Hendin

459634
2013
CBI11210.1177/1476993X12459634Currents in Biblical ResearchHendin: Current Viewpoints on Ancient Jewish Coinage
Article
Currents in Biblical Research
Current Viewpoints on
11(2) 246–301
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
Ancient Jewish Coinage: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1476993X12459634
A Bibliographic Essay cbi.sagepub.com
David Hendin
American Numismatic Society, USA
Abstract
This article presents a survey of recent research in pre-coinage currency of Judaea, coins
of the Persian period (Philistia, Edom, Samaria, and Judaea), the Hasmonean dynasty, the
Herodian dynasty, the Jewish War against Rome and the Bar Kokhba revolt. Books, articles,
presentations and dissertations have added significantly to the literature; it is the author’s
goal to assist the non-specialist in keeping up with the latest information and opinions.
Keywords
Bar Kokhba, epigraphy, Hasmonean, Herodian, Jewish coins, Jewish War, Judaea, prutah,
shekel, shekel of Tyre
Jewish coins of the Second Temple Period and the two Jewish Wars are of great
interest to scholars who study Near Eastern archaeology, Jewish history and
early Christianity. Studies about these coins were published as early as the sev-
enteenth century (Wasserus 1605), but the nineteenth century saw publication of
several important works by Cavedoni (1850), De Saulcy (1854), Madden (1864,
1881) and Levy (1862) among others. In the early twentieth century Hill (1914)
catalogued and discussed the British Museum collection, and his work served as
the principal reference for many years, and remains vitally important. Later
works providing an overview in English include Reifenberg (1947), Meshorer’s
various books (1967, 1982, 1997, 2001) and volumes by this author (Hendin
1976, 1987, 1996, 2001, 2010a). These reference or guidebooks on ancient
Corresponding author:
David Hendin, Adjunct Curator, American Numismatic Society, 75 Varick St, Floor 11, New York, NY
10038, USA.
Email: hendin@numismatics.org
Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Hendin: Current Viewpoints on Ancient Jewish Coinage 247
Jewish coins usually include listing and attribution of known coins, inscriptions,
descriptions, drawings or photographs, and varying historic and numismatic
background and narrative.
Numismatics of ancient Israel has experienced a golden age since the 1960s
and an increasing number of relevant articles have appeared in numismatic jour-
nals such as Israel Numismatic Journal, American Journal of Numismatics, and,
for the last six years, Israel Numismatic Research, as well as journals of archae-
ology and other disciplines.
Books, articles, presentations and dissertations have added significantly to the
literature, and it may be difficult for a non-specialist to keep up with the latest
views and opinions. This article is intended to briefly review notable research on
money of the Holy Land from the time before coinage through the Bar Kokhba
revolt, which ended in 135 ce.
The Time Before Coins

Ancient systems of weights and measures in Mesopotamia and Egypt were used
as early as 3500–3000 bce, around the time of the Urban Revolution. Highly
developed systems of weights and measures existed in Syria from the later part
of the Early Bronze Age (3100–2900 bce), during the Late Bronze Age (1550–
1200 bce) at Alalakh in southern Turkey, with the Hittites in Anatolia, and in the
ancient Holy Land. Archaeological evidence for various systems of weights and
measures has been found in excavations throughout the Near East and data are
reviewed in Ancient Scale Weights and Pre-Coinage Currency (Hendin 2007).
The ancient economic system did not grow simply or universally. Powell
notes that ‘The ancients themselves encountered great obstacles when they tried
to define units of measure in the absence of standardized systems’ (1992: 899).
In the ancient Holy Land, a crossroad of multiple cultures, there were no
fewer than three mathematical weighing systems in use simultaneously: the sys-
tem of dividing down by 10 or 20, which was the Egyptian (10) or Canaanite
(20) method; the Babylonian system, in which 6 was the main number; and the
upward multiplication of 2 (binary system), which originated in the Greek and
Aegean worlds (Qedar 2001: 25).
An early Near Eastern weight unit, the talent, probably reflected the average
‘load’ a man could carry. This is illustrated by ancient words such as biltu in
Akkadian, gun in Sumerian, and kikar (meaning ‘round thing’) in Hebrew (Ezek.
8.26). The word talent (Exod. 38.25-26) comes from the Latin derivation of the
Greek talanton (a weight or something weighed). By the Late Bronze Age the
talent had become a basic trade weight, illustrated by a number of early copper
ingots ranging in weight from about 28 to 30 kg that have been discovered. In
some places and some periods the mina was a fraction of the talent, usually rang-
ing from 40 to 60 mina per talent (Hendin 2007: 39-41).

248 Currents in Biblical Research 11(2)
Simultaneously, in many ancient cultures, the ox or bull served as a general

measure of value. The ox is a standard unit throughout Homer’s writings; for
example, the armor of Diomedes was worth nine oxen while the golden armor of
Glaucus was worth 100 (Svoronos 1909: 35). Thus it isn’t surprising that some
early copper ingots in the talent range of weight may have been made to resem-
ble stretched, dried ox hides—rectangular masses with two or four projections
reminiscent of limbs. Such ‘oxhide’ ingots have been found in many areas of the
ancient world, and several hundred of them were found in the fourteenth to thir-
teenth century bce Cape Gelidonya and Uluburun shipwrecks found off the
southern coast of Turkey (Pulak 2000: 247).
The talent ingots were just the right weight to be lifted and carried by a man,
as shown in some Egyptian reliefs and paintings (Bass 1967: 63). Thus, for
convenience, smaller bronze ingots were required. Some were in the shape of
wedges, and others were shaped as rings or bracelets (Biran and Gophna 1970:
151-69).
The names of many pre-coinage weights, including stater, shekel, drachma,
gerah and obol evolved directly into the names of coin denominations in the
Greek (Sear 1978: xxviii-xxxiii), Roman (Sear 2000: 17-26) and Judaean
(Hendin 2010a: 42-50) systems.
Coins were introduced in the ancient Holy Land late in the fifth century bce
(Gitler and Tal 2006: 25-26). But their use did not become universal for hundreds
of years. Ariel points out that small transactions in the provinces even as late as
Roman times were probably mostly undertaken by barter (2006: 58). Even
though a great deal of trade was carried out by direct barter and taxes were often
paid in kind, there were still units of value set in silver, and a number of scholars
have gathered material on this subject.
In general, the prices of products were set in relation to a metal, and rulers
set firm prices. Under Hittite law, for example, the price of a plough ox was set
at 12 shekels of silver, a cow was five shekels, and a calf was only three
(Hoffner 1997: 142). ‘The exact nature of such prices is not always clear: Was
it a maximum price, since the laws involved fines? Or an “average” price?
Economic documents warn us that such set-prices were not always kept’
(Kletter 2001: 7).
We see a number of instances where metals, or their equivalent in commodi-
ties, were used, such as in ancient Egypt, where ostraca from Deir el Medina tell
us that a worker’s monthly wage was 5½ sacks of cereal or 11 debens of copper.
A goat was worth one to three debens, a donkey was worth 25 to 30 debens and
a pair of sandals was worth ½ to three debens (Lassen 2000: 234).
There are few texts that actually quote the prices paid for specific goods dur-
ing the second millennium bce. Stieglitz reports that ‘Of the many hundreds of
economic texts from Ugarit, written in both Akkadian and Ugaritic, this group
numbers less than four dozen’ (Stieglitz 1979: 17).

Stieglitz lists financial transactions gathered from these texts. A Tyrian robe
with purple-dyed wool, for example, was priced at two shekels of silver and a
scarlet garment cost 18 shekels (1979: 17). Such garments were highly prized at
Ugarit, as they were in Israel some three centuries later (see 1 Sam. 1.24).
Dandamayev (1988: 53-58) expanded Babylonian references on wages to and
prices for the sixth to fifth centuries bce, and noted that during the Chaldean
dynasty, an adult slave cost an average of 50 to 60 shekels per year. Under the
Achaemenids, the price for slaves gradually rose to about one and a half times
their previous levels.
Pulak has observed, ‘In antiquity, as in recent times, market forces as well as
political circumstances could have caused, over time, fluctuations in the value of
certain mass standards’ (Pulak 1996: 17).
Eventually trading metals ceased to be a commodity transaction and, via circu-
lating coins, became a purchase; also at this time coins began to be counted, instead
of weighed, and the concept of fiduciary coinage began. Fiduciary coinage, now a
universal concept, carries a premium value above the weight of the coin’s intrinsic
value (for example, a current US one-dollar coin has little intrinsic value beyond
the user’s acceptance of the government’s guarantee). Seaford (2004: 145) notes:
The result is the paradox that even coinage of unadulterated silver (let alone bronze)
may tend to become in effect fiduciary coinage: although the silver contributes to
confidence, it is not envisaged as a commodity. And so whereas we frequently hear of
metal artefacts being melted down to make coins, we do not hear of Greek coins being
smelted down by Greeks to create bullion or artefacts.
Diaspora and Return

After the exile, Jews returned to the province Yehud and, not surprisingly, over
the years they had developed differences to their brethren, one of which was
language.
The written history of the Persian Period (c. 538–334 bce) begins with the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and ends at around the time Alexander the Great
conquered the land in 334 bce. This territory included the southern part of the
huge Fifth Satrapy of Persia called Eber Nahara, the ‘land beyond the river’ and
included Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine and Cyprus. Economic changes were sig-
nificant in the life of this region whose basic financial system evolved from the
exclusive use of weighed metal, mostly silver, to the use of foreign coins or frag-
ments of them, and eventually to a local coinage. These cut silver pieces are
often referred to as hacksilber (Balmuth 2001).
Conflicts between the Jews and Samarians are illustrated in Ezra, where it is
specifically noted that the Jews rebuffed offers of help to rebuild the Jewish
Temple, which resulted in open animosity (Ezek. 4.4-5).

Barag describes a conflict led by Tennes, king of Sidon, during which the 60
years before Alexander the Great conquered the East ‘were marked by consider-
able unrest in the southwestern parts of the Persian Empire…and Phoenicia and
Palestine had not recovered by the time of Alexander’s invasion’ (Barag 1966:
6-12).
We read about a current coin denomination:
and they gave for the service of the house of God of gold five thousand talents and ten
thousand darics, and of silver ten thousand talents, and of brass eighteen thousand
talents, and of iron a hundred thousand talents (1 Chron. 29.7).
There are other references to the daric in both Ezra 2.69, 8.27 and Neh. 7.70-
72. Since these gold coins circulated during the fifth century bce throughout the
Persian Empire, one might think that many were carried back to the ancient Holy
Land by the returning Jews, with whom they must have been current. However,
until today only two gold double darics and one daric have been found in con-
trolled archaeological excavations in Judaea, Philistia, Samaria and Galilee
(Gitler and Tal 2006: 11 regarding double darics; single daric, personal commu-
nication with Y. Meshorer).
No silver sigloi (singular siglos, a 5.5 gram silver coin struck contemporane-
ously to the darics) have been found in archaeological excavations in the Holy
Land, and these common coins never appeared for sale in the markets of Israel
until quite recently when they were imported from abroad for sale to tourists.
Based on the large number of Jews who returned from Babylon, one might expect
that more of these coins would have appeared in the biblical lands. It therefore
appears that while the post-captivity references in Ezra and Nehemiah might be
references to actual coins in circulation at the time, the archaeological evidence
so far suggests that even these references may be anachronistic, at least for the
land of Judah.
Persian Period
For more than 100 years the denominations of silver coins struck in ancient
Palestine have been referred to as Greek coins: staters, tetradrachms, drachms,
obols and their fractions. However, Tal concludes that all of the silver coins
struck in ancient Judah, Samaria, Philistea and possibly Edom, were based upon
a shekel standard, although the weights of the shekel probably varied from time
to time and place to place (Tal 2007: 17-28).
‘There is no indisputable reference in the Bible for the use of a Greek denomi-
national system’ (Tal 2007: 19). Years earlier Stern concluded ‘with a large
measure of certainty that in the Persian period, alongside the Babylonian-Persian
system of weights…a local system existed in Palestine which preserved the

ancient Hebrew names though it was based on a different standard’ (Stern 1982:
217). And Tal concluded that for the regions of ancient Palestine, ‘a local denom-
inational system and weight standards based on the shekel and its fractions
should be preferred’ (Tal 2007: 26).
There is scant written evidence relating the shekel to the Greek stater, but
one reference from the fifth century bce Elephantine papyri suggests there
are two shekels in one stater (Stern 1982: 215). Certainly this does not refer
to the Philistian shekel standard of 14.32 grams or the Jewish standard of
11.33 grams (see Tal 2007: 25 for a chart of differences in weight standards
and silver content), since the Attic stater weighed only 17.2 gm. However,
there were numerous Babylonian and related shekel standards from around
7.6 to 8.6 gm (Hendin 2007: 72-77), and the reference is likely a reference to
one of them.
Philistian Coins
Hill treated these as Greek coins, and referred to them as ‘Philisto-Arabian’ and
‘Egypto-Arabian’, although he described those terms as ‘not very satisfactory’
to describe the earliest coins struck in ancient Palestine (Hill 1914: lxxxiii); he
erroneously included some Cilician coins in this group (Hill 1914: plate XX
nos. 1-3).
More recently Gitler and Tal describe these coins as ‘Philistian’ and point out
this is ‘a geographical rather than an ethnic term. The fact that Gaza was the
southernmost Palestinian minting authority bordering Arabian domination rather
than being under Arabian rule, lends support to our understanding of these coins
as Philistian’ (Gitler and Tal 2006: 35).
The Philistine confederacy described in the Old Testament was influenced by
Phoenicia and Egypt as well as other Mediterranean cities. Mildenberg observed
that in the fifth to fourth centuries bce, ‘Sidon and Tyre had developed their main
coinages, the heavy denominations. Gaza is their counterpart, being the best of
ports in the South. Her importance as the final destination of the desert routes
and major junction of the coastal roads can hardly be overestimated’ (Mildenberg
1992: 33-40).
Gitler and Tal suggest that Gaza may have been a central mint which produced
not only generic Philistian coins and coins of Gaza, but also struck coins for
nearby cities such as Ashdod and Ashkelon (Gitler and Tal 2006: 30-31). Yehud,
the Persian name for Judah, was struck on at least two types of Philistian quarter-
shekels (GBC No. 1045, 1046), and the initial yod, its first letter, was struck on
both quarter-shekels and ma’ah-obols (GBC Nos. 1047, 1048).
One coin, possibly a quarter-shekel (GBC No. 1049) is of special interest
because it relates to the Judaean weight standard and it carries the name yhwd in
four paleo-Hebrew letters along with the Phoenician letter ayan, a traditional

Figure 1. Yehud silver quarter-shekel (12 mm diameter), early fourth century bce. GBC No. 1049.
mintmark of Gaza (Figure 1). This clue suggests that the earliest series of Yehud
coins, all of which are either unique or extremely rare, were likely struck at Gaza
for use in Judah, and later at a mint closer to the Jerusalem area (Hendin 2010a:
88). Gitler also concluded that the earliest coins of Yehud were struck at Gaza
(Gitler 2011b). (Yehud coins are discussed below.)
The first issues of Philistian coins were struck just after 450 bce and they
tend to be patterned after their Athenian predecessors, but expand into a num-
ber of fascinating oriental motifs such as the sphinx, local cult figures, flora
and fauna. A group of the Philistian coins contain ‘elusive motifs’ or optical
illusions that provide more than one way to look at a coin. These unusual
designs are also known in other coinage, but they are more prevalent in the
Philistian series. For example, one tiny silver coin depicts a male head to the
right wearing a cap; closer inspection reveals that the cap is really the head of
a dog (Figure 2) facing in the opposite direction (Gitler and Tal 2006: plate
XIV, 220).
Philistian coins, including those of Ashdod, Gaza and Ascalon are beautifully
illustrated, catalogued and fully discussed by Gitler and Tal (2006). New types
continue to be registered in the numismatic journals with some frequency. Gitler
has also established a preliminary quantification of monetary supplies in the
Persian Period (Gitler 2011a).

Figure 2. Philistian silver ma’ah-obol (11 mm diameter), early fourth century bce. GBC No. 1024.
Edomite Coins
The first possible Edomite coins are discussed by Gitler, Tal and Van Alfen
(2007: 47-62). They point to a group of ‘peculiar Athenian-styled Palestinian
coins’ which were struck from dies that had very worn obverses that were re-cut
and re-polished. Thus instead of a head of Athena, the obverse appears simply as
dome-shaped. Distribution of these coins suggests that they ‘circulated in the
boundaries of what we define as Edom in the later part of the Persian period and
might well have been the silver money mentioned in several of the Edomite
ostraca’ (Gitler, Tal and Van Alfen 2007: 47).
Gitler, Ponting and Tal analyzed southern Palestinian coins of the Persian
period using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry. They
concluded that Edomite and Philistian coins originated at the same mint (2008).
Ostraca from Tel Arad discuss various monetary units of ksp or kesef in
Hebrew or Aramaic, which refer both to silver and to money in ancient times.
The units of kesef in the Tel Arad ostraca are ‘s’ (for shekel), ‘r’ (for rebah) or
quarter, and ‘m’ (for either ma’eh or maneh), a smaller denomination that seems
to be parallel to the gerah (1/24th of a shekel). A late fourth century bce papyrus
discovered near Jericho and additional Aramaic ostraca discovered at Tel Be’er
Sheba all suggest ‘a vivid monetary economy in fourth-century bce Edom in
which the shekel contained four quarters and each quarter contained six ma’ehs’
(Gitler, Ponting and Tal 2008: 18-19). This denomination system is similar to the

Attic weight standard of 17.2 gm, even though the weights of the shekel and
Attic tetradrachm differ. In the Attic system, the tetradrachm formed the basic
unit of weight, equal to four drachms, with the drachm corresponding to six
obols. The average weight of the possible Edomite coins suggests a shekel stand-
ard of around 15.96 gm.
Coins of Samaria
Samaria has significant written material from the Wadi ed-Daliyeh papyri, dated
to the fourth century bce. These documents use the term kesef and refer to silver
shekels and silver mnn or mnh which could be ma’ah or maneh. Meshorer and
Qedar, in their book Samarian Coinage (1999), suggested that this coinage was
struck in denominations of drachms, obols and hemi-obols. But Tal points out
that the average weights of the Samarian coins vary around 16 per cent from both
the Sidonian and Attic standards of the same period. Thus, Tal concludes that
‘given the epigraphic and numismatic evidence, it is very likely that the Samarian
coinage follows a local weight standard, where the basic unit was the shekel,
which from the numismatic evidence weighed 14.52 gm’ (Tal 2007: 20).
The numismatic history of Samaria and Judah began toward the end of the
Persian period. Samaritan coins were minted fairly consistently from around
375–333 bce while the Yehud coins, discussed below, were minted less fre-
quently, from around 400–260 bce (Meshorer and Qedar 1991: 1). Other than the
coins, several references in Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles, and a few manu-
scripts and ostraca, history records little of these years. It is generally believed
that around 400 bce ‘the Samaritans were still considered Jewish, and as such
were approached by the Jews of Elephantine [also called Yeb, a small island in
the Nile with an active Jewish population at this time]. The Samaritan high
priests and governors in the fifth and fourth centuries bear Jewish names as
recorded in the Elephantine documents and the Wadi Daliyeh papyri’ (Meshorer
and Qedar 1999: 11).
The coins of Samaria were not known prior to the 1970s and they were first
published during the early 1980s, when Meshorer wrote a few paragraphs about
them and identified four coins in Ancient Jewish Coinage I (Meshorer 1982: I,
31-33). By 1991, together with Qedar, Meshorer published The Coinage of
Samaria in the Fourth Century bce. A second book, Samarian Coinage was pub-
lished in 1999 and identified 224 coin types or subtypes. More Samarian coin
types continue to be discovered; in 2007, Ronen published 20 additional speci-
mens (Ronen 2008). Fischer-Bossart refines the classification further in a new
work (Meshorer et al. 2013 [in press]). The first substantial discovery of Samarian
coins came from two hoards, the ‘Nablus Hoard’ of around 1,000 coins of which
several hundred were Samaritan, and the ‘Samaria Hoard’, which was found
near Samaria (Sebaste) in the 1980s; of 334 coins, 182 were Samaritan, 43 from

Sidon, 32 from Tyre, 11 from Arados, 66 Athenian prototypes, plus a number of

pieces of jewelry including earrings, beads, and miscellaneous objects. Both
hoards appeared in the Israel antiquities market and were studied by Meshorer
and Qedar (Meshorer and Qedar 1991: 65).
Samaria issued silver coins to maintain parallel prestige with cities in other
areas such as Judah, Phoenicia and Philistia. The Samarian coins circulated
locally, although rarely have they been found in both Judaea and further south.
Samaria’s small denomination silver coins filled local needs for payments in
religious, military and commercial transactions, alongside the continued use of
other small pieces of silver in addition to coins.
Since coins of Samaria were apparently struck during the 45 years prior to
Alexander’s conquest in 330 bce (and therefore before any formal Jewish-
Samaritan schism), they should technically be considered Jewish issues, accord-
ing to Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 15). Samaritan coins parallel the coins of
places to which Samaria was commercially connected such as Sidon, Tyre and
Cilicia. Samaria’s geographic location—far to the north of Jerusalem—makes
such commercial links logical. The coins of Judah, on the other hand, imitate
mainly Athenian and Hellenistic Egyptian prototypes (Meshorer and Qedar
1991: 20).
Gerson (a psychiatrist and a numismatist) has analyzed the coins of Yehud and
Samaria and concludes that they can ‘project information about the characteris-
tics of peoples that produced them, as well as the particular spirit’ of an epoch
(Gerson 2001: 119). Even though the territories of Samaria and Judah had many
parallels with each other, the coins themselves are quite different. There are
around ten times more specific types of Samarian coins than Yehud coins.
‘Focused analysis of the coins indicates a reality of many profound economic,
cultural, and religious differences between these important provinces’ (Gerson
2001: 119). Overall, Gerson suggests that ‘the sensibility and vision of Judaea
was more “inward”, interior and conservative while that of Samaria was to look
“outward” during this period. I am not attaching a value judgment to these dif-
ferences, but am trying to characterize simply “what was”’ (Gerson 2001: 119).
Coins of both Samaria and Judah also carry personal names or their abbrevia-
tions, apparently the names of governors of the respective regions. Most of the
names are Jewish; among those named on Samaritan coins are Jeroboam, Hiyam,
Hananyah, Sanballat and Delayah. Some coins also carry the name of the Persian
satrap Mazaeus (Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 19-28).
The scenes on many Samarian coins are syncretistic—representing a synthe-
sis between elements of different cultures. A superb example of this is shown on
the coin that represents a standing frontal figure of the Egyptian god Bes (GBC
No. 1028) (Figure 3). Images and figurines of Bes appear not only in Egyptian
art, but throughout the ancient Near East from the second millennium bce to the
Roman period. Bes was sort of a household protector god, who represented good

Figure 3. Samarian silver ma’ah-obol (9 mm diameter), late fourth century bce. GBC No. 1028.
and opposed bad. With such a mandate, it’s no wonder that this Egyptian deity
was widely adopted in nearby Syria, Phoenicia and ancient Palestine. Depictions
of Bes had many variations, and there is evidence that in early times the attrib-
utes of Bes, among other non-Judeo-Samaritan deities, were associated and
merged with local gods. In the case of this coin it seems possible that the physical
attributes of Bes were merged with the iconography of the Samaritan god
(Meshorer and Qedar 1999: 33-34).
Yehud Coins
While the Jews who had remained in Judah during the exodus continued using
written and spoken Hebrew, the returning exiles now spoke Aramaic, which
soon became the dominant language not only in Judah but throughout most of
the ancient Levant. Hebrew now began to be used infrequently, mainly on the
coins of Yehud, as well as on some official seals and documents (Meshorer
2001: 40-41). This was a graphic show of nationalistic pride and religious
tradition.
Unlike Edom and Samaria, there is little written data regarding the use of the
shekel system in Judah during the Persian period. To date, archaeological evi-
dence from the Persian period regarding shekel denominations is non-existent,

although Ronen makes a good case for carrying forward the Iron Age weight
system of Judah into the Persian period (Ronen 2003–2006).
As discussed above, the first coins mentioning the Persian province of Yehud
were likely struck at Gaza. The earliest coins struck in Judah proper were the tiny
(many weigh less than 0.2 gm) silver coins of the Persian and early Hellenistic
periods with the inscription yhd or yhdh.
Most of these coins have been known for only about 40 years and new types
are still being discovered. Meshorer (1982) listed 17 types; Meshorer (2001)
listed 35 types; Hendin (2010a) listed 41 types.
Ronen suggested that the Yehud coinage can be split into two series, first the
coinage of the Persian period and then the related Hellenistic series struck during
Macedonian or Ptolemaic rule (Ronen 1998). Previously these coins have been
studied by Mildenberg (1979), Meshorer (1982, 2001), and Barag (1994–99).
However, Ronen (a nuclear physicist) made the important observation that the
weight standards differ strikingly between the earlier series and the later series
(Ronen 1998). This was important because coins that were fractions of a Judaean
shekel would be very easy to group into the amount needed for the half-shekel
Temple tax (Exod. 38.26).
Among the most common early Yehud issues are the tiny coins imitating
Athenian tetradrachms (Athena bust/owl) but with the yhd inscription instead of
AΘE (GBC Nos. 1047-1055) and those coins which carry on one side the portrait
of a Persian king (GBC Nos. 1057-1059). Ronen studied 64 ‘owl’ coins and 82
‘Persian king’ coins, ‘quantities sufficient for reliable statistics’ (Ronen 1998: 122-
23). He learned that the average weight for the ‘owl’ coins is 0.48 gm (Figure 4)
and the average weights of the ‘Persian king’ coins are 0.26 gm (Figure 5).
During the Persian period the standard of Greek coins commonly copied in
the coastal cities, especially Gaza, was based on the Athenian tetradrachm, which
had an average weight of 16.5 gm. An obol was 1/24th of a tetradrachm, and
indeed we see Greek obols of this period with an average weight of 0.69 gm.
Weight of very small coins varies more greatly, by percentage, than the weight
of larger coins. Ronen points out that
we can find coins minted with the same die which are different by a factor of two in
their weight. With Persian period techniques it was very difficult to produce coins
with the same weight. In particular, it was difficult to control the production process
of the small silver coins in which the flans were hand-made. However, from a given
amount of silver, mints were required to produce a given number of coins. Thus, the
average weight of a large number of coins of the same type is a valid and correct
measure for the weight of that type of coin (Ronen 1998: 122-23).
There is no logical reason that the obol of Yehud should average 0.48 gm and
the Greek obol should average 0.69 gm during the same time period unless

Figure 4. Yehud silver gerah (8 mm diameter), before 333 bce. GBC No. 1050.
Figure 5. Yehud silver gerah (9 mm diameter), before 333 bce. GBC No. 1059.

multiple local standards were in use during the Persian period in Judaea. Indeed,
during the Israelite period there was a system of weights based on the weight of
a silver shekel. Surviving scale weights suggest that the weight of the shekel at
the end of the First Temple period was about 11.4 gm (Hendin 2007). Since
weight standards did not change overnight, we can assume that this Judaean
shekel standard would have at least transitional impact on the following period.
Observes Ronen:
The shekel was divided into 24 smaller denominations or gerah…thus the weight of
the gerah was 0.475 gm., which is nearly equal to the average weight (0.48) of the
‘Owl’ coins. It is our suggestion, therefore, that the yhd coins, during the late Persian
rule, were in the denomination of a gerah (‘Owl’ coins) and half gerah (‘Persian king’
coins). Taxpayers used these coins to pay the half-shekel (12 gerahs) to the Temple in
Jerusalem (Ronen 1998: 124).
The Bible states that there are 20 gerahs to the shekel: ‘the shekel is 20 ger-
ahs’ (Exod. 30.13). However, Kletter has concluded that there were more likely
24 gerah to the standard shekel, and that the figure of 20 gerah may have been a
scribe’s error or perhaps a different shekel standard, since several are mentioned
in the Old Testament (Kletter 1998: 101 and further discussed in Hendin 2007:
80-86). So it seems that these are gerah and half-gerah coins that were manufac-
tured so they could easily combine to make up the exact amount used to pay the
annual silver half-shekel to the Temple.
As further proof to his theory that the Yehud coins were used as Temple pay-
ments, Ronen notes that fourrée or ‘silver plated’ coins with base metal interiors
are rather common among the coins of the late Persian period, except in the
Yehud series. Once it was believed that the fourrée coins were simply ancient
forgeries. However, this seems not to have always been the case, as shown by
Hoover: ‘Although plated coins are frequently described as “ancient forgeries”,
it is difficult to be certain that criminal enterprise was responsible for all of the
known plated specimens. Some series that are of especially high quality may
possibly be official’ (Hoover 2007: 155).
Ronen points out that there is only one known example of a base-metal Yehud
coin and it has no traces of silver plating at all, so may have been a trial strike.
Thus for all practical purposes the Yehud series is the only contemporary series
of the area where fourrée coins do not exist (Ronen 2003–2006: 29). ‘If the
Yehud coins were indeed used for the Biblical half-shekel tribute to the Temple
(Mishnah Shekalim 2.4), the shekel weight system is the appropriate standard.
Moreover, pure silver was required for the Temple dues, which explains the
absence of silver-plated Yehud coins’ (Ronen 2003–2006: 30).
When the Yehud coins of the Macedonian and Ptolemaic periods were manu-
factured, they were more in line with the weight of Greek obols. For example,

Ronen studied 72 coins of the Ptolemaic period and learned that the average
weight of the Ptolemy and eagle coins (Ronen 1998) is 0.18 gm. ‘This weight of
the Ptolemaic coins clearly deviates from the Persian period’s weight of the 0.48
or 0.26 gm. of the gerah and half-gerah, respectively. However, the 0.18 is suit-
able to the obol system of weight. This coin clearly represents a quarter of an
obol, which has a weight of 0.17 gm. The shift from the gerah standard during
the Persian period to the obol standard during the Ptolemaic period is unmistak-
able’ (Ronen 1998, 2003–2006).
Combining Ronen’s mathematics with Tal’s logic (Tal 2007: 20), we suggest
that denomination of the Yehud and Samarian coins should be called a ma’ah-
obol (Hendin 2010a: 91). This hybrid terminology recognizes both the local
nature of the coinage and the underlying Greek system.
Yehud coins were apparently for local circulation since virtually all of the
Yehud coins are found only within ancient Judaea, while coins from the same
period struck in Gaza, Tyre, Sidon and Aradus are also found within Judaea in
significant numbers. Similar to the local nature of the Samarian coins, Ronen
suggests this ‘might indicate that the Yehud coins were not used for international
trade, as were the Phoenician coins. If the Yehud coins were only used locally,
the use of a non-conventional weight system becomes more readily explicable’
(Ronen 1998: 126).
Ronen discussed the chronology of the Yehud falcon coins (20010). Gitler and
Lorber established a chronology of the Macedonian period Yehizkiyah coins and
links them to the coins of the Persian period (Gitler and Lorber 2008). The same
team also drew upon metallurgic analysis and current research into royal
Ptolemaic coinage to establish a chronology for the Ptolemaic coins of Judah
(Gitler and Lorber 2006).
Metrology, Mints and Values of the Prutot

Following the coins of the Persian to Ptolemaic periods, there were no known
coins struck by and for the Jews in their land until around 130 bce; coinage
struck in Judaea, Samaria and the Galilee continued intermittently until the end
of the Jewish War, and was briefly resurrected during the Bar Kokhba Revolt.
Through to the end of the Jewish War, the principal Jewish coin was the small
bronze prutah (pl. prutot). The author published a study of 10,312 Judaean
bronze prutot of 27 general types and various denominations that has led to some
conclusions regarding the Judaean bronze coins (Hendin 2010b).
The data show that the Judaean bronze coins were intended to be a fiduciary
currency and were manufactured ‘al marco’ (by the group) rather than ‘al pezzo’
(individually). Meshorer had previously observed that ‘it is likely that the mint
masters knew the amount of coins to be produced from a specific amount of
bronze; the exact quantity of the metal included in each coin would have been

exceptionally difficult to control. It would not have been expedient to remove

bronze from coins that were too heavy or to add bronze to the lighter ones’
(Meshorer 2001: 30).
Our research confirms this and strongly suggests that even though the prutah
was a fiduciary coin, it nevertheless became lighter or heavier, depending on the
circumstances of the issuing authority. The heaviest prutot occur in the earliest
Hasmonean issues (2.47 +/− 0.03 gm) and then the denomination deteriorates
through the reigns of Herod and his son Archelaus, only to climb again in weight
beginning with the coins of the procurators and Agrippa I and reaches a second
peak with the prutot of the Jewish War (2.51 +/− 0.02 gm). The weight range for
any particular type of prutah varied widely, and it was common for coins of the
same exact type (and thus the same value) to range from less than a gm to more
than 3 gm. We further suggest that among the small Jewish bronzes, it is axio-
matic that coins with the same design motifs were the same denomination in
spite of the wide ranges in weight (Hendin 2009: 107-108). Thus the late, poor
anchor/star coins of Alexander Jannaeus or his successors (GBC No. 1153, aver-
age wt. 0.81 +/− 0.01 gm) were most probably degraded prutot, as were the dated
Jannaeus coins (GBC No. 1152, average wt. 1.20 +/− 0.02 gm), and so, too, were
the early anchor/star prutot (GBC No. 1150, average wt. 1.71 +/− 0.3 gm)
(Hendin 2010b). It would have been impossible for a person in the market to
distinguish on the spot, by hand, between a one gram and three gram coin of
exactly the same design (Figures 6, 7, 8).
Previously, Meshorer and others suggested that small examples of the same
type coins might be lower denominations (see for example Meshorer 1982: 261,
no. 14). Subsequently, however, Meshorer evolved his opinion and noted that
‘the fact that their weight is half that of the ordinary prutah or even less does not
necessarily indicate that they are half-prutot’ (Meshorer 2001: 81). Multiple-
prutah and half-prutah denominations did exist, and the diameter relative to the
prutah was, in addition to type, an indication of denomination. The diameter of
the prutot themselves was subject to change over time as the coins became
smaller and lighter, and then heavier again.
The fiduciarity of the Judaean bronze coins had several ramifications. During
the Hellenistic period in Judaea, the striking of coins was a royal prerogative,
and the grant to Jews by Antiochus VII (1 Macc. 14.9-13) appears only to have
been valid for bronze coinage. Silver coins were struck in ancient Judaea only
during the Persian period and the two revolts against Rome (66–70 ce) and (132–
135 ce).
This is illustrated by the editors of the Talmud, which discusses whether
bronze coins should be considered money or commodities when traded against
silver coins. Typically, weighing both sides of the argument, the Talmud con-
cludes: they are money because in areas where the bronzes were the common
form of currency, they were more readily accepted and exchanged than silver

Figures 6–8. Three bronze prutot (16–18 mm diameters) of Porcius Festus, dated to the year 5
(58/59 ce) of Nero, weighing (from left) 1.49, 2.43 and 3.7 grams. GBC No. 1351.
coins; they are commodities because their greater acceptance increases their
value (Baba Metzia 44b). The Talmud also recognizes the tiny value of the pru-
tah when it states that it is forbidden to steal even an amount less than a prutah,
but if one does, he cannot be subpoenaed to court. He must, however, answer to
God, even for such a tiny transgression (Baba Metzia 55a).
Such insights confirm the extremely low value of the bronze prutot. During
the first century ce, the shekel consisted of 256 prutot (Meshorer 2001: 122).
This was very small change indeed. In those days the cost of one pomegranate
was one prutah (Sperber 1974: 104). After all, pomegranates grew wild and
could be plucked off trees in many areas of the ancient (and modern) Holy Land
for free.
While coins served the marketplace they also served the state, since the profit
motive for striking fiduciary coins was significant. Thus profit joins both market
and political motives in pushing the desire of local rulers to obtain the right to
strike their own coins (Hendin 2010b: 119). Judaean bronze coinage certainly
had economic elements, but the need for Jews to establish and maintain an inde-
pendent Jewish state at the time suggests this coinage had a political significance
nearly as great as its economic significance.
Even though they were struck in the first century bce, prutot continued to
circulate well into the first century ce when Jesus lived, but even through the
fourth century ce. This has been shown by archaeological excavations in Israel

(Bijovsky 2000–2002). These were useful pieces of small change, at a time and
place that small change was not easy to find and many late Roman and Byzantine
small bronze coins were chopped in halves and quarters to accommodate the
market needs (Leonard 1993).
Kushnir-Stein discusses the beveled edges of the Judaean prutot and suggests
that this was a specific characteristic of coins minted in Jerusalem during this
period (Kushnir-Stein 2000–2002). Ariel, however, reported on prutah-sized
stone planchet molds found in multiple archaeological sites throughout Israel
(Ariel 2003). A study of the irregular prutot (Hendin and Bower 2011) and
another regarding the chronology of the coins of Herod I uses x-ray fluorescence
to study the metallurgy of various coin types. Both these and the Ariel study sug-
gest multiple mint locations (Hendin et al. 2011).
Graven Images
The Yehud and Samarian coins of the Persian period consistently depict a wide
range of graven images. No graven images are carried forward into the Hasmonean
coinage and only once an animal appears on a coin of Herod I (GBC No. 1190).
Herod’s son Philip and grandson Agrippa I and great-grandson Agrippa II all
issued coins covered with imagery of humans and Greco-Roman gods—includ-
ing their own portraits. But during the Jewish Wars, the Jewish coinage once
again spurns graven images altogether. Expanding on this thesis, Roth explains
the circumstances surrounding the time period under examination:
The meticulous obedience or relative neglect of the apparent biblical prohibition of

representational art seems in fact to have been conditioned by external circumstances,
and in two directions—revulsion, or attraction… The almost frenzied Jewish opposition
to images of any sort toward the close of the Second Temple period seems to have been
prompted by the extreme nationalist elements, happy to find a point in which their
political opposition could be based on a clear-cut religious issue (Roth et al. 2007: 492).
Thus, with respect to the use of the iconography of graven images, the evolu-
tion of the Jewish royal coinage and the coinage of the two Jewish Wars closely
reflects the evolution of Jewish independence, interdependence, and assimilation
with the Greeks and Romans.
Hasmonean Coins
Early scholars attempted to identify who issued the Jewish bronze coins with
paleo-Hebrew legends. It had once been believed that Simon the Maccabee
(142–135 bce), Judah’s brother and the first Maccabee to carry the title High
Priest, struck Jewish bronze coins in the mid-130s bce (Madden 1864; Reifenberg

1947). This concept was largely based upon the words of Antiochus VII Sidetes
(138–128 bce) who urgently needed to keep the Jews on his side in the battle
against Tryphon for the Syrian throne. Thus he granted a number of privileges in
139 bce, including permission to ‘mint your own coinage as currency for your
country. Jerusalem and the Temple shall be free’ (1 Macc. 15.6). However, Simon
did not issue any coins before Antiochus VII reneged on his promise and in spite
of a tribute payment of 2,000 men, gold, silver and armor by Simon, he ‘repudi-
ated all his previous agreements with Simon and broke off relations’ (1 Macc.
15.27). Later, in light of archaeological evidence from Beit Zur and elsewhere, it
became clear that all of the coins once attributed to Simon should be re-attributed
to the Jewish War (Sellers 1933: 89-90).
In 1967, Ya’akov Meshorer suggested that Hyrcanus I’s son, Alexander
Jannaeus, struck the first Jewish bronze coins (1967: 56). This was widely
debated for years. Today, while all chronological problems of the Hasmonean
coins have not been fully resolved, there is a consensus that the first coins were
struck by John Hyrcanus I (135–104 bce), the son of Simon and nephew of the
legendary Judah Maccabee, hero of the Chanukah story, using the Hebrew name
‘Yehohanan’. This scenario was firmly established by the discovery of a hoard of
Hasmonean coins in Nablus in the 1990s. This hoard entered the market largely
intact and heavily encrusted so the coins could not have been previously sorted.
It was immediately purchased for the Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology
and studied by Barag (cited in Hendin 1996: 66-77).
Still, there remain areas for discussion about the Hasmonean coins. They are
complicated because contemporaneous historians refer to the Greek names of
rulers (Hyrcanus, Jannaeus, Aristobulus and Antigonus) while most Maccabean
coins carry only Hebrew names—Yehohanan, Yehonatan, Yonatan, Yehudah and
Mattatayah. Coins of Jannaeus (Yehonatan and at least some Yonatan) and
Antigonus (Mattatayah) are bilingual and have definite name linkage, and thus
definite attribution. The other three names, however, cannot be directly linked
with Greek equivalents (Hendin 2010a: 163) and assumptions must be made on
archeology or paleography.
Today there is consensus that the first coins struck in Jerusalem under the
Maccabees carry the name of Antiochus VII (GBC No. 1131) and are dated to the
years Seleucid Era 181 and 182 (132/131 and 131/130 bce) (Hoover 2003).
These were small lily/anchor bronzes issued in Jerusalem early in the reign of
Hyrcanus I as a kind of transitional issue from Seleucid to Jewish coinage
(Houghton and Lorber 2002; Houghton, Lorber and Hoover 2008). The last
coins of this issue were struck less than a year before Antiochus VII died in battle
against the Parthians (Houghton and Spaer 1998: Nos. 2140-2145).
As mentioned above, the earliest Hasmonean coins with paleo-Hebrew leg-
ends were struck by Hyrcanus I. Many of them carry an obverse ‘A’ monogram
above the paleo-Hebrew (Figure 9). In Meshorer’s now displaced theory that

Figure 9. Bronze prutah (14 mm diameter) of Hyrcanus I, 135–104 bce. GBC No. 1132.
Hyrcanus II issued these ‘Yehohanan’ coins (Meshorer 1967: 46-47), he fol-

lowed Kanael’s earlier theory (Kanael 1952) and suggested that the monogram
referred to Antipater, Herod I’s father and powerful advisor to his son-in-law
Hyrcanus II. Arie Kindler (1974), among others, suggested that the ‘A’ mono-
gram referred to Jannaeus’s wife and successor Queen Salome Alexandra. Stein’s
theory suggested that it refers to Hyrcanus I’s son and successor Judah Aristobulus
I, and that the other reverse monograms refer to magistrates who may remain
forever anonymous (Stein 1943: 19-21). More promising, however, is the idea
that both the letter ‘A’ on the obverse (GBC No. 1132) and the various ‘A’ and
‘AΠ’ monograms suggest a continuing numismatic relationship between
Hyrcanus I and the Seleucid kings—Antiochus VII and successor Alexander
Zebina (128–123 bce). This relationship was suggested as early as 1864 by
Madden, who said, ‘if the coins with the two cornucopiae originated with
Alexander II Zebina, then John Hyrcanus made this type the sign of his alliance
with Zebina, and it helps to prove that the Greek letter A on some of his coins
refers to this king’ (Madden 1864: 57). More recently Barag and Qedar (1980:
18) and Hoover (1994: 41-57) have agreed. It seems likely that these monograms
were discontinued when Hyrcanus ‘severed his last ties with the Seleucids’
(Barag and Qedar 1980: 18). Josephus supports a Zebina connection: Hyrcanus
I ‘flourished greatly during the reign of Alexander Zebina’ and was a great friend
of the king (B.J. xxi. 273, 269).

The author’s recent epigraphic study establishes that Hyrcanus I’s son,
Aristobulus I (104 bce) (and not Aristobulus II) issued coins under his Hebrew
name Yehudah during his brief reign (Hendin 2009).
Coins of his successor Alexander Jannaeus (104–76 bce) often carry both the
names Yehonatan in Hebrew and Alexander in Greek. Thus there is little doubt
who issued them. Yet, there remains the matter of the similar name Yonatan. It had
long been thought that the name Yonatan, appearing on a parallel series of coins,
was simply another version of ‘Yehonatan’ that omitted several letters. In 1992 a
new translation of Dead Sea Scroll fragment 4Q448 by Eshel, Eshel and Yardeni
underlined the matter. They translated the fragment as follows: ‘Holy city, for
King Yonatan and all the congregation of your people Israel who are in the four
winds of Heaven’ (Eshel, Eshel and Yardeni 1992: 201). This represented the first
reference ever found in the Dead Sea Scrolls to a Jewish historical figure and it
referred to Jannaeus, since he was the only Jewish king at about the time this scroll
was written who had a name like this and the title king. There was another Yonatan,
the brother of Judah Maccabee, one of the immediate family members who liber-
ated Jerusalem from the Greeks. But that Yonatan ruled Judaea between 157–142
bce and held only the title high priest, never king. Thus, since scroll fragment
4Q448 refers to Jannaeus with the name Yonatan, it hints that both the Yehonatan
and the Yonatan coins may have been struck by Jannaeus (Hendin 1996: 70).
Shachar suggested even more strongly that the coins inscribed with the name
Yonatan, as opposed to Yehonatan, were struck by Jannaeus and not one of his
successors (Shachar 2004). After the author discovered a double-overstruck
prutah (Figure 10), he co-authored an article with Shachar and noted:
The coinage of the Hasmonean rulers has been studied intensively and today there is
general agreement on most of the attributions and several points of chronology.
Among the issues that have still eluded consensus are the attribution of coins which
bear the name yntn in paleo-Hebrew script, and the chronology of the coins minted by
Alexander Jannaeus. This article focuses on an unpublished double overstrike of a
well-known Hasmonean coin which was recently discovered in the market by Hendin.
This coin not only proves definitively the attribution of at least one major group of
yntn coins, but also helps to resolve the question of the chronological order in which
certain Jannaeus types were struck (Hendin and Shachar 2008: 87).
Regarding some salient points on these subjects, we pointed out that
Various attempts have been made to explain why Jannaeus’ mint chose (or was directed)
to overstrike Jannaeus’ anchor/flower type bearing the title ‘king’ with a cornucopias/
inscription type bearing the title ‘high priest’. According to Josephus, Jannaeus
provoked a civil insurrection in the course of which thousands were killed. At one point
he tried to appease his enemies. One theory is that Jannaeus’ adoption of the royal title
was offensive to many, especially the Pharisees, and a way to appease them might have

been to overstrike stocks of his flower/anchor coin with a new version of his cornucopias/
inscription coin, thus abandoning the Greek inscription and royal title on the flower/
anchor coin and promoting his status as ‘high priest’. Attempts at appeasement did not
succeed, and rival forces asked the Seleucid ruler, Demetrius III, for military assistance.
Demetrius ruled from 96–88 bce and died shortly after his campaign against Jannaeus.
If the appeasement theory is correct this would give a time frame of the latter part of
Demetrius’ reign for the overstriking phenomenon. Later issues of Jannaeus coins,
which once again give the title ‘king’, could reflect his improved self-confidence after
military victories abroad and an end to the civil war (Hendin and Shachar 2008: 89).
In summary, this coin ‘provides an unequivocal answer’ to one of the Yonatan

coin groups (GBC No. 1149), which was struck under Jannaeus and not under
any successor ruler (Hendin and Shachar 2008). We concluded:
The intriguing question of why the mint of Alexander Jannaeus chose to overstrike his
anchor/flower coins with cornucopia/inscription dies remains open. Nonetheless, we
now have an established fact to support the notion that this occurred around the middle
of Jannaeus’ reign and that it is likely to have been a gesture of appeasement to his
enemies. We will leave it to others to argue the historical implications (Hendin and
Shachar 2008: 94).
Finally we observed that the remaining unsolved attributions in this field have to
do with the ‘wild’ style Yontan (GBC Nos. 1159-1160) types. Since Shachar and I
already established that the overstruck coins (GBC No. 1149) are indeed struck dur-
ing the reign of Jannaeus, it might be tempting to suggest that the ‘wild’ type coins
should also be attributed to Jannaeus. However, the unusual and distinct epigraphic
style of the inscriptions leaves open the possibility that these coins belong to a dif-
ferent high priest, perhaps Aristobulus II or Hyrcanus II, the sons and successors to
Jannaeus, or by their mother Salome Alexandra, her husband’s immediate succes-
sor who may have acted as regent for Hyrcanus II (Hendin and Shachar 2008: 94).
Paleo-Hebrew on the Hasmonean Coins

There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the epigraphy on the
ancient Judaean coins from the time of the Hasmoneans. The paleo-Hebrew
alphabet used on the Maccabean and later coins and, rarely, in manuscripts of the
period, was anachronistic, since this form of written Hebrew had been discontin-
ued several hundred years earlier.
Meshorer wrote,
According to archaeological evidence, during this period of the first century bce the
Aramaic script, also known as the ‘square script’ or ‘Syrian script’, was the leading
one. It was used for writing both in Hebrew and in Aramaic, and it seems that the early

paleo-Hebrew script was almost completely forgotten and only few were able to read
it (2001: 40).
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls the only paleo-Hebrew manuscripts, except for
Job, are from the Pentateuch (VanderKam and Flint 2002: 151). In some other
scrolls written in the Aramaic script, only the Tetragrammaton is written in
paleo-Hebrew, ‘thus indicating that the scribes who preserved this script knew
that it was the original Hebrew one and its archaic flavor made it suitable for
writing the name of the Lord’ (Meshorer 2001: 40).
Limited use of paleo-Hebrew script during the Maccabean period through the
Jewish Wars was thus symbolic. It was intended to revive thoughts of the glori-
ous days of the Israelite period around the time of King David and even ‘the
desire to create a link between the earlier kingdoms of Judah and Israel and that
of the Hasmonean dynasty… These were however not living letters to which the
principles of development and evolution could apply’ (Meshorer 1967: 48).
In summary, then, it is impossible to undertake a meaningful study of the devel-
opment proto-Hebrew script used on the coins of the Maccabees or the Jewish
Wars, because it was an alphabet no longer in normal use (Naveh 1987: 122).
Instead of evolving as would a living alphabet, script forms resulted from the way
various master engravers and their assistants or apprentices cut these scripts into the
coin dies. Other than a few instances where we can suggest that the same engraver
worked during transitions between rulers (Hendin 2009), there is little to be learned
about the chronology of the coins from the style of the paleo-Hebrew scripts.
The best example of such a transition is the coins struck during the brief reign
of Judah Aristobulus I in 104 bce. The very rare type (GBC No. 1142) uses
wedge-like characters that probably came from the same workshop as the
Hyrcanus I coins with the same style (GBC Nos. 1135, 1137). However, the more
common Aristobulus coins (GBC No. 1143) contains a script almost identical in
style to the coins of his successor, Alexander Jannaeus (GBC No. 1144), and
probably came from the same workshop, if not the same engraver. This connec-
tion between the workshops of Aristobulus’ predecessor and successor allow us
to establish a chronology for his coins (Hendin 2009).
At a certain point late in Jannaeus’ reign, the Aramaic (square Hebrew) script
appeared on coins dated to the year 25 of Jannaeus (76 bce) while, at the same
time, the ‘high priest’ title was eliminated (GBC No. 1152). Such a significant
change may have been prompted by the conflicts between the Pharisees and the
Sadducees. Jannaeus was supported by the Pharisees, and the Sadducees con-
tended that he should give up the high priest title and be content with the royal
crown (Kiddushin 66a). There is no evidence that Jannaeus gave up the high
priest title, but simply stopped flaunting it, not only by eliminating the reference
on his coins, but by changing to the lingua franca of Aramaic both alphabetically
and linguistically.

Figure 10. Bronze prutah (17 mm diameter) of Jannaeus, 104–76 bce, with double overstrike.
GBC No. 1156f.
As noted, Jannaeus was succeeded by his wife, Queen Salome Alexandra

(Shlomozion), who was far more sympathetic to the Pharisees than her late hus-
band (Ant. xiii, 408).
The Widow’s Mite

The coin known as the ‘poor widow’s mite’ is likely the small star/anchor prutah
coins that imitate Jannaeus’ year 25 coins mentioned above (Figure 10). They
may have been struck late in the reign of Jannaeus or during the tenure of his
wife, Salome Alexandra or sons Hyrcanus II or Aristobulus II. By all standards
these were the smallest Judaean bronze coins struck. Madden, in 1864, wrote
that ‘The mite…was the smallest coin current in Palestine in the time of our
Lord’ (Madden 1864: 241). In 1914, Rogers wrote that
it is natural to conclude that the coins being cast into the treasury were strictly Jewish
coins…the choice of strictly Jewish copper is accordingly limited to the coins of the
Hasmonean or the Herodian families…and with some degree of certainty it may be
said that the popular coins for this purpose were the small copper of Alexander
Jannaeus and his successors (Rogers 1914: 76).
Whatever its origin, the poor widow’s mite has become one of the most fre-
quently referenced and most popular ancient biblical coin. The widow’s mite

story is related by both Mark (12.41-44) and Luke (21.1-4), and tells us that the
amount of money the widow threw into the Temple treasury was two coins of the
smallest size in existence in Jerusalem at that time. There is no doubt that the
small prutah (GBC Nos. 1152-1154) or half-prutah (GBC Nos. 1134, 1138,
1147, 1185-1187), coins of the Maccabean kings and Herod the Great, fit that
description. The most common among them, probably by a factor of more than
1000 to 1, is the small prutah of Jannaeus and possibly his successors.
We also studied the word lepton and in its context (Mk 12.42) it seems to be a
reference to a generic small coin and not to a specific denomination, which is the
usage modern writers have generally applied to the term (Hendin 2010b: 107).
The massive issue of the tiny bronze coins was apparently first struck after 78
bce under Jannaeus, and may have continued through the reign of his wife and
successor Salome Alexandra and perhaps their sons Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus
II (Hendin 2010a: 194).
When the Mite Became a Mite

In spite of a great deal of writing to the contrary, many collectors and students of
the coins of the ancient Holy Land continue to believe that the ‘mite’ was a well-
known name for the smallest coin in circulation during the life of Jesus. That is
not so. In fact, the word ‘mite’ first appears in the books of Mark and Luke in the
initial publication of Tyndale’s New Testament, published in 1525, where it may
have been intended as a shortened version of the word ‘minute’ and not as the
name of a denomination.
Hoover points out that neither the original Greek text of the New Testament nor
the Latin Vulgate Bible mention the ‘mite’. Instead the Greek or Latin words refer
to either lepta or minuta respectively (Hoover 2006). The word ‘mite’ was most
widely spread by the King James Version of the Bible, printed in 1611, which
became the most popular English version of the Bible that has been published,
and a significant influence on the English language until today (Hoover 2006).
Hoover explains that the translators stated that they wanted their translation of
the Bible to ‘speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be under-
stood even of the very vulgar’ (Hoover 2006: 13). For this very reason the King
James Version and some earlier English translations are of
some interest to numismatists, given their tendency to reinterpret the ancient coin
denominations of the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew scriptural sources in terms of
contemporary sixteenth and seventeenth-century English money. Thus, in a small
way, the King James Version serves as a document for the circulating coinage of early
modern Great Britain (Hoover 2006: 13).
However, there was no ‘mite’ coin known in British coinage of this period. ‘In
fact, the mite (meaning “small cut piece” in Old Dutch) was only created as a

circulating coin of Flanders in the fourteenth century. Initially, the mite was a
small billon coin...but by the sixteenth century it had become copper’ (Hoover
2006: 13).
One might guess, therefore, that this denomination was imported and used in
Britain at the time, but Hoover explains there is little or no evidence to support
this. Even though the Dutch mite did not circulate in Britain, and no British mites
were struck, the mite was mentioned in sixteenth-century arithmetic books as a
fraction of a farthing, varying from 1/3 to 1/16.
Herodian Coins
Herod I (the Great)
Only in the waning years of the Hasmonean dynasty did Mattatayah Antigonus
(40–37 bce) reclaim both titles of king and high priest, as reflected on his coins
(GBC Nos. 1162-1168). This took place just before Herod I was named King of
the Jews by the Roman Senate in 40 bce.
The life and times of Herod I (40/37 bce to 4 bce) have been the focus of a
great deal of interest due not only to his accomplishments, but his proximity as
King of Judaea when Jesus was born. Recent volumes about Herod’s life and his
building projects abound (Richardson 1996; Kokkinos 1998; Roller 1998;
Lichtenberger 1999; Netzer 2001). Herod was a great politician, convincing the
Roman Senate and the triumvirate to name him king, even though Mattathayah
Antigonus was already king on the ground. In 37 bce with support from the
Roman general C. Sosius, Herod besieged Jerusalem and captured it, along with
Antigonus and his Parthian sponsors. Herod was a great builder and his projects
included the structural enlargement of the Temple Mount and rebuilding of the
Second Temple, his palace complex at Herodium, and the magnificent port of
Caesarea Maritima. Herod also sponsored important construction in Tripolis,
Damascus, Ptolemais, Byblos, Berytus, Tyre, Sidon, Ascalon, Lycia, Samos and
Ionia (B.J. i.426-428). Herod sponsored athletic contests and built venues for
them; on a visit to Rome in either 18 or 12 bce he was made president of the
Olympic Games. Herod’s subjects were heavily taxed to finance his building
projects (Ant. xvi.149). Herod was also greatly paranoid. He had many of his
immediate family members murdered, including his wife the Hasmonean prin-
cess Mariamne (in 30/29 bce) and his two sons by Mariamne, Antipater and
Aristobulus, father of the future Agrippa I (B.J. i.664). These executions elimi-
nated every member of the Hasmonean family who might threaten Herod’s
throne during his life. When Augustus heard about the sentences he reportedly
said, ‘It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son’ (Macrobius, Saturnalia 2.4.11).
The title ‘the Great’ seems to be mainly a modern addition to Herod’s name.
He is referred to this way only once in Josephus, in a genealogy where the word

‘great’ was clearly intended to designate him as the ‘first’ (Ant. xviii.130, 133,
and 136). His coins never refer to him as ‘the great’, only as ‘King Herod’
(although his grandson Agrippa I is designated ‘the great’ on some of his coins)
(Meshorer 2001: 232, nos. 121, 125).
Herod may have been ‘great’, but his ‘numismatic legacy is disappointing to
say the least’, according to Ariel and Fontanille (2012: 1). ‘Considering Herod’s
larger-than life persona, most of his coinage is particularly unimpressive’ (Ariel
and Fontanille 2012: 1).
In The Coins of Herod, Ariel and Fontanille provide the most thorough analy-
sis of Herod’s coinage undertaken. It includes a die study based upon examina-
tion of 2,504 specimens.
Only bronze coins were minted under Herod, a clear reflection of his status as
a ‘client king’ of Rome, which retained the right to mint gold and silver coins.
Herod’s coins were issued sporadically and were mostly poorly designed and
manufactured. Herod’s coins did, however, avoid the use of graven images. This
catered to his local population by depicting motifs such as anchors, cornucopias,
tripod tables, and various plant species. Some of Herod’s designs were taken
from Roman coins, such as the helmet, shield, aphlaston and winged caduceus,
but it is likely that they were not fully understood as Roman symbols by Herod’s
subjects, and thus did not offend them (Ariel and Fontanille 2012: 101). One of
Herod’s coins depicts an eagle, which may have represented the eagle he ordered
placed over the Temple gate (Ant. xvii.151).
Four denominational types of Herod’s coins were dated to the ‘year three’
probably referring to 37 bce, the third year of his official reign and his first year
as king on the ground; none of his other coins were dated. Meshorer believed this
series was struck in Samaria (Meshorer 2001); Ariel prefers Jerusalem (Ariel and
Fontanille 2012: 92-95). The issue of mints is not yet fully understood, and the
possibility exists that the Herodian as well as the Hasmonean coins were minted
at multiple locations (Hendin and Bower 2011: 40).
A central reason for Herod to issue large numbers of bronze coins was the
profit to be made from fiduciary coinage. However, facilitating commerce and
trade and the propaganda/promotional aspect of coinage must be considered.
Ariel and Fontanille believe that some of Herod’s coins may have been issued
and used as handouts called congiarium, a form of largess often given by the
Roman emperors. They might have been distributed to celebrate the entertain-
ment structures or Herod’s founding and hosting of the quadrennial games in
Jerusalem and in Caesarea, where games were instituted in 12 bce at Herod’s
dedication festival for the city and its extravagant port. Herod also proclaimed an
annual festival on the day he ascended as king, another logical time for gifts
(Ariel and Fontanille 2012: 26-27).
The donativum was a gift of money by rulers to soldiers in the legions. Ariel
and Fontanille suggest that a donativum was likely to have been given just after

Herod’s troops conquered Jerusalem in 37 bce, when the Romans began to plun-
der the city (Ariel and Fontanille 2012: 97). Sosius, their commander, was not
inclined to stop them, but Herod finally agreed to ‘distribute rewards to each of
them out of his own purse’, according to Josephus (Ant. xiv.485-486).
Establishing a chronology for the coins of Herod has been ‘one of the most
intractable subjects of Jewish Numismatics’, according to M. Avi-Yonah
(Meyshan 1968: 10). Ariel has used archaeological, typological, epigraphical
and other evidence to set forth a relative chronology of the coins of Herod (Ariel
2000–2002: 123). He links some coins with specific events, such as his sugges-
tion that Herod’s common anchor/cornucopias prutah (GBC No. 1188) may have
been issued to commemorate the dedication of Caesarea in 12 bce and, likewise,
he links Herod’s anchor/galley coin (GBC No. 1191) to the first use of Herod’s
fleet in 14 bce (Meyshan 1968: 58; Richardson 1996: 213).
Until now there have been few chemical analyses performed on Herod I’s
undated coins, although as early as 1927 Reifenberg noted the analysis of a sin-
gle coin using older, but quite accurate, methods. Recently I was part of a group
that analyzed 78 coins, mostly undated coins of Herod I (and also dated coins
bracketing his rule) using x-ray fluorescence (XRF) to determine major and trace
elements, and by multi-collector inductively-coupled plasma mass-spectrometry
to obtain lead isotope analysis. Our study revealed declining amounts of arsenic
in Judaean coins during the period 100 bce to 100 ce. This observation allowed
us to review Ariel’s proposed relative chronology for Herod I’s undated coins.
We attributed the loss of arsenic over time to two factors: re-smelting (a possible
but not consistent variable) of bronze and to a changing pattern in local metal
supplies, with copper alloys from Dead Sea Rift mines, where arsenic is mostly
absent, replacing those from Cyprus, where arsenic can be measured in most
samples (Hendin et al. 2011: 97).
We concluded that ‘our data not only reinforces [Ariel’s] conjectural chronol-
ogy of Herod I’s undated coins, it also provides further evidence that the Dead
Sea Rift mines, such as Timna, and potentially Faynan, were in use during a
period when they were previously thought to have been largely abandoned, well
before the region was annexed by the Romans’ (Hendin et al. 2011: 102).
Shekels of T
yre
Tyrian shekels and half-shekels were prescribed as the coins of choice for pay-
ments to the Jerusalem Temple (Tosefta Ketubbot 13.20), including the half-
shekel tribute that every Jewish male over age 20 was obliged to pay (Exod.
30.11-16; Mishnah Shekalim 2.4), individual contributions and vows, as well as
the redemption price of the first-born, and the purchase of sacrificial offerings.
The coins of Tyre were so commonly used in Judaea during the first century
that the Mishnah says that ‘Silver, whenever mentioned in the Pentateuch, is

Tyrian silver. What is Tyrian Silver? It is a Jerusalemite’ (Tosefta Ketubbot 13.20).

In recent excavations by Shukron and Reich in the main drainage channel of
Jerusalem from the time of the Second Temple, a Tyre half-shekel dated 22 ce was
discovered (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Early+History+-+Archaeology/
Rare+ancient+coin+found+in+Jerusalem+excavations+19-Mar-2008.htm).
Why did the Jews feel comfortable using Tyre coinage that depicted the graven
image of a pagan god to make their annual payments to the Temple? The Mishnah
explains that valid money is not subject to being unclean, and it is only suscepti-
ble to uncleanliness when it is used for another purpose such as jewelry or a
weight (Kelim 12.7). Since a viable coin cannot be defiled, the only relevance is
its value and purity, not its design.
Tyre first began to issue autonomous silver coinage—shekels and half-shekels
(infrequently also quarter-shekels)—after it was freed from Seleucid domination
in 127/6 bce. As on the Seleucid coins, an eagle continued to appear on the
reverse of these shekels, but the inscription no longer included the name of a
king, which was replaced with the name and titles of the city: ‘of Tyre the holy
and city of refuge’. The king’s portrait was replaced by the head of the city god,
Herakles-Melqarth. A date, according to the era beginning in 127/6 bce, also
appears.
Meshorer believed it was likely that from the year 108 of the Tyrian era
(=19/18 bce), the Tyre shekels and half-shekels were struck in Jerusalem under
the authority of Herod the Great, rather than the mint of Tyre (Meshorer 2001:
73). Meshorer points out that in this year the coinage is first marked with a new
monogram, KAP—actually appearing to be KP in most cases, and displays sty-
listic and technical differences from the earlier products of Tyre. Meshorer also
notes that Tyre was severely punished by Augustus for the riots that occurred
there in 20 bce, the year before the change in the appearance of the shekels, and
also that these later shekels ceased with the onset of the Jewish War in 65/6 ce.
He believed that this information pointed to Jerusalem as the originating mint for
the ‘KP’ shekels (Meshorer 2001: 77).
Brooks Levy, curator of coins at Princeton University, has argued against
Meshorer’s theory (Levy 1993), and her ideas are widely accepted. Levy’s brief
summary:
It is unlikely that the Roman government would have countenanced the permanent
transfer of a prestigious allied city’s coinage to the capital of Herod’s Judaea. Within
the coin series itself there is no sign of a stylistic break at the proposed moment of
transfer, nor of consistent and gradual later deterioration. Since it seems that users of
the shekel became increasingly limited to those who paid the Temple tax, a
concentration of find-spots in Judaea should not surprise us; but in fact the largest
single find of late shekels—the Usfiye hoard, of over 4,000 pieces, closing in 53/54
ce—was buried much closer to Tyre than Jerusalem. Finally, the shekel of Israel

differs in fabric from its Tyrian predecessor at least as much as it resembles it (Levy
2005: 889).
Herod Antipas (4 bce–37 ce)

When Herod I died, Archelaus (4 bce–6 ce) assumed control of his father’s gov-
ernment in Judaea, and the Jerusalem mint was probably part of it (Ariel 2000–
2002: 109). Antipas, on the other hand, inherited a territory without much
infrastructure; his new capital was Sepphoris, probably the only real town in his
territories at the time. He rebuilt it ‘to be the ornament of all Galilee and called it
Autocratoris’ (Ant. xviii.27). Several public structures had existed at Sepphoris
for some time and were probably still in use when Antipas became Tetrarch. Eric
Meyers has reported a fortified structure in Sepphoris, which appears to have
been in use by ca. 100 bce judging by the coins, pottery and other late Hellenistic
finds (Meyers 2002).
Eventually Antipas began to devote his attention to the creation and ‘found-
ing’ of a new city, Tiberias. He moved his capital there, and apparently founded
the city between 17/18 and 20/21 ce. Avi Yonah explains that the actual event
most probably took place in the year 18, which was not only the sixtieth birthday
of Tiberius, but also the twentieth anniversary of his holding the Tribunicia
Potestas. The year 18/19 ce was also the twenty-second year of the reign of
Antipas as tetrarch (Avi Yonah 1950: 168).
Meshorer expanded the number of known denominations and dates of Herod
Antipas’ coins and described four denominations for each year he minted coins
at Tiberius beginning in 20/21 ce (Meshorer 2001: 84).
A completely new Antipas type was discovered and dated to 1 bce/1 ce
(Figure 11). The coin is a prutah denomination and was likely struck at Sepphoris
(Hendin 2003–2006). On its obverse it shows a grain of barley or wheat sur-
rounded by a clear Greek inscription ‘Herod (year) 4’. On its reverse are a seven-
branched palm tree with a club-like trunk and three letters abbreviating ‘Herod’.
Until this new coin was discovered, the first coins known to be struck by
Antipas were dated ‘Year 24’ (of Antipas’ reign) and thought to be struck in
20/21 ce (Meshorer 2001: 81). Meshorer had attributed the delay in Antipas’
first coinage to the reality that he was ‘forced to establish an original basis for
his administration; no previous governing system existed for his tetrarchy’
(Meshorer 1982: 35). Antipas started with no government, little infrastructure
and, ergo, no mint.
This coin sheds a different light on the situation and seems to prove that Herod
Antipas did not wait 24 years to issue his first coinage. Since the coin is dated to
the fourth year of his reign, it indicates that he likely struck at least a trial coinage
at his first capital of Sepphoris. The coin itself was produced by the method and
style of typical Jewish or procuratoral prutot of the period. The weight is consist-
ent with prutot from the period of Herod Archelaus; the edges are beveled and it

Figure 11. Bronze prutah (14 mm diameter) of Herod Antipas, dated year 4 (1 bce/1 ce). GBC
No. 1198.
was clearly struck on a strip of cast flans, chopped away from coins on either
side (Hendin 2003–2006).
The palm-tree motif is not remarkable for Jewish coins. In 6/7 ce, only six
years after its use on the coin under discussion, the palm tree appears on a coin
of Coponius; it appears later on coins of the Jewish War, Bar Kokhba Revolt and
in the Judaea Capta series, among others. However, this coin would mark the
palm tree’s first appearance in the Judaean series. The grain of either barley or
wheat is also not a surprising design for an ancient Jewish coin, although this
coin is unique in its presentation of a single grain. Ears of grain appear on coins
of the Hasmonean kings, Herod Philip, Agrippa I, Agrippa II and the procurators
Coponius and M. Ambibulus.
Agrippa I (37–44 ce)

Lönnqvist attempted to show that Agrippa II minted the very common series of
bronze prutot dated to the year 6 (canopy/3 ears grain). These have traditionally
been attributed to Agrippa I, whose sixth year would have occurred in 43/44 ce.
His argument was largely based on paleography but also included some tenuous
coin find data (Lönnqvist 1997).
However, the metallurgy, size and shape of this coin almost place it in the
period in the midst of the prefect and procurator issues struck from 6 to 66

ce—the time of Agrippa I (Kushnir-Stein 2000–2002 and Hendin 2010b).

Furthermore, Epstein et al. studied this coin type using x-ray fluorescence and
lead isotope ratios, and concluded that ‘the elemental isotope ratio, archaeologi-
cal evidence, and numismatic data strongly support that these coins were minted
by Agrippa I’ (Epstein et al. 2010: 390). Even more specifically, the evidence
pointed to a date of 44 +/−5 ce, which is precisely on target.
Agrippa II (49/50–94/95 ce)

Among the great enigmas of Jewish numismatics has been to understand the
multiple dating eras of the coins of Agrippa II. All of Agrippa II’s coins bear
dates, many together with imperial portraits, but it has not been easy to under-
stand the relative meaning of Agrippa’s eras. The problem is that two coins of
Agrippa II are double-dated according to two distinct systems (GBC Nos. 1278,
1279), discussed below. If those two dating eras are applied to all of Agrippa II’s
coins as the principal eras, however, an illogical picture emerges, which means
that the dating has not been correctly placed.
There has long been a consensus that multiple minting eras exist for Agrippa
II. In an attempt to solve the mystery, Madden, in 1864, suggested four different
dating eras that he applied to Agrippa II’s coins. In 1914, Hill rejected this and
maintained a system based upon a single era beginning in 61 ce (Hill 1914: xcix).
Meshorer suggested two eras, beginning in 56 and 61 ce (Meshorer 2001: 107).
Most recently, Alla Kushnir-Stein reviewed the history of this subject and pro-
posed a logical new framework of eras (2002). Kushnir-Stein brings us to the
conclusion that multiple eras are indeed appropriate for the coins of Agrippa II,
and she has quantified them. She also concludes that ‘Coins dated by two differ-
ent eras could have hardly been produced in the same place simultaneously’
(Meshorer et al. 2013 [in press]). Thus she suggests that different mints operated
and produced similar coins at the same time, and each mint dated coins accord-
ing to different regnal eras.
Kushnir-Stein believes that Agrippa II’s most logical era began in the year 49,
‘mentioned by Josephus in BJ 2.284. Josephus reported that the Jewish revolt
began in the twelfth year of Nero and the seventeenth year of Agrippa, in the
month of Artemisos. This means the spring of 66. Seyrig has [also] shown that
the starting point of Agrippa’s era is the autumn of 49’ (Kushnir-Stein 2002:
127). She adds that ‘Since one of the anachronistic coins features Pan, the tute-
lary deity of Caesarea Paneas, the era of 49 must belong to this city’ (Kushnir-
Stein 2002: 128).
This leads us back to Agrippa II’s two rare double-dated coins, which belong
to this series. They both carry reverse inscriptions proclaiming ‘year 11 which is
also year 6’. One coin was apparently struck in 60 ce, and thus corresponds to the
era of 49 combined with a secondary local era of 54 ce. Kushnir-Stein explains:

When Agrippa was appointed king over Chalcis, there must have been a counting by
his regnal years which started in 49/50. Josephus reports that, several years later,
Claudius took Chalcis away from Agrippa, but gave him instead the former territories
of Philip, Lysanias and Varus. When he moved into these new territories Agrippa may
well have retained his earlier era, with an additional era, marking the beginning of his
actual rule in these territories, being introduced as well (Kushnir-Stein 2002: 128).
It seems, then, that the small double-dated issues were the earliest coins bear-
ing Agrippa II’s royal title, and the only coins referring to both the eras beginning
in 49 ce and 54 ce with the possible exception of GBC No. 1280 which also may
have been dated according to the era of 54 ce.
Kushnir-Stein further concludes that Agrippa II’s second major era began in
60/61, but ‘We do not know what exactly happened in the year 60/1’ (Kushnir-
Stein 2002: 129) although she suggests it might have been ‘a further enlargement
of Agrippa’s kingdom by Nero’ (Kushnir-Stein 2002: 129). If that was the case,
‘the coins of Agrippa dated by the era of 60 ce could thus have been struck in a
place which came under his control in 60/1 ce… Agrippa’s father struck coins in
Caesarea Paneas, Jerusalem, and Caesarea Maritima’ (Kushnir-Stein 2002: 130).
Assuming that Kushnir-Stein has solved the problem of the dating, the next
question takes us to the location of the mints. Agrippa II’s first mint has been
established to be Caesarea Paneas based upon use of the Pan motif on an early
Flavian medallion (GBC No. 1281) and rare pseudo medallions (GBC No. 1286)
dated to years 26 and 27 of 49 ce. Hendin (2010a) suggested that the medallions
commemorated the inauguration of Agrippa II’s mint at Caesarea Paneas begin-
ning in 74/75 ce, just a year following the fall of Masada.
One coin type of Agrippa I names the harbor of Caesarea Maritima (GBC Nos.
1246, 1250), thus establishing that Agrippa II’s father operated a mint there.
However, Andrew Burnett has observed that Caesarea Maritima was not part of
Agrippa II’s kingdom, thus he may not have minted coins there (Burnett 2011:
124). Burnett further quotes Kushnir-Stein, who has been studying the find
records of Agrippa II coins. She reported that
according to the picture I get from the find spots of Agrippa II’s coins, the issues dated
by the era of 60 ce emanate from Tiberias. This is certain at least for the dates 19, 24,
and 25. These predominate in the Lower Galilee and especially around the Sea of
Galilee. I have information on 32 coins of Agrippa II found in the Sea of Galilee Area
(on the very coast and no more than some 10 km inland; the bulk comes from
excavations), of which 26 are from these years. Among the latter, there are 10 coins
of year 19, the two coins from Capernaum included (Burnett 2011: 124).
We further note three coins struck during Agrippa II’s pre-royal years, and
dated to 53/54 ce were struck in Tiberias (GBC Nos. 1266-1268). Also, the first
of Agrippa II’s coins that commemorate the Roman victory over the Jews (GBC

Figure 12. Bronze coin (13 mm diameter) of Agrippa II, dated year 19 (78/79 ce). GBC No. 1314.
No. 1280) was struck in Tiberias. Moreover, the coin was dated to year 15, which
might have related to 69/70 (according to the secondary era of 54 ce), when
Jerusalem was destroyed, or to 74/75 ce (according to the era of 60 ce) the year
after the absolute end of the war when Masada fell.
Kushnir-Stein has also pointed out that the style of the wreath on the reverse
of GBC No. 1316 is nearly identical to the wreath styles of coins of Herod
Antipas (Kushnir-Stein, personal communication 2012), as well as the pre-royal
issues. This confluence of data seems to strongly support the identification of
Tiberias as Agrippa II’s second mint.
In the same article in which Burnett discusses the Tiberias mint, he has dis-
cussed in detail the coin struck under Agrippa II with a female head and the title
CEBACTH (GBC No. 1314) (Figure 12). Burnett reevaluates this coin, struck in
year 19 of Agrippa II’s era beginning in 60 ce, which translates to 78/79 ce. That
was the year that Agrippa and his sister Berenice sailed to Rome in anticipation
of her marriage to Titus that never materialized due to protests from the Roman
Senate.
Previously the most common suggestions for the identity of this woman have
been Livia, Nero’s wife, or Berenice, Agrippa II’s sister who came very close to
marrying Titus. Maltiel-Gerstenfeld had suggested Berenice, and proposed that
the coin was struck in Agrippa II’s territories ‘in anticipation of the forthcoming
marriage and elevation of Berenice to the status of CEBACTH’ (Maltiel-
Gerstenfeld 1980: 26).

Burnett argues that this identification is ‘extremely unlikely’ (Burnett 2011:

122). He adds that Livia would also be an unlikely choice, since Livia was the
wife of Augustus, and such a late portrait of her would be most unusual.
He proposes, however, that
Given the hierarchical nature of the coinage, one might then suppose that the Sebaste
of our coin was none other than Julia the daughter of Titus, who appears precisely at
this time on the coinage of Rome with the title Augusta… Her appearance would
complete the imperial ‘family set’ appearing on the coinage of Agrippa at the very
beginning of Titus’ own reign (Burnett 2011: 123).
The reason that the earlier attributions have continued to be used is based
‘presumably on the principle that “numismatics abhors a vacuum”’ (Burnett
2011: 123). He concludes that ‘we can, and should, confidently banish Agrippa’s
sister Berenice from the numismatic literature’ (Burnett 2011: 125).
Prefect and Procurator Coins

An editorial by Alla Kushnir-Stein in INR (Kushnir-Stein 2007) suggests a new
way to classify the coins of the prefects and procurators of Judaea. These local
governors ruled in Judaea from 6 to 66 ce, except for a gap between 41 and 44 ce
during the reign of Agrippa I (37–44 ce).
Most numismatic references refer to these governors as procurators, but it has
been long known that the early Roman governors, during the reigns of Augustus
and Tiberius, were called prefects, while during the reign of Claudius and Nero
they were called procurators. For the purpose of this article we will refer to them
as the ‘early Roman governors of Judaea’.
Partial proof of their titles is based upon a stone discovered in Caesarea by
Italian archaeologists in 1961. The stone, usually on display at the Israel Museum
in Jerusalem (with a facsimile on display at the archaeological park in Caesarea)
is inscribed with the name of Pontius Pilate with the title PRAEFECTVS
IVDAEAE (Frova 1961. Israel Museum Inventory AE 1963 no. 104).
One reason for a special interest in the coins of these governors is that their years
of rule overlapped with the life and ministry of Jesus, including the time of his death
and the years following. These were formative years for Christianity, and many of
the local Roman governors played significant roles. None of these coins bears the
names of those governors. Instead they name the current Roman emperor at whose
pleasure the prefects and procurators served, the regnal year in which the coin was
issued, and often the names of other members of the Roman Imperial family.
The names of the governors are known to us primarily from the writings of
Josephus. Current numismatic references, and those going back more than 100
years, refer to these coins according to the names of the early Roman governors

of Judaea under whom they were believed to have been issued. Thus we list them
as coins of Coponius, Marcus Ambibulus, Valerius Gratus, Pontius Pilate,
Antonius Felix and Porcius Festus.
However, Kushnir-Stein points out that ‘if a coin is placed under a heading
that includes…two basic components—the emperor’s name and the year of his
rule—it is easy to identify it immediately. Moreover, these components corre-
spond to what one actually sees on a coin, with no speculative elements involved’
(Kushnir-Stein 2007: 3).
Kushnir-Stein adds:
Josephus gives few precise chronological indications about the periods of tenure of
most of the governors involved, and the exact years of their comings and goings
remain very unclear. For instance, the coin dated to ‘year 5’ of Nero (58/9), often
appearing under the name of Festus, has an equal, if not greater chance of having been
struck under that official’s predecessor, Antonius Felix.
Another example is the issue under the emperor Augustus dated ‘year 39’. If counted
by a proper era—that of autumn 31 bce—this issue belongs to 8/9 ce. Josephus tells
us in a casual manner that there were three governors under Augustus—Coponius,
Marcus Ambibulus and Annius Rufus—and that the emperor died during the
administration of Rufus. He further adds that Augustus’ successor, Tiberius, dispatched
Valerius Gratus to replace Rufus. We have no proper knowledge of when each of these
governors replaced another, and most of the dates appearing in scholarly literature are
no more than conjecture (Kushnir-Stein 2007: 4).
The Jewish Wars

Both important similarities and differences exist between the coins of the Jewish
War (66–73 ce) and the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 ce). But the coins of these
two Jewish Wars against Rome contrast dramatically to all three series of Judaean
coins that preceded them.
Based on these differences, one might be tempted to observe that the coinage
of the two wars was the only fully realized independent Jewish coinage in ancient
times. Conception, creation and circulation of these coins during the periods of
the two wars were unique human achievements for a small, backwater nation of
the ancient world.
The reasons to mint coins in antiquity were varied and are not fully under-
standable from a modern perspective (Howgego 1990). Yet LeRider identifies
two primary motivations for producing coinage: military payments and generat-
ing a profit (Le Rider 2001 and 1989: 159-72), as discussed earlier.
But the need for coins went well beyond economics; they advanced political
ideas. As Van Alfen notes, once coins became struck objects rather than chopped
fragments, ‘the monetary instrument could now advance upon levels of political

symbolism that were unattainable with anonymous bits’ (Van Alfen forthcom-
ing). This is especially relevant to coinage of the Jewish Wars, since there were
both political and religious issues to be considered (see Hendin 2007–2008 for
discussion of these matters). As Mildenberg has noted, coins were ‘the best mass
media of the time’ (Mildenberg 1984: 72).
Because neither Seleucids nor Romans had previously allowed the Jews to
issue silver coins, the autonomous series of silver coins of the Jewish War against
Rome made a major political statement—‘an ostentatious demonstration of the
recovery of independence’, writes Roth (1962: 34), who suggests the minting of
coins by an autonomous Jewish government ‘was a religious as well as a patri-
otic necessity’ (Roth 1962: 33).
The Yehud and Samaritan coins of the Persian to the Macedonian periods are
particularly interesting because of their lack of Jewishness. These were mainly
copied from contemporary Greek coins—Cilician, Sidonian and Athenian—and
are probably Satrapal issues and local mint Ptolemaic coins (Barag 1994–1999).
During the Hellenistic period in Judaea it was a royal prerogative to issue
coins, and this grant was made to the Jews by Antiochus VII (1 Macc. 16.6).
Thus Maccabean coins often use Greek legends along with the paleo-Hebrew,
and while they do not display graven images, they continue to copy symbols
from Greek coinage. The single exception is the chauvinistic coin of Mattatayah
Antigonus that depicts two objects from the Temple, the showbread table and the
menorah (GBC No. 1168). Herodian coins carry exclusively Greek legends; the
early coins rarely use graven images, although many of them carry images that
may have had specific meanings to the Romans which were not fully understood
by the Jews (Ariel 2006).
At the time of the Jewish War there were many silver coins of Tyre as well as
Seleucid, Ptolemaic and Roman coins in wide circulation in the area (BJ v.421 and
550-52) not to mention many small bronze coins from Hasmonean and Herodian
times, and from the Roman governors of Judaea (prefects and procurators). Robert
Deutsch suggested that the Jewish War silver coins were made from melted and
further purified Tyre shekels that came from the Temple treasury (Deutsch forth-
coming, and personal communications). Thus the Jewish War silver coins did not
offer the manufacturers as much profit as might have been realized.
Rappaport believes that the silver coinage of the Jewish War was ‘first and
foremost minted to provide for the Temple’s expenditures for provisions and
maintenance’ (Rappaport 2007: 104). He believes that the high priests and rich
nobles were acting as if they supported the revolt in order to attempt to avoid
what they believed would be a hopeless confrontation with Rome (Rappaport
2007: 104).
Religious necessity for the Jewish War silver, however, is not clear. There was
ample coinage in circulation and available in the Temple treasury, including the
shekels and half-shekels of Tyre that had been collected for many decades (Exod.

30.11-16; Mishnah Shekalim 2.4; Tosefta Ketubbot 13.20). This suggests that
the Jewish War silver coins were intended to send the dramatic message of inde-
pendence not only to Rome but to the local Jewish population. Paying for com-
modities (sacrificial animals, wine, incense, olive oil, wheat and related products)
and services (craftsmen and other workers) required by the Temple was an excel-
lent method of moving the newly made coins into circulation.
No political or religious authority is named on the coins of the Jewish War.
Reference to ‘Jerusalem’ on these coins is likely a reference to the place of mint-
ing. Since the Jewish War was chaotic and factious from its outset, it is remark-
able that the Jews were able to create consistently high quality coins. The
anonymity of the minting authority suggested a Jewish national unity that simply
did not exist on the ground since there were several factions of Jews, some dia-
metrically opposed to each other.
Coins of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, on the other hand, were commonly struck
with the name ‘Simon’ referring to Bar Kokhba, who styled himself Nasi Y’srael.
Another name, ‘Eleazar the Priest’, occasionally has been suggested as being
one of the minting authorities, or a colleague of Bar Kokhba. In a forthcoming
article I explore my suggestion that Eleazar the Priest was not a living person
during the Bar Kokhba war, but a messianic and heroic reference to Eleazar the
Priest, son of Aaron, a man of legend, whose name was known by every Jew of
the time. Eleazar the Priest was at Joshua’s side when he crossed the Jordan
River to conquer Canaan. Eleazar the Priest’s persona was directly related to
various aspects of Bar Kokhba’s cause: first to redeem Jerusalem, second to
rebuild the Temple, and finally, at least in the eyes of his early Rabbinic loyalists,
to show himself as the Messiah (Hendin forthcoming).
Another significant difference between the coins of the two Jewish Wars and
the earlier Jewish coins is the naming of the land in which these coins were
struck. Coins of the Persian through the Ptolemaic periods refer to the area as
‘Yehud’ or ‘Yehudah’, the name of the Persian satrapy harkening back to the Iron
Age name Yehudah. The Hasmonean coins refer to the ‘High Priest and the
Council of the Jews (or Judaeans)’.
Why, then, do the coins of the Jewish War, and later the Bar Kokhba Revolt,
name the native land of the Jews as ‘Israel’ instead of ‘Judaea’?
The term Israelites (or Children of Israel) refers to the descendants of Jacob,
later named Israel. More generally it also refers to the worshippers of the god of
Israel, irrespective of their ethnic origin. On the other hand, Judaeans are a spe-
cific group who lived in Judaea, who were not the same as other Jewish geo-
graphic groups of the time, such as the Galileans.
One may also surmise that at this time there was an effort to be inclusive for
all Jews, some of whom may have identified with the ten lost tribes that disap-
peared from biblical accounts after the return of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin
from Babylon.

Goodblatt discusses uses of ‘Judaea’ and ‘Israel’ and relates the coins to litera-
ture of the first and second centuries. He wonders if the later preference of Israel
over Judaea could ‘reflect an attempt to differentiate the rebel regime(s) from the
Hasmonean-Herodian state “of the Judaeans,” or from the Roman province of
Iudaea? Certainly the rebels would want to emphasize the discontinuity with the
Imperial provincial structures’ (Goodblatt 2006: 137). He further observes that
‘Rabbinic materials emerge as a literature beginning in the late first century. The
earlier strata of rabbinic literature thus reinforce the preference for an Israel
nationalism evidenced among the rebels of 66 and 132’ (Goodblatt 2006: 139).
Goodman suggests that perhaps the Jews rejected the name ‘Judaea’ simply
because it was the name used by Rome to refer to their province (Goodman
2005: 166). One also notes that by the time of the two Jewish Wars, significant
communities of Jews had been established in foreign capitals such as Alexandria
(Ant. 15.113), Antioch (Ant. 12.119-120), Sidon (Ant. 14.323) and Tyre (Ant.
14.314). It is therefore possible that the use of the broader term of ‘Israel’ for the
physical state being sought by the rebels was intended to differentiate from
‘Jews’ or ‘Judaeans’ who no longer lived in the area, but belonged to the rapidly
growing Jewish Diaspora that increasingly supported Jewish activity in and
around Jerusalem. For additional recent scholarship on the terms ‘Jews’ and
‘Judaeans’ (and ‘Judaism’) see Miller 2010, 2012.
Precise wording in the legends and selection of the images on the coins of the
Jewish Wars suggests that the leaders had a clear understanding of how to use
coins for political communication.
Jewish War Against Rome (First Revolt) 66–70/73 ce

The first Jewish coins minted in 66 ce were silver shekels (Figure 13) and half-
shekels with the legends ‘shekel of Israel’ or ‘half [of] the shekel’, and ‘Jerusalem
[the] holy’. In this legend we see a parallel to the legend on the contemporary
Tyrian silver coins which referred to TYPOΣ IEPAΣ, now replaced by ‘Jerusalem
the holy’.
Even though the striking of Jewish silver shekels was revolutionary, their leg-
ends were rather generic. Without reference to any specific issuing authority,
they could be embraced by all of the Jews, whether they were pro-peace, zealots
or middle-of-the-road.
The slogans on the lower value coins differed in tone. Huge numbers of bronze
prutot were dated to the second and third years of the war, and each carried the
words, ‘for the freedom of Zion’. The larger denomination bronze issues are
inscribed ‘for the redemption of Zion’. These are perhaps the earliest recorded
Zionistic slogans (Hendin 2010a: 348).
By the fourth year, Jerusalem was under siege by Titus. Vespasian had
ascended to the throne in Rome and the tide had turned dramatically against the

Figure 13. Silver shekel (23 mm diameter) of the Jewish War, dated year 1 (70/71 ce). GBC No. 1354.
Jews. At this time, the legends and the nature of the Jewish bronze coins had
changed. These larger denominations, with the words ‘half’ and ‘quarter’, seem
to be fiduciary fractions of silver shekels. The slogan, ‘freedom of Zion’, is
replaced by ‘redemption of Zion’.
Roth points out that the slogan change in the fourth year was ‘certainly not
accidental [and] may well reflect the fresh political circumstances of this time,
for Simon bar Giora had by now entered Jerusalem and established his suprem-
acy there’ (Roth 1962: 43). It is also possible that the change in language reflects
the Jewish insurgents’ realization that they would soon be defeated by the Roman
war machine. Hence, the change in tone from the call for physical ‘freedom’ from
oppression versus ‘redemption’ or ‘salvation’, which has a more spiritual tone.
Goldstein and Fontanille observe that ‘freedom does not necessarily imply
confrontation and can conceivably be obtained by mutual consent, possibly as a
result of negotiation, whereas redemption denotes salvation or a forced release
from a status of war and oppression’ (Goldstein and Fontanille 2006: 21).
Absence of the word ‘Zion’ on the Bar Kokhba coins, discussed further below,
suggests it may have referred to the Temple, which no longer existed. Zion is
completely replaced by ‘Israel’ or ‘Jerusalem’, as in ‘for the redemption of Israel’
and ‘for the freedom of Jerusalem’. References to Jerusalem express desires to
regain the city, but there is no evidence that Bar Kokhba succeeded at any point
in the war. In controlled excavations in Jerusalem, scores of thousands of coins

have been found, but among them were only four coins of Bar Kokhba (Ariel
1982: 293).
Both series of Jewish War coins used similar forms of the paleo-Hebrew script
from the Iron Age. As discussed above, it had been essentially discontinued sev-
eral hundred years earlier and ‘saw only very limited use in the Maccabean age’
(Kanael 1963: 44). Also significant is the consensus that ‘Judaean society in
antiquity was no more literate than the surrounding cultures. In other words, the
vast majority of Judaeans were illiterate’ (Goodblatt 2006: 33). Thus the major-
ity of Jews were not likely to have read the Aramaic (square Hebrew) letters any
more easily than the obsolete paleo-Hebrew (see Harris 1989: 327 for a discus-
sion of literacy in the ancient world).
However, inability to read the coins need not have reduced the efficacy of the
transmission of messages. Considering the strong Jewish oral traditions, it is
possible that the coins provoked patriotic discussion among the rebels. One can
imagine a Jewish rebel passing along a coin and saying: ‘Look, it is written in the
language of King David, do you know what it says? “For the freedom of Zion”.’
Now the coin and the verbal legend, playing on tales of the glorious, distant past,
could pass from hand to hand into every corner of Judaea where the rebels car-
ried on their lives.
Language, of course, is not the only way to communicate; symbols and images
can be equally effective, such as the portraits of Roman emperors on their coins
which circulated to the far reaches of the empire and made impressions upon
even those who could not read. This could not occur on Judaean coins, because
of the admonition against graven images that was strictly observed at this time.
Unlike the earlier Jewish coins, virtually all of the symbols on coins struck
during both Jewish Wars against Rome go well beyond simply using inoffensive
motifs. They are overtly Jewish, and refer to two basic themes: the Jerusalem
Temple, and the popular festival of Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles.
While the manufacturing of the coins of the two Jewish Wars were not similar
to each other, both are unusual when compared to other contemporary coinages.
Precise manufacturing was a hallmark of the Jewish War silver coins (Goldstein
and Fontanille 2006: 17). They were uniform in weight, purity, shape, and strik-
ing. Engraving of the dies was the best in the history of Judaea (Roth 1962: 40).
This is remarkable considering the ongoing civil war and changes among
Jerusalem’s Jews, which was certainly not consistent with the stable minting of
coins for five years (Rappaport 2007: 103). Both the Tyre and Jewish War
shekels are between 96 and 98 percent silver (Deutsch forthcoming).
Minters and Motifs

There has been a long discussion of who minted the coins of the Jewish War and
where they were minted. Rappaport believes that the silver coins were minted in

the Temple area, directed by Temple officials sympathetic to the Zealots

(Rappaport 2007). He further suggests that Simon bar Giora’s party most likely
minted the bronze coins, whose slogans ‘represent a more radical ideology’
(Rappaport 2007: 111) than the silver coins.
The Jewish War coins were struck with symbols referring primarily to the
festival of Sukkot. Romanoff suggested that the chalice depicted on the obverse
of the silver shekels, half-shekels and quarter-shekels and the small bronze of the
fourth year was actually an Omer cup (Romanoff 1944: 22). Earlier descriptions
of this cup suggested it was related to drinking wine, but Romanoff argues, ‘It is
doubtful whether or not the vessel was a drinking cup. The dotted [beaded] bor-
der would make drinking almost impossible. The cup, “kos”, in the Temple was
used for sacrificial blood; while the drinking of wine in the Temple was forbid-
den, and...the Jewish coins do not contain any symbol of blood sacrifices’
(Romanoff 1944: 22).
On the other hand, Goldstein and Fontanille (2006) point out that an Omer cup
is not described in any ancient sources, and believe it is equally likely that this is
a generic Temple chalice, perhaps a chalice offering salvation (Ps. 116.13). In
either case we note that this chalice with a beaded rim is the only design that is
repeated on both the silver and the bronze coins of the Jewish War.
The grouping of three pomegranate buds also shown on the silver shekels and
half-shekels has often been described as hanging on a sprig or stem (e.g. see
Meshorer 2001: 240, No. 183). Deutsch, however, asserts that this symmetrical
object more likely represents a man-made staff, ‘such an artifact matches a
sacred object, a staff used by the high priests in the Temple and explains its
appearance on the silver coins. Therefore the staff is likely to represent the mint-
ing authority, which is the high priesthood or the Temple as an institution’
(Deutsch forthcoming, and personal communications).
An ivory pomegranate, possibly part of a similar staff, inscribed ‘[Belonging]
to the Temple of [Yaweh], consecrated to the priests’ in paleo-Hebrew script was
purchased by the Israel Museum in the 1980s. In 2005 a committee of the Israel
Antiquities Authority and the Israel Museum found the pomegranate to be ancient,
but the inscription to be a modern addition (Goren et al. 2005). However, in 2008,
Prof Yitzhak Roman, former academic director of Hebrew University’s scanning
electron microscope (SEM), examined the pomegranate under SEM and con-
cluded that the inscription was genuine and original to the pomegranate. (For a
summary of Roman’s report as well as the original Hebrew text and an English
translation see http://www.bib-arch.org/news/news-ivory-pomegranate.asp).
Deutsch reported on an undated prutah of the Jewish War and concluded it
was struck during the first year (Deutsch 1992–1993), which expands the bronze
coinage to four years rather than three.
Syon reported on the bronze coins struck at Gamla, designed to resemble the
silver shekels of Jerusalem. Seven examples were discovered in excavations at

Gamla. All were struck from the same obverse die and two reverse dies (Syon
1992–93 and 2007). The crudeness of the paleo-Hebrew and Aramaic inscrip-
tions makes the Gamla coins difficult to read. Meshorer read the inscriptions ‘for
the redemption’ and ‘holy Jerusalem’ (Meshorer 2001: 244). Farhi later read the
obverse as ‘Gamla [year] 2’ (Farhi 2003–2006: 69-76). Most recently Sahuri
read the coin as Aramaic with obverse ‘to the freedom’ and reverse ‘y[ear] of the
Jewish people’ (Sahuri cited in Hendin 2010a: 364).
Bar Kokhba (132–135 ce)

Bar Kokhba did not have the benefit of an existing infrastructure, so his gov-
ernment improvised and struck ALL of their coins, both bronze and silver,
upon Greek and Roman coins. This unusual system caused the full range of
Judaean coin denominations to change, now the Jewish silver coins are all the
size of Roman tetradrachms, denarii or drachms and the bronze coins appear
in large, medium and small denominations consistent with the coins circulat-
ing in the area at the time. The Bar Kokhba coins are unique in another way;
they are apparently the only coins struck that did not add fiduciary value upon
manufacture, since it actually cost the government more to take them from
circulation, to re-strike them and re-introduce them than the circulating value
(Hendin 2012).
Some Bar Kokhba coins were saved by patriotic Jews for many years and
used as jewelry or even carefully collected as worthless tokens and kept together
with one’s greatest wealth. A Bar Kokhba coin hoard, found in a pottery oil lamp,
was buried no earlier than 151/152 ce. This hoard contained Roman gold (4) and
silver coins (5) but also a clearly selected set of seven Bar Kokhba bronze coins
that had been invalidated in 135 ce, more than 15 years earlier (Hendin
2000–2002).
The coins of the two Jewish Wars against Rome were rooted in the Jewish
desire for an autonomous nation. Political, religious and economic elements all
played roles in the creation of these coinages. There are significant differences
between the coins of the two Jewish Wars and all Jewish coinage that preceded
them. After studying the slogans, imagery and extensive manufacture of these
coins during difficult times, we conclude that the principal motives behind them
were political and psychological—to make bold statements of Jewish sover-
eignty, in spite of a less than clear reality.
Contrarily (Meshorer 2001: 137), we also believe that the Bar Kokhba coins
were struck mostly upon circulating Roman or provincial coins because they
were most readily available, and not as a significant part of the political state-
ment (Hendin 2012).
For more than 150 years numismatists who examined coins of the Jewish War
and the Bar Kokhba War have speculated that the Bar Kokhba minters had access

to the Jewish War coins. This was suggested by the paleo-Hebrew script forms
and the similar Zionistic slogans. But there was not a shred of archaeological
evidence that this was the case (Mildenberg 1984: 68). In other words, there has
been no record of Jewish War coins found together with the Bar Kokhba coins at
any archaeological sites in Israel or Jordan.
Recently, however, Zissu and colleagues excavated a Bar Kokhba period cave
in the western Judaean hills. There they found three coin hoards—one was a
combination of Roman gold and Bar Kokhba silver coins. The second was a
group of 83 Bar Kokhba coins and a piece of a silver earring. The third, a smaller
hoard, was the very first known discovery of a Jewish War coin together with Bar
Kokhba coins and one Hasmonean prutah, thus proving suspicions that the wars,
separated by 63 years, had a numismatic connection (Zissu and Hendin 2012).
Thus it is now proven that Bar Kokhba’s followers were well aware of the nature
of the coins of the Jewish War. Furthermore they were also familiar with
Hasmonean bronze coins!
This fresh evidence serves to solidify Goodman’s belief that the Bar Kokhba
coins show a ‘clear desire to link their uprising with the revolt that ended in ad
70’ (Goodman 2005: 166).
The Temple and Other Images

The most stunning motif on the coins of Bar Kokhba is the façade of a tetrastyle
temple shown on the obverse of the large silver sela’im (tetradrachms) (Figure 14).
Meshorer summarizes various proposals as to the identification of this structure,
and concludes that it is ‘a schematic geometric shape representing the Temple to all
who viewed it, but not the actual building’ (Meshorer 1982: II, 140). Given historic
descriptions of the Jerusalem Temple, however, it may be less schematic than
Meshorer suggests. The Temple façade has a few variations on Bar Kokhba coins.
The Temple was destroyed only around 60 years earlier, so stories and perhaps
drawings of it were fresh. Today we are able to explain some of the motifs previ-
ously not fully understood.
The wavy line, cross or star above the Temple are not fanciful designs, but
representations of objects. ‘A vine of gold stood over the entrance to the sanctu-
ary. Those who wished to donate—a leaf, grape or cluster he would bring and
hang it on her [on the vine]’ (Mishnah Midot 3.8). Thus we understand that ini-
tially only the vine was hung, and this is represented by the wavy line. The
golden leaves and grapes were added as donations from the people, and, logi-
cally, cleared away from time to time to make room for new donations.
The Mishnah also tells us that, ‘Helena set a golden candelabra over the door
of the Sanctuary’ (Yoma 3.10). This chandelier was a gift from Helena, queen of
Adiabene, a converted Jew who visited Jerusalem and was buried there around
56 ce. Rabbinnic literature says that this candelabrum sparkled with rays and

Figure 14. Silver tetradrachm or sela (26mm diameter) of Bar Kokhba, dated year 2 (133/134 ce).
GBC No. 1385.
reflected light that could be seen from many places in Jerusalem. Thus there are
two renditions of the object above the Temple—a cross or a star— but they both
represent the artist’s interpretation of the twinkling chandelier (Goldstein cited in
Hendin 2010a: 377-79).
Dan Barag suggests that the object between the central pair of columns is the
showbread table (Barag 1986: 217-22). Previously, Romanoff suggested it might
be the Ark of the Covenant hidden by a veil, as described in Exod. 40.3 (Romanoff
1944: 40). Reifenberg suggested an Ark of the Torah with scrolls (Reifenberg
1947: 30-32). Mildenberg suggests that the object ‘resembles a chest with a
semi-circular lid, seen from one of the small sides’, and sees a parallel between
it and the Ark of the Covenant (Mildenberg 1984: 33-37).
The Ark of the Covenant, however, was not housed in the Second Temple.
Romanoff points out that ‘it is quite possible because of inaccessibility for the
laymen to the sanctuary, this fact was only known to the High Priests and a few
others, the general belief being that the art was there’ (Romanoff 1971: 41).
One may find an additional clue in the two staves used to carry the original
ark, which ‘were not seen, but protruded through the curtain and looked like two
woman’s breasts’ (B. Talmud Yoma 54a; Menachot 98b). Indeed the graphic
image in the center of the Temple on Bar Kokhba’s sela’im has two points
directly reminiscent of that description. This suggests the image of an idealized,

rebuilt Temple containing the Ark that did not even exist in the Second Temple,
consistent with Bar Kokhba’s messianic message (Hendin forthcoming).
Goldstein believes that this part of the representation of the Temple may sim-
ply depict the sanctuary entrance, with a generic object inside. He also observes
that the horizontal ladder-like object is not a balustrade or fence as some have
suggested but represents the twelve steps leading up to the Temple that were
described by both Josephus and in the Mishnah. ‘Not one of the dies recorded
by Mildenberg depicts more than twelve steps’ (Goldstein cited in Hendin
2010a: 281).
Trumpets and several styles of lyres or harps are also shown on Bar Kokhba
coins. The trumpets recall almost identical instruments depicted on the Arch of
Titus as well as an inscription discovered on a stone block from the Jerusalem
Temple, now in the Israel Museum, that declares, ‘To the place of trumpeting…
to herald’ (Mazar 1975: 138-39). The block, according to Mazar, had probably
been a part of the parapet of the Temple, where, on the evening of Sabbath, ‘one
of the Priests would ascend…and sound a trumpet to signal the advent of the
holy day, and at sundown the process was repeated to announce its conclusion’
(Mazar 1975: 138). Silver trumpets were also used during the Sukkot ceremonies
in the Temple (Mishnah Sukkah 5.5).
Harps and lyres appear on both bronze and small silver Bar Kokhba coins.
The harp, which has a sound box shaped like a skin bag (nevel in Hebrew, chelys
in Greek), and the narrower lyre, with a chest-like sound box (kinor in Hebrew,
kithara in Greek), have been associated with the Jewish religion and worship
since ancient times (Eshel 2007–2008).
The flagon and branch shown on numerous Bar Kokhba coins, previously
seen as generic ritual objects, have been connected to Sukkot, by Yonatan Adler,
who believes they represent
the golden flagon used in the water libation ceremony performed on the Temple altar
during the Feast of Tabernacles. The branch appearing to the side of this flagon,
previously identified as a palm frond, should be recognized instead as a willow-
branch, symbolizing the willow-branch ceremony that took place at the Temple altar
in conjunction with the water libation ceremony…the numismatic evidence provided
by the Bar Kokhba denarii is the only evidence of the willow-branch ritual outside of
Rabbinic literature (Adler 2007–2008: 135).
In ancient times, the willow branch ritual was carried out daily in the Jerusalem
Temple. The Talmud says: ‘There was a place below Jerusalem called Motsa. They
went down to there, and collected young willow branches, and then came and set
them upright along the sides of the altar, with their tops bent over the top of the altar.
They then sounded a prolonged [trumpet] blast, a quavering note, and a prolonged
blast’ (Mishnah Sukkah 5.5).

Somewhat surprisingly the menorah motif is completely missing from the

coins of both Jewish Wars. However, the most extensive use of the palm tree on
ancient Jewish coinage occurs during the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and in almost
every instance, even on the irregular coins, the palm tree is shown with seven
branches. (This is also true for the palm tree on the bronze half-shekel of the
Jewish War.) Possibly this form of the local date palm is a reference to the seven-
branched menorah.
Mildenberg’s master work delineated the actual dies and die links of the vast
majority of Bar Kokhba coins (1984). Kaufman published two supplements to
Mildenberg’s book, listing additional dies for bronze and silver coins of all
denominations (Kaufman 2000–2002; 2007–2008).
Dan Barag showed that at least two mints operated during the Bar Kokhba
revolt, one producing ‘regular’ coins and another producing the ‘irregular’ issues.
Barag is quick to note that ‘in the eyes of the Greeks and Romans all Jewish
coinage was no doubt considered “irregular coinage”’ (Barag 2000–2002).
We published an unusual bronze test strike of a Bar Kokhba silver zuz or
drachm that offered additional insight into the Bar Kokhba minting operation
(Hendin 2006).
Barag reported on the geographic distribution of the sites where Bar Kokhba
coins were found in archaeological excavations (Barag 1980). Zissu and Eshel
(2002) dramatically expanded on Barag’s mapping, adding many coins and many
sites. Bijovsky (2004) expanded the territory further and discussed the distribu-
tion of these coins. Amit and Bijovsky (2007) expanded the northwestern border
a few kilometers more by reporting on Bar Kokhba coins found in excavations at
Khirbet Zikhrin.
Conclusion
Excavation and study of the coins of ancient Judaea will no doubt continue by
scholars around the world. Many concepts and theories discussed above may be
altered or changed by new information gathered and evaluated over time. Perhaps
in the future it will also be possible to solve some of the ongoing mysteries relat-
ing to this coinage, including: (1) Which authority issued the Yehud and Samarian
coins? Exactly who are the individuals who are named on these coins? (2) Did
any rulers between Alexander Jannaeus and Mattatayah Antigonus mint coins
that copied the coins of Jannaeus? (3) What were the intended denominations of
the dated coins of Herod I? Even though the Judaean bronze coins were fiduciary
in nature, why did Herod issue coins of similar size, but half the weight, of the
coins of Mattatayah Antigonus? (4) Where were the coins minted? How many
mint locations existed? (5) Why were the dies for so many Hasmonean and
Herodian coins created so much larger than the flans that they were to be struck

upon? (6) Have we in fact now focused on the correct dating eras for the coins of
Agrippa II? And at any rate, why did Agrippa II strike coins using two different
dating eras? (7) The coins of the Jewish War against Rome (66–70 ce) do not
contain the names of any issuing authorities. It is a consensus that the silver coins
were struck in or near the Jerusalem Temple complex under the Temple author-
ity. But, who struck the bronze prutot of the second and third years? Were they
struck by the same authority that struck the bronze ‘siege’ coins of the fourth
year? Were the coins of the Jewish War all struck at a single mint or were there
two, possibly three mints? (8) Who was Eleazar the Priest, whose name appears
on Bar Kokhba coins of the first year as well as rare, later hybrid issues?
Author’s Note
All photographs are from Guide to Biblical Coins, 5th Edition. All rights reserved. Reprinted
with permission.
Bibliography
Adler, Y.
2007–2008 ‘Temple Willow-Branch Ritual Depicted on Bar Kokhba Denarius’, INJ 16:
131-35.
Amit, D., and G. Bijovsky
2007 ‘A Numismatic Update on the Northwestern Border of the Territory Con-
trolled by Bar Kokhba Rebels’, INR 2: 133-36.
Ariel, D.T.
1982 ‘A Survey of the Coins in Jerusalem (Until the End of the Byzantine Period)’,
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Liber Annuus 32: 273-326.
2000–2002 ‘The Jerusalem Mint of Herod the Great: A Relative Chronology’, INJ 14:
99-124.
2003 ‘Flan Molds from the Temple Mount Excavations’, in E. Mazar, The Tem-
ple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968-1978 Directed by Benjamin
Mazar. Final Report. Volume II. The Byzantine and Early Islamic Peri-
ods (Qedem monograph series, 43; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society):
115-19.
2006 ‘A Numismatic Approach to the Reign of Herod the Great’ (PhD dissertation,
Tel Aviv University).
Ariel, D.T., and J.P. Fontanille
2012 The Coins of Herod (Leiden and Boston: Brill).
Avi Yonah, M.
1950 ‘The Foundation of Tiberias’, IEJ 1: 160-69.
Balmuth, M.S.
2001 Hacksilber to Coinage: New Insights into the Monetary History of the Near
East and Greece (Numismatic Studies, 24; New York: American Numis-
matic Society).
Barag, D.
1966 ‘The Effects of the Tennes Rebellion on Palestine’, BASOR 183: 6-12.
1980 ‘A Note on the Geographic Distribution of Bar Kokhba Coins’, INJ 4: 30-33.

1986 ‘New Evidence for the Identification of the Showbread Table on Coins of
the Bar Kokhba War’, Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of
Numismatics (London: International Association of Professional Numisma-
tists): 217-22.
1994–1999 ‘The Coinage of Yehud and the Ptolemies’, INJ 13: 27-38.
2000–2002 ‘The Two Mints of the Bar Kokhba War’, INJ 14: 153-56.
Barag, D., and S. Qedar
1980 ‘The Beginning of Hasmonean Coinage’, INJ 4: 8-21.
Barkay, G.
1992 ‘The Priestly Benediction on Silver Plaques from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem’,
Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 19: 139-92.
Bass, G.F.
1967 Cape Geledonia: A Bronze Age Shipwreck (Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, 57.8; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society).
Bijovsky, G.
2000–2002 ‘The Currency of the Fifth Century ce in Palestine: Some Reflections in Light
of the Numismatic Evidence’, INJ 14: 196-210.
2004 ‘The Coins from Khirbet Badd ‘Isa—Quryat Sefer: Isolated Coins and Two
Hoards Dated to the Bar Kokhba Revolt’, in Y. Magen, D.T. Ariel, G. Bijo-
vsky, Y. Tzionit and O. Sirkis (eds.), The Land of Benjamin (Judaea-Samaria
Publications, 3; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority): 243-300.
Biran, A., and R. Gophna
1970 ‘An Iron Age Burial Cave at Tel Halif’, IEJ 20: 151-69.
Burnett, A.M.
2011 ‘Wife, Sister, or Daughter?’, INR 6: 121-26.
Cavedoni, C.
1850 Numismatica Biblica o sia Dichiarazione delle moneta antica memorate
nelle Sante Scritture (Modena: Gli Eredi Soliani).
Dandamayev, M.A.
1988 ‘Wages and Prices in Babylonia in the 6th and 5th Centuries bc’, Altorien-
talische Forschungen 15: 53-58.
De Saulcy, F.
1854 Recherches sur la numismatique judaïque (Paris: Typographie de Firmin
Didot Frères).
Deutsch, R.
1992–1993 ‘A Unique Prutah from the First Year of the Jewish War Against Rome’, INJ
12: 71-72.
Forthcoming ‘The Jewish Coinage During the First Revolt Against Rome, 66–73 ce’
(unpublished PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University) [Hebrew, with
English Summary].
Epstein, M.S., D.B. Hendin, L.L. Yu and N.W. Bower
2010 ‘Chemical Attribution of Corroded Coins using X-ray Fluorescence and Lead
Isotope Ratios: A Case Study from First Century Judaea’, Applied Spectros-
copy 64.4: 384-90.
Eshel, H.
2007–2008 ‘On Harps and Lyres: A Note on the Bronze Coinage of the Bar Kokhba
Administration’, INJ 16: 118-30.

Eshel, E., H. Eshel and A. Yardeni

1992 ‘A Qumran Composition Containing Part of Ps. 1543 and a Prayer for the
Welfare of King Jonathan and His Kingdom’, IEJ 42: 199-229.
Farhi, Y.
2003–2006 ‘The Bronze Coins Minted at Gamla Reconsidered’, INJ 15: 59-67.
Frova, A.
1961 ‘L’iscrizione di Ponzio Pilato a Cesarea’, Rendiconti/Instituto Lombardo 95:
419-34.
Gerson, S.
2001 ‘Fractional Coins of Judea and Samaria in the Fourth Century bce’, Near
Eastern Archaeology 64.3: 106-121.
Gitler, H.
2011a ‘Different Aspects of the Quantification of Persian Period Coinages of Pal-
estine’, in F. de Callatay (ed.), Quantifying Monetary Supplies in Greco-
Roman Times (Bari: Edipuglia): 267-83.
2011b ‘The Earliest Coins of Judah’, INR 6: 21-34.
Gitler, H., and C. Lorber
2006 ‘A New Chronology for the Ptolemaic Coins of Judah’, AJN, 2nd series, 18:
1-41.
2008 ‘A New Chronology for the Yehizkiyah Coins of Judah’, Schweizerische
Numismatische Rundschau 87: 61-62.
Gitler, H., and O. Tal
2006 The Coinage of Philistia of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries bc: A Study of the
Earliest Coins of Palestine (Milano: Ennerre; New York: Amphora).
Gitler, H., O. Tal and P. Van Alfen
2007 ‘Silver Dome-shaped Coins from Persian-Period Southern Palestine’, INR 2:
47-62.
Gitler, H., M. Ponting and O. Tal
2008 ‘Metallurgical Analysis of Southern Palestinian Coins of the Persian Period’,
INR 3: 13-28.
Goldstein, I., and J.P. Fontanille
2006 ‘A New Study of the Coins of the First Jewish Revolt Against Rome, 66–70
ce’, American Numismatic Association Journal 1.2: 9-32.
Goodblatt, D.
2006 Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Goodman, M.
2005 ‘Coinage and Identity: The Jewish Evidence’, in C. Howgego, V. Heuchert
and A. Burnett (eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces (Oxford:
Oxford University Press): 163-66.
Goren, Y. et al.
2005 ‘A Re-examination of the Inscribed Pomegranate from the Israel Museum’,
IEJ 55: 3-20.
Harris, W.V.
1989 Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Hendin, D.
1976 Guide to Ancient Jewish Coins (New York: Attic Books).
1987 Guide to Biblical Coins 2nd Edition (New York: Amphora).

1996 Guide to Biblical Coins 3rd Edition (New York: Amphora).

2001 Guide to Biblical Coins 4th Edition (New York: Amphora).
2000–2002 ‘A Bar Kokhba Lamp Hoard Collection’, INJ 14: 180-84.
2003–2006 ‘A New Coin Type of Herod Antipas’, INJ 15: 56-61.
2006 ‘A Bronze Test Strike from the Bar Kokhba Revolt’, INR 1: 111-16.
2007 Ancient Scale Weights and Pre-Coinage Currency of the Near East (Nyack:
Amphora).
2007–2008 ‘Numismatic Expressions of Hasmonean Sovereignty’, INJ 16: 76-91.
2009 ‘Hasmonean Coin Chronologies: Two Notes’, INJ 17: 34-38.
2010a Guide to Biblical Coins 5th Edition (New York: Amphora).
2010b ‘The Metrology of Judaean Small Bronze Coins’, AJN 2nd Series 21:
105-121.
2012 ‘Jewish Coinage of the Two Wars: Aims and Meaning’, in D. Jacobson and
N. Kokkinos (eds.), Judaea and Rome in Coins, 65 bce to 135 ce (London:
Spink & Sons): 123-144.
Forthcoming ‘On the Identity of Eleazar the Priest’, INJ 18.
Hendin, D., and N. Bower
2011 ‘Irregular Coins of Judaea, First Century bce—First Century ce: New Insights
from Comparisons of Stylistic, Physical, and Chemical Analyses’, AJN 2nd
Series 23: 35-54.
Hendin, D., and I. Shachar
2008 ‘The Identity of YNTN on Hasmonean Overstruck Coins and the Chronology
of the Alexander Jannaeus Types’, INR 3: 87-94.
Hendin, D. et al.
2011 ‘Preliminary Sequencing of Herod I’s Undated Coins Based on Alloy
Changes over Time’, INR 6: 93-104.
Hill, G.M.F.
1910 Catalog of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia (London: British Museum).
1914 A Catalog of the Greek Coins of Palestine (Galilee, Samaria, and Judaea)
(London: British Museum).
Hoffner, H.
1997 The Laws of the Hittites (Leiden: Brill).
Hoover, O.
1994 ‘Striking a Pose: Seleucid Types and Machtpolitik on the Coins of John Hyr-
canus I’, The Picus 3: 40-57.
2003 ‘The Seleucid Coinage of John Hyrcanus I: The Transformation of A dynas-
tic-Symbol in Hellenistic Judaea’, AJN, 2nd Series, 15: 29-39.
2006 ‘The Authorized Version: Money and Meaning in the King James Bible’,
American Numismatic Society Magazine 5.2: 13-18.
2007 Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection of Arthur Houghton, Part
II (Ancient Coins in North American Collections, 8; New York: American
Numismatic Society).
Houghton, A., and C. Lorber
2002 Seleucid Coins: A Comprehensive Catalog, Part I (2 vols.; New York: Amer-
ican Numismatic Society and Classical Numismatic Group).
Houghton, A., C. Lorber and O. Hoover
2008 Seleucid Coins: A Comprehensive Catalog, Part II (2 vols.; New York:
American Numismatic Society and Classical Numismatic Group).

Houghton, A., and A. Spaer

1998 The Arnold Spaer Collection of Seleucid Coins (Sylloge Nummorum Graeco-
rum, Israel 1; London: I. Vecchi).
Howgego, C.
1990 ‘Why Did Ancient States Strike Coins?’, Numismatic Chronicle 150: 1-25.
Kanael, B.
1952 ‘The Greek Letters and Monograms on the Coins of Jehohanan the High
Priest’, IEJ 11: 190-94.
1963 ‘Ancient Jewish Coins and their Historical Importance’, Biblical Archaeolo-
gist 26: 38-62.
Kaufman, J.C.
2000–2002 ‘Additions to Leo Mildenberg’s Corpus of the Coinage of the Bar Kokhba
War’, INJ 14: 129-52.
2007–2008 ‘Additions to the Corpus of Leo Mildenberg’s Coinage of the Bar Kokhba
War’, INJ 16: 136-39.
Kindler, A.
1974 Coins of the Land of Israel (Jerusalem: Keter).
Kletter, R.
1998 Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of Judah (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press).
2001 ‘Weights and Weighing in Eretz Israel in Antiquity’, in O. Rimon (ed.),
Measuring and Weighing in Ancient Times (Haifa: Ruben and Edith Hecht
Museum): 7-10.
Kokkinos, N.
1998 The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press).
Kushnir-Stein, A.
2000–2002 ‘Some Observations on Palestinian Coins with a Beveled Edge’, INJ 14: 78-83.
2002 ‘The Coinage of Agrippa II’, Scripta Classica Israelica 21: 123-31.
2007 ‘New INR Classification for Early Roman Governors of Judea’, INR 2:
3-4.
Lassen, H.
2000 ‘Introduction to Weight Systems in the Bronze Age East Mediterranean: The
Case of Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios’, in C.F.E. Pare (ed.), Metals Make the
World Go Round (Oxford: Oxbow Books): 233-46.
Leonard, R.
1993 ‘Cut Bronze Coins in the Ancient Near East’, in T. Hackens and G.M.
Moucharte (eds.), Proceedings of the XIth International Numismatic Con-
gress (1991) (Acte: Louvain-la-Neuve): 363-70.
Le Rider, G.
1989 ‘A propos d’un passage des Poroi de Xénophon: la question du change et
les monnaies incuses d’Italie du Sud’, in G. Le Rider et al. (eds.), Kraay-
Morkholm Essays: Numismatic Studies in Memory of C.M. Kraay and O.
Mørlkholm (Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut supérieur d’archéologie et d’histoire
de l’art, Séminaire de numismatique Marcel Hoc): 159-72.
2001 La naissance de la monnaie: pratiques monétaires de l’Orient ancien (Paris:
Presses universitaires de France).

Levy, A.M.
1862 Geschichte der jüdischen Münzen gemeinfasslich dargestellt (Leipzig:
Nies’sche Buchdruckerei [C.B. Lorck]).
Levy, B.
1993 ‘Tyrian Shekels and the First Jewish War’, in T. Hackens and G.M. Moucharte
(eds.), Proceedings of the XIth International Numismatic Congress (1991)
(Acte: Louvain-la-Neuve): 267-74.
2005 ‘Later Tyrian Shekels: Dating the “Crude” Issues, Reading the Controls’, XIII
Congreso Internacional de Numismatica 1: 885-90.
Lichtenberger, A.
1999 Die Baupolitik Herodes des Grossen (Wiesbaden: Beck).
2009 ‘Herod and Rome: Was Romanisation a Goal of the Building Policy of Herod?’,
in D.M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos (eds.), Herod and Augustus (Leiden: Brill):
43-62.
Lönnqvist, K.
1997 ‘A Re-Attribution of the King Herod Agrippa I “Year 6” Issue’, Liber Annus
47: 429-40.
Madden, F.W.
1864 Jewish Coinage (London: Bernard Quaritch).
1881 Coins of the Jews (London: Trübner & Co.).
Maltiel-Gerstenfeld, J.
1980 ‘A Portrait Coin of Berenice Sister of Agrippa II?’, INJ 4: 25-26.
Mazar, B.
1975 The Mountain of the Lord: Excavating in Jerusalem (New York:
Doubleday).
Meshorer, Y.
1967 Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period (Tel Aviv: Am Hassefer and
Masada Publishers).
1982 Ancient Jewish Coinage (2 vols.; New York: Amphora).
1997 A Treasury of Jewish Coins [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi
Press).
2001 A Treasury of Jewish Coins (Jerusalem and New York: Amphora).
Meshorer, Y., and S. Qedar
1991 The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century bce (Jerusalem: Numismatic
Fine Arts International).
1999 Samarian Coinage (Jerusalem: Israel Numismatic Society).
Meshorer, Y., W. Fisher-Bossart and G. Bijovsky
2013 The Abraham and Marian Sofaer Collection in the American Numismatic
Society and the Israel Museum (ed. D. Hendin and A. Meadows; New York:
American Numismatic Society).
Meyers, E.
2002 ‘Sepphoris City of Peace’, in A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman (eds.), The First
Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology (London and New York:
Routledge): 110-20.
Meyshan, J.
1968 Essays in Jewish Numismatics (Numismatic Studies and Researches, 6; Tel
Aviv: Israel Numismatic Society).

Mildenberg, L.
1979 ‘Yehud: A Preliminary Study of the Provincial Coinage of Judaea’, in
O. Mørkholm and N. Waggoner (eds.), Greek Numismatics and Archaeology:
Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson (Wettern: Cultura Press): 183-96.
1984 The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War (Salzburg: Verlag Sauerlander).
1992 ‘The Philisto-Arabian Coins—A Preview: Preliminary Studies of the Local
Coinage in the Fifth Persian Satrapy. Part 3’, Numismatique et Histoire
Économique Phéniciennes et Puniques (Studia Phoenicia, 9; Louvain-la-
Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain): 33-40.
Miller, D.M.
2010 ‘The Meaning of Ioudaios and its Relationship to Other Group Labels in
Ancient “Judaism”’, CBR 9.1: 98-126.
2012 ‘Ethnicity Comes of Age: An Overview of Twentieth-Century Terms for Iou-
daios’, CBR 10.2: 293-311.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israel
2008 ‘Rare Silver Coin Found in Excavations in Jerusalem’, http://www.mfa.gov.
il/MFA/History/Early+History+-+Archaeology/Rare+ancient+coin+found+
in+Jerusalem+excavations+19-Mar-2008.htm
Naveh, J.
1987 Early History of the Alphabet, 2nd rev. edn (Jerusalem: Magnes Press).
Netzer, E.
2001 The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great (Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak
Ben-Zvi/Israel Exploration Society).
2006 The Architecture of Herod the Great Builder (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Aca-
demic).
Powell, M.A.
1992 ‘Weights and Measures’, in David N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary
(6 vols.; New York: Doubleday): VI, 898-908.
Pulak, C.
1996 ‘Analysis of the Weight Assemblages from the Late Bronze Age Shipwrecks at
Uluburun and Cape Gelidonya Turkey’ (PhD dissertation, Texas A & M Uni-
versity).
2000 ‘The Balance Weights from the Late Bronze Age Shipwreck at Uluburun’, in
C.F.E. Pare (ed.), Metals Make the World Go Round (Oxford: Oxbow Books):
247-66.
Ronen, Y.
2010 ‘On the Chronology of the Yehud Falcon Coins’, INR 4: 39-45.
Roth, C., et al.
2007 ‘Art’, in Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik (eds.), Encyclopaedia Juda-
ica (2nd edn; 26 vols.; Detroit: Macmillan Reference): 2.491-94.
Qedar, S.
2001 ‘Weights of Eretz Israel in the Roman-Byzantine Period’, in O. Rimon (ed.),
Measuring and Weighing in Ancient Times (Haifa: Ruben and Edith Hecht
Museum): 23-27.
Rappaport, U.
2007 ‘Who Minted the Jewish War’s Coins?’, INR 2: 103-116.

Reifenberg, A.
1927 ‘Űber die metallurgische zusammensetzung judischer Munzen’, Zeitschrift
des Deutschen Palestina-Vereins 50: 175-78.
1947 Ancient Jewish Coins (Jerusalem: R. Mass).
Richardson, P.
1996 Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Columbia, SC: Univer-
sity of South Carolina Press).
Rogers, E.A.
1914 Handy Guide to Jewish Coins (London: Spink & Son).
Roller, D.W.
1998 The Building Program of Herod the Great (Berkeley, CA: University of Cali-
fornia Press).
Romanoff, P.
1971 [1944] Jewish Symbol on Ancient Jewish Coins (New York: American Israel Numis-
matic Association).
Ronen, Y.
1998 ‘The Weight Standards of the Judean Coinage in the Late Persian and Early
Ptolemaic Period’, Near Eastern Archaeology 61.2: 122-26.
2003–2006 ‘Some Observations on the Coinage of Yehud’, INJ 15: 28-31.
Roth, C.
1962 ‘Historical Implications of the Jewish Coinage of the First Revolt’, IEJ 12.1:
33-46.
Seaford, R.
2004 Money and the Early Greek Mind: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Sear, D.
1978 Greek Coins and their Values I (London: Seaby).
2000 Roman Coins and their Values I (London: Spink).
Sellers, O.R.
1933 The Citadel of Beth Zur (Philadelphia: Westminster Press).
Shachar, I.
2004 ‘The Historical and Numismatic Significance of Alexander Jannaeus’ Later
Coinage as Found in Archaeological Excavations’, Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 136: 5-33.
Sperber, D.
1974 Roman Palestine, 200–400: Money and Prices (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Univer-
sity Press).
Stein, H.
1943 ‘Hitherto Unexplained Symbols on the Coins of John Hyrcanus’, Numismatic
Review 1: 19-21.
Stern, E.
1982 Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538–332 BC
(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society).
Stieglitz, R.
1979 ‘Commodity Prices at Ugarit’, Journal of the American Oriental Society
99.1: 15-23.

Svoronos, M.J.
1909 ‘The Origins of Coinage’, AJN 42.2: 33-45.
Syon, D.
1992–93 ‘Coins from Gamla—Interim Report’, INJ 12: 34-55.
2007 ‘Yet Again on the Bronze Coins Minted at Gamla’, INR 2: 117-22.
Tal, O.
2007 ‘Coin Denominations and Weight Standards in Fourth Century bce Pales-
tine’, INR 2: 17-28.
Van Alfen, P.
Forthcoming ‘Problems in the Political Economy of Archaic Greek Coinage’, unpublished
research in progress.
VanderKam, J.C., and P. Flint
2002 The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: Harper).
Wasserus, C.
1605 De Antiquis Numis Hebraeorum Chaldaeorum et Syorum: Quorum S. Biblia
& Rabbinorum scripta meminerunt Libri II (Zurich: in Officina Wolphiana).
Zissu, B., and H. Eshel
2002 ‘The Geographical Distribution of Coins of the Bar Kokhba Revolt’, INJ 14:
157-67.
Zissu, B., and D. Hendin
2012 ‘Further Remarks on Coins in Circulation during the Bar Kokhba War:
Te’Omim Cave and Horvat ‘Ethri Coin Hoards’, in D. Jacobson and N.
Kokkinos (eds.), Judaea and Rome in Coins, 65 bce to 135 ce (London:
Spink & Sons): 215-228.

Hendin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hendin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

459634

Currents in Biblical Research

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

The Time Before Coins

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Simultaneously, in many ancient cultures, the ox or bull served as a general

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Diaspora and Return

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Sidon, 32 from Tyre, 11 from Arados, 66 Athenian prototypes, plus a number of

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Metrology, Mints and Values of the Prutot

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

exceptionally difficult to control. It would not have been expedient to remove

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

The meticulous obedience or relative neglect of the apparent biblical prohibition of

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Hyrcanus II issued these ‘Yehohanan’ coins (Meshorer 1967: 46-47), he fol-

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Regarding some salient points on these subjects, we pointed out that

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

In summary, this coin ‘provides an unequivocal answer’ to one of the Yonatan

Paleo-Hebrew on the Hasmonean Coins

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

As noted, Jannaeus was succeeded by his wife, Queen Salome Alexandra

The Widow’s Mite

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

When the Mite Became a Mite

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Tyrian silver. What is Tyrian Silver? It is a Jerusalemite’ (Tosefta Ketubbot 13.20).

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Herod Antipas (4 bce–37 ce)

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Agrippa I (37–44 ce)

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

ce—the time of Agrippa I (Kushnir-Stein 2000–2002 and Hendin 2010b).

Agrippa II (49/50–94/95 ce)

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Burnett argues that this identification is ‘extremely unlikely’ (Burnett 2011:

Prefect and Procurator Coins

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

The Jewish Wars

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015

Jewish War Against Rome (First Revolt) 66–70/73 ce

Downloaded from cbi.sagepub.com at University of Birmingham on June 8, 2015