Two new imitative issues from the fifth Syrian war (202-198 BCE). more

Israel Numismatic Research 4 | 2009 Published by The Israel Numismatic Society Israel Numismatic Research Published by the Israel Numismatic Society Editorial Board: Donald T. Ariel (Editor), Alla Kushnir-Stein, David Wasserstein, Danny Syon, Ilan Shachar Text editor: Miriam Feinberg Vamosh Typesetting: Michal Semo-Kovetz and Yael Bieber, Tel Aviv University Graphic Design Studio Printed at Elinir, Tel Aviv ISSN 1565-8449 Correspondence, manuscripts for publication and books for review should be addressed to: Israel Numismatic Research, c/o Haim Gitler, The Israel Museum, P.O. Box 71117, Jerusalem 91710 ISRAEL, or to dtariel@ins.org.il Website: www.ins.org.il For inquiries regarding subscription to the journal, please e-mail to info@ins.org.il The editors are not responsible for opinions expressed by the contributors. © The Israel Numismatic Society, Jerusalem 2009 Israel Numismatic Research Published by the Israel Numismatic Society Volume 4 Contents 2009 5 Editors’ Note 9 EvangElinE Markou: Some Cypriot Gold Coins? 21 HaiM gitlEr and orEn tal: More Evidence on the Collective Mint of Philistia 39 Yigal ronEn: On the Chronology of the Yehud Falcon Coins 47 nicHolas l. WrigHt: Two New Imitative Issues from the Fifth Syrian War (202–198 BCE) 51 olivEr D. HoovEr: A New Hellenistic Lead Issue from the Southern Levant 57 DaviD HEnDin: A Medallion of Agrippa II 63 cEcilia MEir: Tyrian Sheqels from the ‘Isfiya Hoard, Part One 73 gabriEla bijovskY: A Burning Testimony: Two Bronze Hoards from the Time of the First Jewish Revolt 83 garY M. FinE: Coins of Bar Kokhba: The Temple Water-Drawing Ceremony and the Holiday of Sukkot 94 alla kusHnir-stEin: Coins of Tiberias with Asclepius and Hygieia and the Question of the City’s Colonial Status 109 lionEl HollanD: An Unusual Lead Weight of 22 grammata 113 WolFgang scHulzE: The Byzantine ‘Eagle’ countermark – Re-attributed from Egypt to Palestine 121 DaviD j. WassErstEin: Islamic Coins and their Catalogues III: The Ikhshidids 135 robErt kool and WarrEn c. scHultz: The Copper Coins of the Mamlūk Sultan al-Malik al-Manṣūr Lājīn (r. AH 696–698/1297–1299 CE) 145 ariEl bErMan: A Hoard from the First World War from the Area of Beer Sheva 159 nErYaHu a. sHnEYDor: The Inscriptions on Modern Palestinian and Israeli Currency 173 REVIEW: C. Foss, Arab-Byzantine Coins. An Introduction, with a catalogue of the Dumbarton Oaks collection. Washington, D.C. 2008. (Bruno Callegher) 179 Abbreviations Editors’ Note Editors’ Note In keeping with the editors’ wishes — and those of the membership of Israel Numismatic Society — that Israel Numismatic Research be in the forefront of numismatic study of the southern Levant (see Editors’ Note in INR 2), the editors present here the following note.1 In it, the datings of certain coins given in a key numismatic work in the region are improved. In 46 BCE Julius Caesar instituted a new solar calendar of 365¼ days, with January 1st as its first day.2 This calendar of Caesar, with slight later modifications, was destined to become the civil calendar of the modern world. Scholars of antiquity use it — under the name ‘Julian’ and without subsequent modifications — for dates pertaining to ancient history. Other calendars of antiquity had their starting points in a variety of seasons. Therefore, an ancient date — other than pertaining to Rome itself — almost always overlaps parts of two consecutive Julian years. Consequently, when given in terms of the Julian calendar, it must be expressed by a double figure. The earlier figure will correspond to the first part of the local year, from the beginning of the year to December 31st, and the later figure will correspond to the period from January 1st (of the next Roman year) to the end of that local year. It is obvious that indicating only a single Julian year as an equivalent of an ancient non-Roman date would be both inexact and misleading. Most modern scholars are aware of the necessity to indicate an ancient date by a double figure but, unfortunately, equations to a single Roman year are still frequent. This appears to stem, at least in part, from reference works that have inexact date-indications. For the southern Levant one important such reference book is Ya‘akov Meshorer’s A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba (Jerusalem and Nyack 2001; abbrev. TJC). Some dates are given there in double figures, but many are not. Thus, a few dates for the coins of Herod Antipas, Philip and Agrippa I are in single Julian figures, and so are also most of the dates for the coins of the early Roman governors (prefects/procurators). The matter is aggravated further by the fact that many dates that are given in double figures have an error of one year. Given the extensive use of TJC in modern research, a table listing the full double-figure date indications, and in some cases corrections, for the volume is provided below. It includes all coins of Herod Antipas, Philip, and Agrippa I of the Herodian family, and all of prefects/procurators. To clarify the fact that not all 1 2 Provided by editorial board member Alla Kushnir-Stein. The Romans appear to have begun their year on January 1st from quite early in their history. The system was used from year 153 BCE at the latest: M. Cary and H.H. Scullard, A History of Rome Down to the Reign of Constantine, 3rd ed., London 1975, p. 181, n. 16. 5 6 EDITORS’ NOTE dates in these categories in TJC required such treatment, we have indicated those without change with asterisks. Dates for the dated coins of other rulers in TJC (Alexander Jannaeus, Herod, Agrippa II) are not dealt with here. TJC Cat. No. 75–78 79–82 83–86 87–90 91–94 95–96 97–98* 99* 101* 102–103* 104–105* 106–109* 110–111* 112–115 116–119* 120* 121–123* 124–126 Philip “ “ “ “ “ “ “ Agrippa I “ “ “ “ Ruler HERODIANS Herod Antipas “ “ “ “ 4/3 BCE “ “ “ “ 4/3 BCE “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 36/7 CE “ “ “ “ KΔ, 24 ΛΓ, 33 ΛΔ, 34 ΛZ, 37 MΓ, 43 E, 5 IB,12 Iς, 16 IΘ, 19 Λ, 30 ΛΓ, 33 ΛΔ, 34 ΛZ, 37 B, 2 E, 5 ς, 6 Z, 7 H, 8 19/20 28/29 29/30 32/33 39 1 8/9* 12/3* 15/6* 26/7* 29/30* 30/31* 33/4* 38 40/41* 41/2* 42/3* 43 20/21 29/30 30/31 33/34 39/40 1/2 8/9 12/3 15/6 26/7 29/30 30/31 33/4 37/8 40/41 41/2 42/3 43/4 First Year Date on Coin TJC Date (CE) Actual Date (CE) ROMAN PREFECTS/PROCURATORS 311–312 313 314 Under Augustus “ “ 31/30 BCE3 “ “ Λς, 36 ΛΘ, 39 M, 40 6/7 9/10 10/11 5/6 8/9 9/10 EDITORS’ NOTE 7 TJC Date (CE) 11/12 15 16 17 18 24 29 30 31 54* 59 Actual Date (CE) 10/11 15/6 16/7 17/8 18/9 24/5 29/30 30/31 31/2 544 58/9 TJC Cat. No. 315 316–319 320–324 325–327 328 329 331–332 333 334 340–344* 345 Ruler “ Under Tiberius “ “ “ “ “ “ “ Under Claudius Under Nero First Year “ 14/5 CE “ “ “ “ “ “ “ 41/2 CE 54/5 CE Date on Coin MA, 41 B, 2 Γ, 3 Δ, 4 E, 5 IA, 11 Iς, 16 IZ, 17 IH, 18 IΔ, 14 E, 5 34 3 4 The only era pertaining to the reign of Augustus that is known for the southern Levant is the so-called ‘Actian era’, which falls in September 31 BCE. Formally speaking, the date is 54/5 CE, but since Claudius died in October 54, the coin is most likely to have been minted before the end of that year. Two New Imitative Issues from the Fifth Syrian War (202–198 BCE) nicHolas l. WrigHt Macquarie University nicholas.l.wright@gmail.com Abstract Two new barbarous imitations of a Seleucid bronze issue struck by Antiochus III during the fifth Syrian war (202–198 BCE) are presented. The phenomenon of bronze imitations in Coele Syria in this period is discussed. Two barbarous coins imitating a Seleucid bronze issue have recently been identified. The two are described as follows: 1. Obv. Macedonian style shield decorated with gorgoneion. Rev. Elephant stg. l.; above, horizontal anchor, flukes l.; between legs, E. Æ, 9, 5.48 g, 18 mm. Colin Pitchfork collection, Sydney (ex C.J. Martin Coins, London 1988). 2. Obv. Macedonian style shield decorated with gorgoneion. Rev. Elephant stg. r.; above, horizontal anchor, flukes r. Æ, ., 6.50 g, 17 mm. Wright collection, Sydney (ex Oliver Hoover collection, Burlington 2008; ex Windsor Antiques, New York 2000). Both coins clearly appear to be barbarous imitations of a regular Seleucid series from the period of the fifth Syrian war (202–198 BCE) employing the same obverse type and a reverse showing an elephant standing right, with a horizontal anchor above, flukes to right and the legend BAΣIΛEΩΣ ANTIOXOY in two INR 4 (2009): 47–50 47 48 NICHOLAS L. WRIGHT lines below. A number of control marks were utilized on this regular coinage, either between the elephant’s legs, or in the left or right fields. No issues are recorded that carry the control letter, E, found on No. 1. Newell believed the coins to be issues of Carrhae in Mesopotamia during the reign of Antiochus I Soter (1941:48–49, Nos. 789–795). This attribution was revised by Houghton and Lorber, who dated the series to 202–198 BCE, the reign of Antiochus III the Great, during the period of the fifth Syrian war. They located its production at Uncertain Mint 60, a military mint situated at a fixed site somewhere in Coele Syria (Houghton and Lorber 2000–2002:47–48; SC I:413–414, Nos. 1089–1090). The production is noted for its consistent style and workmanship, which indicates that the mint was staffed with trained, competent workers (Houghton and Lorber 2000–2002:47–48). In contrast, No. 1 was struck on an irregular, dumpy flan with rough edges. The obverse type is handled in a particularly crude manner, which is especially noticeable in the irregular, high relief, semi-circular lines used to depict the pendant design around the outer rim of the shield. On official coins of Uncertain Mint 60, these pendants are finely depicted using a regular curve, set in low relief with the gorgoneion projecting forward from the center. The reverse type further suggests the barbarous nature of the coin. Although the die was well-centered on the flan and the edge of the die is visible around the whole circumference of the reverse, the Greek legend proclaiming the coin to be an issue of King Antiochus is notably absent. The fact that the elephant’s legs reach the lower edge of the die impression makes it apparent that the royal name and title were never engraved in the die. The elephant itself is portrayed in an almost schematic fashion with forelegs set parallel to each other and little sense of perspective. The control E between the beast’s legs is not only otherwise unknown but completely unrelated to the more complex monograms employed as controls on regular issues. However, the most obvious feature that confirms No. 1 as a barbarous imitation is the direction of the elephant and anchor. The reverse of the coin is a mirror image of the regular issues of Uncertain Mint 60. This was presumably an unintentional result of the die engraver’s inexperience. If the die had been produced using as the model an original coin rather than an official die, the design, which would have looked correct on the die itself, would necessarily have been reversed once the image was transferred to the newly struck coin. This may also have been the reason for the omission of the royal name on the barbarous coin; perhaps a retrograde elephant was not quite as odd as a retrograde legend would have been. No. 2 was also struck on a dumpy flan. The inexperienced hand of the die cutter of the obverse is particularly noticeable in the production of the pendant design around the shield rim. Far from the consistent concentric pendants spaced at uniform intervals around the circumference, the shield pendants of No. 2 have become abstract, irregular patterns. The gorgoneion is particularly worn, but appears to have been similarly abstract. The elephant and anchor on the reverse of TWO NEW IMITATIVE ISSUES FROM THE FIFTH SYRIAN WAR 49 No. 2 are oriented to the right, in contrast to No. 1 and in line with official issues of Uncertain Mint 60. However, like No. 1, the elephant is almost schematic in design, the legs taking the form of diagonal bars terminating in horizontal bricklike feet. As with No. 1, the impression of the entire reverse die is visible and there is no evidence to suggest the die was engraved with the royal name or title, nor is there any sign of control marks. While both Nos. 1 and 2 appear to imitate the same type, the difference in style between the two, especially noticeable on the obverse, would seem to suggest that their dies were produced by different hands. Other Seleucid bronze types dating after Antiochus III’s invasion of Coele Syria in 202 BCE are known to have been imitated. An issue of Antiochene bronzes depicting the head of Apollo as the obverse type and Apollo on the omphalos as the reverse is known to have inspired a series of barbarous imitations with blundered legends. Commercially, these coins tend to be sourced from Jerusalem or elsewhere in Israel and Houghton and Lorber tentatively ascribe them to a production center in Coele Syria following 198 BCE (SC I:403, No. 1062 modeled on pp. 400–401, No. 1050). A further issue produced in imitation of an Antiochene type, depicting a crude laureate head on the obverse and a standing Apollo on the reverse, may have been produced under the auspices of the Seleucid government in ‘Akko-Ptolemais (SC I:406–407, No. 1069 modeled on p. 402, No. 1055). It appears that only the large volume of No. 1069 has caused it to be included in SC as a regular issue. The crude types, incomplete or blundered legends and lack of controls all suggest that the issue of these coins may have had less to do with royal sanction and more with local entrepreneurship. Although claimed by the Seleucids since 301 BCE, Coele Syria was in fact ruled by the Ptolemies in Egypt and fell within their monetary zone. With the Seleucid conquest culminating in the battle of Panion (200 BCE), the Ptolemaic fiduciary (bronze) coinage would have been replaced by coins deriving from Seleucid military expenditures. These coins would have been included in the sitarchia (σιταρχία), a ration allowance paid at regular intervals, probably monthly, as opposed to regular pay – misthos (μισθός) or opsonion (Ñψώνιον) – which may have only been paid yearly or at the completion of a campaign (Griffiths 1935:286, 300). Regular payments of sitarchia have been calculated at a face value of between two and four obols per day for an infantryman, more for officers and cavalry, of which part may have been paid in kind (Griffiths 1935:275–280, 304; Houghton and Lorber 2000–2002:52; Aperghis 2004:203). Even at the lower end of the estimate, this translates to a monthly payment of at least ten drachms per man; an enormous sum considering the massive forces involved in the Coele Syrian campaigns (see Polyb. 5.79 for example). However, with the exception of the isolated donative emission of c. 198 BCE linked with Uncertain Mint 60, and the minor ‘ΔI’ or ‘wreath’ mint which may have been located in Damascus, no silver issues were minted in the new province of Coele 50 NICHOLAS L. WRIGHT Syria and Phoenicia between 202 and 180 BCE when Seleucus IV initiated the minting of silver coins at ‘Akko-Ptolemais (SC I:414–415, 421–422, Nos. 1093, 1109–1113; SC II:20–23, Nos. 1326–1329). In light of the limited circulation of Seleucid silver in the region at the beginning of the second century BCE, Houghton and Lorber (2000–2002:52–54) have plausibly suggested that bronze coins produced by military mints such as Uncertain Mint 60 functioned as sitarchia with greatly inflated face values for the army while on campaign. Where Newell (1938:270–274) equated the standard Seleucid bronze unit with a chalkous or one eighth of an obol, Houghton and Lorber posit the face value of an equivalent unit of sitarchia at something closer to a quarter or half of an obol (dichalkoi or tetrachalkoi respectively). To return briefly to the manufacture of the imitative coins: The fiduciary nature of bronze coinage, combined with the persistent possibility of a Ptolemaic re-conquest (as happened during the fourth Syrian war, 221–217 BCE), meant that the value of Seleucid sitarchia was haunted by the prospect of future demonetarization. As Hoover has demonstrated, these factors necessitated the imitation of large issues only, produced by monarchs who were both popular and perceived as legitimate (SC II:271–272). Otherwise a return on the investment required for the manufacture of the imitations themselves could not be guaranteed. Both the Antiochene exemplars (SC I:400–402, Nos. 1050, 1055) and those from Uncertain Mint 60 (SC I:413–414, No. 1089) were produced in substantial numbers and their imitation in Coele Syria is evidence of the originals’ accepted validity as currency in the early second century BCE and thus the acceptance of Antiochus III as sovereign. If Houghton and Lorber (2000–2002:52–54) are correct in assigning a higher than usual face value to Seleucid coins produced as sitarchia, then we are presented with a situation where the inflated worth of Seleucid, specifically military, bronzes circulating in Coele Syria following the fifth Syrian war would have provided an ideal target for local imitation. REFERENCES Aperghis G.G. 2004. The Seleukid Royal Economy: the Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire. Cambridge. Griffiths G.T. 1935. The Mercenaries of the Hellenistic world. Cambridge. Houghton A. and Lorber C. 2000–2002. Antiochus III in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. INJ 14:44–58. Newell E.T. 1938. The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III. New York. Newell E.T. 1941. The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I to Antiochus III. New York. ABBREVIATIONS AJC AJN BMC BMCO CH CIL CNP CRE DOC IEJ IG IGCH INJ INR LA LRBC MIB MIBE MN NC NCirc. NNM NZ RRC RIC RN RPC SC SICA SNAT SNG SNR TINC TJC ZfN Y. Meshorer Ancient Jewish Coinage. Dix Hills, NY 1982 American Journal of Numismatics e.g., BMC Arab.: G.F. Hill. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia. London 1922 e.g., BMCO 1: S. Lane-Poole. The Coins of the Eastern Khaleefehs in the British Museum. Catalogue of the Oriental Coins in the British Museum 1. London 1875 Coin Hoards Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum e.g., L. Kadman. The Coins of Akko Ptolemais (Corpus Nummorum Palestinensium IV). Jerusalem 1961 e.g., H. Mattingly. The Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum I. Augustus to Vitellius. London 1923 e.g., P. Grierson. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection 3. Leo III to Nicephorus III 717–1081. Washington, D.C. 1973 Israel Exploration Journal Inscriptiones Graecae M. Thompson, O. Mørkholm and C.M. Kraay. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York 1973 Israel Numismatic Journal Israel Numismatic Research Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Liber Annuus e.g., P.V. Hill and J.P.C. Kent. Part 1: The Bronze Coinage of the House of Constantine, A.D. 324–46. In Late Roman Bronze Coinage (A.D. 324–498). London 1965. Pp. 4–40 e.g., W. Hahn. Von Anastasius I. bis Justinianus I (491–565). Moneta Imperii Byzantini 1. Österreische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkscriften 109. Veröffenklichungen der Numismatischen Kommission 1. Vienna 1973 e.g., W. Hahn. Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire (Anastasius I–Justinian I, 491– 565) (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte der Universität Wien 6). Vienna 2000 American Numismatic Society Museum Notes Numismatic Chronicle Numismatic Circular Numismatic Notes and Monographs Numismatische Zeitschrift M.H. Crawford. Roman Republican Coinage. Cambridge 1974 e.g., C.H.V. Sutherland. The Roman Imperial Coinage I. From 31 BC to AD 69. London 1984 Revue Numismatique e.g., A. Burnett, M. Amandry and I. Carradice. From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69–96). Roman Provincial Coinage 2. London 1999 e.g., A. Houghton and C. Lorber. Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I. Seleucus I through Antiochus III. New York, Lancaster, PA and London 2002 e.g., S. Album and T. Goodwin. Sylloge of Islamic Coins in the Ashmolean, Volume 1: The Pre-Reform Coinage of the Early Islamic Period. Oxford 2002 e.g., L. Ilisch. Sylloge Numorum Arabicorum Tübingen–Palästina IVa Bilād aš-Šām I. Tübingen 1993 Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (with suffix as necessary, e.g. SNG Cop.) Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress Y. Meshorer. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba. Jerusalem and Nyack 2001 Zeitschrift für Numismatik 179