reverse

Central cavity on reverse only(?) Svoronos 1904: 67, No. 426.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 74, No. 484; SNG Ptol : Pl. VI:165.

Central cavities on both sides.

No visible central cavities. Svoronos 1904: 125, No. 836.

No visible central cavities. Svoronos 1904: 112, No. 761.

No visible central cavities. Very worn. Cf. Svoronos 1904: 70, No. 450.

Central cavities on both sides. Cf. Svoronos 1904: 67–73, Nos. 424, 439, 482.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 72, No. 467.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 73, No. 482.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 67, No. 424.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 69, No. 439; SNG Ptol : Pl. VI:158.

No visible central cavities.

Reference and Notes

A

B

S

N

S

E

S

P

S

S

P

B

Area

549

1287

7093

109

796

923

7036

4809

790

7040

4504

1329

Locus

321

1405

11980

1047

9143

9560

12289

48050

8989

10605

46791

1849

Basket

4

7

5

2

1

1

2

1

1

6

6

1

Total by type

30085

25480

30052

28165

25779

23072

30972

30023

25071

28259

32463

26404

K. No.

[141]

17

24

172

173

17

168

17×16

18×17

167

171

19

166

16

20×19

165

170

19

164

16

20

163

169

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

9.49

3.77

5.56

3.79

4.39

4.13

5.36

5.49

5.33

6.62

5 52

Wt. (gm)

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Obol(?)

Same

Same

Alexandria

Sidon(?)

Dichalkon

Same

Tyre

Same(?)

Sidon(?)

Same(?)

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

261–197

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date (BCE) between eagle’s

Obliterated

P

S

S

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ [ΠΤΟΛΕ]ΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. No control between eagle’s legs

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle l. obliterated

Series 3–5 Central cavities on both sides.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 66, No. 418; cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. VI:163.

S

B

E

No visible central cavities. Cf. Svoronos 1904: 67, No. 427.

[ΒΑΣ]ΙΛ[ΕΩΣ] [ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. A between eagle’s legs

S

No visible central K cavities. Cf. Svoronos 1904: 112, No. 761 (Variant).

No visible central cavities. Svoronos 1904: 125, No. 838.

No visible central K cavities. Cf. Svoronos 1904: 112, No. 762.

No visible central cavities. Svoronos 1904: 112, No. 762; SNG Ptol : Pl. VII:191.

Central cavities on both sides.

Central cavity on obverse only(?) Cf. Svoronos 1904: 66, No. 417.

1344

Locus

7092

1403

923

103

7008

120

5126

7000

721

Surface –

B

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 72, No. 469. Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 70, No. 452.

Area

Reference and Notes

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ] ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑ[ΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings. In l. field, double cornucopiae

Same, but in l. field, club

Same

ΒΑΣΙΛ[ΕΩΣ ΠΤΟ] ΛΕΜ[ΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In r. field, double cornucopia on shoulder

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ Π[ΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings

Same, but without control letter between eagle’s legs(?)

Same, but Ε between eagle’s legs

Same, but legs

Reverse

Ptolemies II Philadelphus–V Epiphanes 1 coin

Same

Head of Zeus-Ammon r.

Same

Head of Zeus r., laureate

Same(?)

Head of Zeus r., laureate

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

12062

2789

9561

1462

9568

1255

51275

9349

4671

–

2300

Basket

1

1

1

1

2

1

7

5

1

1

1

Total by type

30967

26169

23073

17325

25692

13209

34899

27252

23564

29982

25526

K. No.

[142]

20

20

19

16

180

181

182

183

33

177

24

40

176

179

16

175

30

28

174

178

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

11

12

12

12

12

Axis

3.53

4.77

6.07

4.83

12

21.32

32.41

69

2 35

14.40

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Bronze

Material

Alexandria

Tyre

Trichalkon

Same

Alexandria

Same

Same

Hemiobol

Same

Triobol

Same

Tyre

Drachma

Obol

Cyprus(?)

Dichalkon

Same

Alexandria

Trihemiobol

Diobol

Mint

Denom.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

ca. 230–222

Same

240–222

Date (BCE) Reverse

Head of Alexander the Great in elephant headdress r., aegis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head of Zeus Ammon r.

Series 5

Head of Zeus Ammon r.

Head of Zeus r., laureate

Series 4

Same, but in l. field, double cornucopia oriented l. between eagle’s legs

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ]ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In l. field, club

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. Cornucopia on shoulder. between eagle’s legs

Same

Same

Same, but in l. field, club

Same, but on club, countermark: ivy leaf

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In l. field, club

ΒΑΣΙΛΕ[ΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜ]ΑΙ[ΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In l. field, lotus blossom

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings

Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–222 BCE) 140 coins

Obverse

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 147, No. 969; cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. VII:183–184.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 104, No. 710; SNG Ptol : Pl. XVII:497.

Central cavity on reverse only(?) Svoronos 1904: 147, No. 968; SNG Ptol : Pl. VII:181–182.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 104, No. 709; SNG Ptol : Pl. XVII:497.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 104, No.708.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 104, No. 707; SNG Ptol :Pl. XVII:494.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 103, No. 706; cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. XVII:498.

Central cavities on both sides. Magen 2008: Pl. 10:7 (this coin); Svoronos 1904: 103, No. 705; SNG Ptol : Pl. XVII:493.

No visible central cavities. Svoronos 1904: 126, No. 843.

Central cavity on obverse only(?) Svoronos 1904: 189, No. 1169.

Reference and Notes

N

B

B

K

K

S

B

B

K

S

Area

29

59

72

8

8

Surface

203010

62

120

820

Locus

224

3207

3259

506

507

470

49

3117

1467

8118

Basket

2

9

9

44

40

5

1

1

1

1

Total by type

26445

17507

17445

16216

16217

30501

37983

13026

17297

18266

K. No.

[143]

Diam. (mm)

15

16

15

24

16

35

25×24

20

18

Cat. No.

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

12

12

12

12

12

11

12

12

12

Axis

3.74

6.56

12.37

33.56

2.94

10.80

2.30

2.90

2.68

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Material

Same

Hemiobol

Alexandria

Same

Obol

Same

Tyre

Alexandria

Joppe

Triobol

Diobol

Same

Tyre

Same

Dichalkon

Same

Mint

Denom.

Same

Same

Head of Zeus Ammon r.

Obverse

Same, but in l. field, harpe

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In l. field, club

Same

Reverse

220–204

Same

Same

Head of Zeus Ammon r.

Head of Zeus r., laureate ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In l. field: cornucopia. A between eagle’s legs

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Spread wings

Same

Same

Same

Head of Zeus Ammon r.

Series 5

between eagle’s

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙ[ΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. Cornucopia on shoulder. between eagle’s legs

Same, but ΣE between eagle’s legs

Same, but legs

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In l. field, club. I between eagle’s legs

Ptolemy IV Philopator (222/221–204 BCE) 9 coins

ca. 217–204

Same

240–220

Series 4

Ptolemies III Euergetes–IV Philopator (246–204 BCE) 2 coins

Same

Same

Same

Date (BCE)

Central cavities on both sides. Cf. Svoronos 1904: 153, No. 994; SNG Ptol : Pl. VIII:214.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 185, No. 1153.

Central cavity on reverse only(?)

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 181, No. 1130.

Central cavity on reverse only(?)

No visible central cavities.

Central cavity on obverse only(?) Svoronos 1904: 122, No. 819.

Central cavities on both sides. Svoronos 1904: 104, No. 711; SNG Ptol : XVII, No. 502.

No visible central cavities. Svoronos 1904: 147, No. 970; SNG Ptol : Pl. VII:183.

Reference and Notes

P

P

B

S

S

B

B

E

B

Area

4417

4037

204015

7061

781

Dump

204075

902

1403

Locus

45216

40224

72

10868

8675

3218

1186

9346

2729

Basket

1

2

2

3

1

1

3

23

1

Total by type

29751

23680

37985

30036

25441

17442

38886

22507

26180

K. No.

[144]

22×19.50

19

20

202

203

204

15

198

26

18

197

201

19

196

27×25

22

195

200

31

194

27

19

193

199

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

6.74

6.97

6.62

11.90

13.98

12.79

6.45

5.26

5.65

10.36

19.47

2 20

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Silver

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Material

Same Same

Trichalkon Dichalkon

Same

Same

Didrachma

Same

Same

Same

Same

Palestine or AkkoPtolemais(?)

Kition

Aradus(?)

Same

Hemiobol

Alexandria

ΒΑΣΙΛΕ[ΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕ]ΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In l. field: club. between eagle’s legs

Reverse

Same

Same

Head of Zeus Ammon r.

Same(?)

Head of Zeus Ammon r.

Series 5

Same

Same

Same

Same

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ] Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. Cornucopia on eagle’s shoulder(?) partly obliterated

156/155

158/157

162/161

164/163

169/168

180–170

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head of King Ptolemy I diademed r., aegis

Same, but on thunderbolt date: PZ (= 107)

Same, but on thunderbolt date: PE (= 105)

Same, but in r. field graffiti lines(?); nothing in l. field. On thunderbolt date: [P(?)A](= 101)

A

T

S

E

B

P

S

K

Area

Identified by J. Olivier. Cf. Svoronos 1904: 198 Nos. 1214–1215.

Identified by J. Olivier. Svoronos 1904: 198, No. 1212; cf. SNG Ptol : Pl. XVIII:552.

Identified by J. Olivier. Magen 2008: Pl. 10:5 (this coin); Cf. Svoronos 1904: 197, No. 1209.

S

B

S

Dated under Ptolemy VI T Philometor and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II. Cf. Svoronos 1904: 221, No. 1356.

Cf. Svoronos 1904: 197, No. 1207; SNG Ptol : Pl. XVIII:548.

ΣΟTHPOΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In l. field: [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ] ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings. In l. field, club and above: LI. In r. field: KI

Svoronos 1904: 245, No. 1489; SNG Ptol : Pl. X:264.

Central cavity cavities on reverse only(?)

Same

Same

Same

Central cavities on both sides.

Central cavities on both sides.

Reference and Notes

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. Closed wings

Ptolemy VI Philometor (181/180–145 BCE) 6 coins

Same

Obol

Tetradrachma

Same

Obverse

Ptolemy IV Philopator–V Epiphanes (222–181 BCE) 8 coins

Same

220–197

Tyre

Dichalkon

Date (BCE)

Diobol

Mint

Denom.

2001

1321

Surface

17

Surface

17

2336

923

1411

4396

820

120

Locus

20027

1862

–

1065

7373

505

23257

9493

2891

44837

4414

1327

Basket

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

Total by type

23122

25282

19846

16200

25278

11514

30655

23058

26716

31710

19432

13238

K. No.

[145]

10

9

10.50

11.35

11

12

19.30

10

9

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

13.90

207

209

16

206

13.20

20

205

208

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

11

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

1.35

1.37

6.56

1.50

1.81

2.10

1.41

1.49

1.37

2.51

2.76

3.50

7.03

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Material Denom.

Same or Sardes(?)

Same

Coele-Syria (uncertain mint 59)

Same

Mint associated with Antioch

Same

Same

Same

Same

Antioch

Same

Antioch

Tarsus (Cilicia)

Mint

Same

Same

From 202 onward

Same

Before 211(?)

Same

Same

Same

ca. 211–210

299/298−294

Date (BCE) Reverse

[ΒΑΣ]ΙΛ[ΩΣ Δ]ΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ Athena Promachos to r., preparing to cast lance, holding shield

Same, but control marks illegible

[ΒΑ]ΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ Apollo seated on omphalos to l. In l. field, control mark illegible. In ex.:

Same

Same

Head of Apollo r.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head of Apollo r.

S

SC 1: 375, No. 980. Same, but elephant stg. l.

P

SC 1: 413, No. 1088. [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ] Elephant stg. r.

K

SC 1: 412, No. 1084 (this coin).

P

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ] Elephant stg. r., with mahout. To l. tripod. Two rectangular contermarks: one with anchor, and another with horse head

SNG Israel 1: 92, Nos. 644–645.

S

SC 1: 404, No. 1064.

Same, but control marks illegible

P

Same

P

S

S

A

P

E

S

Area

Same, but in l. field, control mark:

Same

Same

SC 1: 402, No. 1055.

Magen 2008: Pl. 11:2 (this coin); SC 2: 400, Nos. 1049–1050.

Same

SC 1: 334, No. 922.

SNG Den. 2: Macedonia, Pl. 30:1186; Newell 1927: 49, No. 39. Identified by O. Hoover.

Reference and Notes

Same

Same, but control marks illegible

Same, but in l. field, control mark:

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ Apollo stg. l., holding bow and arrow. In l. control mark:

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ Apollo seated l. on omphalos, holding bow and arrow. Control marks illegible

Antiochus III (223−187 BCE) 3,268 coins

Same

Bust of Artemis r.

Seleucus III Soter (226−223 BCE) 6 coins

SELEUCIDS

Head of Poseidon r., laureate

Demetrius Poliorketes (306–283 BCE) 1 coin

KINGS OF MACEDONIA

Obverse

THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD ‒ SELEUCIDS

404

4429

128

4489

405

Surface

5023

498

835

67

5145

918

806

Locus

4201

45507

1569

46311

3043

50040

50272

28

8214

460

51360

9775

8119

Basket

4

11

9

2,226

189

14

15

6

1

Total by type

18544

31201

17378

32665

18423

34784

34889

32893

18563

19757

34934

22862

18267

K. No.

[146]

16

11

12.50

232

233

22

226

231

12

225

18.20

11

224

230

10

223

19.90

8.90

222

229

15.20

221

24

21

220

228

14

219

22

12

218

227

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

10

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

10

10

Axis

1.67

1.51

3.77

4.83

7.64

9.90

11.41

12.62

2.79

2.69

1.12

1.39

2.14

7.42

4.10

2.78

Wt. (gm)

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material Denom.

Laodicea ad Mare (Syria)

Samaria(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Antioch

Same

SC 1: 411, No. 1082.

ΒΑΣΙΛ[ΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ] Club

Same

Same

Head diademed r.

Veiled, diademed bust of Laodice IV r. Behind in l. field, control mark:

Bust of Artemis r., quiver on shoulder. In l. field, control mark:

Bust of Dionysos r. In l. field, illegible monogram

Same

Same

Head of Apollo r., laureate. In l. field, illegible monogram

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ Caduceus

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ Head of elephant l.

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ Artemis huntress stg. l., holding spear, doe at feet

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ Prow of galley l. Control mark illegible

Same, but in l. field, control mark:

Same, but in l. field, control mark:

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ Apollo stg l , holding arrow and resting on tripod. In l. field, control mark:

Diademed bust r., ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ control mark illegible ΘΑΛΑΣΣΗΙ Dolphin to l.

S

E

E

P

S

S

P

P

P

P

Quasi-municipal issue. SNG Israel 1: 148, No. 1054 (for date); SC 2: 76, No. 1431.

Unpublished

Serrated. Unpublished variant Cf. SC 2: 17, No. 1318.

P

P

P

Serrated. K SC 2: 16–17, No. 1317.1.

Serrated. Magen 2008: Pl. 11:3 (this coin); SC 2: 15, No. 1316.

Same

Serrated. Magen 2008: Pl. 11:4 (this coin).

Serrated. SC 2:15, No. 1315.6.

Same

Unpublished variant. Very thick flan.

Crude fabric. SC 1: 416, No. 1096.

Cf. SNG Israel 1: 96, No. 676.

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ] Palm tree

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ Apollo stg , holding bow and arrow

SC 1: 417, No. 1099.

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ] Nike advancing r , holding palm branch

S

P

SC 1: 415, No. 1094.

Unpublished variant. Cf. SC 1: 415, No. 1094 (but horse to r.).

Area

Reference and Notes

Same, but horse to l.

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ] Horse trotting r.

Reverse

Seleucus IV Philopator (187–175 BCE) 37 coins

Same

Head of Apollo r.

Obliterated

Head r., diademed

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE) 2,069 coins ca. 168–164

Same

Same(?)

Same

ʿAkkoPtolemais Same(?)

From 198 onward

Same

Same

From 198 onward

Date (BCE)

Same

Tyre

Coele-Syria (uncertain mint 63)

Same

Coele-Syria (uncertain mint 61)

Mint

4749

4519

4485

108

844

1103

962

4494

404

7145

4487

5189

5177

4396

7027

4468

Locus

47518

47255

46235

1557

7393

215

10042

46583

3948

12806

46362

52180

51965

44981

10263

46086

Basket

1

1

1

5

9

21

394

377

7

7

4

1

9

Total by type

29935

31918

19135

17347

22388

25717

23050

32730

18247

32873

32678

35086

36166

31043

28328

32455

K. No.

[147]

14.20

13

22

246

247

248

16

241

15

14

240

245

14.30

239

11.40

14

238

16

15

237

244

15.80

236

243

3.85

235

13

22

234

242

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

11

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

6.92

2.64

2.64

2.85

2.50

3.37

4.32

3.22

2.10

2.67

2.47

2.16

2.64

3.84

8.12

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Same

Tyre

Same

Antioch

Tyre

Same

Hemichalkon

Samaria or ʿAkkoPtolemais(?)

Same(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

154/153

163/162

Same

Same

ca. 168–164

Same

ca. 173/172– 168

Same

Same

Same

ca. 175– 173/172

ʿAkkoPtolemais

Same

Same

Date (BCE)

Sidon

Mint

Same

Chalkous

Denom.

Same

Same

[ΒΑΣΙ]ΛΕΩΣ [ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ] Palm tree flanked by date: N-P (= S E. 150)

Same

Same

Bust of Artemis r., behind bow and quiver

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ Stern of galley to l. Above, date: LΘNP (= S.E. 159). Below: TYPIΩN and ‫לצר‬ (of Tyre)

Same

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ Apollo stg , holding bow and arrow

Demetrius I Soter (162–150 BCE) 152 coins

Head r., diademed

SC 2: 179, No. 1672.1.

SNG Israel 1: 180, No. 1306.

Serrated. SC 2: 173, No. 1647.

Quasi-municipal issue. SC 2: 136, No. 1580.

SC 2: 96, No. 1490.

Same

SC 2: 95, No. 1489.

SC 2: 94, No. 1485.

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ Artemis stg. facing, holding torch and bow. Control marks illegible [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ] ΑΝΤ[ΙΟΧΟΥ] Female goddess seated l. on throne, holding Nike in outstreched hand. At feet, bird

Serrated. Barbaric style. Magen 2008: Pl. 11:7 (this coin).

Serrated. SC 2: 91–92, No. 1479.

Same

Same

Serrated. SC 2: 91, No. 1478.

Serrated. SC 2: 90–91, No. 1477.

Very worn. Cf. SC 2: 83, 85, No. 1453, or No. 1461.

Reference and Notes

Same

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ Veiled goddess stg. facing, holding long scepter or torch

Same, but control marks illegible

Same, but in ex., control mark: N

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ Apollo seated on omphalos to l. In l. field, aphlaston; in ex., control mark: M

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ Head of elephant l , in r. low field, prow of galley

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΣΙΔΩΝΙΩΝ] Galley. Below: ¤∂Î·Ò (of the Sidonians)

Reverse

Antiochus V Eupator (164–162 BCE) 8 coins

Same

Same

Same, but in l. field, monogram:

Same

Same

Radiate head r. Behind in l. field, monogram:

Same

Same

Head r., laureate. Behind in l. field, monogram:

Veiled, diademed bust of Laodice IV r. Behind in l. field, monogram:

Head r., radiate. Control marks illegible

Obverse

K

P

P

B

A

S

T

B

B

A

S

P

A

S

A

Area

118

4300

5184

50

104048

459

16

1343

1268

104019

498

4607

104062

5

72

Locus

1269

44392

51927

3002

266

6033

1037

1950

1335

108

24

113

414

620/1

348

Basket

2

3

93

8

49

6

1,627

355

27

2

Total by type

13217

31647

36330

12984

37848

22287

16199

27365

25484

37945

32889

32971

37928

11882

17093

K. No.

[148]

12

12.80

14

17.40

263

264

265

12

257

262

13.80

256

13

13

255

261

18.80

254

29.10

14

253

260

13

252

28

15

251

259

15

250

10.20

14

249

258

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

4.85

2.23

1.53

1.98

2.36

13 29

13.84

1.53

1.42

2.18

2.87

2.12

2.36

2.18

2.36

2.29

2.07

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Silver

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Same

Tetradrachma

Denom.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Tyre

Gaza(?)

Marisa(?)

Same

Same

Tyre

ʿAkkoPtolemais

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

T P

SC 2: 180, No. 1676.3. SC 2: 180, No. 1676.4.

Same, but date: Ξ-P (= S.E. 160) Same, but date: LA-ΞΡ (= S E. 161)

145/144

143/142

145/144

146/145

144/143

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head r., diademed

Same

Diademed and draped bust r.

S P

Same SC 2: 303, No. 1968.2. [ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ] Stern of galley to l; above date: HΞ-P (= S.E. 168). Below: TYPIΩN and ‫לצר‬

C

S

P

S

S

P

E

T

Same, but date illegible

SC 2: 304, No. 1970.4 (but date starts with ‘L’).

SC 2: 304, No. 1970.2 (but date starts with ‘L’). Same, but date: HΞ-P (= S E. 168) Same, but date: O-P (= S E. 170)

Magen 2008: Pl. 11:12 (this coin); SC 2: 304, No. 1970.1.

Magen 2008: Pl. 11:9 (identified as Demetrius I Soter); SC 2: 300, No. 1959 3. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ Palm tree flanked by date: Ξ -P (= S.E. 167)

Same, but date and control marks illegible

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on ship’s ram, palm branch on shoulder; in l. field, club topped by monogram of Tyre. In r. field, date: ƟΞP (= S.E. 169) and control mark:

Magen 2008: Pl. 11:8 (identified as Demetrius I Soter); SC 2: 300, No. 1959 3.

Identification uncertain. Cf SC 2: 247, No. 1852.

[ΒΑCΙΛΕ ΑΛΕ] Apollo stg. l., holding arrow and bow. Mintmark: [ ]

Head r., diademed

Identification uncertain. Cf. SC 2: 246, No. 1851.

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕ ΑΛΕΞΑ] Artemis(?) stg. facing with upraised hand

Same

Same, but date illegible

K

SC 2: 242, No. 1838.3.

Same, but date: ZΞ-P (= S E. 167)

Draped female bust r. (Artemis?)

P

SC 2: 242, No. 1838.1.

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Palm tree, flanked by date: Ξ-P (= S E. 166)

Same

Same

Head r., diademed

S

K

SC 2: 180, No. 1676.2.

Same, but date: LΘNP (= S E. 159)

Serrated. Bijovsky 1994–1999: 39–45; SC 2: 181, No. 1679.

A

SC 2: 180, No. 1676.1.

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗ]ΤΡΙΟΥ Palm tree flanked by date: ΔN-[P] (= S.E. 154)

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ] ΔΗΜΗΤ[ΡΙΟΥ] Veiled goddess stg. facing, holding scepter or torch

Area

Reference and Notes

Reverse

Alexander I Balas (152–145 BCE) 24 coins

Head r., laureate

Same

Same

Same

Head r., diademed

Obverse

Demetrius II Nicator, first reign (146–138 BCE) 37 coins

146/145

147/146

152/151

153/152

154/153

159/158

Date (BCE)

5258

407

6060

403

4514

196

844

5186

972

Surface

102

5118

784

4491

7

13

W100

Locus

52658

3560

60319

3560

47120

6205

7382

51925

100/1

1028

1049

51089

8741

46447

1015

536/5

6623

Basket

2

32

1

1

2

1

21

32

22

Total by type

36253

18387

38038

19611

32457

22324

23306

36294

15132

16139

20581

34901

24223

32458

16155

11567

26034

K. No.

[149]

Diam. (mm)

19.50

14

17.25

19

16.30

18

18.45

16

19

18

14

15.25

13

15

11

Cat. No.

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

12

8

3

3

8

12

12

1

12

12

1

12

12

12

12

Axis

1.35

2.49

3.22

3.27

2.69

5.65

4.59

4.64

5.61

5.50

5.61

5.76

6.32

1.87

6.74

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Silver

Material

Ascalon

Didrachma

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Antioch

Antioch

Mint

Denom.

137/136

138/137

134/133

136/135

139/138

133/132

Same

134/133

136/135

Same

Reverse

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. In l. field, dove and below: ΑΣ. In r. field, date: LAOP (=S.E. 171) and

Head r., diademed

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΤΡΙΦΩΝΟΣ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ Macedonian helmet with cheek-pieces and horn. To l. caps of Dioscuri

Tryphon (ca. 142–138 BCE) 2 coins

Head r., diademed

Antiochus VI Dionysus (144–142 BCE) 1 coin

Obverse

Ram of ship to l.

Same

Same

Same

Head of lion r.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bust of Eros r., winged

Area

A P

P

SC 2: 367, No. 2067.7. SC 2: 367, No. 2067.9.

SC 2: 367, No. 2067.14.

B

P S

SC 2: 368, No. 2068.1.

SC 2: 369, No. 2068.4. SC 2: 369, No. 2068.6.

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ Club, in ex., date: OP (= S E. 174)

T S

Same SC 2: 369, No. 2069.

Same, but date illegible ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ Pilei surmounted by stars. Control marks illegible

Same, but date: ƟOP (= S E. 179)

Same, but date: OP (= S E. 177)

T

T Same

Same

K

K

SC 2: 367, No. 2067.5.

Same

P

A

SC 2: 366, No. 2067.3.

SNG Israel 1: 246, No. 1839–1840.

Unpublished. A Cf. SC 2: 332–333, No. 2026 (but tetradrachma).

Reference and Notes

Same, but date and control marks illegible

Same, but date: ΠP (= S.E. 180). In l. outer field, control mark:

Same, but below a cornucopia

Same, but date: ƟOP (= S E. 179). In l. outer field, control mark:

Same, but date: OP (= S E. 177). In l. outer field, control mark:

Same, but below a star. Control marks illegible

Same, but below aphlaston and date: OP (= S.E. 176)

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ Headdress of Isis. Below, star and date: EOP (= S.E. 175). In l. outer field, control mark:

Antiochus VII Euergetes Sidetes (138–129 BCE) 268 coins

142/141

Date (BCE)

21

14

300

5072

1246

9

12

101

5023

4470

46

10

5056

759

104063

Locus

638/5

434/2

2093

50721

960

1012

1075

1469

50213

46150

583/1

704

50533

596

420

Basket

28

35

107

2

1

Total by type

11967

11434

18016

34706

25889

16158

16171

17257

34656

32467

11721

11607

34643

30848

37889

K. No.

[150]

17

13.20

293

294

29

288

17

20

287

292

18

286

15

21

285

291

21

284

12

25.60

283

290

13

282

20

13

281

289

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

1

12

12

6

12

12

1

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

2.57

5.01

3.20

2.20

1.26

6.87

14 30

7.04

3.30

6.24

6.96

13 9

1.34

2.77

Wt. (gm)

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Silver

Same

Same

Material

Same Same

Same

Drachma Didrachma

Tetradrachma

Same

Antioch

ʿAkkoPtolemais

Jerusalem

Same

Same

Same

Same

Didrachma Same

Tyre

Same

Coele-Syria southern mint

Mint

Tetradrachma

Denom.

129/128

Eagle with open wings stg. r.

Head of Zeus r., laureate

]

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ Owl stg. three-quarters to r. Illegible control marks. In ex., date: OP (= S.E. 177)

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ] Anchor, flukes upward. Date illegible

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ Palm tree flanked by date: ΓΠΡ (= S E. 183)

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ IEPAΣ ΑΣ[ΙΛΟΥ] Galley to l. Below: [ and [r·4] (of Tyre); date illegible

Same, but date: ΠΡ (= S.E. 180). Between legs, control mark:

Same, but date: ΘOP (= S.E. 179). Between legs, control mark:

Same, but between legs, control mark:

Same

Same, but between legs, control mark: Σ

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ Eagle stg. on prow to l., palm branch on shoulder. In l. field, club with monogram of Tyre and . To r.: A and date: OP (= S E. 177). Between legs:

Same, but illegible control marks and date

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΟΥ Apollo stg. l., holding arrow and bow. Illegible control marks. In ex., date: OP (= S.E. 177)

Reverse

K

SC 2: 420, No. 2171. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΝΙΚΑΤΟΡΟΣ Thunderbolt. Control marks illegible

B

SC 2: 390, No. 2119.

P

K

SC 2: 392, No. 2123.

SC 2: 420, No. 2170.

P

P

T

P

K

A

B

A

Date unpublished.

SC 2: 387, Nos. 2112–2113.

SC 2: 385, No. 2109.8.

SC 2: 386, No. 2110.7.

SC 2: 387, No. 2111.2.

Same

SC 2: 386, No. 2110.5.

SC 2: 384, No. 2109.5.

K

S

SC 2: 378, No. 2098.

Same

Area

Reference and Notes

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ NΙΚΑΤΟΡΟΣ Nike adv. l., holding wreath and palm branch. In inner l. field: Ξ. Control marks illegible

Demetrius II Nicator, second reign (129–125 BCE) 190 coins

Head of Athena r., with crested Corinthian helmet

Lily on stem

132−130

136−135

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head r., diademed

Same

Bust of Artemis r., bow and quiver on shoulder

Obverse

130/129

133/132

134/133

Same

Same

Same

136/135

138−130

136/135

Date (BCE)

18

4494

52

101

4038

4395

13

5080

109

553

W91

27

107

Surface

Locus

577/2

46677

3031

1419

40290

44735

–

50769

1522

577

627

313

1112

8155

Basket

2

30

41

4

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

17

Total by type

11700

32733

12999

17328

32975

31688

16960

35050

17309

32445

25276

17059

13131

18088

K. No.

[151]

21.70

19

20

18

309

310

311

23

303

308

30

302

14.10

17

301

307

16

300

19.90

15

299

306

15.50

298

15.30

14.40

297

305

15

296

17

18

295

304

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

1

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

7.41

5.97

6.93

6.59

1.96

6.10

3.15

3.45

7.02

14 15

3.55

3.47

3.53

3.29

3.22

3.28

5.16

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Silver

Same

Same

Material

Same

Didrachma

Same

Same

Same

Same

Antioch

Tyre

Same

Same

Same

Same

Drachma

Same

Tetradrachma

Same

Same

Same

Tyre

Same

Damascus or Coele-Syria southern mint(?)

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Drachma

Denom.

127/126

128/127

Same

129/128

223–125

129–126

Same

Same

128/127

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

129/128

Date (BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Head r., diademed

Same SC 2: 453, Nos. 2229.4–6. SC 2: 453, No. 2229.7.

Same, but control marks illegible Same, but date: EΠP (= S E. 185). Control marks illegible Same, but date: ΠP (= S E. 186). Control marks illegible

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Young Dionysos stg. l., holding cantharus and thyrsus. In inner l. field, date: ΔΠP (= S.E. 184). In outer l. field, aphlaston. Other control marks illegible [ΙΣΙ]

Alexander II Zabinas (128–122 BCE) 455 coins

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ...] Palm tree flanked by illegible date

Magen 2008: Pl. 12:4 (this coin); SC 2: 453, No. 2229.1.

P

SC 2: 431, No. 2198.

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ Galley to l. Below: [ ] and [r·4] (of Tyre); date illegible

K

S

S

A

P

T

T

–

P

N

A

B

T

Same

SC 2: 431, No. 2197.2.

SC 2: 430, No. 2196.3.

SC 2: 429, No. 2195.3.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same, but date and control marks illegible

Same

Same, but between legs:

Same, but date: EΠP (= S.E. 185). Between legs, monogram:

Same

Same

Same

Same

T

A

SC 2: 425, No. 2184.

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΝΙΚΑΤΟΡΟΣ Tripod. In ex.: ΔΠP (= S.E. 184). Control marks illegible SC 2: 430, No. 2197.1.

K

SC 2: 425, No. 2183.

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΝΙΚΑΤΟΡΟΣ Apollo stg. l., with bow and arrow. In ex.: ΔΠP (= S.E. 184). Control marks illegible

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ Eagle stg. on prow to l., palm branch on shoulder. In l. field, club with monogram of Tyre and . To r.: A and date: ΔΠP (= S E. 184). Between legs control mark:

Area

Reference and Notes

Reverse

Uncertain Ruler 104 coins Head r., diademed

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head r., diademed

Head of Artemis r.

Head r., diademed and bearded

Obverse

101

Surface

22

46

5227

5019

13

13

4314

4460

25

239

1270

13

13

286

120

Locus

1074

630/1

647/2

588/1

52729

50044

506/3

1065

45817

46156

244

6703

1397

506/2

506/1

7078

1451

Basket

81

104

1

2

1

1

6

3

41

Total by type

13109

11917

12004

11736

36211

34746

11517

16184

28896

32443

25279

25745

25744

11516

11515

25475

17231

K. No.

[152]

19

17.60

19

331

332

20.40

325

330

14

324

19.30

18.70

323

329

17

322

25

19

321

328

21

320

21.90

19

319

22

20

318

326

24

317

327

21

316

12

16

15

314

315

12

16

313

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

2

12

12

12

12

6

12

18.30

312

Axis

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

6.75

4.38

4.63

5.38

7.49

7.85

8.59

6.86

4.13

5.50

5.58

6.72

6.52

6.46

5.41

7.65

7.30

3.22

3.52

3.35

5.39

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material Denom.

Same

Same

Same

Apamea on the Orontes(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

125–122

ca. 126/125

127/126

128–126/125

128/127

Same

Date (BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Head of young Dionysus r., with ivy wreath

Same

Same

Same

Radiate and diademed head r.

Prow of galley r., above pilei of Dioscuri

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Radiate and diademed head r.

Head r., in lion skin headdress

Same

Same

Winged bust of Eros r.

Same

Obverse Same, but barbaric style.

Reference and Notes

Same, but control marks illegible

Same, but in l. field, cornucopia

Same

Same

Same

Serrated. Magen 2008: Pl. 11:10 (identified as Alexander I Balas); SC 2: 459, No. 2242 3.

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ [ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ] Winged Tyche stg. l., holding ship’s tiller and cornucopia. In l. field, illegible monogram and grapes or ivy-leaf Same, but in l. field, monogram: and wreath

Same

Same

Same

SC 2: 457, No. 2237.1.

P

K

K

E

K

T

P

S

K

A

SC 2: 456, No. 2235. Unpublished variant. Cf. SC 2: 456, No. 2236.

S

Same

S

S

SC 2: 456, No. 2235.2. Same

K

Same

Same, but club below A

Same, but ear of corn below A

Same, but star below A

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Double filleted parallel cornucopia oriented to r. In l. inner field: A and below palm branch. In r. inner field: Π

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Aphlaston; in l. inner field: Σ; in l. outer field, caduceus. In r. inner field: A

Same, but all control marks illegible

Same, but uncertain object in outer l. field

Same, but ear of corn in outer l. field

Same, but palm branch in outer l. field

Same, but uncertain object in inner l. field

P

B

SC 2: 456, No. 2235.1.

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Double filleted intertwined cornucopia. In l. inner field: Σ and below wreath(?). In r. inner field: A Same

S

SC 2: 454, No. 2231.

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Nike stg. l., holding wreath and palm branch

Same, but caduceus in inner l. field

S P

Same SC 2: 454, No. 2230.3.

Same, but date: ΠP (= S E. 186). Control marks illegible

K

A

Area

Same, but date illegible

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ SC 2: 454, No. 2230.2. Anchor with flukes upwards. In inner l. field, date: ΕΠΡ (= S.E. 185). Control marks illegible [ΙΣΙ]

Same

Reverse

4504

16

26

912

101

12

5139

4

116

571

403

407

4

101

4480

59

7075

4472

13

105

104071

Locus

47043

559/11

671/10

9146

1470

1076

51316

565/54

1221

–

3721

3457

606/2

1471

–

3222

11613

46030

616/2

1003

498

Basket

107

23

4

181

1

8

Total by type

32772

11631

12128

22489

17260

16172

35008

11821

13194

11678

18797

18025

11851

17259

32722

17506

31272

32594

11873

20582

37749

K. No.

[153]

16

13.20

18.60

19

342

343

344

345

19

338

19

20

337

341

18

336

17

12

335

340

11.35

334

18.60

18

333

339

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

6

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

3

12

Axis

6.55

5.80

2.04

2.58

5.91

4.03

7.06

6.38

6.56

5.59

1.30

1.52

4.03

Wt. (gm)

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Material Denom.

Same

Antioch

Same

Same

Same

Same

Antioch

Same

Same

Antioch

Same

128/127

Date (BCE)

Same

Head of horse r.

Head of elephant r.

Obverse

Same, but date illegible

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ] ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Ship’s ram. In l. field, date: ΕΠΡ (= S E. 185)

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ AΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. No visible control marks

Reverse

Same

SC 2: 464, No. 2257.

Serrated. SC 2: 459, No. 2243.

Reference and Notes

Same

Same

Head r, radiate and diademed

Same, but date and details illegible

Same, but date: A P (= S E. 191). No symbol visible. In inner r. field: IE

ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣHΣ KΛEOΠATPAΣ KAI BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY Owl stg. r. on fallen amphora, head facing. In ex., date: P (= S E. 190). Below, aphlaston. Control marks not visible

Same

Bust of Artemis r., quiver behind shoulder

Same

Same

Head r, radiate and diademed

P

P

SC 2: 502, No. 2301.2.

SC 2: 502, No. 2301.4.

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ Apollo stg. l., holding arrow and bow. In outer l. field: [IE]. In ex., date: P (= S E. 196). Control marks not visible Same, but date: H P (= S.E. 198)

P

113/112

114/113

Same

Head diademed r.

S

T

P

S

K

Same

SC 2: 504, No. 2307.

Magen 2008: Pl. 12:1 (identified as Antiochus VII Euergetes Sidetes); SC 2: 501, No. 2300.1.

Same

Magen 2008: Pl. 12:8 (this coin); SC 2: 475, No. 2263.4.

SC 2: 475, Nos. 2263 2–3.

K

P

S

Area

Same, but date and control marks not visible

Same, but date: [L]Σ (= S.E. 200). Control marks not visible

BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY EΠIΦΑΝΟΥΣ Eagle stg. r., scepter on shoulder. In outer l. field: IE. In ex., date: B P (= S.E. 192)

P

P

SC 2: 534, No. 2364.1.

SC 2: 534, No. 2364.2.

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ Winged thunderbolt. In inner l. field, date: Ɵ P (= S.E. 199). Control marks not visible Same, but date: Σ (= S.E. 200). In l. field, bunch of grapes

Antiochus IX Eusebes Philopator Cyzicenus (114/113–95 BCE) 4 coins

115/114

117/116

113/112

121/120

Antiochus VIII Epiphanes Grypus (121/120–97/96 BCE) 240 coins

123–121

122/121

123/122

Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII Epiphanes Grypus (125–121 BCE) 43 coins

Coele-Syria southern mint

Same

Mint

4502

5094

5165

4871

4479

5011

19

4487

4

100

104

5092

192

Locus

46742

51100

51682

48616

46428

472

500/1

46403

910

1042

1283

50934

4011

Basket

1

2

6

230

39

3

4

Total by type

32400

34972

35182

32823

32452

30012

11505

32454

17402

20576

21077

34947

18194

K. No.

[154]

13

14

12

15

13.70

355

356

357

358

359

20

351

15.40

15

350

354

16.40

349

14.40

17

348

353

18.80

347

13.30

17.90

346

352

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

2.60

2.43

1.49

2.69

2.33

3.48

2.16

2.33

6.40

2.95

4.14

3.80

3.88

5.90

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Silver

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Material

Drachma

Denom.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

ʿAkkoPtolemais

Same

Same

Same

Side

Same

Mint

169–164 (Undated)

124/123

125/124

130/129

132/131

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head of Athena r., with Corinthian helmet

Same

Same

Same, but date: ΓΣ(?) (= S E. 203)

Reverse

Nike adv. l., holding wreath. In l. field, pomegranate and inscription: ΔΙO

Same, but circular countermark: club

Pomegranate

Athena fighting to r., holding spear and shield. In r. field, pomegranate

Autonomous Pamphylia 14 coins Head of Athena slightly facing l., with Corinthian helmet

Same

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Jugate heads of Dioscuri r.

Head of Apollo r.

Bust of Tyche r.

Cf. Kadman 1961: 96, No. 29. Voulgaridis 2000: 225, series c2, group 5. Voulgaridis 2000: 225, series c2, group 9.

Same, but date: HΠP (= S E. 188) Same, but date: ΘΠΡ (= S.E. 189). In l. field, control mark: Σ

Dated series. Kadman 1961: 96, No. 28; Voulgaridis 2000: 225, series c2, group 1.

ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ IEPAΣ AΣIΛOY Cornucopia. In r. inner low field, date: AΠP (= S.E. 181). No control mark Same, but date: ΠP (= S.E. 183). Control mark not visible

Magen 2008: Pl. 12:9 (this coin); Cf. Kadman 1961: 94–95, Nos. 11, 13–24, 26–27; Voulgaridis 2000: 225, series a3, group 18.

Unpublished variant.

Undated series. Kadman 1961: 94, No. 15; Voulgaridis 2000: 225–226, series a3, group 10.

Cf. Voulgaridis 2000: 227, series a4.

Magen 2008: Pl. 12:10 (this coin); Cf. Kadman 1961: Nos. 59–61; Cf. Voulgaridis 2000: 224, series a2.

SNG Deutschland 11: Pamphylien, Pl. 156:4798.

Same, but countermark unpublished.

BMC Pamphylia: 150, No. 59; SNG Den. 6: Pamphylia, Pl. 11:381.

SNG Den. 6: Pamphylia, Pl. 11:380.

SNG Israel 1: 352, No. 2697; Cf. SC 2: 534, No. 2364 2 (reference).

Reference and Notes

Same, but control marks illegible

Same, but control mark:

ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ Cornucopia. In outer l. field, control mark:

ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ Lyre. No control marks visible

ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ Nike stg. l., holding palm branch. To l.: Δ

Pre-Colonial Civic Coinage of ʿAkko-Ptolemais 1,217 coins

ca.190–36

Same

Same

Second c.

110/109(?)

Date (BCE)

P

S

K

P

B

P

P

P

K

P

S

B

S

P

Area

5056

7138

116

4348

72

5221

5024

5196

120

4344

2126

1023

711

5079

Locus

50534

12686

1422

44322

3258

52412

50175

52132

1371

44128

21395

380

7554

51884

Basket

572

617

23

1

1

1

7

5

1

Total by type

34878

31772

17307

30337

17446

35314

34645

35294

13264

32979

23267

17431

23254

35244

K. No.

[155]

11

11.60

11

15.25

378

379

380

381

12

371

13

14

370

377

12

369

12

13

368

376

14

367

12

14

366

375

13.30

365

12.70

13.70

364

374

12.40

363

13

15

362

373

14.30

361

12

14

360

372

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

2.45

1.62

1.52

1.49

1.90

1.73

1.70

1.62

1.54

1.97

1.85

1.61

1.56

2.52

2.63

1.89

2.74

2.33

1.60

2.15

1.97

2.40

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material Denom.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

116/115

Same

Same

Same

Same

117/116

Same

Same

118/117

Same

Same

Same

119/118

Same

Same

Same

120/119

122/121

Same

123/122

Same

Same

Date (BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same  

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse (?)

Same, but date: Z Ρ (= S.E. 197). Control mark: H(?)

Same, but no control mark visible

Same, but control mark: Δ

Same, but control mark:

Cf. Voulgaridis 2000: 248, series c2, group 21, but different unpublished control mark.

Voulgaridis 2000: 247, series c2, group 20.

Voulgaridis 2000: 247, series c2, group 19.

Unpublished control mark. Cf. Voulgaridis 2000: 247, series c2, group 20.

Unpublished control mark. Cf. Voulgaridis 2000: 247, series c2, group 20.

Unpublished control mark. Cf. Voulgaridis 2000: 247, series c2, group 20.

Same, but date: Ρ (= S.E. 196). In l. field, control mark:

Same, but control mark:

Same

Same, but no control mark visible

Same

Cf. Kadman 1961: 98, Nos. 38–41.

Same, but date: E Ρ (= S E. 195). In l. field, control mark: Same, but control mark: (?)

Cf. Kadman 1961: 98, No. 37.

P

B

P

P

P

P

K

A

K

S

P

Kadman 1961: 98, No. 37; Voulgaridis 2000: 247, series c2, group 15.

Same, but no control marks visible

Same, but control mark:

P

K

B

P

K

E

P

T

S

Same

Cf. Kadman 1961: 98, No. 37.

Same, but date: Δ P (= S.E. 194). In l. field, control mark: Same, but control mark:

Voulgaridis 2000: 246, series c2, group 12.

Same

Same, but no control marks visible

Same, but control mark:

Same

Cf. Kadman 1961: 98, No. 36.

Same, but date:   P (= S.E. 193). In l. field, control mark: Same, but control mark: A

Same

Same

Unpublished variant.

A

K

Cf. Kadman 1961: 98, Nos. 31–34. Same

Area

Reference and Notes

Same, but date: LA P (= S.E. 191). In l. field, control mark:

Same, but no control mark visible

Same, but date: L Ρ (= S.E. 190). In l. field, control mark:

Same, but no control mark visible

Same, but control mark:

Reverse

5036

1372

5049

4495

4348

5097

8

45

104

420

4483

4344

107

1264

10

101

914

5108

17

5018

111076

26

Locus

50354

2424

50451

46798

44290

51020

510

580/1

1028

3628

46357

44137

1096

1169

626/5

1064

9195

51040

–

506

575

673/1

Basket

Total by type

34888

25200

34848

32737

30331

34984

16220

11718

20578

18102

32670

30314

13122

24303

11909

20577

22568

34958

38064

30514

37800

12131

K. No.

[156]

13.70

13.30

16

14

19

385

386

387

388

389

14

14.25

384

390

13

13

382

383

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

2.20

3.56

1.88

3.12

2.12

1.44

2.40

1.70

1.49

Wt. (gm)

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material Denom.

Ascalon

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Second c.

125–116(?)

126–124

After 126/125

Same

126–110

112/111(?)

113/112(?)

Same

Date (BCE)

Cf. Kadman 1961: 100, Nos. 49 or 51; Voulgaridis 2000: 249, series c3.

ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ IEPAΣ AΣIΛΟΥ Lyre. Control marks not visible

Bust of Tyche r.

Prow of galley l., above: AΣ

Yashin 2007: 39, Nos. 14–20.

Cf. Kadman 1961:102, Nos. 55–58.

Cf. Kadman 1961: 100, Nos. 45–46; Cf. Voulgaridis 2000: 249, series c4.

ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ Tyche stg. facing, holding long staff and cornucopia

ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΔΙ IEPAΣ AΣIΛΟΥ Zeus stg. l., holding scepter and ears of grain

Imitation(?)

Same

Same, but barbaric style

Same, but date and control marks illegible

Same, but date: LAC(?) (= S.E. 201). No control mark visible

Same Date unpublished.

Same

Reference and Notes

Same, but date: LΣ(?) (= S.E. 200). No control mark visible

Reverse

Autonomous Ascalon 3 coins

Head of Zeus r.

Head of Apollo r.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

A

B

T

S

A

A

P

P

S

Area

241

1376

13

22

111076

101019

5072

4494

7137

Locus

6725

2782

1051

648

604

180

50685

46980

12684

Basket

3

2

1

1

Total by type

25983

27072

16173

12005

37736

37979

34834

32147

31770

K. No.

[157]

14

12

13.30

15

14

400

401

402

403

404

13.70

396

14.10

15

395

399

15

394

14.20

13

393

398

13.30

392

14

15

391

397

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

6

6

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

1.63

2 21

1.61

0.76

2 11

2.21

1.82

2.40

1.86

2.42

1 98

2.06

1 94

2.04

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Material

Jerusalem

Prutah

Same

Same

Same

Jerusalem

Prutah

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Jerusalem

Prutah

Same

Mint

Denom.

103–76

Same

104–ca. 99/98

Date (BCE) Reverse

Double cornucopia, between horns, pomegranate

TJC: 202, group B, No. 32. Cf. TJC: 202, group B. Monogram unpublished(?)

Same, but in r. low field, three dots Same, but in r. low field:

Same

Same, but dots in field

Same, but cursive style inscription

Same, but letters have straight lines

Paleo-Hebrew inscription within wreath: ]‫יהונ]תן הכ הן] הגד ול ו]חבר ה יהודים‬

Same

Same

Double cornucopia, between horns, pomegranate

Alexander Jannaeus (104/103–76 BCE) 528 coins

Paleo-Hebrew inscription Double cornucopia, between within wreath: horns, pomegranate ]‫יהודה הכהן ה ג]דל וחבר היהוד ים‬

Judah Aristobulus I (105/104 BCE) 3 coins

Same, but dots in field

Paleo-Hebrew inscription Same within wreath: ‫יהודים‬/‫ל ראש חבר ה‬/‫ הכהן גד‬/‫יהוחנן‬

Paleo-Hebrew inscription Same within wreath: ‫ יהוד]ים‬/‫ל וחבר]ה‬/]‫ הכהן גד‬/‫יהוחנן‬

Same

K

TJC: 203, group I.

S

A P

TJC: 213, group Q. TJC: 214–215, group R.

S

TJC: 212, group P.

Identification uncertain. Cf. TJC: 217, type U.

K

P

TJC: 206, group G.

TJC: 207, group I, No. 33.

K

P

K

P

P

K

P

Area

TJC: 203, group D.

TJC: 203, group D.

TJC: 202, group B, No. 27.

TJC: 202, group B, No. 20.

Magen 2008: Pl. 12:11 (this coin); TJC: 201, group A.

Reference and Notes

Same, but in r. low field:

Paleo-Hebrew inscription Double cornucopia, between within wreath: horns, pomegranate ‫יהוחנן הכהן הגדול וחבר היהודים‬

Same

Same

Same, but two dots between letters

Paleo-Hebrew inscription Same within wreath: ‫יהודים‬/‫ל וחבר ה‬/‫ הכהן גד‬/‫יהוחנן‬

A/ ‫יהודים‬/‫ל וחבר ה‬/‫ הכהן גד‬/‫יהוחנן‬

Paleo-Hebrew inscription within wreath:

John Hyrcanus I (129–105/104 BCE) 68 coins

Obverse

THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD ‒ HASMONEANS

546/1

572/8

567/2

529/1

48118

532

51

43596

572/6

43851

Basket

10

401

269

626/1

7190

1301

Surface 20215

10

2

7

1

4820

1

4157

4316

2

4300

Locus

1

3

10

3

68

Total by type

11905

27577

17690

31422

11577

11686

11665

11555

33712

16708

32965

30234

11684

30286

K. No.

[158]

Diam. (mm)

14

15

15.30

13

14

14

Cat. No.

405

406

407

408

409

410

12

Axis

1.82

0.84

1 26

1.80

3

3 21

Wt. (gm)

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Same

Jerusalem

Prutah

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

129–76

80/79–76 onwards

80/79

ca. 80’s

ca. 90’s–80’s

Date (BCE)

Illegible Paleo-Hebrew inscription within wreath

Uncertain Hasmonean 77 coins

Anchor within circle. Traces of letters

[AΛEΞANΔPOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ] Anchor surrounded by circle and flanked by date: [L-KE] (year = 25)

AΛEΞANΔPOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ Anchor surrounded by diadem

Paleo-Hebrew inscription within wreath: ]‫ינתן הכהן הגדול וחבר היהודים‬

Overstruck. TJC: 216–217, group T.

Double cornucopia, between horns, pomegranate

Star within circle. Traces of letters

Star surrounded by border of dots, around Aramaic inscription: ]‫מלכא אלכסנדרוס שנת כה‬

TJC: 121, group L, Nos. 7–17.

TJC: 210, group L, Nos. 1–6.

Star within diadem. PaleoMagen 2008: Pl. 12:12 Hebrew inscription between (this coin); TJC: 209, rays: group K. ‫המלך יהונתן‬

Double cornucopia, between horns, pomegranate

Lily flower. TJC: 211, group N, No. 3; Paleo-Hebrew inscription: Hendin and Shachar ‫ המלך יהונתן‬2008: 92, No. 1.

AΛEΞANΔPOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ Anchor surrounded by diadem

Reference and Notes

Reverse

Obverse

P

S

P

K

J

J

Area

1057

Basket

4406

835

4801

10

44856

8222

48030

558/33

Surface 1141

124

Locus

77

490

9

13

1

1

Total by type

31721

18569

30619

11622

32419

32420

K. No.

[159]

22

17

25

10.20

416

417

418

13.80

413

415

18.40

412

11.30

17

411

414

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

3

12

12

12

12

4

5

Axis

1.42

15

5.36

11.03

1.23

1.66

2.25

9.68

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

Material

Rome

As

Antioch

Aelia Capitolina

Gaza

Caesarea

Ascalon

Jerusalem

Jerusalem

Mint

Denom.

ca. 130–138

68

Late 1st c.

58/59

9/10

7 BCE

Date (CE)

ROMAN IMPERIAL

Reverse

LE KAICAPOC Palm branch

Winged caduceus, across field: AC

ΚΑΙΣΑΡΙΑ ΗΠΡΟΣ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΩ ΛΙΜΕΝΙ L ΙΔ (= year 14) Tyche stg l. holding head of emperor

Within wreath: SC; below date: S (= year 6)

COL AEL KAP The Capitoline triad, Jupiter, Minerva and Juno, within temple

IMP CAES TRAI HADRIANO AVGPP Bust r., laureate [AVTOKP KAIC NEP TPAIA NOCCEB ΓEPM ΔAK] Head r., laureate

CIF AVG CAESAR Apollo stg. l., leaning arm on tripod; to l., serpent

IMP TRA HADRIANO CAE Bust r., laureate, cuirassed and draped

Hadrian (117–138 CE) 3 coins

ΝΕΡΩΝ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΣ Head r., laureate

Nero (54–68 CE) 1 coin

Autonomous 1 coin

ROMAN PROVINCIAL

Within wreath: NEPWNOC

Head r.

Palm tree flanked by date: L-M (= year 40)

Under Nero, Festus (58–62 CE) 3 coins

KAICAPOC Ear of grain

Under Augustus, Ambibulus (8–11 CE) 1 coin

ROMAN GOVERNORS IN JUDEA

PLVRIVS AGRIPPA III VIR AAAFF Within wreath: SC

Augustus (27 BCE–14 CE) 1 coin CAESAR AVGVST PONT MAX TRIBVNIC POT Head of Augustus laureate, l.

Obverse

THE ROMAN PERIOD

BMC Syria: 184, No. 276.

Meshorer 1989: 70, No. 1.

Kadman 1957: 102, No. 29.

Kadman 1957: 98, No. 1.

Yashin 2007: 41, No. 51.

CHL: 271, No. 66.

CHL: 269, No. 6.

CRE 1: 42, No. 214.

S

S

B

S

S

P

S

S

Reference and Notes Area

10182

Basket

100000

163

1317

461

443

5178

6

917

2873

6026

4886

51777

Surface –

7027

Locus

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

Total by type

37867

17412

26752

22280

18975

35264

33434

28309

K. No.

[160]

23

21

19

425

426

427

19.50

422

21

20

421

424

31.40

420

22

34

419

423

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

10

6

6

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

2.95

2.49

4.86

4.20

4.04

5.48

5.28

22.23

22.71

Wt. (gm)

Bronze

Bronze

Silverplated

Silverplated

Silverplated

Bronze

Bronze

Same

Bronze

Material

Cyzicus

Antioch

Antoninianus

Antoninianus

Antioch

Cyzicus

Antioch

Caesarea

Neapolis (Schechem)

Same

Neapolis (Schechem)

Mint

Antoninianus

Denom.

317–320

158–161

159/160

Date (CE)

Same, but date illegible

ΦΛ ΝΕΑC ΠΟΛΕωC CΥΡΙΑC ΠΑΛAICTINHC View of Mt. Gerizim. In ex., date: [ET]-ΠH (= year 88)

CIF A FC CAES METROPOLIS Eagle supporting wreath: SPQR

CLEMENTIA TEMP Emperor receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter. Below: B. In ex.: XXI

CLEMENTIA TEMP Emperor receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter. Below E. In ex.: XXI

CONCORDIA MILITVM Emperor receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter. Below: KB

IOVI ET HERCVLI CONS CAES Jupiter and Hercules stg. Below: S. In ex.: XXI

IMP LICINIVS AVG Bust l., laureate, cuirassed, holding mappa and scepter on shoulder

IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG Jupiter stg., holding Victory on globe and scepter. To l., captive; to r.: H. In ex.: SMANT

Licinius I (308–324 CE) 3 coins

FL VAL CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped

Constantius I (305–306 CE) 2 coins

MAVR CARINVS NOB CAES Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped

Carinus (283–285 CE) 1 coin

IMP C MAVR PROBVS PF AVG Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped

Probus (276–282 CE) 26 coins

ROMAN IMPERIAL

IMP CAE SEV ALEXANDER Head r., laureate

Same

ΦΛ ΝΕΑC ΠΟΛΕωC CΥΡΙΑC ΠΑΛE Statue of Ephesian Artemis facing, flanked by two stags. Date illegible

Severus Alexander (222–235 CE) 1 coin

ΦΑΥCΤΕΙΝΑ CΕΒ ΕΥCΕ CΕΒΑ ΘΥΓΑ Bust r.

Faustina Junior (wife of Marcus Aurelius) 1 coins

Same

Reverse

Antoninus Pius (138–161 CE) 2 coins AYTOK KAICAP ANTωNINOC CEBAC EYCE Bust r., laureate, cuirassed and draped

Obverse

RIC 7: 680, No. 27.

RIC 6: 581, Nos. 18–19.

RIC 5/2: 309, No. 719.

RIC 5/2: 163, No. 202.

RIC 5/2: 120, No. 921.

Kadman 1957: 116, No. 97.

Cf CHL: 53, No. 47.

Same

CHL: 51, No. 20.

L

P

S

S

S

A

B

L

L

Reference and Notes Area

6

4402

840

840

835

104060

1410

13

13

Locus

19

45085

6722

6726

8220

363

3085

504/1

504/2

Basket

1

1

1

1

7

1

1

1

1

Total by type

18605

31057

22343

22347

18568

37740

26119

11510

11511

K. No.

[161]

19

18

19

434

435

436

21

431

19

18

430

433

20

429

18

17.60

428

432

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

6

6

6

6

6

12

Axis

2.67

2.98

3.73

3.08

2.26

3.40

3.48

3.34

3.13

Wt. (gm)

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Same

Bronze

Material Denom.

Rome

Arles

Ticinum

Siscia

Same

Rome

Heraclea

Nicomedia

Antioch

Mint

322

316/317

321/322

319/320

ca. 313–316

314

318–320

Same

317–320

Date (CE)

PROVIDEN TIAE CAESSS Jupiter holding Victory on globe. To l., branch; to r., star and: Γ. In ex.: SMN

IOVI CONSERVATORI CAESS Jupiter stg., holding Victory on globe and scepter. To l., captive; to r.: Γ. In ex.: SMANT

PROVIDEN TIAE CAESS Camp gate with three towers. In r. field: •. In ex.:SMHΓ

IMP CONSTANTINVS PF AVG Bust r., laureate, cuirassed and draped

DN CONSTANTINI MAX AVG Within wreath: VOT/XX. In ex.: PT

VICT LAETAE PRINC PERP Two Victories stg., facing each other, holding shield with the inscription: VOT/PR over altar. In ex.: • ESIS

CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C Head r., laureate

CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB CAES Bust r., laureate, cuirassed and draped

CAESARVM NOSTRORVM Within wreath: VOT X . In ex.: RT

CLARITAS REIPVB Sol adv. l., flanked by R-S. In ex.:[ARLA]

Constantine II (337–340 CE) 3 coins

CONSTANTINVS AVG Head r., laureate

IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG Bust r., helmeted and laureate, cuirassed

Same, but in ex.: RQ; letters in field illegible

SOLI INVICTO COMITI Sol stg., facing, raising hand and holding globe. To l.: R; to r.: F. In ex.: R*Q

Constantine I (307–337 CE) 8 coins

DN FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES Bust l., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Crispus (317–326 CE) 4 coins

DN VAL LICIN LICINIVS NOBC Bust r., laureate, cuirassed

Same

Reverse

Licinius II (317–324 CE) 3 coins DN VAL LICIN LICINIVS NOBC Bust l., laureate, cuirassed, holding mappa and scepter on shoulder

Obverse

L

RIC 7: 381, No. 163.

Caesar from 317 CE. RIC 7: 322, No. 247.

L

‒

L

RIC 7: 437, No. 100.

Cf. RIC 7: 243, No. 104.

B

L

Cf. RIC 7: 296, No. 1.

RIC 7: 298, No. 18.

L

L

RIC 7: 604, No. 33.

RIC 7: 546, No. 30.

S

RIC 7: 680, No. 26.

Reference and Notes Area

6

5

6

6

1410

6

6

6

9

Locus

14

–

20

12

3361

15

18

13

613/1

Basket

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

Total by type

20460

30824

20465

20458

25371

20461

20464

20459

11865

K. No.

[162]

Diam. (mm)

19

19

20

18.40

19

19

20

18

15

17

18

18

17

Cat. No.

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

12

12

6

12

12

6

12

12

6

12

12

11

6

Axis

2 15

2.60

3.05

3.17

1.76

2 27

2.41

3.68

2 95

2.77

2.92

3.47

2.96

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Material Denom.

Same

Antioch

Cyzicus

Heraclea

Same(?)

Same

Antioch

Nicomedia

Cyzicus

Thessalonica

Constantinople

Mint

Same

330–335

324/325

324–330

335–337

330–335

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

324–330

326–330

Date (CE)

Same

DN CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C Bust r., laureate, cuirassed and draped

Same

CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C Bust r., laureate, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Cf. LRBC 1: 28, No. 1179.

PROVIDENTIAE AVGG Camp gate with two towers and star above. In ex.: • SMK[

Same, but one standard. Mintmark illegible

GLORIA EXERCITVS Two soldiers stg. facing, between them, two standards. Mintmark illegible

Same, but in l. field: A; in r. field: E and O. In ex.: SMANT

Same, but no dot within door and in ex.: SMANTE

PROVIDENTIAE AVGG Camp gate with two towers and star above. Within door: •. In ex.: SMANTΓ

Same, but in ex.: SMNA

L

LRBC 1: 20, No. 829.

PROVIDENTIAE AVGG Same, but in ex.: SMTSE

Same, but mintmark illegible

GLORIA EXERCITVS Two soldiers stg. facing, between them, two standards. In ex.: SMANE

Same, but star above camp gate. In ex.: SMKB

PROVIDENTIAE CAESS Camp gate with two towers. In ex.: SMHE

P

LRBC 1: 30, No. 1357.

P

L

RIC 7: 647, No. 26.

Same

S

S

K

LRBC 1: 22, No. 871.

Cf. LRBC 1: 24, No. 1024.

Cf. LRBC 1: 30, No. 1356.

B

G

LRBC 1: 30, No. 1333. No reference.

T L

LRBC 1: 26, No. 1073. LRBC 1: 30, No. 1347.

B

B

Area

LRBC 1: 24, No. 989.

Reference and Notes

CONSTANTINIANA DAFNE Victory seated l. on throne, holding laurel branch and palm. At foot, captive and shield, in front, trophy. To l.: illegible. In ex.: CONS

Constantine II (337–340 CE) 7 coins

CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG Head r., laureate

CONSTANTINVS AVG Head r., laureate

CONSTANTINVS MAX PF AVG Head r., pearl and rossette diademed

Same

Reverse

Constantine I (307–337 CE) 17 coins

Obverse

THE LATE ROMAN Period

4800

4278

6

2390

2091

101

53

–

6

18

52

6

1410

Locus

48059

43169

16

23571

21121

1023

3047

30

11

487

3018

17

3430

Basket

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

2

3

3

1

Total by type

29979

28210

20462

30406

23216

13079

13006

17396

18628

11492

12991

20463

26684

K. No.

[163]

16

13

14.70

18

459

460

461

462

19

455

15.20

19

454

458

15

453

18

17

452

457

14

451

18

15.20

450

456

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

6

12

6

12

7

12

6

5

6

12

6

12

6

Axis

1.95

1 95

1.61

2 26

2.43

2.76

2 21

2.78

3.35

1 27

1.73

1.17

1.32

Wt. (gm)

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Material Denom.

Constantinople

Alexandria

Cyzicus

Thessalonica

Nicomedia

Same

Antioch

Nicomedia

Cyzicus

Mint

Same

Same

355–361

351–361

Same

330–335

Same

324–330

341–346

Same

335–337

337–339

Date (CE)

FL IVL CONSTANS NOB C Bust r., laureate and cuirassed

FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C Bust l., laureate, cuirassed and draped

Obliterated

Same

Same

330–335 CE 1 coin GLORIA EXERCITVS Two soldiers stg. facing, holding spears and shields. Between them, two standards. In ex.: CONSA

Same, but mintmark illegible

Same, but in ex.: ALEB

SPES REIPVBLICE Virtus stg. l., holding spear and globe. In ex.: SMKA[

FEL TEMP REPARATIO Virtus spearing fallen horseman. Mintmark illegible

DN CONSTANTIVS PF AVG Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped Same

Same, but mintmark illegible

GLORIA EXERCITVS Two soldiers stg. facing, between them, two standards. In ex.: SMTS

Same, but mintmark illegible

PROVIDENTIAE CAESS Camp gate with two towers and star above. In ex.: SMNΔ•

Same

Same, but bust r.

Same

Within wreath: VOT/XX/ MVLT/XXX Mintmark illegible

Same, but in ex.: SMAN[

Same, but in ex.: SMN[

GLORIA EXERCITVS Two soldiers stg., facing, holding spears and shields. Between them standard. In ex: SMK •

Constantius II (337–361 CE) 17 coins

DN CONSTANS PF AVG Head r., pearl-diademed

Same

Reverse

Constans I (337–350 CE) 4 coins DN CONSTANS PF AVG Bust r., laureate

Obverse

Cf. LRBC 1: 24, No. 1005.

Cf. LRBC 2:100, No. 2638.

Cf. LRBC 2:103, No. 2850.

Cf. LRBC 2: 97, No. 2504.

Cf. LRBC 2: 100, Nos. 2632–2633.

Cf. LRBC 1: 30, No. 1358.

LRBC 1: 20, No. 837.

Cf. LRBC 1: 22, No. 878.

LRBC 1: 22, No. 878.

Cf. LRBC 1: 31, No. 1399.

Cf. LRBC 1: 31, No. 1366.

Caesar from 333 CE. Cf. LRBC 1: 27, No. 1127.

LRBC 1: 29, No. 1290.

Reference and Notes

7

53

140

781

6

776

52

68

195

Locus

P

S

P

–

460/2

3040

2993

8787

10

8510

3021

701/1

4400

Basket

464/3

Surface 190

15

Surface 41027

Surface –

T

B

B

S

L

S

B

S

S

Area

1

3

7

2

2

1

1

1

1

Total by type

17136

11897

26083

30193

11463

13002

26205

24255

18627

27893

12994

15743

19427

K. No.

[164]

15.20

13

15

16.40

474

475

476

15.50

469

473

14

468

14

19

467

472

18

466

12.20

18

465

471

17

464

13

15

463

470

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

6

6

12

12

1

12

12

12

6

6

12

Axis

1.07

1.04

1.82

1.12

1.46

1.42

0.76

1 32

1 32

1 94

1.93

2 11

2.60

1.94

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Bronze

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Material Denom.

Alexandria

Rome

Same

Alexandria

Antioch

Rome

Cyzicus

Thessalonica

Mint

Same

Same

355–361

337–341

330–341

Same

Same

Same

Same

330–335

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Same, but fallen horseman embracing horse’s neck. Mintmark illegible

FEL TEMP REPARATIO Virtus spearing fallen horseman, raising hand. Mintmark illegible

Same, but mintmark illegible

[VICTORIAEDDAVG]GQNN Two Victories stg. facing each other, holding wreaths. In ex.: [...]P

Emperor on quadriga r Mintmark illegible

She-wolf nursing twins; two stars above. In ex.: SMALA

Same, but in ex.: SMALA

Same, but in ex.: SMANA

Victory stg. l., with oval shield on prow. In ex.:  R•P

Same, but in ex.: SMK[

She-wolf nursing twins; two stars above. In ex.: SMTS

SPES REIPVBLICE Virtus stg. facing, holding spear and globe. Mintmark illegible

Same, but mintmark illegible

FEL TEMP REPARATIO Virtus spearing fallen horseman. In l. field: M. In ex.: ALEX

Julian II (360–363 CE) 4 coins

351–361 CE 9 coins

DN IVLIANVS NOB CAES Bust r., bareheaded cuirassed and draped

Same

Obliterated

Same

[...] AVG Head r.

341–346 CE 2 coins

DVCONSTANTI NVS PTAVGG Veiled head r.

VRBS [ROMA] Bust l. of Rome, helmeted and draped

Same

Same

CONSTANTINOPOLIS Bust of Constantinople l., helmeted and draped

Same

Reverse

House of Constantine 11 coins VRBS [ROMA] Bust l. of Rome, helmeted and draped

Obverse

Cf. LRBC 2: 100, Nos. 2638–2639.

Same

LRBC 2: 103, No. 2849.

Cf. LRBC 2: 100, No. 2634.

Cf. LRBC 2: 100, Nos. 2632–2633.

Same

Cf. LRBC 1: 16, Nos. 635–649.

Cf. LRBC 1: 31, No. 1374.

Cf. LRBC 1: 32–33, No. 1440.

Cf. LRBC 1: 34, No. 1432.

T

S

K

P

S

S

K

S

B

B

B

B B

LRBC 1: 28, No. 1218. LRBC 1: 16, No. 607.

Cf. LRBC 1: 30, No. 1360.

B

Area

LRBC 1: 20, No. 838.

Reference and Notes

8211

1340a

606/3

3641

3043

3020

3017

3019

3072

Basket

1180

200011

246

Surface 18

113

Surface –

Surface 3586

835

125

4

1410

53

52

52

52

1410

Locus

1

2

1

1

8

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

3

1

Total by type

39051

12520

13175

33385

18027

22399

13244

11852

27272

13003

12993

12990

12992

26148

K. No.

[165]

Diam. (mm)

13

14.70

16

17

14.40

14

15

12

13

12.60

Cat. No.

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

12

6

11

8

12

6

12

12

6

12

Axis

1 50

0 94

1.10

0.66

1.33

2.81

1.98

1.91

1.38

1.05

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

Material Denom.

Antioch

Cyzicus

Antioch

Mint

Same

383–392

Same

378–383

378–383

364–375

364–375

Date (CE)

364–375 CE 17 coins

DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVG Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

[VIRTVS] RO[MANORVM] Rome seated facing on throne. Mintmark illegible

Same, but in l. field, cross. Mintmark illegible

SALVS REI[PVBLICAE] Victory adv. l , holding standard, dragging captive. In l. field, rho-cross. In ex.: AN[

Same, but mintmark illegible

Within wreath: VOT/X/MVLT/XX In ex.: SMKB

Valentinian II (375–392 CE) 8 coins

[DN GRATIA]NV[S PF AVG] Bust r.

Cf. LRBC 2: 100, Nos. 2653–2655.

LRBC 2: 100, No. 2658.

Cf. LRBC 2: 100, Nos. 2653–2655.

Cf. LRBC 2: 100, Nos. 2638–2639.

Reference and Notes

Cf. LRBC 2: 89, No. 2171.

LRBC 2: 102, No. 2768.

Cf. LRBC 2: 101, No. 2733.

Cf. LRBC 2: 98, No. 2556.

Cf. LRBC 2: 101, Nos. 2668–2669.

[SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE] Cf. LRBC 2: 100, Nos. Victory adv. l , with palm branch 2656–2657. and wreath. Mintmark illegible

GLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor adv. r., dragging captive and holding standard. Mintmark illegible

GLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor adv. r., dragging captive and holding standard. In ex.:ANTA

Gratian(?) (367–383 CE) 1 coin

[...] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

GLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor adv. r., dragging captive and holding standard. Mintmark illegible

Valens (364–378 CE) 1 coin DN VALENS PF AVG Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

SPES REIPVBLICE Virtus stg. facing, holding spear and globe. Mintmark illegible

Reverse

Valentinian I (364–378 CE) 1 coin

355–361 CE 9 coins

DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVG Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

[...] Bust r.

Obverse

P

S

S

S

S

S

K

S

S

S

Area

3037

2706

536/6

624/4

687/3

3595

Basket

5042

442

16

50383

4497

619/2

Surface 8834

408

390

13

15

39

423

Locus

3

1

3

1

1

13

4

1

1

9

Total by type

34642

17922

11881

27629

18418

19472

11568

11898

12172

18032

K. No.

[166]

13

13

18.30

13

13

12

497

498

499

500

13

492

496

13

491

495

13

490

13.50

13.03

489

494

13

488

14

19

487

493

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

6

6

6

12

10

12

6

12

6

6

6

6

12

Axis

0.77

1.09

1 26

1 97

1 10

1 27

1.37

0.58

1.13

0 97

1 25

1.03

0.92

2.06

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Material Denom.

Antioch

Antioch

Same

Constantinople

Alexandria

Antioch

Thessalonica(?)

Antioch

Same(?)

Constantinople

Mint

395–408

Same

383–395

395–401

383–395

Same

Same

383

383

383–392

Same

Same

383–395

375–378

Date (CE)

DN ARCADIVS PF AVG Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

VICTORIA AVG Two Victories stg. facing one another, holding wreaths. Mintmark illegible

Same, but mintmark illegible

Same, but in ex.: ANTA

SALVS REIPVBLICAE Victory seated r., writing on shield on column. In ex.: ANE

B

Same LRBC 2: 102, No. 2927. CONCORDIA AVGG Cross; in ex.: ANTA

LRBC 2: 102, No. 2771.

G

P

S

J

A

S

B

A

S

S

S

S

LRBC 2: 89, No. 1285.

Grierson and Mays 1992: Pl. 9:218 (Arcadius).

Locus

30001

Basket

5090

11038

1283

2304

1230

567

1303

1

4232

28

42605

Surface 3452

568

1268

553

264

Surface 2903

Surface 7751

446

1003

265

Surface 22157

Surface –

Area

Same

LRBC 2: 104, No. 2883.

LRBC 2: 101, No. 2736.

LRBC 2: 101, No. 2717.

Cf. LRBC 2: 82, No. 1868.

Same

Cf. LRBC 2: 102, Nos. 2669–2670.

Cf. LRBC 2: 89, No. 2184.

RIC 9: 227, No. 57.

Reference and Notes

Same, but mintmark illegible

Same, but in ex.: ANT

VIRTVS EXERCITI Victory crowning emperor with wreath. In ex.: CON

SALVS REIPVBLICAE Victory advancing l., dragging captive. In l. field, rho-cross. In ex.: CONS

Same, but mintmark illegible

Within wreath: VOT/X/MVLT/XX In ex.: ALEB

Within wreath: VOT/V Mintmark illegible

Arcadius (383–408 CE) 13 coins

[AEL FLACC]ILLA AVG Bust r., with headdress, mantled

Same

Same

Same

SALVS REIPVBLICAE Victory adv. l , dragging captive. In ex.: CON

CONCORDIA AVGGG Constantinople seated on throne facing, head r., holding spear and a globe, foot on prow. In l. field: O. In ex.: CONSA

Flacilla (wife of Theodosius I) 1 coin

DN THEODOSIVS PF AVG Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

Reverse

Theodosius I (379–395 CE) 11 coins

Obverse

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

5

1

1

1

Total by type

17395

25252

18021

33463

27912

32553

17682

26178

25660

22238

25714

17675

23473

31551

K. No.

[167]

11

17

11

510

511

512

12.80

506

13

14

505

509

12

504

11

10

503

508

13

502

12

11

501

507

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

6

6

12

12

6

12

6

5

Axis

0.82

2.44

0.89

0.85

1.00

0.82

1.26

0.89

0.80

0.96

1.34

1.07

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Material Denom.

Rome(?)

Constantinople

Constantinople

Thessalonica

Alexandria

Antioch

Mint

410–423

Same

395–408

393–395

Date (CE)

378–383 CE 17 coins

383–392 CE 1 coin

Same

Same

Same

Same, but mintmark illegible

[SALVS REIPVBLICAE] Victory adv. l , dragging captive and holding trophy. In ex.: CONSA

[VIC]TOR[IA AVG] Victory adv. l , holding wreath and palm branch; in l. field: E

VIRTVS EXERCITI Victory crowning emperor with wreath. Mintmark illegible

CONCORDIA AVGGG Cross; in ex.: CONS

[SALVS REIPVBLICAE] Victory adv. l , dragging captive and holding trophy. Mintmark illegible

RIC 10: 378, No. 2133.

Cf. LRBC 2: 98, Nos. 2580–2582.

LRBC 2: 90, No. 2209.

Cf. LRBC 2: 89, Nos. 2192–2194.

Cf. LRBC 2: 102, Nos. 2768–2771.

Cf. LRBC 2: 89, Nos. 2192–2194.

Cf. LRBC 2: 82, Nos. 1870–1872.

Cf. LRBC 2: 101, No. 2677.

VICTORIA [AVG] Two Victories stg. facing one another, holding wreaths. Between them: :. In ex.: TESA

Same

[CONCORDIA AVGGG] Constantinopolis seated facing on throne. Mintmark illegible

Cf. LRBC 2: 104, Nos. 2880–2883.

Cf. LRBC 2: 101, Nos. 2732–2735.

Cf. LRBC 2: 90, No. 2213.

Reference and Notes

Same, but mintmark illegible

Same, but in ex.: ALEA

Within wreath: VOT/X/MVLT/XX In ex.: AN[TA]

[SALVS REIPVBLICAE] Victory seated r., writing on shield. Mintmark illegible

Honorius (393–423 CE) 5 coins DN HONORIVS PF AVG Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

[...] Bust r. pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

383–395 CE 61 coins

[...] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Same

[...] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Bust r.

Reverse

Eudoxia (wife of Arcadius) 1 coin

Obverse

S

K

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

K

S

S

Area

Basket

3322

409

104

27

2205

488

488

25

195

126

4202

1022

650B

22241

7272

3756

651/2

5743

1345

Surface 2902

420

Surface 22732

Locus

1

2

1

1

58

3

1

2

13

1

1

1

Total by type

18542

13078

20977

23621

20551

18200

12010

21384

13247

18751

19293

23494

K. No.

[168]

Diam. (mm)

3.20

1.20

10

19

15

14

14

14

9.70

10

10

12

12

9.40

8

14

Cat. No.

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

6

12

6

6

11

12

6

6

12

6

6

12

Axis

1.05

0.59

0.66

1.45

0.92

0.85

0.63

0.56

1.25

1.81

0.72

1.26

2.29

0.69

0.65

0.65

Wt. (gm)

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Material

Nummus

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Nummus

Denom.

Rome(?)

Constantinople

Cyzicus

Same

Alexandria

Antioch

Cyzicus

Cyzicus

Constantinople(?)

Mint

Same

445–450

Same

Same

425–450

402–408

Date (CE)

395–408 CE 27 coins

410–423 CE 4 coins

Same, but mintmark illegible

within wreath. In ex.: CON

Same, but mintmark illegible

Same, but in ex.: SMK[

Cross within wreath. In ex.: ALEA

CONCORDIA AVGGG Cross, in ex.: ALEA

[DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVG] [...] Bust r., pearl-diademed, Camp gate cuirassed and draped

Valentinian III (425–455 CE) 1 coin

Obliterated

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same, but globe between the two emperors. Mintmark illegible

GLORIA ROMANORVM Two emperors stg. facing. Mintmark illegible

Same, but mintmark illegible

[GLORIA ROMANORVM] Three emperors stg. facing. The one in the center is shorter. In ex.: ANTI

Same, but mintmark illegible

VIRTVS EXERC[ITI] Victory crowning emperor with wreath. In ex.: SMKB

Same, but mintmark illegible

Same, but in ex.: SMK[

CONCORDIA AVGG Cross. In ex.: CON

Reverse

Theodosius II (402–450 CE) 8 coins DN THEODOSIVS PF AVG Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

[...] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obliterated

[...]VS PF AVG Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Obliterated

Obverse

S S S

Cf. LRBC 2: 99, Nos. 2604–2605. Cf. LRBC 2: 103, No. 2810. RIC 10: 277, Nos. 462–465.

Identification uncertain. Cf. LRBC 2: 63, No. 866.

S

S

S

RIC 10: 275, No. 455.

Same

S

LRBC 2: 105, No. 2928.

S

Cf. LRBC 2: 99, No. 2600.

S

Cf. LRBC 2: 102, Nos. 2768–2771.

P

P

Cf. LRBC 2: 90, No. 2223.

S

Cf. LRBC 2: 102, Nos. 2801–2804.

K

Cf. LRBC 2: 98, Nos. 2580–2582. Same

S

S

Cf. LRBC 2: 99, Nos. 2594–2597. Same

T

Area

Cf. LRBC 2: 90, No. 2221.

Reference and Notes

192

2001

195

252

195

1041

7013

264

4106

405

4274

405

107

161A

21

7

Locus

4592

20026

5531

1160

4599

11416

11191

1307

41063

3511

43145

3044

1093

744

636/14

490/1

Basket

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

2

12

3

2

1

7

1

1

Total by type

18489

31413

21712

17612

18496

30375

26946

17685

27204

18143

28209

18424

13119

15065

11954

11495

K. No.

[169]

10

10

9.50

9

9.25

541

542

543

544

545

10

536

11

10

535

540

11

534

10

8

533

539

10

532

9.60

11

531

538

13

530

10

10

529

537

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

10

10

6

6

6

6

7

1

6

12

12

6

6

Axis

0.67

0.62

0.77

0.84

0 56

1 19

0.88

1.14

0.70

1.28

1.22

1.10

0.82

1.23

1.41

0.92

0.84

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Bronze

Material

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Cyzicus

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mintmark illegible

Same, but mintmark illegible

In ex.: CVZ

In ex.: CON

[DN LEO PF AVG] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped. to l., star(?) Same

Same, but lion l.

Lion crouching r , within wreath. In ex.: CON

Emperor stg. facing with captive. In ex.: CN

b/E Empress Verina stg. facing, holding scepter transversally

Same

Same

but small cross above Unclear monogram

Leo I (457–474 CE) 31 coins

DN LEO [PF AVG] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Obliterated

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same, but mintmark illegible

Same, but in ex.: SMKB

Cross within wreath. In ex.: CON

Reverse

Marcian (450–457 CE) 22 coins DN MARCIA[NVS PP AVG] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Nummus

Same

425–455 CE 23 coins [...] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Obverse

Same

Constantinople

Nicomedia

Nicomedia

Constantinople

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Nummus

Constantinople

Nummus

Cyzicus

Mint

Denom.

S S

Same

S

S

J

S

S

S

S

S

LRBC 2: 91, No. 2270.

LRBC 2: 99, No. 2612.

LRBC 2: 91, No. 2262.

Cf. LRBC 2: 91, No. 2260.

LRBC 2: 91, No. 2260.

Cf. LRBC 2: 91, No. 2268.

Cf. LRBC 2: 91, Nos. 2272–2275.

Cf. LRBC 2: 90, Nos. 2247–2250.

Cf. LRBC 2: 96, No. 2469.

S

S

LRBC 2: 90, No. 2249. Cf. LRBC 2: 96, No. 2465.

S

S

S

B

S

Area

LRBC 2: 96, No. 2464.

Cf. LRBC 2: 91, Nos. 2262–2264.

Cf. LRBC 2: 103, No. 2810.

Cf. LRBC 2: 99, Nos. 2605–2606.

Cf. LRBC 2: 90, No. 2234.

Reference and Notes

406

193

403

195

546

621

443

25

164

405

427

7123

193

488

195

1410

4

Locus

3169

4721

3548

5745

2174

7137

4771

699/1

574

3092

4318

12433

4758

7274

5726

3323

665/2

Basket

1

2

1

2

4

1

8

9

14

1

3

1

2

1

21

1

1

Total by type

19548

18685

19604

21386

29992

23513

18713

12221

15058

19116

18445

32440

18699

20553

21376

25326

12072

K. No.

[170]

Diam. (mm)

9

8.80

7.20

8

10

12

11

11

10

10

8.50

9

9.05

9.90

10

11

8

Cat. No.

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561

562

6

6

2

12

12

3

2

12

6

12

6

Axis

0.86

0 36

0.72

0.76

1 13

0.88

1.44

0.64

1.02

1.01

0.54

0.29

0.48

0.91

0.72

0.87

0.59

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Same

Same

Bronze

Bronze

Material

Constantinople

Nummus

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Minima

Nummus

Same

Alexandria(?)

Same

Same

Constantinople

Nummus

Same

Mint

Denom.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

First half 5th c.

450–491 CE 2 coins

[...] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Blundered inscription. Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Unclear monogram

Within wreath: VOT/X/MVLT/XX In ex.: ALE

Same, but details unclear

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

[...] Victory adv. l , holding palm branch and wreath

[SALVS REIPVBLICAE] Victory dragging captive to l.

[FEL TEMP REPARATIO] Virtus spearing fallen horseman

Anonymous imitative issues 55 coins

[...] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and drape

Same

Unclear monogram

Zeno (474–491 CE) 13 coins [DN ZENO PF AVG] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped Same

Reverse

Basiliscus (475–476 CE) 1 coin Obliterated

Obverse

ca. Obliterated second half 4th c.

Same

Same

476–491

Date (CE)

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 100–113.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 109, No. 9.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 109, No. 8.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 109, No. 6.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 109, No. 8.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 108, No. 1.

Same

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 109, No. 4.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 108, No. 1.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 109, No. 6.

Unpublished

S

LRBC 2: 91, No. 2281.

192

374

7

5

98

195

26

374

Locus

S

P

P

S

S

S

S

S

837

4272

F4140

195

195

195

404

194

Surface –

S

S

T

S

S

S

S

Area

LRBC 2: 91, No. 2279.

LRBC 2: 91, No. 2283.

Reference and Notes

8247

43139

41276

5651

5602

6699

3257

3850

–

4582

3031

460/3

686/2

37

6632

662/1

3102

Basket

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

8

3

1

Total by type

18611

31512

27036

21762

21739

21665

18929

18311

16991

18479

18412

11464

12166

12557

21646

12061

19127

K. No.

[171]

11

8.40

10

578

579

580

9

572

10

8.90

571

577

10.25

570

8.60

10

569

11

10

568

576

10

567

575

10

566

10

11

565

574

9.40

564

8.75

8

563

573

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

6

12

12

12

Axis

0.46

0.49

0.36

0.46

0.53

0.78

0.73

0 53

0 20

0 53

0 32

0.65

0.45

0.81

0 54

0.70

0.59

0.32

Wt. (gm)

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Nummus

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

Carthage

Mint

ca. 455–484

Same

Same

End of 5th c.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date (CE)

Same, but details unclear

Monogram of Marcian with S below(?)

Lion stg. r.

Camp gate

Same, but details unclear

Cross within stylized wreath

Same

Same

Cross within wreath

Cross within circle of pearls

Cross, blundered inscription

[CONCORDIA AVGG] Cross

GLORIA ROMANORVM Two emperors stg. facing, globe between them

Eight-pointed star

Bijovsky 2012: 141–142.

Cast. Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 118.

Cast. Unpublished.

Bijovsky 2012: 118, Fig. 17 right.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 115, Nos. 2–3.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 115, No. 2.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 115, No. 7.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 115, No. 6.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 115, No. 5.

Same

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 115, No. 3.

Cf. LRBC 2: 99, No. 2600.

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 112–113.

Vota type inscription within double circle Same, but details unclear

Cf. Bijovsky 2012: 112, No. 7.

Same

Reference and Notes

Blundered legend: VOT/X/MVLT

]XI[...] within circle

Reverse

VANDALS Anonymous Proto-Vandalic 1 coin Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

Obliterated

Blundered inscription. Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

[...] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

[...]AVG Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

[...] Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Obliterated

Bust r., pearl-diademed, cuirassed and draped

Obverse

A

S

P

P

S

A

P

S

S

S

S

P

P

A

S

P

S

S

Area

4127

687/2

4358

43070

41668

292

3230

43121

3771

3662

Basket

69

466

4164

4493

408

F746

4275

163

6068

41664

46430

3238

483

43097

Surface 3364

423

39

428

4210

4164

72

408

4274

429

420

Locus

1

4

1

1

2

5

1

1

4

2

1

7

1

1

3

1

1

3

Total by type

15114

22289

25920

32705

18852

31852

28217

19178

19134

12171

19387

28226

25921

15043

18717

28218

22702

18075

K. No.

[172]

Diam. (mm)

11

11

Cat. No.

581

582

Axis

0.32

0.25

Wt. (gm)

Bronze or lead

Bronze

Material Mint

Egypt

Denom.

Minima

ca. 450–550

mid 5th–mid 6th c.

Date (CE) Reverse

Blank

Cast Blank Flans 98 coins

Traces of letters. Bust within circle

Blank

Maltese cross within circle

LATE ROMAN–BYZANTINE Anonymous Aksumite imitations 10 coins

Obverse

Bijovsky 2000–2002: 119–129.

Bijovsky 2012: 148–153.

Reference and Notes

P

S

Area

Basket

4038

40274

Surface 240

Locus

98

10

Total by type

23688

30743

K. No.

[173]

30

25.50

30.70

24

30

34

24

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

23.30

590

30

32

589

594

26

588

30

23.30

587

593

34

586

7.50

32

585

11.10

23

584

592

25.30

583

591

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

6

7

6

2

12

6

6

6

6

12

6

6

1

6

6

6

6

Axis

8.63

16.86

14.97

6.23

16.29

15.04

16.90

16.80

14.40

0.47

0.89

7.51

16.60

9.43

7.32

16.60

17.20

6.74

8.87

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Copper

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Copper

Material

Same(?)

Half follis

Nicomedia

Follis Same

Constantinople

Half follis

Same

Same(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Constantinople

Follis

Same

Antioch

Same

Same

Same

Nummus

Same

Half follis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

522–527

518–522

518–522

Same

522–527

518–522

512–518

Same

512–517

517/518

Same

512–517

Constantinople

Follis

498–507

498–512

Constantinople

Small follis

Date (CE)

Same

Mint

Denom.

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

DN IVSTINVS PP AVG Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped

Justin I (518–527 CE) 25 coins

Same

Obliterated

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

DN ANASTA SIVS PP AVG Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped

S

MIBE: 87, No. 30.

S

S

MIBE: 96, No. 13.

MIBE: 128, No. 91.

S

S

MIBE: 100, No. 38. Same, but flanked by crosses K to l., long cross; above and below stars; to r.: illegible

S

S MIBE: 99, No. 35.

Cf. DOC 1: 42–43, No. 15. M above cross; flanked by stars. In ex.: NIKM

K to l., long cross, other details illegible

M above cross; below: Є. In ex.: CON

Same, but flanked by crosses

S

S

MIBE: 96, No. 12.

Barbaric style. Imitation(?) MIBE: 107, Nos. X9–X13.

T

DOC 1: 41, No. 12. M above cross; flanked by cross and star. In ex.: CON Same, but below: E

S

S

MIBE: 96, No. 11.

S MIBE: 93, No. 64.

S MIBE: 90, No. 40.

Cf. MIBE: 88, No. 33.

S

S

MIBE: 87, No. 28.

Imitation(?). Cf. MIBE: 87, No. 27.

S

S

S

MIBE: 87, No. 27.

MIBE: 86, No. 22.

Reference and Notes Area

M above cross; flanked by stars; below: E. In ex.: CON

K to l., long cross, details illegible

Same, but details illegible

Same, flanked by stars; below: A. In ex.: CON

M above cross; to l., sixthpointed star; to r., crescent with dots above and below

Same, but dots above and below stars

M above cross; flanked by eight-pointed stars; below: Є. In ex.: CON

Same, but details illegible

M above cross. In ex.: CON

Anastasius I (491–518 CE) 60 coins

Obverse

THE BYZANTINE PERIOD

20048

4449

4999

Basket

604

2001

2001

621

195

192

195

1

178

4

195

446

829

1024

195

399

20031

20032

7127

4397

4150

4906

1007

920

603/2

6928

5262

8156

11282

5374

Surface 2244

2005

195

195

Locus

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

9

1

46

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

Total by type

30478

31415

31416

23510

19424

19311

18994

16149

17414

11844

21562

23709

18089

30042

22248

18000

31410

18464

19057

K. No.

[174]

Diam. (mm)

34

31

30

29.50

33×30

33×28

30

23.10

19.40

16

10.55

32

15

14

30

30

8

Cat. No.

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

12

6

12

3

6

6

6

6

11

6

12

6

6

6

6

6

6

Axis

0.44

15.40

11.24

2.39

2.76

14.49

0.86

1.70

4.21

8.53

19.82

16.33

17.90

16.74

15.30

14.80

15.42

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Copper

Same

Same

Material

Cyzicus

Antioch Carthage

Half follis

Follis Nummus

Same

Decanummium

Same

Nicomedia

Follis

Same

Thessalonica

2 Nummia

Same

Decanummium Same

Same

Half follis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Follis Constantinople

Antioch

Follis

Same

Mint

Denom.

534–539

533–537

538/539

ca. 560–565

550/551

538–565

Same

Same

527–538

537/538

532–538

Same

527–538

Same

Date (CE)

M to l., star; above cross

M above cross; flanked by star and crescent. In ex.: ANTIX

Reverse

Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped

DN IVSTINI ANVS PP AVG Bust r., diademed

DN IVSTINI ANVS PP AVG Bust facing, wearing crown with pendilia, cuirassed, holding globe with cross. In r. field, cross

Same

Same

[DN IVS]TINI ANVS PP AVG Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped. On chest round countermark:

[...] Bust r.; to r , cross

Same

Same

Same

Same

DN IVSTINI AN S PP [AV]G Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

DN IVSTINI ANVS PP AVG Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped

M flanked by stars. In ex.: +THEUP+

K to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.: XII; below: Ž

Same, but to r.: [...]II. In ex.: NIK

I to l.: [ANNO]; to r.: XXIIII. In ex.: NIK

M above cross; flanked by crosses; below: B(?). In ex.: NIKM

B

I to l.: ANNO; above cross. Date illegible

I above cross; flanked by stars

K to l., cross; to r.: A. In ex.: CON

M to l., star; above cross; to r., crescent; below: E. In ex.: CON

M to l., star; above cross; to r., cross on globe; below: . In ex.: CON

M to l., star; to r., cross; below: Δ. In ex.: CON

M to l., cross; above cross; to r., illegible; below: B. In ex.: CON

M above cross; flanked by stars. In ex.: CON

Justinian I (527–565 CE) 50 coins

Same

DN IVSTI NVϩ PP AVG Bust r.

Obverse

Bijovsky 2012: 235, Table 33 (this coin).

DOC 1: 138, No. 210.

DOC 1: 130, No. 182.

Cf. MIBE 1: 138, No. 118.

Cf. DOC 1: 117, No. 129 (but follis); 122, No. 155 (for type).

Unpublished countermark. MIBE: 134, No. 105.

S

S

P

P

S

S

S

A

Cf. MIBE: 133, No. 99. Cf. DOC 1: 108, No. 102.

S

S

S

S

S

S

B

S

B

Cf. MIBE: 128, No. 92.

MIBE: 128, No. 90.

MIBE: 127, No. 88.

Cf. MIBE: 127, No. 87.

MIBE: 126, No. 84.

Cf. MIBE: 127, No. 87.

MIBE: 126, No. 83.

Type uncertain. Polygonal flan.

MIBE: 130, No. 60.

Reference and Notes Area

486

1260

609

6095

3165

1

1577

Basket

5594

408

146

4602

4256

195

1001

423

4210

905

91

42777

4918

11024

3276

Surface 123

195

Surface 3490B

5018

267

3

607

1410

87

1304

Locus

13

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

4

4

1

5

1

Total by type

18530

17407

32976

27095

19006

25616

19384

15020

22004

19592

29978

17689

11858

23318

26112

12615

24226

K. No.

[175]

18.70

20

22.80

28.50

30

29

21.50

633

634

635

636

637

638

30

627

632

31

626

21

28

625

631

28

624

20

16.10

623

630

6.60

622

30.30

7.70

621

629

7.70

620

26

8

619

628

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

6

6

6

12

12

6

6

6

12

12

12

6

6

6

6

6

2

9

Axis

6.36

12.31

11.82

12.41

5.23

5.38

4.93

5.06

5.54

11 36

5.92

13.78

13.07

9.31

14.68

2.82

0.73

0.50

0.69

0.93

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Copper

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Constantinople

Follis

Thessalonica

Half follis

Same

Same

Same

Follis

Same

Nicomedia

Follis

Same

Cyzicus

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Follis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Half follis

Same

Same

Same

Alexandria

Dodecanummium

Same

Eastern mint(?)

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

574/575

570/571

568/569

572/573

577/578

574/575

568/569

Same

570/571

569/570

567/568

565/566

538–542

Same

552–565

539–541

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

DN IVSTINVS PP AVG Justin II and Sophia seated facing on double throne

Justin II (565–578 CE) 22 coins

DN IVSTINI ANVS PP AVG Bust r.

Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped

Same

Bust facing, crowned and draped, flanked by small crosses

Same

Obverse

DOC 1: 223–224, No. 78.

DOC 1: 221, No. 64.

K to l.:ANNO; above cross; in ex.: NI; date illegible

M to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.: X; below: A. In ex.: NIKO

M to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.: . In ex.: [NIKO]

M to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.: II/II; below: B. In ex.: NIKO

K to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.:   II. In ex.: KYZ

K details obscure

B B

DOC 1: 228, No. 96. DOC 1: 212, No. 38.

S

S

P

S

J

P

S

S

S

DOC 1: 227, No. 94.

DOC 1: 238, No. 131.

K to l.: ANNO; above, DOC 1: 225, No. 85. Φ+C; to r.: XIII; below: TES

K above: Θ+C with cross; to r.: X. In ex.: TES

K to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.: Δ. In ex.: TES

M to l.: ANNO; above cross; below: E; date illegible. In ex: CO[N]

K to l.: ANNO; above cross; below: B; to r.:

DOC 1: 215, No. 49.

B S

DOC 1: 206, No. 26. DOC 1: 208, No. 29d.

Same, but to r.: Ч; below: A M to l.: ANNO; above chi-rho; to r.: ; below: Δ. In ex.: CON

P

Cf. DOC 1: 205, No. 24.

B

E

S

S

S

S

Same, but r.: III(?); below: A

DOC 1: 204, No. 22.

MIBE: 152, No. 165.

I+B (cross above) In ex.: AΛΕΞ

M to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.: I; below: E. In ex.: CON

Bijovsky 2012: 229, Table 32 (this coin).

Bijovsky 2012: 242–243, Table 41 (this coin).

Bijovsky 2012: 246, Table 43 (this coin).

DOC 1: 167–168, Nos. 302–303.

Reference and Notes Area

N

flanked by 3 stars

VOT/X[...]

Reverse

3555

9160

6952

5992

20381

5416

Basket

2535

106

2264

41836

932

4383

22473

6098

190

1380

1410

612

4384

2682

3457

7027B

Surface 48110

146

566

4190

164

190

2213

464

1380

Surface 4025

1429

911

195

459

2053

195

Locus

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

5

3

1

2

2

Total by type

19411

27093

27998

23389

33443

12972

33453

27875

17413

19410

23464

22303

25834

23413

25721

12142

21583

22265

23145

21682

K. No.

[176]

Diam. (mm)

25

32.20

28

26.40

21

19

34

14

12.80

21

21

21

Cat. No.

639

640

641

642

643

644

645

646

647

648

649

650

7

6

6

6

12

6

6

6

6

6

7

Axis

4.08

4.31

4.41

2.41

1.77

15.81

2.09

4.47

10.59

11.60

13.12

7.12

Wt. (gm)

Gold 22 carats

Gold 23 carats

Gold

Same

Same

Copper

Same

Gold

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Alexandria

Dodecanummium

Same

Light weight Solidus Same

Same

Constantinople

Same

Follis

Solidus

Same

Semissis

Same

Constantinople

Solidus

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Follis Same

Antioch

Mint

Same

Denom.

Same

Same

583–601

579

579–582

576/577

574/575

572/573

569/570

Date (CE)

M to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.: XII; below: A(?); In ex.: THEUP'

M to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.: X; below: Γ. In ex.: THEUP'

M to l.:ANNO; to r.: II; below: Γ. In ex.: THEUP'

Overtype: [I]+B, cross on three steps. Undertype, traces of obv. legend

I+B In ex.: AΛΕΞ

cross; to r.: Ч. In ex.: CONA

m to l.: ANNO; above

ЧICTOR TIbERIAЧS Cross on globe. In ex.: CONOB

VICTORIA AVCCA Cross on steps. In ex.: CONOB

Same, but no star

Same, but to r., star

dNmAVRC TIbPPAVC Bust facing, wearing helmet with plume and pendilia; holding globe with cross

VICTORIA AVGG EI(?) Angel facing, holding globe and long staff.; to r., star. In ex.: OB[+  ]

VICTORIA AVGGA Same, but to r , star

VICTORIA AVCCΘ Angel facing, holding globe and long staff. In ex.: CONOB

Maurice Tiberius (582–602 CE) 20 coins

Overtype: Bust r.(?) Undertype: S

[...] Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped

dm TIb CONSTANT PP AVI Bust facing in consular robe, holding scepter with eagle and mappa

dm COSTANTINVS PP AVG Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped

dm TIb CONSTANT PP AVG Bust r., crowned, in consular dress

S

DOC 1: 245, No. 159.

P

P P

DOC 1: 298, No. 7a. DOC 1: 299, No. 8.

E

P

B

S

DOC 1: 297, No. 5i.

Overstruck dodecanummium possibly of of Tiberius II or Heraclius. Bijovsky 2012: 389, Fig. 149 right (this coin).

DOC 1: 286, No. 55.

DOC 1: 270, No. 11.

DOC 1: 268, No. 5.

P

S

DOC 1: 245, No. 157.

DOC 1: 267, No. 4a.2.

S

DOC 1: 244, No. 154.

4201

4201

4201

924

4205

1410

604

4201

35

2032

–

1410

DOC 1: 244, No. 164.

K to l.: ANNO; to r.: Ч B

Locus

Reference and Notes Area

Reverse

Tiberius II (578–582 CE) 5 coins

Same

Same

Same

Blundered inscription. Justin and Sophia seated on double throne, between them, long cross on globe

Obverse

42114

42115

42113

9514

43059

3440

6018

42116

683

20298

459

3384

Basket

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Total by type

23700

23703

23702

22955

28208

26757

21111

23701

12157

31498

11461

25318

K. No.

[177]

Diam. (mm)

28.80

30

27.40

23

25×22

22

21

23

16

29

25

25

30

28

Cat. No.

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

6

6

2

12

12

12

6

7

2

6

6

6

12

6

Axis

10.93

11 90

4.72

10.82

11 30

2.66

4.94

5.48

6.52

6.33

4.76

11.80

9.98

9.56

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Copper

Material

Same

Antioch

Follis

Same

Same

Half follis

Cyzicus

Follis

Same

Constantinople

Decanummium

Same

Same

Same

Same(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Half follis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Follis

Same

Mint

Denom.

600/601

589/590

Same

588/589

585/586

Same

Same

591/592

588/589

587/588

596/597

594/595

587/588

Date (CE) Reverse

Same, but to r.: XIII; below: A

K to l.: ANNO; to r.: XIII

K in l.: ANNO; above cross; below: E; to r.: XЧ

K to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.: X. In ex.: B

Same

Blundered legend. Consular bust facing, holding mappa and scepter with eagle

Same

]VRI TIbR PP Bust facing, wearing crown with cross and pendilia; holding globe with cross and shield on shoulder with emperor on horse

DNmAVRIC TIbER PPA Bust facing, wearing crown with cross and pendilia cuirassed and draped, holding globe with cross and shield on shoulder

Same, but to r.: XI/ЧIII; below: A

M to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.: IIIЧ. In ex.: THEUP'

K to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.:

Same, but to r.: ; below: B

M to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.: II/II; below: A. In ex.: KYZ

[DNTIbER PPAV] to l.: star; to r.: B. Bust facing, wearing helmet In ex.: CON with plume, cuirassed and holding shield

Same

Same

D  m[...] Bust facing, holding cross on globe

dN[...]TIb[...] K to l.: ANNO; to r.: I; Bust facing, wearing helmet below: E. In ex.: CON with plume, cuirassed and holding shield

DNmAVR[IC TIbERPP K to l.: ANNO; above cross; AV] to r.: . In ex.: CON Bust facing, wearing helmet with plume, cuirassed and holding shield

DN MAVRC TIB[ER Same, but to r.: XЧ; below: IPPAV] E Bust facing, wearing helmet with plume, cuirassed and holding shield

Same

DNmAVR[IC TIbERPP M to l.: ANNO; above AV] cross; to r.: ; below: Γ. In Bust facing, wearing helmet ex.: CON with plume, cuirassed and shield

Obverse

S

B

DOC 1: 344, No. 171.

B

P

S

S

P

S

B

DOC 1: 340, No. 159.

DOC 1: 334, No. 139.

Crude style. DOC 1: 331, No. 123.

DOC 1: 331, No. 121.

Bijovsky 2012: 283, Fig. 104 (this coin); DOC 1: 316, No. 64.

Cf. DOC 1: 314, No. 57.

Cf. DOC 1: 315, No. 59.

Imitative issue(?) Cf. DOC 1: 314, No. 55.

S

DOC 1: 312, No. 52.

P

DOC 1: 308, No. 38c.

S

S

DOC 1: 308, No. 35.

DOC 1: 312, No. 51.

S

DOC 1: 305, No. 29.

Reference and Notes Area

22183

41785

12313

3406

655

7380

579/13

7266

681/2

Basket

1410

1018

1410

4203

3151

11235

3420

42001

Surface 2949

2186

4181

7108

1410

22

644

–

491

39

Locus

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Total by type

26118

31553

26733

24248

18340

23603

24397

31282

25355

12040

23554

11716

20547

12155

K. No.

[178]

10

10

8

673

674

8.80

669

672

8.80

668

6.60

20

667

671

21

666

11

21

665

670

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

6

6

3

6

12

6

Axis

0.39

0.85

1.07

0.51

0.80

0.81

0.52

5.27

5.20

5.60

Wt. (gm)

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Material

Carthage

Ravenna

Ravenna

Ravenna

Nummus

Pentanummium

Nummus

Nummus

Carthage

Nummus

Carthage

Carthage

Nummus

Nummus

Same

Same

Half follis Same

Same

Mint

Same

Denom.

534–565

601/602

593/594

602

Date (CE)

Same, but to r.: XX

K to l.: ANNO; above cross; to r.: XII; below: R

Same, but to r.: X/XI

Reverse

Stylized figure of Victory adv. l., holding wreath

Palm tree

Within wreath: V

Bust r.

Within wreath: DNREX/B

King Baduila (541–552 CE) 1 coin

Bust r.

King Athalaric (526–534 CE) 1 coin

Bust r.

OSTROGOTHS King Theodoric (493–526 CE) 1 coin

Obliterated

VANDALIC ANONYMOUS 7 coins

Obliterated

within wreath

Cross potent within wreath

King Gelimer (530–534 CE) 2 coins

[...] Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped

King Hilderic (523–530 CE) 1 coin

DN T[RASA...] Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped

King Thrasamund (496–523 CE) 3 coins

VANDALIC ROYAL

dNmAU[...]C[...]AC Bust facing, wearing crown with plumes, holding scepter with eagle and mappa

Same

NMAVR RIO PPAV Bust facing, wearing crown with cross and pendilia, holding scepter with eagle and mappa

Obverse

BMCV: 90, No. 36.

Bijovsky 2012: 324, Table 62 (this coin); BMCV: 66, No. 47.

Bijovsky 2012: 324, Table 62 (this coin).

BMCV: 26, No. 68.

Pierced. Bijovsky 2012: 315, Fig. 118.

BMCV: 14, Nos. 9–10.

P

P

S

S

S

S

S

S

DOC 1: 349, No. 193.

BMCV: 21–22, Nos. 36–41; Bijovsky 2012: 109, No. 13.

S

DOC 1: 348, No. 186.

4276

4037

2047

360

23

195

610

7118

467

79

DOC 1: 345, No. 173. S

Locus

Reference and Notes Area

43106

40235

20276

2594

15

6230

6099

12356

6139

11605

Basket

1

1

1

7

2

1

3

1

1

1

Total by type

28220

23420

23139

19462

12522

21847

34897

30996

22321

32346

K. No.

[179]

35.40

31

26

27

683

684

685

29

679

682

23

678

31

29.50

677

681

27

676

16

11

675

680

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

6

6

2

2

12

6

1

6

6

5

Axis

6.01

5.81

11 15

11.70

10.64

2.70

12.69

6.34

13.08

12.84

0.37

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Copper

Copper

Same

Same

Same

Copper

Copper

Material

Same

Same

Same

Same

Follis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Constantinople

Mint close to Alexandria(?)

Cyzicus

Follis

Dodecanummium

Same

Half follis

Constantinople

Follis

Same

Caesarea(?)

Dodecanummium

Same

Mint

Denom.

629–631

626/627

611/612

610–613

610/611

Reverse

dmFOCA [...] Phocas and Leontia seated facing on double throne

Same

dmFOCAS PERP AVC Bust facing, wearing consular robes and crown with cross, holding mappa and cross

dmFOCAS PPAVG Focas and Leontia stg. facing, between heads, small cross

Phocas (602–610 CE) 4 coins

]IVSTI[ Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped

cross; to r.: I. In ex.: KYZ

m to l.: ANNO; above

XX above star. In ex.: CON

XXXX above ANNO; to r.: II(?). In ex.: CONA

cross; to r.: I. In ex.: CONΔ

m to l.: ANNO; above

I+B In ex.: ΑΛΕΞ

I+B In ex.: ΑΛΕΞ

Heraclius in military dress and son in robe stg. facing. Above cross; to l.: ; to r.: K

Three imperial figures stg. facing

Same

Same

M to l.: ANN[O] above: to r.: XX; below: A

M to l.: ANNO; to r.: X/ I

M to l.: ANNO. Other details unclear

M to l.: ANNO; above cross; below: Δ; date illegible. In ex.: CON

dNhERACLI USPERPAVI M above, cross; to l.: Bust facing, wearing crown ANNO; to r.: I; below: Γ. with pendilia, holding globe In ex.: CON with cross

Heraclius (610–641 CE) 16 coins

ONS-NVS Bust r., diademed, cuirassed and draped

ANONYMOUS IMITATIONS (struck) 13 coins ca. 602–610

602/603

603/604(?)

602/603

538–610

Obverse

ANONYMOUS IMITATIONS (cast) 10 coins

Date (CE)

Clipped from earlier coin of Heraclius and overstruck. Bijovsky 2012: 395, Fig. 152 left (this coin).

Cf. DOC 2/1: 293, No. 101.

DOC 2/1: 275, No. 70.

Overstruck on coin of Phocas with XXXX. Cf. DOC 2/1: 274–275, No. 69.

DOC 2/1: 274, No. 69.

Struck. Barbaric style. Bijovsky 2012: 365–366.

DOC 2/1: 180, No. 69.

DOC 2/1: 168, No. 37.

Overstruck. Cf. DOC 2/1: 163, No. 26.

DOC 2/1: 162, No. 24.

Cast. Bijovsky 2012: 297–307.

S

B

P

A

P

S

P

B

T

P

A

Reference and Notes Area

465

1410

4201

46

4465

96

4135

1380

13

4203

F738

Locus

6085

3254

41952

584

46133

3

41168

2741

470

42021

437

Basket

2

1

2

1

1

13

1

1

1

1

10

Total by type

22293

26121

24182

11723

32609

12525

27022

27078

11475

24184

31844

K. No.

[180]

30×20

13

22.5×20

698

699

700

30

693

20

12

692

697

28

691

17.20

24

690

696

25

689

20×19

25

688

695

23

687

19

28

686

694

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

6

6

6

6

7

2

12

8

6

12

6

2

Axis

2.95

2.53

4.01

4.56

2.59

4.16

4.82

6.51

1.97

10.66

7.49

5.76

4.95

5.30

5.70

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Copper

Same

Same

Same

Same

Bronze

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Material

Constantinople

Follis

Same

Constantinople

Same

Syracuse

Half follis

Decanummium

Follis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Alexandria

Hexanummium

Same

Nicomedia

Follis

Constantinople (host coin) Caesarea (countermark)

Same

Half follis Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

Same

668–674

674–685

666–668

641–648

647/648(?)

645/646

641/642

613–618

610–613

ca. 518–538 (host coin) ca. 636–640 (countermark)

630/631

639/640

ca. 633–635

634/635

Date (CE)

S

M to l.: ANNO; to r., date illegible; below: B. In ex.: NIKO

K all details illegible. Round countermark:

K to l.: ANNO; to r.: XX; below: A

Same

r.: NEOC; below: and A(?)

m to l.: ANA. Other details unclear

Same

No legend. Bust facing, beardless, wearing helmet with plume and cuirass; holding globe with cross

No legend. Bust facing, holding globe. In r. field: M. Undertype: Heraclius stg. with his two sons

M above: , flanked by Heraclius and Tiberius stg. In ex.: SCL

I to l., cross; to r.: K(?). In ex.: [CON]

K to l.: M; to r., cross; below: ANNO (undertype) and star

Constantine IV (668–685 CE) 3 coins

Overstruck. DOC 2/2: 554, No. 60.

Cf. DOC 2/2: 542, Nos. 38–39.

Overstruck on follis of Heraclius, 629/630 CE. DOC 2/2: 542, No. 37.

DOC 2/2: 459, No. 89.

DOC 2/2: 448, No. 66b.

m to l.: ANA; above K; to

In ex.: [

Cf. DOC 2/2: 446–447, No. 64.

Overstuck on coin of Heraclius. Cf. DOC 2/2: 396–397, No. 5.

m to l.: ANA; above cross.

M above bust of Constans Bust of emperor with long beard facing, holding globe; II, flanked by busts of Heraclius and Tiberius to r.: K

Same

Same

ENT TONIKA Imperial figure stg. facing, holding long cross and globus cruciger

Blundered inscription. M to l.: ANNO; above Bust facing. Details obscure cross; to r.: XX(?) (from original strike)

DOC 2/1: 341, No. 198.8.

Cf. DOC 2/1: 315, No. 153.

Bijovsky 2012: 402, Table 75; 408, Fig. 159 left (this coin).

DOC 2/1: 302, No. 118.

Cf. DOC 2/1: 305, No. 125.

Cf. DOC 2/1: 298, Nos. 109–112.

M to l.: ANNO; date illegible Same, but to r.: XXX Circular countermark:

DOC 2/1: 299, No. 112; Qedar 1988– 1989: 32, series B.

S

B

B

A

S

S

A

P

A

B

S

S

B

A

S

Reference and Notes Area

M above: ; to r.: XX ; below: B. Round countermark: star

Reverse

Constans II (641–668 CE) 10 coins

[ddmhERACLS] Cross on steps

DN hRACLI Bust r., diademed and draped

Bust r., diademed and draped

Same

Unclear

Same

Two imperial figures stg. facing

Obverse 24051

Basket

688

168

42152

6785

3013

688

940

3164

190

1410

1410

277

4385

3253

3500

6954

Surface 354

60

104018

4203

259

1410

60

194

1410

Surface 7144

2417

Locus

1

1

1

1

4

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

Total by type

19412

26111

27955

24368

19600

12174

37912

24232

25846

26209

15130

16206

26144

25511

30428

K. No.

[181]

20

18

19

18

20

20

19.90

20.30

19.10

18.70

18.90

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

19

708

17.40

17.70

707

712

17.80

706

16.60

18.30

705

711

18.40

704

17.40

14.30

703

17.80

13

702

710

10

701

709

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

6

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

6.09

6.16

7.19

7.97

5.47

7.34

6.24

6.92

7.12

4.41

5.45

5.68

5.79

6.43

6.44

6.53

6.30

8.16

5.99

6.34

2.30

2.49

2.07

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Antioch

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Apamea on the Orontes(?)

Damascus or Coele-Syria southern mint

Demetrius II Nicator (second reign; 129–125 BCE) Alexander II Zabinas (128–122 BCE)

Antioch

Same

Tyre

Same

Same

Same

Same

125–122

Same

126/125

128/127

Same

129/128

129/128

138/137

Same

145/144(?)

Same

Same

Same

Head r., radiate

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head r., diademed

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head of Dionysus r., wreath with ivy

Head r., diademed and bearded

Bust of winged Eros r.

Same

Head r., diademed

Same

Head r., radiate. In l. field: [ ]

ʿAkkoPtolemais

Obverse Head of Apollo r.

Date (BCE)

Antioch

Mint

Antiochus VII Euergetes Sidetes (138–129 BCE)

Same

Demetrius II Nicator (first reign; 146–138 BCE)

Same

Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE)

Antiochus III (223−187 BCE)

Minting Authority

Area S, L4, B565

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

11791

11781

11810

11813

11826

11815

SC 2: 453, No. 2229.9. Same, but date: z  ΠP (= S.E. 187)

SC 2: 456, No. 2235.1c.

11789

SC 2: 453, No. 2229.7. Same, but date: EΠP (= S.E. 185)

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ AΛE ANΔΡΟY Intertwined double filleted cornucopia. In inner l. field: Σ and caduceus below; in inner r. field: A

11768

SC 2: 453, No. 2229.1. Same, but in outer l. field: IΣΙ

Same

11801

SC 2: 453, No. 2229.

11806

11793

11769

11800

11794

11823

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ AΛE ANΔΡΟY Young Dionysos stg. l., holding cantharus and thyrsus. In inner l. field, date: ΔΠP (= S.E. 184). Control marks illegible

Same Serrated. SC 2: 459, No. 2242.3d.

Same, but in l. field, control mark: (?) and bunch of grapes

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ AΛE ANΔΡΟY Winged Tyche stg. l., holding ship’s tiller and cornucopia. Control marks illegible

11798

11802

SC 2: 425, No. 2183.

Serrated. SC 2: 459, No. 2242. Previously attributed to Alexander I Balas.

11770

SC 2: 366, No. 2067.3c.

[Β]ΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOY EYEP ETOY Headdress of Isis. In l. field: . In ex , date: EOP (= S.E. 175) and palm branch ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟY/ΘEOY NIKATOPOΣ Apollo stg. l., holding bow and arrow. In ex , date: ΔΠP (= S.E. 184)

11780

11814

SC 2: 303, No. 1968.2.

Same

11816

Same

11804

11795

Cf. SC 1: 492, No. 1055.

Serrated. SC 2: 92, No. 1479.

K. No.

Reference and Notes

Same

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟY Stern of galley. Above, date: LH P(?) (= S.E. 168). Below: TYPIΩN (of Tyre)

Same

[ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOY] Veiled female stg. facing, holding scepter

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ [A]NTIOXOY Apollo stg. l., holding bow and arrow. Control marks illegible

Reverse

BRONZE SELEUCID HOARD

[182]

Diam. (mm)

19.70

21

21

18.30

20.10

21.40

18.80

20

19.80

19

20.50

19.60

20

19.80

20

18.70

19

19.90

19.20

19.80

20

20

20.10

21.20

19.30

21

22

21.40

19.90

20

19.70

17.50

18.70

18.90

Cat. No.

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752

753

754

755

756

757

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

6.57

5.55

5.12

6.60

7.06

6.86

8.16

7.56

2.23

5.83

6.10

6.44

6.46

6.47

6.56

6.58

6.77

6.88

6.98

7.01

7.04

7.16

7.72

8.41

5.88

5.41

5.88

7.26

7.53

7.77

7.85

7.95

8.37

7.16

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Cleopatra Thea and Antiochus VIII Epiphanes Grypus (125–121 BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Minting Authority

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

122/121

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date (BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Same

Same, but control mark illegible

Same

Same

11805

11796

SC 2: 475, No. 2263.3b. BAΣIΛIΣΣHΣ KΛEOΠATPAΣ ΘEOΣ KAI ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOY Owl stg. l., on fallen amphora, head facing. In ex , date: A; P (= S.E. 191) and below aphlaston

11785

11786 11799

SC 2: 457, No. 2237.1.

SC 2: 475, No. 2263.

11821

SC 2: 457, No. 2237.1e. Same, but in inner field, palm branch

Same

11771

SC 2: 457, No. 2237.1b. Same, but below: A; in inner field, club Same, but control mark illegible

11818 11827

Same. Fragment of coin SC 2: 457, No. 2237.1f.

11772

11812

11778

11819

11807

11779

11773

11774

11825

11820

11792

11782

11817

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ AΛE ANΔΡΟY Parallel double filleted cornucopia. In inner l. field: A and star below; in inner r. field: Π

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

11822

11808

Cf SC 2: 457, No. 2237. Same

11777

SC 2: 457, No. 2237.1.

Same, but in inner field, monogram(?) Same, but illegible control marks

11797

11787

11809

11775

11828

11790

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

11788

11824

SC 2: 457, No. 2237.1h.

Same, but in inner field, wreath Same

11776

SC 2: 457, No. 2237.1f.

Same, but below A; in inner field, ear of grain Same

K. No.

Reference and Notes

Reverse

[183]

Diam. (mm)

18.20

18.50

18

19.90

Cat. No.

758

759

760

761

12

12

12

Axis

6.37

5.55

6.04

5.61

Wt. (gm)

Seleucid uncertain

Same

Same

Antioch VIII Epiphanes Grypus (121/120–96 BCE)

Minting Authority

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

ca. 125–120

Same

Same

121/120

Date (BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Head r., radiate

Same, but date and control marks illegible

Same

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXOY EΠIΦANOYΣ Eagle stg. l. with scepter on shoulder. In l. field: IE. In ex , date: B;  P (= S.E. 192) and below palm branch

Reverse

Misstruck. Two obverses.

Same

11784

11803

11811

11783

SC 2: 500–501, No. 2300.1h.

Same

K. No.

Reference and Notes

[184]

Diam. (mm)

28

28

28

30

21

30

29

27

28

28

28

27

29

30

20

21

27

27

29

27

27

27

26

28

27

26

Cat. No.

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

769

770

771

772

773

774

775

776

777

778

779

780

781

782

783

784

785

786

787

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

14.78

14.05

14.24

14.04

14.08

13.22

14.11

14.21

14.27

14.29

6.91

7.01

14.11

14.18

14.07

14.21

14.20

14.18

13.95

14.04

14.17

6.87

14.12

14.08

14

13.98

Wt. (gm)

Same

Tetradrachma

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Demetrius II Nicator (second reign; 129–125 BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Tetradrachma Same

Same

Same

Didrachma Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Didrachma

Same

Same

Antiochus VII Euergetes Sidetes (138–129 BCE)

Minting Authority

Same

Same

Same

Tetradrachma

Denom.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Tyre

Mint

Same

Same

130/129

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

131/130

Same

Same

Same

132/131

Same

133/132

Same

134/133

Same

Same

135/134

Same

Same

Same

Same

136/135

Date (BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Head r., diademed and draped

Obverse

between legs

between legs

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ Eagle stg. l., on prow, palm branch on shoulder. In l. field: APE above club surmounted by monogram of Tyre. In r. field: AΣ above date: ΓΠP (= year 183). Monogram between legs

SC 2: 429, No. 2195 1, second control mark.

Same

SC 2: 385, No. 2109 11, second control mark. Same, but above date: ΓΠP (= year 183). Monogram between legs Same

Same

SC 2: 385, No. 2109.10, second control mark.

Same

Same

Same

Same

SC 2: 385, No. 2109 9, third control mark.

29909

29921

29923

29875

29871

29873

29872

29869

29874

29870

29930

29927

SC 2: 386, No. 2110.7, first control mark. Same

29931

29932 SC 2: 385, No. 2109 9, first control mark.

Same

Same, monogram ZB between legs

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same, but above date: BΠP (= year 182). Monogram between legs

Same

Same, monogram

Same, monogram

Same, but above date: AΠP (= year 181). Monogram between legs

SC 2: 385, No. 2109 9, second control mark.

29928

SC 2: 385, No. 2109.7, first control mark. between legs

29929

SC 2: 385, No. 2109.7, third control mark.

Same, but above date: ΠP (= year 180). Monogram between legs Same, monogram

29934

29933

SC 2: 385, No. 2109.7, first control mark. Same

29925

29924

29926

29918

29916

Same

Same

SC 2: 385, No. 2109 5, first control mark.

SC 2: 386, No. 2110.5, first control mark.

Same

Same, but above date: OP (= year 179). Monogram between legs

Same

Same

Same, but above date: HOP (= year 178). Monogram between legs

Same

Same

29919

SC 2: 384, No. 2109.4, second control mark.

Same

29920

Same

29917

K. No.

Same, but monogram Σ between legs

SC 2: 384, No. 2109.4, first control mark.

Reference and Notes

Same

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ANTIOXΟΥ Eagle stg. l., on prow, palm branch on shoulder. In l. field: APE above club surmounted by monogram of Tyre. In r. field: AΣ above date: IOP (= year 177). Monogram between legs

Reverse

Area P, L4749, B47518

SILVER SELEUCID HOARD

[185]

Diam. (mm)

27

28

26

32

29

28

27

27

21

28

28

27

26

27

26

25

34

27

27

26

27

21

27

27

29

28

28

29

27

27

28

28

27

28

28

27

28

28

Cat. No.

788

789

790

791

792

793

794

795

796

797

798

799

800

801

802

803

804

805

806

807

808

809

810

811

812

813

814

815

816

817

818

819

820

821

822

823

824

825

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

11

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

1

12

12

12

12

1

12

12

12

Axis

14.16

14.16

14.17

14.18

14.19

14.20

14.21

14.22

14.24

14.27

14.27

14.28

14.29

14.29

14.31

14.35

7.02

14.01

14.12

14.04

14.07

14.16

14.18

14.19

14.19

14.24

14.24

14.34

14.39

7.03

14.28

14.07

14.11

14.12

14.12

14.19

14.23

14.34

Wt. (gm)

Same

Tetradrachma

Same

Tetradrachma

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Didrachma

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Didrachma

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Minting Authority

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

128/127

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

129/128

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date (BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

between legs

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same, but above date: EΠP (= year 185). Monogram between legs

Same

Same

Same,but monogram

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same, but above date: ΔΠP (= year 184). Monogram between legs

Same

Same, but monogram ZB between legs

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

SC 2: 429, No. 2195 3, second control mark.

Same

Same

29825

29812

29829

29807

29810

29826

29827

29811

29832

29809

29822

29831

29820

29815

29824

29830

29879

29885

29880 29878

Same

29882

29876

29887

29877

29883

29886

29884

29881

29936

SC 2: 429, No. 2195 2 third control mark.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

SC 2: 429, No. 2195 2, second control mark.

29907

29913

SC 2: 430, No. 2196.1, first control mark.

29910

SC 2: 429, No. 2195.1, first control mark.

29908

29914

29906

29915

29912

29911

K. No.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reference and Notes

[186]

Diam. (mm)

27

27

29

26

28

28

23

27

28

19

29

27

30

27

29

26

29

29

28

29

28

27

28

27

28

27

27

28

26

27

28

29

29

28

27

26

27

29

Cat. No.

826

827

828

829

830

831

832

833

834

835

836

837

838

839

840

841

842

843

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

851

852

853

854

855

856

857

858

859

860

861

862

863

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

11

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

11

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

14.07

14.02

13.99

14

14.06

14.07

14.08

14.13

14.14

14.15

14.15

14.16

14.18

14.18

14.18

14.19

14.19

14.20

14.20

14.21

14.26

14.26

14.28

14.29

14.31

14.31

14.36

14.20

6.98

14.20

14.30

7.18

13.94

14.09

14.11

14.11

14.13

14.14

Wt. (gm)

Same

Tetradrachma

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Tetradrachma Didrachma

Same

Didrachma

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Minting Authority

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

127/126

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date (BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same On reverse, graffito in r. field: Greek letters(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

SC 2: 429, No. 2195.4, second control mark.

Same, but above date: ΠP (= year 186). Monogram between legs

SC 2: 430, No. 2196.3, third control mark.

Same

SC 2: 429, No. 2195 3, third control mark.

SC 2: 429, No. 2195.3, first control mark.

between legs

SC 2: 430, No. 2196.3, second control mark.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reference and Notes

Same, but monogram ZB between legs

Same

Same

Same, but monogram

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

29859

29849

29852

29841

29854

29862

29840

29836

29842

29835

29843

29834

29860

29857

29850

29838

29846

29839

29858

29845

29848

29865

29867

29855

29853

29861

29868

29813

29833

29816

29821

29814

29828

29817

29823

29808

29819

29818

K. No.

[187]

Diam. (mm)

28

27

26

26

28

29

26

26

25

29

28

27

28

28

30

27

27

28

29

28

21

27

27

26

28

29

29

Cat. No.

864

865

866

867

868

869

870

871

872

873

874

875

876

877

878

879

880

881

882

883

884

885

886

887

888

889

890

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

Axis

14.29

14.07

14.08

14.21

14.21

14.26

6.94

14.08

14.14

14.14

14.14

14.15

14.19

14.24

14.25

14.26

14.28

14.28

14.31

14.09

14.13

14.15

14.15

14.17

14.18

14.20

14.28

Wt. (gm)

Same

Tetradrachma

Same

Same

Same

Same

Antiochus VIII Epiphanes Grypus (121/120–96 BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Didrachma

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Minting Authority

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

Same 120/119

ʿAkkoPtolemais

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

126/125

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date (BCE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Head r., diademed

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

SC 2: 430, No. 2196.5, second control mark.

29905

29890 29922

Same

29904

29903

29894

29900

SC 2: 515, No. 2337 2.

Same

Same

Same

SC 2: 430, No. 2195 5, third control mark.

29902

29899

29888

29896

29901

29893

29891

29892

29897

29889

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ Eagle stg. l. on thunderbolt. To l. field: M; to r. field, date: (= year 193)

between legs

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

29895

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same, but monogram

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

SC 2: 430, No. 2195 5, second control mark.

Same, but above date: IΠP (= year 187). Monogram between legs Same

29847 29898

29866

29864

29837

29851

29844

29863

29856

SC 2: 429, No. 2195.3.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

SC 2: 429, No. 2195 3, second control mark.

K. No.

Same

between legs

Reference and Notes

Same, but illegible monogram between legs

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same, but monogram

Reverse

[188]

23

21

22

910

914

21

909

913

6

23

908

21

22

907

24

22

906

911

23

905

912

11

21

904

6

6

6

12

6

6

12

6

12

12

12

12

12

21

12

12

903

21

898

12

23

22

897

6

902

23

896

12

23

22

895

12

6

901

24

894

22

25

893

12

22

23

892

6

900

22

891

Axis

899

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

3.94

3.34

3.20

3.46

3.71

2.92

3.49

3.42

3.51

3.56

3.93

4.03

4.19

2.86

3.59

3.62

3.94

4.46

3.67

3.67

3.47

3.10

3.48

4.21

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Antoninianus

Denom.

Numerian (283–284 CE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Probus (276–282 CE)

Tacitus (275–276 CE)

Severina (wife of Aurelian)

Same

Same

Same

Aurelian (270–275 CE)

Minting Authority

Cyzicus

Tripolis

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Antioch

Same

Antioch

Serdica

Mint

Date (CE)

ROMAN IMPERIAL

IMP C NVMERIANVS PF AVG Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

IMP C MAVR PROBVS PF AVG Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped

IMP C MI CL TACITVS AVG Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped

SEVERINA AVG Bust r. on crescent

Same

Same

Same

IMP C AVRELIANVS AVG Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped

Obverse

Area S, L844

23961

23971

23968

RIC 5/1: 318, No. 20.

RIC 5/1: 347, No. 210.

RIC 5/2: 120, No. 925.

23963

Cf. RIC 5/2: 120, No. 921.

CLEMENTIA TEMP Emperor receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter. Below: S. In ex.: XXI

Same, but below: T. In ex.: KA

Same, but below: S

Same, but below: Γ •. In ex.: XXI

CLEMENTIA TEMP Emperor receiving globe from Jupiter. Below: Δ; illegible mintmark

Same, but below: A(?)

23955

23936 23964 23958

Same RIC 5/1: 121, No. 927. RIC 5/2: 201, No. 463.

23940

23960

Cf. RIC 5/2: 119, No. 920.

Same

23949

23951

23966

23965

Same

Same

Same

Same, but below: Δ Same, but below illegible

Same Same

Same, but below: B •

23930

23929

RIC 5/2: 120, No. 922.

Same

23952

23934

23928

Same

Same

Same

23944

23956

Same

23962 Cf. RIC 5/1: 309, No. 389.

23935

RIC 5/1: 308, No. 386. Same

23943

K. No.

RIC 5/1: 297, No. 287.

Reference and Notes

Same, but below: S

Same, but below: Z

CLEMENTIA TEMP Emperor receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter. Below, illegible. In ex.: XXI

CLEMENTIA TEMP Emperor receiving wreath from Jupiter. Below: ΕΔ. In ex.: XXI

Same, but below: C

Same, but below: S

Same, but below: B

Same, but below: Δ

RESTITVT ORBIS Emperor receiving wreath from female. Below: Z. In ex.: XXI

CLEMENTIA TEMP Emperor receiving globe from Jupiter. Below: Z. In ex.: XXI

CONCORDIAE MILITVM Concordia stg., holding two standards. In l. field: T. In ex.: XXI

Same, but below, star. Mintmark illegible

Same, but below: Q

Same, but below: P. In ex.: XXI

RESTITVT ORBIS Emperor receiving wreath from female. Below, star. In ex.: KA

Reverse

SILVER ROMAN IMPERIAL HOARD — ANTONINIANI

[189]

21

23

21

22

932

933

934

21

925

931

21

924

21

23

923

23

22

922

930

22

921

929

23

920

23

21

919

928

21

918

23

22

917

21

21

916

927

22

915

926

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

6

12

12

12

12

6

4

12

6

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

6

10

12

Axis

3.27

3.74

3.94

2.77

5.26

3.66

3.67

3.67

4.03

4.17

3.95

3.67

4.24

4.80

3.50

3.92

4.15

3.94

3.60

3.97

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Denom.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Diocletian (284–305 CE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Maximianus Herculius (286–305 CE)

Same

Same

Minting Authority

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Antioch

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

293–295

Same

285

Same

Same

284

Same

Same

Same

285–295

Same

Same

Same

293

Date (CE)

Same

Same

Same

Same

IMP CC VAL DIOCLETIANVS AVG Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Same

Same

IMP CC VAL DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Same

IMP CMAVR VAL MAXIMIANVS PF AVG Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Same

IMP C MA MAXIMIANVS AVG Bust r., radiate, cuirassed and draped

Same

Same

Obverse

23945

RIC 5/2: 256, No. 324.

Same Same

Same, in ex.: XXI •

Same

Same, but below: Γ Same

Same

23959

23941

23953

23933

23950 23967

Same

23938

RIC 5/2: 256, No. 323.

RIC 5/2: 256, No. 322.

23942

Same

Same

CONCORDIA MILITVM Emperor receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter. Below: B. In ex.: XXI •

Same, but below, crescent and Δ

IOV ET HERCV CONSER AVGG Jupiter and Hercules stg. face to face. The former holding globe and scepter; the latter Victory, club and lion’s skin. Below: S and crescent. In ex.: XXI

Same, but below: B

Same

IOVI CONSERVATORI AVG Emperor receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter. Below: ΕΔ. In ex.: XXI

23931

23954

RIC 5/2: 294, No. 623.

Same

23937

Same

Same, but below: Γ and crescent IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG Emperor receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter. Below: EΔ. In ex.: XXI

Same

Same, but below: Δ and crescent

23948

23946

RIC 5/2: 294, No. 622.

IOV ET HERCV CONSER AVGG Jupiter and Hercules stg. face to face. The former holding globe and scepter; the latter Victory, club and lion’s skin. Below: E and crescent on top. In ex.: XXI

23969

Same

Same, but below: Δ

23939

Same

23970

23947

RIC 5/2: 294, No. 621.

Same

23932

23957

RIC 5/2: 202, No. 466.

Same

K. No.

Reference and Notes

Same

Same, but below: S. In ex.: XXI

CONCORDIA MILITVM Emperor receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter. Below: E. In ex: XXI •

Same, but below: ΕΔ

VIRTVS AVGG Emperor receiving Victory on globe from Jupiter. Below: B. In ex.: XXI

Reverse

[190]

Diam. (mm)

20

20

20

21

15

20

20

19

19

20

21

20

20

18

19

19

20

Cat. No.

935

936

937

938

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

946

947

948

949

950

951

6

6

6

6

6

12

12

12

12

12

6

6

12

6

12

6

12

Axis

3.03

3.57

2.51

2.74

3.49

4.05

3.04

2.89

2.61

3.40

5.18

2.90

2.71

3.10

3.12

3.04

2.39

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Constantine I (307–337 CE)

Same

Crispus (317–326 CE)

Constantine II (337–340 CE)

Same

Same

Same

Constantine I (307–337 CE)

Crispus (317–326 CE)

Same

Licinius I (308–324 CE)

Minting Authority

Alexandria

Same

Antioch

Nicomedia

Same

Cyzicus

Constantinople

Heraclea

Rome

Same

Heraclea

Nicomedia

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

324–330

327/328

325/326

324/325

317

318–320

317–320

319

318/319

Rome

Siscia

317–320

318–320

316/317

Date (CE)

Alexandria

Same

Heraclea

Mint

13045

13047

13056

RIC 7: 433, No. 59.

RIC 7: 604, No. 24.

RIC 7: 546, No. 38.

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

CONSTANTINVS AVG Head r., laureate

CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG Head r., laureate

CRISPVS NOB CAES Bust l., pearl-diademed, draped with shield

FL IVL CL CRISPVS NOB CAES Bust l., pearl-diademed, draped with shield

LATE ROMAN

DN FL CL CONSTANTINVS NOB C Bust l., laureate, draped, globe, holding scepter and mappa

IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG Bust l., laureate, draped, globe, holding scepter and mappa

IMP CONSTANTINVS AVG Bust l., laureate, cuirassed and draped

IMP CONSTANTINVS PF AVG Bust r., laureate, helmeted, draped

13066

LRBC 1: 27, No. 1158.

LRBC 1: 28, Nos. 1171–1172.

PROVIDENTIAE AVGG Camp gate with two turrets and star. In ex.: SMKA Same, but in ex.: SMKA •

13064 13060 13065 13061

LRBC 1: 30, No. 1333. LRBC 1: 30, No. 1351. LRBC 1: 31, No. 1402.

Same, but in ex.: SMANTA Same, but within door: •. In ex.: SMANTS Same, but in ex.: SMALA

Same, but in ex.: SMNA

LRBC 1: 26, No. 1073.

13063

13049

RIC 8: 573, No. 25. LIBERTAS PVBLICA Victory stg. l. on galley, holding wreath in both hands. In l. field: E. In ex.: CONS

13068

LRBC 1: 22, No. 868. Same, but in ex.: SMHΓ

13059

LRBC 1: 14, Nos. 504–505. PROVIDENTIAE CAESS Camp gate with two turrets; a door with two knobs above, star. In ex.: RQ

PROVIDENTIAE CAESS Camp gate with three towers. In ex.: MHTA

PROVIDENTIAE AVGG Camp gate with three towers. In ex.: SMHA

IOVI CONSERVATORI AVGG Jupiter holding scepter and Victory on globe. To l., palm branch; to r.: S. In ex.: SMN

VICTORIAE LAETAE PRINC PERP Two Victories flanking altar, holding shield with VOT/PR. In ex.: ASIS •

13055

13062

RIC 7: 315, No. 165.

CONSTANTINVS AVG Bust r., laureate, helmeted, draped

Caesar from 317 CE. RIC 7: 545, No. 20.

13046

RIC 7: 707, No. 24.

IOVI CONSERVATORI CAESS Jupiter stg. holding globe and scepter. In l. field, crescent; in r. field: A. In ex.: SMAL

DN FL IVL CRISPVS NOB CAES Bust l., laureate, draped, globe, holding scepter and mappa

VIRTVS AVGG Camp gate with three towers and two doors with knobs. In fields: P‒R. In ex.: RP

13054

RIC 7: 546, No. 35.

Same, but in r. field: :. In ex.: SMHB

IMP LICINIVS AVG Bust l., laureate, draped, globe, holding scepter and mappa Same

K. No.

13052

Reference and Notes

RIC 7: 544, Nos. 14–15.

ROMAN IMPERIAL

Reverse

PROVIDENTIAE AVGG Camp gate with three towers, one door. In ex.: HTΓ

Obverse

Area G, W1011, B21

BRONZE ROMAN IMPERIAL HOARD — HOUSE OF CONSTANTINE

[191]

Diam. (mm)

20

20

20

2.44

3.44

19

19

Cat. No.

952

953

954

955

956

957

958

12

12

6

6

6

5

12

Axis

3.67

3.17

19

19

3.63

3.25

2.88

Wt. (gm)

Same

Constantius II (337–361 CE)

Same

Same

Same

Constantine II (337–340 CE)

Fausta (wife of Constantine I)

Minting Authority

Antioch

Nicomedia

Cyzicus

Antioch

Nicomedia

Heraclea

Cyzicus

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

324–330

Same

324–326

Date (CE)

Same

FL IVL CONSTANTIVS NOB C Bust l., pearl-diademed, draped with shield

FL IVL CONSTANTINVS NOB C Bust l., laureate, cuirassed and draped

Same

DN FL CL CONSTANTINVS NOB C Bust l. (small), laureate, globe, scepter on shoulder, holding mappa

CONSTANTINVS IVN NOB C Bust r., laureate, cuirassed and draped

FLAV MAX FAVSTA AVG Bust r., diademed and draped

Obverse

Same, but in ex.: SMANTI

PROVIDENTIAE CAESS Camp gate with two turrets and star. In ex.: MNS

Same, but in ex.: SMKA

Same, but within door: •. In ex.: SMANTS

Same, but in ex.: MNT •

PROVIDENTIAE CAESS Camp gate with two turrets and star. In ex.: SMHB •

SPES REIPVBLICAE Empress stg. facing, holding two babies. In ex.: SMKA

Reverse

LRBC 1: 30, No. 1337.

13053

13051

13057

LRBC 1: 27, No. 1163. Caesar from 324 CE. LRBC 1: 26, No. 1114.

13058

13050

LRBC 1: 30, No. 1324.

Caesar from 317 CE. LRBC 1: 28, No. 1098.

13067

13048

LRBC 1: 28, No. 1170.

Caesar from 317 CE. LRBC 1: 22, No. 877.

K. No.

Reference and Notes

[192]

Diam. (mm)

13.10

13

12.80

12.70

11.30

12.30

12.70

12.50

18

13

15

13

12.80

14

13

14

13

12

13.30

12.20

12

13

13.40

12

16

Cat. No.

959

960

961

962

963

964

965

966

967

968

969

970

971

972

973

974

975

976

977

978

979

980

981

982

983

6

4

12

12

11

12

12

9

12

12

12

5

9

9

9

9

3

9

9

9

9

10

Axis

3.69

1.70

1.11

0.99

1.09

1.30

1

1.11

1.14

1.25

1.28

1.36

1.37

1.48

1.68

1.79

1.43

1.48

3.03

2.70

1.51

0.98

1.48

1.52

1.71

Wt. (gm)

Local municipal(?) Anonymous

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Local municipal(?) Anonymous

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Local municipal(?) Anonymous

Minting Authority

Mt. Gerizim(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mt. Gerizim(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mt Gerizim(?)

Mint

ca. 129–109

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

ca. 129–109

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

ca. 129–109

Date (BCE)

Type 1 9 tesserae

Type 2 15 tesserae

Type 3A 6 tesserae Rossette within triple border, the middle one made of dots

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Amphora flanked by branches with pomegranates

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Lily flower or small palm tree with two ears of corn stemming from stalk

Obverse

Lily. Above, two Paleo-Hebrew letters, to l.: (shin) upside down; to r.: (samech)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Headdress of Isis on palm branches, flanked by Paleo-Hebrew letters: to l., (ḥei), above: (mem), to r.: (yod). All within circle of dots

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Double cornucopiae with fillets; between horns, rod(?). All within double circle of dots

Reverse

HELLENISTIC PERIOD ‒ LEAD TESSERAE

Unpublished

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Unpublished

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Hendin 1994–1999: 64‒65, type 3.

Reference and Notes

E

B

B

P

S

P

P

K

P

P

P

P

P

A

P

P

B

P

S

A

P

P

P

A

P

Area

1133

203062

1323

4344

2103

22

380

1113

1628

44135

21191

222

50510

1408

Dump 5042

45207

45208

45287

223

50204

6696

44756

44755

1057

44408

268

207

52446

51145

46252

496

50340

Basket

4395

4395

4395

22

F5023

243

4395

4395

1259

4361

71

10430

5179

5121

4486

71

F5023

Locus

25289

39043

27481

30306

21109

20790

34689

13294

29071

29073

29068

20787

34696

24808

29070

29069

24349

31650

30462

37700

36374

35052

32464

20788

34697

K. No.

[193]

14.30

14

16

13.10

14.30

16

15.80

15

16

17

13.40

15.30

15.75

14.70

15.30

15

11

17

11

11.30

11.55

11

10.30

984

985

986

987

988

989

990

991

992

993

994

995

996

997

998

999

1000

1001

1002

1003

1004

1005

1006

Diam. (mm)

Cat. No.

10

Axis

1.30

1.30

1.48

2.28

1.24

4.53

1.51

2.49

3.56

3.30

2.34

2.74

3.05

3.20

3.24

3.14

3.46

3.54

3.42

2.28

3.77

2.42

3.21

Wt. (gm)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Local municipal(?) Anonymous

Same

Local municipal(?) Anonymous

Local municipal(?) Anonymous

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Local municipal(?) Anonymous

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Minting Authority

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mt. Gerizim(?)

Same

Mt. Gerizim(?)

Mt. Gerizim(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mt. Gerizim(?)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Mint

Same

Same

Same

Same

ca. 129–109

Same

ca. 129–109

ca. 129–109

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

ca. 129–109

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Date (BCE)

Type 3B 10 tesserae

Type 3C 1 tessera

Type 5 5 tesserae

Same

Same

Same

Same

Macedonian shield or helmet(?) within circle of strokes and circle of dots

Same

Lily or small palm tree flanked by ears of corn. All within circle of dots

Type 4 2 tesserae

Rossette within triple border, the middle one made of dots (no countermark)

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Rossette within triple border, the middle one made of dots. Round countermark, flower

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Obverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Cornucopia flanked by ear of corn and palm branch

Same

Double cornucopiae with small lily flower between the horns and the Paleo-Hebrew letter: (?) (yod) above. All within circle of dots

Lily. Above, two Paleo-Hebrew letters, to l.: (shin) upside down; to r.: (?) (samech). Round countermark: flower or small palm tree

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same, but unclear countermark

Same

Same

Same

Same

Lily. Above, two Paleo-Hebrew letters, to l.: (shin) upside down; to r.: (?) (samech). Round countermark: flower or small palm tree

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reverse

Same

Same

Same

Same

Unpublished

Same

Unpublished

Unpublished

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Unpublished

Same

Same

Same

Same

Same

Reference and Notes

P

A

P

L

S

B

K

P

S

P

P

P

P

E

P

B

L

P

P

S

P

L

P

Area

5173

2

5072

10

2344

1323

109

F4519

555

F4478

5029

5064

5064

1131

4471

1268

11

F4477

5212

2336

5228

13

5072

Locus

51728

2

50665

27

23454

1669

1514

47268

229

47428

50325

50594

50591

385

46875

1290

22

46991

52291

23284

52455

33

50645

Basket

35297

23304

34694

23303

30960

27618

20789

29074

30740

33270

34692

34698

34695

25288

32469

25745

23302

32138

35091

30653

36338

23301

34693

K. No.

[194]

Diam. (mm)

12.25

12.40

11.70

13.25

17

Cat. No.

1007

1008

1009

1010

1011

6

Axis

5.29

1.88

0.92

0.85

0.73

Wt. (gm)

Local municipal(?) Anonymous

Same

Same

Local municipal(?) Anonymous

Local municipal(?) Anonymous

Minting Authority

Mt. Gerizim(?)

Same

Same

Mt. Gerizim(?)

Mt. Gerizim(?)

Mint

ca. 129–109

Same

Same

ca. 129–109

ca. 129–109

Date (BCE)

Type 7 3 tesserae

Type 6 1 tessera

Flower or floral bundle(?)

Same(?)

Same

Type 8 1 tessera

Bundle of palm branches(?)

Wreath

Obverse

Seed(?). Ear of grain with leaves(?)

Same(?)

Same

Lily flower (similar to the one on the obverse of type 1) on top of an uncertain decorated base or structure (with volutes?). To r., Paleo-Hebrew letter: (ḥei); to l.: (yod)

Bundle of ears of corn and pomegranates

Reverse

Very worn. Unpublished.

Same(?) Attribution uncertain.

Same

Unpublished

Unpublished

Reference and Notes

E

P

E

A

P

Area

902

5031

912

104019

5045

Locus

9348

50252

9143

180

50366

Basket

22508

34690

22486

37888

34691

K. No.

Notes Meshorer 1967; AJC 1. The addendum was published at Meshorer 1990–1991. 3 TJC: 26. 4 Farhi 2016. 5 The discussion of the single Yehud coin discovered during the excavations is included here while the catalogue entry is together with the Ptolemaic coins. 6 Gitler and Tal 2006: 14. 7 Pers. comm. 8 Gitler and Tal 2006: Tables 1.1–1.2. 9 Gitler and Tal 2009: 20, No. 40. 10 Gitler and Tal 2006: 26, Table 2.1; 2009: Table 1. 11 Gitler and Tal 2006: 51, Table 3.3. They cite one Philistian drachma from excavations in Samaria, four Philistian coins from Tel Mikhal and one Philistian coin from Wadi edDaliyeh, all in the region of Samaria, see Gitler and Tal 2006: 52. For the largest concentration of 36 Philistian coins from a controlled excavation in Israel, see the most recent numismatic report on Kh. Qeiyafa, in the southern Judean foothills, Farhi 2016: 22‒23. 12 Gitler and Tal 2006: 51. 13 Ariel 2006: Table 1. 14 Gitler and Tal 2006: 114, V.1D. 15 Gitler and Tal 2006: 152‒154. 16 See also discussion in Ariel 2016: 17, 21, notes 21‒22, 49. 17 Meshorer and Qedar 1991; 1999. 18 CHL: 205‒222. 19 Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 32‒68. 20 My thanks to Haim Gitler and Andre Lemaire for helping me identifying this coin. 21 Gitler and Tal 2019: 11, note 37 and pp. 33–37. 22 Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 97, Nos. 75, 77. 23 Gitler and Tal 2009: 24‒25. 24 Ariel 2006: Tel Dor (Table 1, No. 7-1), Ḥ. ʿEleq (Table 1, No. 8-1), Gan Soreq (Table 1, No. 11-13), Armenian quarter in Jerusalem (Table 1, No. 17-1), City of David in Jerusalem (Table 1, No. 17-30), Kh. Qeiyafa (Table 1, No. 26-54), Jaffa (Table 1, No. 31-1), and another coin from Samaria (Table 1, No. 28-2). 25 Ariel 2006: 24. 26 Élayi and Élayi 2014: 523. 27 Élayi and Lemaire 1991. 28 Élayi 1994; republished in Élayi and Élayi 2014: 512‒517; Citations follow the format of the 2014 publication. 29 Syon 2015: 53. 30 Lemaire 1995: 196‒197. 31 Lemaire 1995: 196‒197; Élayi and Élayi 2014: 518. 32 Coin K25515 of the same type as Cat. No. 73 was inadvertently left out of the catalogue but it is included in the totals. 1 2

Élayi and Élayi 2014: 517; also Syon 2015: 53. BMC Phoen.: cxxvii. 35 Élayi and Élayi 1998. 36 Ariel 1993: 126‒128. 37 Gitler and Lorber 2006: 34, group 6, No. 21, this coin. 38 Gitler and Lorber 2006: 12. 39 Ariel 2002: 288, coins Nos. IAA 101008 and IAA 95639, respectively. 40 Farhi 2016: 43, Nos. 68, 69. 41 Ariel 2016: 16. 42 Newell 1927: 8‒13. 43 Newell 1927: 58. 44 Newell 1927: 49, No. 39, and pp. 51‒56. 45 Newell 1927: 57. 46 For the other 102 coins only the title ‘Ptolemaic’ could have been given and they do not appear in the catalogue. 47 One of the silver coins is the tiny Yehud, already discussed with the Persian coins (Cat. No. 133). In addition, there are three worn Ptolemaic silver coins that were not included in the catalogue due to their poor preservation. 48 Svoronos 1904. 49 Lorber 2007–2008. 50 SNG Ptol. 51 I wish to thank Donald T. Ariel and Héloïse Aumaître for their advice and comments, to Daniel Wolf for access to his PtolemAE Project (online and offline), and finally to Catharine C. Lorber for providing permission to use material from her forthcoming publications. 52 Picard and Faucher 2012. 53 This category includes Cat. No. 201, which is dated to Ptolemy VI–VIII. 54 Picard and Faucher 2012: 25. 55 Picard and Faucher 2012: 26. 56 Control marks appearing on bronze types from Series 2 are related to those on silver coinage and they allow us to differentiate between issues of Ptolemy I or Ptolemy II reigns, Picard and Faucher 2012: 26. 57 Davesne 1987: 148–149. 58 Lorber 2016. 59 When central cavities are unclear, another feature that helps to differentiate obols of Series 2 from those of Series 3 is found on the elephant’s ear of the Alexander head with elephant skin type. In Series 2 the ear resembles a rounded spoon, while in Series 3 the ear is angled, see Picard and Faucher 2012: 34. 60 Farhi 2016: 55–56. 61 Picard and Faucher 2012: 51–52. 62 Lorber 2007–2008. 63 Lorber 2000: 81–82; Huston and Lorber 2001: 21–22. 33 34

[195]

64

Syon 2015: 55. My thanks to Julien Olivier for his help in the identification and dating of these coins. 66 For more explanations about graffiti on Ptolemaic coins see Lorber 2016: 70. 67 Syon 2015: 55. 68 CH 4: 58; Olivier 2012: 277, No. 20. 69 Olivier 2012: 277, No. 19. 70 Ariel forthcoming a. 71 Syon, Lorber and Galili 2013: 2. 72 The latest coin in the silver hoard is dated to 120/119 BCE, and the latest coins in the bronze hoard are dated to 121/120 BCE. 73 SC 1: 327. Twenty one coins of Seleucus III from excavations are registered at the IAA Coin Department: Bet Sheʾan (1 coin), Susita (1 coin), ʿAkko (3 coins), Caesarea (1 coin), Megiddo (1 coin), Shaʿar Ha-ʿAmaqim (2 coins), Mazor (2 coins), Tel Maresha (1 coin), Gan Soreq (4 coins), unknown provenance (5 coins). 74 Syon 2016: 205. 75 SC 1: 400–401. 76 SC 1: 402, No. 1055. 77 SC 1: 402–403, Nos. 1055, 1058–1059; 404, No. 1064; 416–417, No. 1096 78 SC 1: 404, No. 1064. 79 For discussion of the type and geographical distribution, see Syon 2016: 205‒206; SC 1: 416–417, No. 1096. 80 Ariel 2016. I was able to discern 27 specimens of the thick flan variant, all of them from Gan Soreq (unpublished): IAA Nos. 110046, 110052, 110069, 110116, 110122, 110144, 110148, 110164, 110182, 110192, 110240, 110243, 110248, 110287, 110362, 110370, 110411, 110442, 110444, 110451, 110453, 110472, 110491, 110531 and 110533. 81 These are four coins from ʿAkko, see Syon 2016: 221, Nos. 23, 27, 28. See also IAA No. 49308, unpublished. Two coins of the same type were found in Gan Soreq (IAA Nos. 110444, 110533). 82 SC 1: 356, 394, 411–413. 83 SC 1: 415, No. 1094. 84 SC 1: 417, No. 1099. 85 SC 2: 13. 86 SC 2: 434, No. 2207. 87 SC 2: 44. 88 The main obverse control mark for ʿAkko-Ptolemais is . 89 SC 2: 44–45, 66. 90 SC 2: 91, No. 1478. 91 SC 2: 45, 47. 92 SC 2: 88. 93 SC 2: 94‒96, Nos. 1489, 1490. 94 Barag 2000–2002. 95 SC 2: 94‒96. 96 SC 2: 49, Nos. 1513‒1515; 114, No. 1533, respectively. 65

SC 2: 83, No. 1453. SC 2: 136, No. 1580. 99 SC 2: 172‒173, Nos. 1644‒1647. 100 SC 2: 181, No. 1679. 101 SC 2: 181. 102 Bijovsky 1994–1999: 42‒45. 103 SC 2: 210. 104 SC 2: 246, No. 1851. 105 SC 2: 247, No. 1852. 106 SC 2: 263. 107 SC 2: 303‒304, Nos. 1968–1969. 108 SC 2: 332‒333, No. 2026. 109 SC 2: 335. 110 SC 2: 342–343, No. 2035. 111 SC 2: 336. 112 SC 2: 365, Nos. 2063, 2064. 113 The bronzes are dated as the silver coinage known from Damascus, from the same year onward, and the obverse type with Artemis recalls the head of this goddess that appears on the Damascus bronze issues of Demetrius II, see SC 2: 378. 114 SC 2: 378. 115 Syon 2004: 159, Nos. 234–236. 116 SC 2: 383. 117 SC 2: 351. 118 Spaer 1971; SC 2: 389‒390. 119 For a comprehensive discussion on this issue, see Hoover 2003. 120 Hoover 2003: 30 and note 2; Syon 2015: 146‒148. 121 SC 2: 409, 441. 122 SC 2: 410. 123 Newell 1939: 55. 124 SC 2: 423. 125 The coins are registered at the IAA Coin Department, and they include: two coins from Tel Ashdod, six from Tel Ashqelon, one from Tel Iẓṭaba (Bet Sheʾan), one from Tel Gezer, 18 from Tel Maresha, one from Caesarea and one from ʿAkko-Ptolemais. 126 There is another drachma (K25754) of the same year as Cat. Nos. 297–300 that for an unknown reason was missed when preparing the catalogue. 127 SC 2: 428. 128 SC 2: 442. 129 SC 2: 449. 130 For the bronze Series 2 of Alexander II, see SC 2: Nos. 2231–2234. 131 SC 2: 456–457. 132 SC 2: 456, No. 2236. 133 Y. Farhi, pers. comm. 134 The provenances are: Haifa, Tel ʿAnafa, Bet Sheʾan, Gamla, Ḥ. Shemot, Ḥolot Ashqelon, Jerusalem, Meẓad ʿAteret, Tel Maresha, Mishmar Ha-ʿEmeq, ʿAkko-Ptolemais, Ḥ. ʿEleq, ʿAtlit. 97 98

[196]

135

SC 2: 459, No. 2242. SC 2: 442. 137 Bijovsky 1994–1999: 40‒41. 138 SC 2: 442. 139 The provenances of the coins are: Tel Ashdod, Jaffo, Samaria, Bet Sheʾan, Caesarea, Meẓad ʿAteret, Tel Maresha, Mishmar Ha-ʿEmeq, Tel Ashqelon. 140 Y. Farhi, pers. comm. 141 SC 2: 483–486; Finkielsztejn 1998: 41, 46. 142 SC 2: 499. 143 The provenances of the coins are: Gamla, Bet Sheʾan, Tel Anafa, Naḥal Ẓalmon, ʿAkko-Ptolemais, Samaria, Banias, Ḥ. Tzaftzafot, Holot Ashqelon, Tel Tanim (Tell el-Wawiyat). 144 Y. Farhi, pers. comm. 145 SC 2: 521–522. 146 SNG Israel 1: 352, No. 2697. A coin of the same doubtful date was discovered at Samaria, see Finkielsztejn 1998:41. 147 My thanks to Catherine C. Lorber for her assistance with this countermark. The club as countermark appears during the Roman period on coins from Tarsus and Tyre, see Howgego 1985: 181, Nos. 398‒399. It is not certain however, whether they were employed already in the Hellenistic period. 148 SNG Den. 6: Nos. 391, 392. 149 Johananoff 2016: 42. 150 Ariel 2000: 25*, 47*. 151 The list includes a varied number of sites with layers of occupation dated to the Hellenistic period. Those that contain the largest number of specimens are: Gan Soreq (13 coins), Tel Maresha (18 coins), Ashqelon (8 coins), Jaffo (7 coins), Jerusalem (7 coins), Or ʿAqivah (3 coins) and ʿAvdat (4 coins). 152 Johananoff 2016. 153 Johananoff 2016: 45. Side was under Seleucid rule during 220‒188 BCE. 154 Barkay 2003‒2006: 49‒52. 155 Nollé 1993: 57; Ariel 2000: 35*. 156 See also: Barag 1992‒1993: 10. 157 Johananoff 2016: 98–99. 158 Seyrig 1962. 159 Voulgaridis 2000. 160 Syon 2004: 80–85. 161 Voulgaridis 2000: 230. For the different opinions on the meaning of this inscription see, Kadman 1961: 43‒44 and Voulgaridis 2000: 237‒241. 162 Voulgaridis 2000: 225‒226. 163 Voulgaridis 2000: 235. 164 Seyrig 1962: 28, No. 3; Voulgaridis 2000: 242‒243, Series b; Syon 2004: 81, No. 7 in table. There is a unique specimen published by Babelon (1893: 218, No. 1506). The word IEPAΣ is effaced but Seyrig reconstructs it according to the space left on the reverse. 136

Kadman 1961: Nos. 25, 28‒31, 33‒39, 41; Seyrig 1962: 29, No. 8; Voulgaridis 2000: 245‒249, type 2. 166 Seyrig 1962: 29. Voulgaridis attributed the beginning of the series to the second reign of Demetrius II Nicator, who, in 129/128 BCE escaped most probably to ʿAkko-Ptolemais after his rival, Alexander II Zabinas captured Antioch. The problem with this suggestion is that coins bearing this early date are not confirmed. The first legible date is 126/125 BCE, see Voulgaridis 2000: 245 and 250. 167 Syon 2015: 58. 168 See also: Kadman 1961: 100, No. 42; Seyrig 1962: 29. 169 No coins dated to 121/120 BCE (S.E. 192) were identified by the author. However, there is no reason to believe that coins bearing this specific year were not issued. 170 Also in Shechem, Samaria and Beʾer-Sheba, the latest coin found during excavations is dated to 112/111 BCE, see Finkielsztejn 1998:41. Recently, a bulla from the archive discovered in excavations at Maresha, bears the same date LAΣ = 112/111 BCE (D.T. Ariel, pers. comm.). 171 Voulgaridis 2000: 249. 172 Yashin 2007: 39, Nos. 14–20. 173 Barkay 2003‒2006: 53. 174 I am indebted to Donald T. Ariel for his invaluable comments and additions to this chapter. 175 TJC: 25–26. 176 The ratio between coins of John Hyrcanus I and Alexander Jannaeus at Mt. Gerizim is similar to that from Gamla, see Syon 2015: 163, Table 14. 177 See also: Finkielsztejn 1998: 45–46; Shatzman 2012: 51. 178 Schürer 1973: 207‒209; Barag 1992‒1993: 8‒10. 179 Barag 1992‒1993. 180 Barag 1992‒1993: 6‒7. See in addition the most comprehensive study by Finkielsztejn (1998), who proposes a chronology of John Hyrcanus I’s conquests by juxta positioning archaeological termini dated data: lead weights, Rhodian amphorae stamps and coins discovered at sites addressed in Josephus’ sources (Ant. 13−14 ; War 1). Based on the discovery of two dated lead weights found at Marisa, Finkielsztejn dated the annexation of Marisa to 108/107 BCE. He further suggests that Shechem and Gerizim were destroyed before the attack to Idumea, most likely in November-December 111 BCE. The siege on Samaria started late in 110 BCE, or at the beginning of 109 BCE and lasted a year. Excavations at Tel Iẓṭaba, show evidence of the destruction of Scythopolis only after the conquest of Samaria, see Finkielsztejn 1998: 45−50. 181 Shatzman 2012. 182 According to Shatzman’s analysis, Marisa was captured in 108/107 BCE or shortly after; Mt. Gerizim about 110 BCE; Tell Balatah (Shechem) in 110 BCE; Tel Iẓṭaba (Bet Sheʾan) in 108 BCE. Besides these sites he also analyzed the archaeological data of other sites: Tel Beʾer-Sheba, Tel 165

[197]

ʿIra, Ḥ ʿUẓa, Kh. Yattir, Lachish, Mazor and Shoham and other fortresses and farm estates not mentioned by Josephus in western Samaria, that seem to confirm destruction or abandonment by John Hyrcanus I, see Shatzman 2012: 37‒45. 183 Shatzman 2012: 42‒43. 184 Shatzman 2012: 54. Moreover, he discussed the relationship between Judea and Rome, which gave its blessing to John Hyrcanus I in this struggle, see Shatzman 2012: 56‒70. This subject however, is beyond the scope of this report. 185 TJC: 210, group L, Nos. 7‒17. 186 TJC: 201–206, groups A‒G. 187 TJC: 207–209, groups H‒J. 188 TJC: 201, group A. 189 Barag and Qedar 1980: 18; Barag 1992‒1993: 10. 190 Finkelsztejn (1998: 46) claims that the alpha on top of John Hyrcanus I’s Paleo-Hebrew inscription should be attributed to Alexander II Zabinas, as a symbol of the good relations between the two rulers. 191 Syon 2015: 163‒164. 192 Hendin 2009‒2010: 34‒36. 193 See also Finkielsztejn 1998: 50. 194 Shachar 2004: 6‒8; see also Hendin and Shachar 2008. 195 Shachar 2004: 6, Type 1; TJC: 211–215, groups P, Q and R. 196 Shachar 2004: 6, Type 3; TJC: 211, group N. 197 Shachar 2004: 8; TJC: 216–217, group T. 198 Shachar 2004: 6, Type 4; TJC: 209–210, group K. 199 Shachar 2004: 7, Type 5; TJC: 210, group L1‒6. 200 Shachar 2004: 7, Type 7; TJC: 210, group L7‒17. 201 TJC group L7‒17; Ariel 2006. See also Ariel and Fontanille 2012: 80, on the extreme peak of the TJC group L7‒17 type relative to other coins minted in Jerusalem. 202 IAA Nos. 2685, 50463, 52052, 52053 and 140300. 203 Coin No. K18189 is completely worn and was not added to the catalogue. 204 Patrich 2016: 266. 205 Magen 2008: 249‒269. 206 Bijovsky 2012: 55. 207 Bijovsky 2012: 102‒128. 208 Bijovsky 2012: 148‒153. 209 Bijovsky 2012: 140‒145. 210 Bijovsky 2012: 128‒129. 211 For instance, L194 (a room in the northern side of the complex) includes 110 coins, most of them unidentifiable. Fourteen are fifth-century minimi, the latest dated to Zeno (K18130). Locus 623 (room in the eastern side of the complex) has six coins, the latest dated to the second half of the fifth century CE (K23518). The latest coin in L1023 (room in the western side of the complex, beneath wall foundations) is a cast coin roughly dated to 450–550 CE (K31260). The same regarding L1045 (in the center of the octagon; K30395) and

L1088 (narthex; K32483). L1041 (within the inner octagon) contained six coins, the latest dated to Theodosius II, 425– 435 CE (K30375). For the construction of the church, see Magen, p. 46, note 163 in this volume. 212 Bijovsky 2012: 176‒183. 213 MIBE: 127, No. 87. 214 Bijovsky 2012: 217‒218. 215 Bijovsky 2012: 202. 216 Bijovsky 2012: 229. 217 Bijovsky 2012: 351‒352. 218 Bijovsky 2012: 280‒281. 219 Bijovsky 2012: 389‒390. 220 Bijovsky 2012: 312. 221 Bijovsky 2012: 313. 222 Bijovsky 2012: 314‒315. 223 Bijovsky 2011; 2012: 317‒321. 224 Bijovsky 2012: 300‒307. 225 DOC 2/1: 292–293, class 4. 226 Bijovsky 2012: 384. 227 DOC 2/1: 295, class 5 early phase. 228 Bijovsky 2012: 384‒385. 229 DOC 2/1: 297, class 5. 230 Bijovsky 2012: 402. 231 Bijovsky 2012: 408. 232 Bijovsky 2012: 387. 233 Bijovsky 2012: 365–366. 234 See discussion above, p. 98 and notes 124–125. 235 For the predominance of coins of Alexander Zabinas in other sites (not hoards) see Finkielsztein 1998: 42. 236 SC 2: 459, No. 2242. 237 SC 2: 108. 238 Hoover 2010. 239 Four coins from ʿAkko-Ptolemais, three from Aradus, one from Cos and three from Side, see Hoover 2010: 229. 240 See also Finkielsztejn 1998: 45−46, 56. 241 SC 2: 428. 242 Syon 2015: 60. 243 Syon 2014: 29‒37. 244 The hoard contained originally 40 coins but only 20 of them were eventually registered at the IAA Coin Department. In addition to the Tyrian shekels the hoard yielded: a tetradrachma of Alexander I Balas, seven tetradrachmas and one didrachma of Antiochus VII and two tetradrachmas of Demetrius II Nicator of his second reign. Based on the worn condition of part of the latest shekels, Syon suggests a date of deposition of at least a decade, ca. 110 BCE, see Syon 2014: 34‒35. 245 SC 2: 108‒112. The hoards are: Northern Israel, 2002 (bronze, closure: ca. 123 BCE); Tyre, 1987 (silver, closure: 129/128 BCE); Golan, 1932, IGCH 1600 (silver, closure: 128/127 BCE); Samaria, 1999 (silver plated, closure: 128/127

[198]

BCE); Tyre, ca. 1966, IGCH 1598 (silver, closure: 127/126 BCE); Phoenicia, ca. 1966, IGCH 1599 (silver, closure: 127/126 BCE); Hebron, 1980 (silver, closure 127/126 BCE); Capernaum, 1957, IGCH 1602 (silver, closure: 126/125 BCE); Bethlehem, 1971, IGCH 1603 (silver, closure: 126/125 BCE); south of Jerusalem, 1991 (silver, closure: 126/125 BCE); Nablus, 1891?, IGCH 1600 (silver, closure: 125 BCE); Israel, 1977 (silver, closure: 125 BCE); Israel, 1977 (silver, closure: 125 BCE); unknown provenance (silver, closure: ca. 125 BCE); Thalalaia, 1952, IGCH 1604 (silver, closure: ca. 120 BCE); Waqqas 1982 (silver, closure: ca. 120 BCE). 246 The as-yet unpublished hoard was discovered during excavations of an estate house of the Hasmonean period. The excavations were directed by Avraham Tendler, the coins were identified by Donald T. Ariel, both from the IAA. The hoard contains five tetradrachmas and two didrachmas of Antiochus VII from Tyre and nine Tyrian tetradrachmas of the second reign of Demetrius II Nicator (IAA Nos. 158080‒158096). 247 SC 2: 442. 248 See also Finkielsztejn 1998: 45−46, 56. 249 Three major reference works were used for identification, primarily the two Roman Imperial Coinage volumes by Percy H. Webb: volume V Part I (1927) and volume V Part II (1933). Although these publications are not particularly upto-date, they provide good general identifications. In some cases, and especially for Aurelian’s coins, Robert Göbl’s Moneta Imperii Romani 47 (1995) was consulted. 250 Pannekeet 2013; Kool 2016: 70, 72. 251 Kool 2016: Table 6, no, 76. 252 Though these two last rulers could be seen as a single group of 18 coins because of their co-regency, and this point will be viewed further. 253 Kool 2016: 83–84. 254 Webb 1919: 239. 255 MIR 47: 83; Harl 1996: 146; Kool 2016: 83. 256 Hamburger 1964; Kool 2016: 84. Among thousands of third-century CE coins found in excavations in Israel, just eleven isolated antoniniani of Tacitus are registered today in the IAA Coin Department. Most of them were minted in Antioch (IAA Nos. 4305, 4931, 4961, 26773, 89599, 89600, 149866); the other mints are Tripolis (IAA No. 148875) and Cyzicus (IAA Nos. 4927, 89601). 257 Callu 1969: 336; Harl 1996: 148. 258 Pink 1949. 259 Kool 2016: 85. 260 Potter 2014: 279–280; see also Kool 2016: 74. 261 Bird 1976: 130. 262 Kool 2016: 88. 263 The coins were identified using standard reference works — RIC 7 and LRBC 1 — and were organized according to

two chronological groups: those from between 316 and 320 CE, and those dating from 324 to 330 CE. The presentation within the groups is according to minting authority, mint and more refined date. 264 RIC 7: 69. 265 Ariel in preparation, Qaṣrin hoards VII, VIII, IX. 266 Ariel 2010: 137. 267 Meyers, Netzer and Meyers 1988: 92. 268 The hoard was discovered during an underwater survey by Dror Felner. The hoard (IAA 156294) comprises two lumps, approximately 840 coins. 269 Ariel in preparation. 270 RIC 7: 535. 271 For numismatics the term ‘tessera’ is defined as small pieces of stone, clay or metal (usually lead) inscribed with letters or symbols and used for different purposes. Examples of these functions are as ballots (i.e., for voting), tickets (for entrance to buildings; e.g., theaters, bathhouses, brothels), vouchers (for goods and services; e.g., purchase is made at one place and the tessera allows for retrieval of the goods or the services at another), and gaming pieces. Tesserae are not intended to be part of the general coin currency, but they can subsequently function as such. 272 Ariel 2016: 92. 273 Hendin 1994‒1999: 64‒65, type 3. 274 Hoover 2009: 53‒55; see also Ariel 2016: 88. 275 In my view a connection to the amphora on the prutot of the Great Revolt is not relevant here. 276 SC 2: 366, No. 2067. 277 TJC: 198, No. 15. 278 In ossuaries for instance, see Rahmani 1994: Nos. 1, 13, 34, 119 and 359. 279 Hoover 2006a: 31. 280 Price 1991: 344, Nos. 2802‒2803. 281 Hendin 2003–2006: 57, Figs. 1−2. 282 Barag (1984) discussed the lead issue of Alexander Jannaeus (TJC 2001: 211, Group M), a lead coin of Antiochus VII, two proto-Nabatean coins and a small lead minted in Ascalon. Houghton published two lead issues attributed to Antiochus VIII and Demetrius III, see Houghton 1990–1991. Hendin attributed four lead types to Jews during the Hasmonean and Herodian periods. One of them is our type 1 (Hendin 1994–1999). Hoover (2006a) published four lead issues from Gaza that belong to the Sofaer collection and are related to the late Hellenistic and Roman periods. In another article, Hoover (2006b) discussed the Nabataean lead coinage, see below. Hoover (2008) published two late Ptolemaic lead series, indicating that these must have been emergency coinages intended for special military currency. Hoover (2009) also published an emergency lead issue most likely from Marathus. For further references, see also Farhi 2009‒2010. In addition,

[199]

three lead tesserae from the IAA Coin Department collection will be published by Ariel: one from Gan Soreq (Ariel forthcoming b, IAA No. 110315, Hellenistic, depicting a 3/4 profile head and a goblet or fruit); and two from Ashqelon, one bearing a standing figure and a galley (IAA No. 98013) and another one of the dove type (IAA No. 109605) (Ariel forthcoming c). 283 Hoover 2006b.

Hoover 2006b:117‒118. SC 2: 366, No. 2067. 286 I am deeply grateful to Dr. Haggai Misgav for the references to this source and for confirming the reading of the letters on the tesserae. 287 More coins were excavated in Jerusalem but they came from many dozens of individual expedition teams. 288 SC 2: 391, No. 2122. 284 285

References AJC 1: Y. Meshorer. Ancient Jewish Coinage 1: Persian Period through Hasmonaeans. Dix Hills, N.Y. 1982. Ariel D.T. 1993. “Coins from Excavations at Tel Nahariya, 1982,” ʿAtiqot 22: 125–132. Ariel D.T. 2000. “Coins from the Synagogue at Korazim,” in Z. Yeivin, The Synagogue at Korazim. The 1962–1964, 1980–1987 Excavations (IAA Reports 10), Jerusalem, pp. 33*–49*. Ariel D.T. 2002. “The Coins from the Surveys and Excavations of Caves in the Northern Judean Desert,” ʿAtiqot 41(2): 281–304 (analysis chapter; catalogues of coins throughout volumes). Ariel D.T. 2006. “Coins,” in H. Geva, Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982. Volume III: Area E and Other Studies. Final Report, Jerusalem, pp. 192–217. Ariel. D.T. 2010. “Coin Hoard from a Fourth-Century CE Shipwreck off the Carmel Coast,” ʿAtiqot 63: 137–145. Ariel D.T. 2016. “Circulation of Locally Minted Persian-Period Coins in the Southern Levant,” Notae Numismaticae—Zapiski Numizmatyczne 11: 13–62. Ariel D.T. Forthcoming a. “Coins,” in D. Amit, Y. Zelinger and I. Zilberbod, Hellenistic Farms at Elʻad (Journal of Hellenistic Pottery and Material Culture, Supplemental Studies). Archaeopress. Ariel D.T. Forthcoming b. “Coins from Excavations at Gan Soreq, 2003–2004 Seasons,” in U. ‘Ad, Excavations at Gan Soreq, 2003–2004 Seasons (IAA Reports). Ariel D.T. Forthcoming c. “Coins from a Seleucid-Period Site at Ashqelon-Barnea, 2002–2015 Seasons,” in Excavations at Ashqelon-Barnea, 2002–2015 (‘Atiqot). Ariel D.T. and Fontanille J.-P. 2012. The Coins of Herod: A Modern Analysis and Die Classification (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 79), Leiden–Boston. Babelon E. 1893. Les Perses achéménides, les satrapes et les dynasties tributaries de leur empire: Cypre & Phénicie, Paris. Barag D. 1984. “Some Examples of Lead Currency from the Hellenistic Period,” in A. Houghton, S. Hurter, P.E.

Mottahedeh and J. Ayer Scott (eds.), Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg, Wetteren, pp. 1‒5. Barag D. 1992‒1993. “New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus I,” INJ 12: 1‒12. Barag D. 2000‒2002. “The Mint of Antiochus IV in Jerusalem: Numismatic Evidence on the Prelude to the Maccabean Revolt,” INJ 14: 59–77. Barag D. and Qedar S. 1980. “The Beginning of Hasmonean Coinage,” INJ 4: 8‒21. Barkay R. 2003–2006. “Undated Coins from Hellenistic Marisa,” INJ 15: 48–55. Bijovsky G. 1994–1999. “A Coin of Demetrius I from AkkoPtolemais,” INJ 13: 39–45. Bijovsky G. 2011. “From Carthage to the Holy Land: the ‘Palm Treeʼ Nummus,” INR 6: 163–173. Bijovsky G. 2012. Gold Coin and Small Change: Monetary Circulation in Fifth–Seventh Century Byzantine Palestine (Polymnia Numismatica antica e medievale. Studi 2), Trieste. Bird. H.W. 1976. “Diocletian and the Deaths of Carus, Numerian and Carinus,” Latomus 35(1): 123–132. BMC Cyprus: Hill G.F. 1904. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Cyprus, London. BMC Pamphylia: Hill G.F. 1897. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Lycia, Pamhylia and Pisidia, London. BMC Phoen.: Hill G.F. 1910. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia, London. BMC Ptol.: Polk R.S. 1882. A Catalog of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, the Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt, London. BMC Syria: Wroth W. 1899. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Galatia, Cappadocia, and Syria, London. BMCV: Wroth W. 1911. Catalogue of the Coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths and Lombards and the Empires of Thessalonica, Nicaea and Trebizond in the British Museum, London. Callu J.P. 1969. La politique monétaire des empereurs romains de 238 à 311 (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 214). Paris.

[200]

CH 4: Price M.J. and Nash D. 1978. Coin Hoards IV, London. CHL: Meshorer Y., Bijovsky G. and Fischer-Bossert W. 2013. Coins of the Holy Land. The Abraham and Marian Sofaer Collection at the American Numismatic Society and the Israel Museum (Ancient Coins in North American Collections 8), New York. CRE 1: Mattingly H. 1923. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum I: Augustus to Vitellius, London. Davesne A. 1987. “Une contremarque au trident sur certaines monnaies de Ptolémée II Philadelphe,” Bulletin de la société Française de Numismatique 42: 145–149. DOC 1: Bellinger A.R. 1966. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection I: Anastasius I to Maurice, 491– 602, Washington, D.C. DOC 2/1: Grierson P. 1968. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection 2/1: Phocas and Heraclius (602– 641), Washington, D.C. DOC 2/2: Grierson P. 1968. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection 2/2: Heraclius Constantine to Theodosius III (641–717), Washington, D.C. Élayi J. 1994. “La diffusion des monnaies phéniciennes en Palestine,” in E.-M. Laperrousaz and A. Lemaire (eds.), La Palestine à l’époque perse, Paris, pp. 289–309. Élayi J. and Élayi A.G. 1998. “La denière série Tyrienne en bronze au types civiques,” Numismatica e antichità classiche 27: 129–139. Élayi J. and Élayi A.G. 2004. Le monnayage de la cité phénicienne de Sidon à l’époque perse (Ve–IVe s. av. J.-C.) (2 vols.) (Transeuphratène Suppl. 11), Paris. Élayi J. and Élayi A.G. 2009. The Coinage of the Phoenician City of Tyre in the Persian Period (5th–4th cent. BCE) (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 188, Studia Phoenicia XX), Leuven–Paris–Walpole, Mass. Élayi J. and Élayi A.G. 2014. “54. La diffusion des monnaies phéniciennes en Palestine,” in J. Élayi and A.G. Élayi, Phoenician Coinages (Supplement 18 to Transeuphratène), Pendé, pp. 511‒524. Élayi J. and Lemaire A. 1991. “Numismatique,” Transeuphratène 4: 119–132. Farhi Y. 2009‒2010. “City Coins from Roman Palestine Made of Lead and Comparable Materials,” INJ 17: 177‒186. Farhi Y. 2016. The Numismatic Finds: Coins and Related Objects (Khirbet Qeiyafa 5 Excavation Report 2007– 2013), Jerusalem. Gitler H. and Lorber C. 2006. “A New Chronology for the Ptolemaic Coins of Judah,” AJN (2nd Ser. 18): 1‒41. Gitler H. and Tal O. 2006. The Coinage of Philistia of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC: A Study of the Earliest Coins of Palestine (Collezioni Numismatiche 6), Milan.

Gitler H. and Tal O. 2009. “More Than Meets the Eye: Athenian Owls and the Chronology of the Southern Palestinian Coinages of the Persian Period,” INR 9:15‒27. Gitler H. and Tal O. 2019. The Nablus 1968 Hoard. A Study of Monetary Circulation in the Late Fourth and Early Third Centuries BCE Southern Levant (Numismatic Notes and Monograms 171; American Numismatic Society), New York. Grierson P. and Mays M. 1992. Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and the Whittemore Collection: From Arcadius and Honorius to the Accession of Anastasius, Washington, D.C. Hamburger H. 1964. “A Hoard of Antoniniani of Late Roman Emperors from Tiberias,” INJ 2 (3–4): 19–31. Harl K.W. 1996. Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700, Baltimore–London. Hendin D. 1994‒1999. “Four New Jewish Lead Coins or Tokens,” INJ 13: 63‒65. Hendin D. 2003–2006. “A New Coin Type of Herod Antipas,” INJ 15: 56–61. Hendin D. 2009‒2010. “Hasmonean Coin Chronologies: Two Notes,” INJ 17: 34‒38. Hendin D. and Shachar I. 2008. “The Identity of YNTN on Hasmonean Overstruck Coins and the Chronology of the Alexander Jannaeus Types,” INR 3: 87–94. Hoover O.D. 2003. “The Seleucid Coinage of John Hyrcanus I: The Transformation of a Dynastic Symbol in Hellenistic Judaea,” AJN 15: 29‒39. Hoover O.D. 2006a. “A Late Hellenistic Lead Coinage from Gaza,” INR 1: 25‒35. Hoover O.D. 2006b. “A Reassessment of Nabataean Lead Coinage in Light of New Discoveries,” NC 166: 105–119. Hoover O.D. 2008. “Ptolemaic Lead Coinage in Coele Syria (103‒101 BCE),” INR 3: 81‒85. Hoover O.D. 2009. “A New Hellenistic Lead Issue from the Southern Levant,” INR 4: 51‒56. Hoover O.D. 2010. “Northern Israel Hoard, 2002 (CH 10, 319),” in O. Hoover, A. Meadows and U. Wartenberg (eds.), Coin Hoards 10, New York, pp. 227–241. Houghton A. 1990‒1991. “Two Late Seleucid Lead Issues from the Levant,” INJ 11: 26‒31. Howgego C.J. 1985. Greek Imperial Countermarks: Studies in the Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire (Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 17), London. Huston S.M. and Lorber C.C. 2001. “A Hoard of Ptolemaic Bronze Coins in Commerce, October 1992 (CH 8, 413),” NC 161: 11–40. Johananoff M. 2016. Hellenistic Bronze Coins from Side (Pamphylia) in the Southern Levant, M.A thesis, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv. Kadman L. 1957. The Coins of Caesarea Maritima (Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium II), Jerusalem.

[201]

Kadman L. 1961. The Coins of Akko Ptolemais (Corpus Numorum Palaestinensium IV), Jerusalem. Kool R. 2016. “A Hoard of Antoniniani from Qula,” ʿAtiqot 84: 69‒113. Lemaire A. 1995. “La circulation monétaire Phénicienne en Palestine à l’époque Perse,” in M.H. Fantar and M. Ghaki (eds.), Actes du IIIe Congrès International des Études Phéniciennes et Puniques, II, Tunis: 192–202. Atti del secondo congresso internazionale di studu fenice e punice, Roma 9-14 Novembre 1987. I, Tunis, pp. 131–150. Lorber C.C. 2000. “Large Ptolemaic Bronzes in ThirdCentury Egyptian Hoards,” AJN 12: 67–92. Lorber C.C. 2007–2008: “Ptolemaic Bronze coinage of Tyre,” INJ 16: 11–27. Lorber C.C. 2016. “Countermarks, Punches and Graffiti on Ptolemaic Coins,” in Y. Farhi, The Numismatic Finds: Coins and Related Objects (Khirbet Qeiyafa 5 Excavation Report 2007–2013), Jerusalem, pp. 66–72. LRBC 1: Hill P.V. and Kent J.P.C. 1965. “The Bronze Coinage of the House of Constantine, A.D. 324–346,” in Late Roman Bronze Coinage A.D. 324–498, London, pp. 4–40. LRBC 2: Carson R.A.G. and Kent J.P.C. 1965. “Bronze Roman Imperial Coinage of the Later Empire, A.D. 346–498,” in Late Roman Bronze Coinage A.D. 324–498, London, pp. 41–114. Magen Y. 2008. Mount Gerizim Excavations II (JSP 8), Jerusalem. Meshorer Y. 1967. Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period, Tel-Aviv. Meshorer Y. 1989. The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina (Israel Museum Catalogue 301), Jerusalem. Meshorer Y. 1990–1991. “Ancient Jewish Coinage, Addendum I,” INJ 11: 104–132. Meshorer Y. and Qedar S. 1991. The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century BCE, Jerusalem. Meshorer Y. and Qedar S. 1999. Samarian Coinage (Numismatic Studies and Researches 9), Jerusalem. Meyers A., Netzer E. and Meyers C. 1988. “Roman Mansion Excavated at Zippori’s Acropolis and in his Luxurious Mosaic,” Qadmoniot 3–4 (83–84): 87–92. MIBE: Hahn W. 2000. Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire (Anastasius I–Justinian I, 491–565) (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte der Universität Wien 6), Vienna. MIR 47: Göbl. R. 1995. Die Münzprägung des Kaisers Aurelianus (270/275) (Moneta Imperii Romani 47; Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Denkschriften 233; Veröffentlichungen der Numismatischen Kommission 29) (2 vols.; 2nd ed.), Vienna. Newell E.T. 1927. The Coinage of Demetrius Poliorcetes, London.

Newell E.T. 1939. Late Seleucid Mints in Ake-Ptolemais and Damascus (Numismatic Notes and Monographs 84), New York. Nollé J. 1993. Side in Altertum. Geschichte und Zeugnisse I, Bonn. Olivier J. 2012. Archè et chrèmata en Égypte au IIe siècle avant J.-C. (204-81 av. J.-C.). Étude de numismatique et d’histoire, thèse inédite de l’université d’Orléans, Orléans. Oman C. 1916. “The Decline and Fall of the Denarius in the Third Century A.D.,” NC 16 (4th Ser.): 37–60. Pannekeet C.G.J. 2013. Diocletianus Monetary Reform, Slootdorp. Patrich J. 2016. “The Early Christianization of the Holy Land—the Archaeological Evidence,” in O. Brandt, V. Fiocchi Nicolai and G. Castiglia (eds.), Acta XVI Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae. Romae 22–28.9.2013. Costantino e I Costantinidi l’innovazione Costantiniana, le sue radici e i suoi sviluppi (Studi di Antichità Cristiana LXVI), Vatican City, pp. 265–293. Picard O. and Faucher T. 2012. “Les monnaies Lagides,” in O. Picard., C. Bresc, T. Faucher, G. Gorre, M.A. Marcellesi and C. Morrisson, Les monnaies de fouilles du Centre d’Études Alexandrines: Les monnayages de bronze à Alexandrie de la conquête d’Alexandre à l’Égypte moderne (Etudes Alexandrines 25, Centre d’Études Alexandrines), Alexandrie, pp. 17–124. Pink K. 1949. “Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung in der Kaiserzeit VI/1: Probus,” Numismatische Zeitschrift 73: 13–74. Potter D.S. 2014. The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180–395 (2nd ed.), London–New York. Price M.J. 1991. The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus: A British Museum Catalogue (2 vols.), Zurich–London. Rahmani L.Y. 1994. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collection of the State of Israel, Jerusalem. RIC 5/1: Webb P.H. 1927. The Roman Imperial Coinage V, Part I, London. RIC 5/2: Webb P.H. 1933. The Roman Imperial Coinage V, Part II, London. RIC 6: Sutherland C.H.V. 1967. The Roman Imperial Coinage VI: From Diocletian’s Reform (A.D. 294) to the Death of Maximinus (A.D. 313), London. RIC 7: Bruun P.M. 1966. The Roman Imperial Coinage VII: Constantine and Licinius A.D. 313–337, London. RIC 9: Pearce J.W.E. 1951. The Roman Imperial Coinage IX: Valentinian I–Theodosius I, London. RIC 10: Kent J.P.C. 1994. The Roman Imperial Coinage X: The Divided Empire and the Fall of the Western Parts, AD 395–491, London. SC 1: Houghton A. and Lorber C. 2002. Seleucid Coins. A

[202]

Comprehensive Catalogue I: Seleucus I through Antiochus III (2 vols.), New York–Lancaster, Pa.–London. SC 2: Houghton A., Lorber C. and Hoover O. 2008. Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue II: Seleucus IV through Antiochus XIII (2 vols.), New York–Lancaster, Pa.–London 2008. Schürer E. 1973–1986. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) I, Edinburgh. Seyrig H. 1962. “Le monnayage de Ptolémaïs en Phénicie,” Revue Numismatique (6e série) 4: 25‒50. Shachar I. 2004. “The Historical and Numismatic Significance of Alexander Jannaeus’s Later Coinage as Found in Archaeological Excavations,” PEQ 136: 5‒33. Shatzman I. 2012. “The Expansionist Policy of John Hyrcanus and his Relations with Rome,” in G. Urso (ed.), Iudaea Socia-Iudaea Capta. Atti del convegno internazionale Cividale del Friuli, 22–24 settembre 2011 (Fondazione Niccolò Canussio), Pisa, pp. 29–77. SNG Den. 2: Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum; The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals Danish National Museum II: Thrace and Macedonia. Copenhagen 1942–1943 (reprint of fascicles 6–10 West Milford, N.J. 1982). SNG Den. 5: Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum; The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals Danish National Museum V: Ionia, Caria and Lydia. Copenhagen 1946–1947 (reprint of fascicles 22–28 West Milford, N.J. 1982). SNG Den. 6: Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum; The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals in the Danish National Museum VI: Phrygia to Cilicia. Copenhagen 1948–1956 (reprint of fascicles 29–33 West Milford, N.J. 1982). SNG Deutschland 11: Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum; Deutschland. Sammlung von Aulock. Pamphylien, Berlin. 1965. SNG Israel 1: Houghton A. and Spaer A. 1998. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum; Israel I: The Arnold Spaer Collection of Seleucid Coins, London.

SNG Ptol.: Kromann A. and Mørkholm O. 1977. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum; Denmark. Egypt: The Ptolemies, Copenhagen. Spaer A. 1971. “Monnaies de bronzes palestiniennes d’Antiochos VII,” Revue Numismatique (6e série) 13: 160–161. Svoronos J.N. 1904. Ta nomismata tou kratous tōn Ptolemaiōn I–III, Athens. Syon D. 2004. Tyre and Gamla. A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Syon D. 2014. “A Hoard of Tyrian Silver from Ḥorbat ʿAqrav, Upper Galilee,” INR 9: 29–37. Syon D. 2015. Small Change in Hellenistic-Roman Galilee. The Evidence from Numismatic Site Finds as a Tool for Historical Reconstruction (Numismatic Studies and Researches XI), Jerusalem. Syon D. 2016. “The Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Coins,” in M. Hartal, D. Syon, E. Stern and A. Tatcher, ʿAkko II. The 1991–1998 Excavations. The Early Periods (IAA Reports 60), Jerusalem, pp. 203–226. Syon D., Lorber C. and Galili E. 2013. “Underwater Ptolemaic Coin Hoards from Megadim,” ʿAtiqot 74: 1–8. TJC: Meshorer Y. 2001. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba, Jerusalem–Nyack, N.Y. Voulgaridis G. 2000. Les ateliers monétaires de PtolémaïsʿAkko et d’Ascalon sous la domination séleucide, Ph.D. diss., Université Marc Bloch-Strasbourg, Strasbourg. Webb P.H. 1919. “The Reform of Aurelian,” NC 19 (4th Ser.): 235–243. Wolf D. 2006–2018. PtolemAE Project, Ptolemaic Bronze Coin Educational and Informational Center: http:// ptolemybronze.com/ptolemy_series.html (accessed July 14, 2018). Yashin C. 2007. From Ascalon to Raphia: City-Coins of the Southern Palestinian Coast, Jerusalem.

[203]

PLATES

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

1

5

2

3

7

6

4

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

0

1

cm

Plate 1. The Persian Period.

[207]

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

0

1

cm

Plate 2. The Persian Period.

[208]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

0

1

cm

Plate 3. The Persian Period.

[209]

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62 0

63 1

cm

Plate 4. The Persian period.

[210]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

72

73

74

75

76

77

0

1

cm

Plate 5. The Persian period.

[211]

78

80

79

81

82

83

84

87

91

85

88

86

89

92

90

93

0

1

cm

Plate 6. The early Hellenistic and the Ptolemaic periods.

[212]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

0

1

cm

Plate 7. The Ptolemaic period.

[213]

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

0

1

cm

Plate 8. The Ptolemaic period.

[214]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

2:1 133

134

135

136

0

1

cm

Plate 9. The Ptolemaic period.

[215]

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

146

145

147

0

1

cm

Plate 10. The Ptolemaic period.

[216]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

0

1

cm

Plate 11. The Ptolemaic period.

[217]

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

0

1

cm

Plate 12. The Ptolemaic period.

[218]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

173

175

174

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

0

1

cm

Plate 13. The Ptolemaic period.

[219]

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

194

193

196

195

197

0

192

1

cm

Plate 14. The Ptolemaic period.

[220]

198

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

199

200

201

202

203

204

0

1

cm

Plate 15. The Ptolemaic period.

[221]

205

209

213

225

207

206

210

208

212

211

215

214

218

219

221

222

216

220

223

226

224

227

0

1

cm

Plate 16. The Seleucid period.

[222]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

229

228

231

232

230

234

233

238

235

236

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

237

249

0

1

cm

Plate 17. The Seleucid period.

[223]

250

252

251

254

253

255

257

261

259

263

258

262

265

264

266

267

268

269

270

271

0

1

cm

Plate 18. The Seleucid period.

[224]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

272

274

273

276

280

278

281

283

284

286

285

288

287

292

291

0

293

1

cm

Plate 19. The Seleucid period.

[225]

290

294

295

296

297

298

299

302

301

304

303

306

308

307

312

311

0

313

1

cm

Plate 20. The Seleucid period.

[226]

310

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

333

334

0

1

cm

Plate 21. The Seleucid period.

[227]

335

336

337

339

340

342

343

344

345

346

0

1

cm

Plate 22. The Seleucid period.

[228]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

0

1

cm

Plate 23. The Seleucid period—Autonomous and Civic coinage.

[229]

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390 0

1

cm

Plate 24. The Seleucid period—Autonomous and Civic coinage.

[230]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

0

1

cm

Plate 25. The Hasmonean period.

[231]

411

412

414

416

415

417

418

419

422

413

421

423

0

424

1

cm

Plate 26. The Roman Period.

[232]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

0

1

cm

Plate 27. The Roman Period.

[233]

437

438

440

441

442

443

446

447

448

450

451

452

453

454

456

457

458

459

0

1

cm

Plate 28. Late Roman Period.

[234]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

470

478

483

487

460

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

474

473

479

484

476

480

482

485

486

490

488

0

1

cm

Plate 29. Late Roman Period.

[235]

491

492

493

494

496

497

500

501

502

504

505

506

507

509

510

511

512

514

515

516

517

518

521

522

524

526

530

532

533

0

1

cm

Plate 30. Late Roman Period.

[236]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

534

535

536

538

539

540

542

543

544

547

548

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

558

559

560

562

563

564

567

570

571

573

574

576

577

578

580

581

582

0

1

cm

Plate 31. Late Roman Period.

[237]

583

585

586

587

588

590

591

592

593

597

0

1

cm

Plate 32. The Byzantine period.

[238]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

598

599

600

601

602

604

605

606

0

1

cm

Plate 33. The Byzantine period.

[239]

607

608

609

610

612

611

614

613

615

616

618

617 0

1

cm

Plate 34. The Byzantine period.

[240]

619

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

620

622

621

623

624

627

628

630

631

632

634

635

0

1

cm

Plate 35. The Byzantine period.

[241]

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

645

644 0

1

cm

Plate 36. The Byzantine period.

[242]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

647

648

649

650

651

653

654

655

656

657

658

0

1

cm

Plate 37. The Byzantine period.

[243]

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

668

667

0

1

cm

Plate 38. The Byzantine period.

[244]

669

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

670

671

672

675

673

676

677

678

679

681

680

683 682

0

1

cm

Plate 39. The Byzantine period.

[245]

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

0

1

cm

Plate 40. The Byzantine period.

[246]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

694

695

697

698

699

700

0

1

cm

Plate 41. The Byzantine period.

[247]

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

0

1

cm

Plate 42. The Seleucid bronze hoard.

[248]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

0

1

cm

Plate 43. The Seleucid bronze hoard.

[249]

737

738

739

740

741

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752

753

754

0

1

cm

Plate 44. The Seleucid bronze hoard.

[250]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

755

756

757

758

759

760

761

0

1

cm

Plate 45. The Seleucid bronze hoard.

[251]

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

769

770

771

0

1

cm

Plate. 46. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[252]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

772

773

774

775

776

777

778

779

780

781

0

1

cm

Plate. 47. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[253]

782

783

784

785

786

787

788

789

790

791 0

1

cm

Plate. 48. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[254]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

792

793

794

795

796

797

798

799

800

801

0

1

cm

Plate 49. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[255]

802

803

804

805

806

807

808

809

810

811

0

1

cm

Plate 50. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[256]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

812

813

814

815

816

817

818

819

820

821

0

1

cm

Plate 51. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[257]

822

823

824

825

826

827

828

829

830

831

0

1

cm

Plate 52. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[258]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

832

833

834

835

836

837

838

839

840

841

0

1

cm

Plate 53. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[259]

842

843

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

851

0

1

cm

Plate 54. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[260]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

852

853

854

855

856

857

858

859

860

861

0

1

cm

Plate 55. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[261]

862

863

864

865

866

867

868

869

870

871

0

1

cm

Plate 56. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[262]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

872

873

874

875

876

877

878

879

880

881

0

1

cm

Plate 57. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[263]

882

883

884

885

886

887

888

889

890

0

1

cm

Plate 58. The Seleucid silver hoard.

[264]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

891

892

893

894

895

896

897

898

899

900

901

902

903

904

905

0

1

cm

Plate 59. The hoard of Antoniniani.

[265]

906

907

908

909

910

911

912

913

914

915

916

917

918

919

920

0

1

cm

Plate 60. The hoard of Antoniniani.

[266]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

921

922

923

924

925

926

927

928

929

931

932

933

934

0

1

cm

Plate 61. The hoard of Antoniniani.

[267]

935

936

937

938

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

946

947

948

949

950

951

952

0

1

cm

Plate 62. The hoard of the House of Constantine.

[268]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

953

954

955

956

957

958

0

1

cm

Plate 63. The hoard of the House of Constantine.

[269]

959

960

961

962

963

965

966

967

969

970

971

972

973

975

976

977

978

979

980

981

983

984

985

986

987

989

990

968

0

1

cm

Plate 64. The Hellenistic lead tesserae.

[270]

C o i n s f r o m t h e E x c avat i o n s at M o u n t G e r i z i m

991

992

993

994

995

996

997

998

999

1000

1001

1002

1003

1004

1005

1007

1008

1009

1010

1011

0

1

cm

Plate 65. The Hellenistic lead tesserae.

[271]