Tyre and Gamla: A Study In the Monetary Inlfluence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan In the Hellenistic and Roman Periods more

Tyre and Gamla A STUDY IN THE MONETARY INFLUENCE OF SOUTHERN PHOENICIA ON GALILEE AND THE GOLAN IN THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN PERIODS A DISSERTATION FOR A DEGREE OF PH.D. DANNY SYON SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE OF THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY IN 2004 2 THIS WORK WAS CARRIED OUT UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PROF. DAN BARAG 3 Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................3 List of Figures ........................................................................................................6 List of Maps............................................................................................................8 Abstract ................................................................................................................11 Introduction..........................................................................................................21 Acknowledgements...............................................................................................23 PART I ........................................................................................................................25 GAMLA: THE NUMISMATIC MATERIAL ......................................................................25 General ................................................................................................................28 The Earliest Coins................................................................................................30 Seleucid Coins......................................................................................................31 Denominations .................................................................................................33 Dating...............................................................................................................33 Silver Coins......................................................................................................34 Mints ................................................................................................................35 Municipal coinage............................................................................................35 The Tyrian dilepta............................................................................................36 Hasmonean Coins ................................................................................................36 The Herodian Dynasty .........................................................................................47 Herod................................................................................................................47 Archelaus .........................................................................................................48 Antipas .............................................................................................................48 Philip ................................................................................................................49 Agrippa I ..........................................................................................................51 The Roman Procurators.......................................................................................52 The Roman Administration during 47–66 CE .....................................................53 The Great Revolt ..................................................................................................54 Autonomous, civic and provincial coinages ........................................................58 Outlying regions...............................................................................................61 Macedonia....................................................................................................61 Commagene .................................................................................................61 Babylonia .....................................................................................................61 Syria .................................................................................................................62 Antiochene silver .........................................................................................62 Balanea.........................................................................................................62 Uncertain mint .............................................................................................63 Phoenicia..........................................................................................................63 Sidon ............................................................................................................63 Tyre ..............................................................................................................65 Silver ........................................................................................................66 The Hoard ................................................................................................67 Bronze ......................................................................................................69 The Melqart / palm tree dilepta................................................................71 ‘Akko-Ptolemais ..........................................................................................76 4 Decapolis..........................................................................................................86 Hippos ..........................................................................................................86 Gadara ..........................................................................................................86 Nysa-Scythopolis .........................................................................................86 Iturean coin ......................................................................................................86 Uncertain..........................................................................................................86 Nabatean Coins ................................................................................................87 Coins later than 67 CE .....................................................................................87 Uncertain Coin .................................................................................................88 PART II.......................................................................................................................89 GAMLA: THE COINS IN CONTEXT ..............................................................................89 The distribution of coins in the different excavation areas..................................91 The numismatic chronology of Gamla.................................................................93 Phase I— fourth century to c. 200 BCE (9 coins) ...........................................94 Phase II— Seleucid domination (c.200–c. 80 BCE— 1629 coins) .................95 Phase IIa: c. 200–125 BCE ..........................................................................96 Non-Seleucid coins ..................................................................................97 The seeming conflict of the numismatic and ceramic evidence ..............97 Phase IIb—125–c. 80 BCE ..........................................................................98 Other coins ...............................................................................................99 Seleucia on the Tigris...............................................................................99 The beginning of Jewish settlement in the Golan..................................100 Before the Hasmonean conquest............................................................103 Phase III— Jewish domination ......................................................................104 Phase IIIa— The Hasmoneans (c.80–40 BCE)..........................................104 Non-Hasmonean coins in the Hasmonean quarter.................................107 Non-Hasmonean coins throughout the site ............................................108 Phase IIIb— From the Herodians to the Great Revolt (40 BCE–67 CE) ..110 Herodian Coins ......................................................................................112 Agrippa II...............................................................................................112 Phoenician Coins ...................................................................................113 Other coins .............................................................................................113 The autonomous Gamla coins and the relations with Jerusalem ...........114 Coins of Jannaeus circulating in the first century CE................................116 Phase IV— After 67 CE ................................................................................122 PART III ...................................................................................................................123 THE MONETARY INFLUENCE OF SOUTHERN PHOENICIA ON GALILEE .....................123 History of Research............................................................................................125 Chronology ........................................................................................................127 The Persian period and Alexander the Great (6–4th century BCE)................128 The Ptolemaic Period (c. 301–200 BCE).......................................................129 The Seleucid Period (200–125 BCE).............................................................130 The Hasmonean Period (125–63 BCE)..........................................................133 The Early Roman Period (63 BCE–70 CE) ...................................................134 The Middle Roman Period (70–c. 256 CE) ...................................................138 The Geographical boundaries of the study........................................................141 5 The boundary of Phoenicia with the historical Galilee and the Golan — historical and archaeological evidence .............................................................144 The Ptolemaic Period (c. 301–200 BCE).......................................................145 The Seleucid Period (200–125 BCE).............................................................145 The Hasmonean Period (125–63 BCE)..........................................................146 The Early Roman Period (63 BCE–70 CE) ...................................................148 The Middle Roman Period (70–c. 256 CE) ...................................................149 Points of contact between Phoenicia and Galilee .............................................150 Historical sources...........................................................................................150 Archaeology...................................................................................................153 Pottery ........................................................................................................153 Burial customs ...........................................................................................156 The circulation of coins of Southern Phoenicia in Galilee and the Golan — the state of research.................................................................................................157 Methodology and basic assumptions .................................................................167 The source for the data...................................................................................168 Technical method...........................................................................................169 The Sites .............................................................................................................171 Period 1: The Ptolemaic Period (300–200 BCE) ..............................................202 Commentary...................................................................................................202 Conclusions....................................................................................................203 Period 2: The Seleucid Period (200–125 BCE).................................................207 Commentary...................................................................................................207 Period IIa (200–162 BCE) .....................................................................210 Period IIb (162–125 BCE) .....................................................................212 Conclusions....................................................................................................214 Jewish presence in Galilee before the Hasmoneans?.................................219 Period 3: The Hasmonean Period (125–63 BCE) .............................................224 Commentary...................................................................................................224 Conclusions....................................................................................................226 Period 4: The Early Roman Period (63 BCE–70 CE).......................................237 Commentary...................................................................................................237 Conclusions....................................................................................................240 Period 5: The Middle Roman Period (70–256 CE) ...........................................253 Commentary...................................................................................................253 Conclusions....................................................................................................255 CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................262 APPENDIX: METALLURGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GAMLA JEWISH WAR COIN .........267 ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................................................270 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................273 CATALOGUE………………………………………………………………..……299 6 List of Figures Figure 1. General distribution chart of the coins……………………………..………27 Figure 2. Coin classes in the ‘other’ category……………………….……………….28 Figure 3. Ptolemaic coins……………………………………………………….…....31 Figure 4. Seleucid coins. Gray indicates inoperative mint…………………………...32 Figure 5. Elephant of Antiochus III ………………………………………….……....33 Figure 6. A unique coin of Demetrius II……………………………………………..34 Figure 7. Seleucid silver coins……………………………………………………….34 Figure 8. Seleucid 'municipal' issues…………………………………………...…….36 Figure 9. The distribution of Hasmonean coins according to type……………….….39 Figure 10. A concordance of Hasmonean coin types………………………….…….40 Figure 11. Coins of Jannaeus struck on incompletely cast flans….…………………41 Figure 12. Frequency of Hasmonean coin sub-types at Gamla……………………...41 Figure 13. Graphical presentation of the frequency of Hasmonean coin sub-types…42 Figure 14. Weight and diameter ranges for Hasmonean coins………………………43 Figure 15. Weight ranges for selected types of Hasmonean coins………………44–46 Figure 16. Frequency of coins of the Herodian dynasty……………………………..47 Figure 17. Herod’s types……………………………………………………………..47 Figure 18. Archelaus’ types………………………………………………………….48 Figure 19. Antipas’ types…………………………………………………………….48 Figure 20. Philip’s types……………………………………………………………..50 Figure 21. Types of Agrippa I……………………………………………………….52 Figure 22. Rare types of Agrippa I from the mint of Paneas………………………...52 Figure 23. Coins of the prefects and procurators to Judaea………………………….53 Figure 24.Coins of the Roman Administration, 47–66 CE…………………….…….54 Figure 25. A Jerusalem sheqel of the Revolt………………………….……………..54 Figure 26. Physical data for the ‘Gamla’ coins……………………….……………..56 Figure 27. The paleography of the Gamla coins…………………….………………58 Figure 28. Five of the ‘Gamla’ coins……………………………….……………….58 Figure 29. Autonomous and civic coinages — a conspectus……………………60–61 Figure 30. Antiochene silver………………………………………………..……….62 Figure 31. The coin from Balanea and a contemporary coin of Antony from Rome, c. 38–37 BCE…………………………………………………………………………...62 7 Figure 32. Nero tetradrachm of an uncertain mint…………………………………...63 Figure 33. Sidon — Dionysiac cysta………………………………………………...64 Figure 34. Sidon. Europa riding the bull…………………………………………….65 Figure 35. Dates on coins of Sidon………………………………………………….65 Figure 36. Autonomous silver of Tyre, arranged by date……………………………68 Figure 37. Lepton of ‘Year 1’: battering ram………………………………………..69 Figure 38. Lepton: Stylized palm tree……………………………………………….70 Figure 39. Lepton. Galley’s prow……………………………………………………71 Figure 40. Checklist of Seleucid and Autonomous dilepta of Tyre…………………73 Figure 41. Melqart / Palm dilepta……………………………………………………75 Figure 42. ‘Akko. New ‘Astarte on Galley’ type……………………………………77 Figure 43. ‘Akko. New ‘Tyche’ type………………………………………………..77 Figure 44. ‘Akko. New date LI………………………………………………………78 Figure 45. ‘Akko. New date ΠΘ……………………………………………………..78 Figure 46. ‘Akko. New date ;……………………………………………………….78 Figure 47. ‘Akko, colonial. Founder type: Vexillum inscribed XII…………………79 Figure 48. The pre-colonial civic coinage of ‘Akko……………………..………80–85 Figure 49. Uncertain mint: Athena / LA ΡΩΜΗΣ..................................……………...86 Figure 50. Uncertain mint: Heracles / LA ΡΩΜΗΣ…………………………………...87 Figure 51. Aretas II (?): Nike facing right……………………………………………87 Figure 52. Chronological distribution of coins in the various areas…………...…….93 Figure 53. The relative quantities of coins in the different areas…………….………93 Figure 54. Distribution and quantities of coins at the whole site of Gamla….………94 Figure 55. Coins from the mint of Tyre in the various phases…………………...…104 Figure 56. Distribution and quantities of coins in the Hasmonean quarter……...….106 Figure 57. Coins arriving in phase IIIb – all Gamla………………………………..111 Figure 58. Currency in the Western quarter in phase IIIb…………………………..111 Figure 59. Coins of Jannaeus in later contexts…………………………...……117–118 Figure 60. Coins at floor levels in selected loci in the Western quarter……………120 Figure 61. Gamla — some critical loci in the Western Quarter……………………121 Figure 62. The division of the periods and the minting authorities in each………...191 Figure 63. Conspectus of Coins by site and mint (number of coins)……….....192–201 Figure 64. Period 1: Selected sites………………………………………………….206 Figure 65. Early and late Seleucid mints in western Lower Galilee……………..…219 8 Figure 66. Coins of Antiochus VII from the mint of Jerusalem found in Galilee….221 Figure 67. Period 2: Selected sites………………………………………………….223 Figure 68. Provenanced coins of Aristobulus I…………………………………….234 Figure 69. Period 3: Selected sites……………………………………………….…236 Figure 70. Hasmonean and Herodian coin distribution………………………….….238 Figure 71. The breakdown of Herodian mints in Galilee and Golan…………..…...248 Figure 72. Period 4: Selected sites………………………………………………….252 Figure 73. Period 5: Selected sites………………………………………………….261 Figure 74. General Site Map………………………………….…….…following p.368 List of Maps Map 1. Mints in Palestine and Phoenicia represented at Gamla…………………..…29 Map 2. Mints in outlying areas represented at Gamla………………………….…….30 Map 3. Gamla — Site plan…………………………………………………….…..…91 Map 4. Galilee and its geographical subdivisions……………...………….…..……142 Map 5. The borders of Galilee according to the ‘Baraita’ and Josephus……..…….148 Map 6. Ptolemaic period: coins of Sidon, Tyre and ‘Akko-Ptolemais (all sites)…...203 Map 7. Ptolemaic period: selected sites…………………………………………….205 Map 8. Seleucid period: coins of Sidon (all sites)………………………….……….207 Map 9. Seleucid period: Coins of Tyre (all sites)……………………………….…..208 Map 10. Seleucid period: Seleucid and civic coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais (all sites)...209 Map 11. Seleucid period a: Coins of ‘Akko and Tyre (200–162 BCE, all sites)…...210 Map 12. Seleucid period b: Coins of ‘Akko and Tyre (162–125 BCE, all sites)…...212 Map 13. Seleucid period (all): Selected sites 200–125 BCE.………………………214 Map 14. Coins of Antiochus VII from Jerusalem in Galilee………………………..221 Map 15. Hasmonean period: Coins of Autonomous Sidon (all sites)……………...224 Map 16. Hasmonean period: Autonomous coins of Tyre (all sites)……………..….225 Map 17. Hasmonean period: Civic and Seleucid coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais (all sites)…..……………………………….…………………………………………... 226 Map 18. Hasmonean period: Hasmonean coins (all sites)………………………….229 Map 19. Hasmonean period: Selected sites……………………………………....…230 Map 20. Early Roman Period: Autonomous Sidon (all sites)……………….……...237 Map 21. Early Roman Period: Autonomous Tyre (all sites)………………….…….239 9 Map 22. Early Roman Period: Civic and Colonial coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais (all sites)….……………………………………………………………………………...240 Map 23. Early Roman Period: Jewish coins (all sites): Herodians, procurators, Agrippa I………………..…………………………………………………………...241 Map 24. Early Roman Period: The mint of Paneas: Philip, Roman administration and Agrippa I (relative quantities)………………………………………………………242 Map 25. Early Roman Period: The mint of Tiberias: Antipas and the Roman administration (relative quantities)….………………………………………………243 Map 26. The borders of Josephus superimposed on the coin distribution map…….245 Map 27. Other Jewish coins: Mattathia Antigonus, Herod (Samaria [?] and Jerusalem), Archelaus, procurators, Agrippa I and Jewish War……………….…...246 Map 28. The mints of Paneas, Tiberias and Samaria/Judaea…………………….....249 Map 29. The tetrarchies of Antipas and Philip imposed on the coin distribution …250 Map 30. Early Roman Period: Selected sites……………………………………….251 Map 31. Middle Roman Period: Provincial coinage of Sidon (all sites)…………...253 Map 32. Middle Roman period: Autonomous and colonial coins of Tyre (all sites).254 Map 33. Middle Roman period: Colonial coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais (all sites)……255 Map 34. Middle Roman Period: Selected sites………………………….………….258 10 11 Abstract The site of Gamla has been identified in 1968. The 14 seasons of excavations conducted there by the late Shmarya Gutmann have put to rest the controversy surrounding its identification (Syon 1995). Besides an occupation of the site during the Early Bronze Ages I–II, the site had been occupied in the Second-Temple period, beginning in the second c. BCE. until its conquest by the Romans in 67 CE. That year thus, provides a firm terminus ante quem for all the finds from the site. Gamla and its fall are described in detail by Josephus (War IV, 1–83). The finds from the site provide a rare glimpse into Jewish life in the late Second-Temple period and an almost unprecedented opportunity to study a battle site of the first c. CE. that was never interfered with ever since. Lacking yet a full excavation report, the main body of information is available today through two publications: Guttman (1994) and Syon (1992). Having participated in 13 out of the 14 seasons, I have a first-hand experience of the site and through my interest in numismatics, I took upon myself to study the coins, a task that was begun and left unfinished by the late David Eidlin (Eidlin 1981). Part I: The Coins from Gamla — the Numismatic Material This part of the study presents some 5800 coins that were found during the 18 seasons of excavations at Gamla. The coins are presented in a chronological order, accompanied by many tables and charts showing the relative quantity of the various types and technical and numismatic details. For the coins of the Hasmoneans in particular, heavy use is made of comparative tables and charts that replace a tedious item-by-item catalogue. Ptolemaic and Seleucid coins. Except a single Tyrian coin of the fourth century BCE and a few Ptolemaic coins of the third century, Seleucid coins represent the first major 12 occupation phase at Gamla, probably under Antiochus III. A few rare Seleucid types are presented, including what appears to be a unique coin of Demetrius II. Hasmonean coins. Some 3900 such coins form a considerable corpus, though no new types were noted, nor their internal chronology elucidated. I accept that Hasmonean coins were first minted under John Hyrcanus I (135–105 BCE) and that the ‘Yehuda’ coins are of Aristobulus I (105–104 BCE). Yet I prefer to assign the YNTN coins to Jannaeus, and not to Hyrcanus II, as does Meshorer. Not all Hasmonean types were found, and lacking are the palm branch half-prutahs and lead coins. The Herodian dynasty is well represented, especially coins of Herod, Antipas and Agrippa I. Coins of Antipas outnumber those of Philip, even though Gamla was in the latter’s domains. A few rare coins of Agrippa I from the mint of Paneas were found in a good state of preservation. The Roman procurators and the Roman administration are represented by coins of all procurators, as well as coins from Tiberias, Paneas and Caesarea. The Gamla coin of the Jewish War is presented fully for the first time with its variants. City coins are abundant, but especially those of Tyre, for which some new coin types are introduced in detail, including a checklist for telling the autonomous Melqart/palm tree types apart from their Seleucid look-alikes, with which they have been almost always confused. The Tyrian sheqels are presented in a table, including what appears to be the latest provenanced sheqel, dated 63/4 CE. Some new types or new dates have been identified among the coins of Sidon and ‘Akko-Ptolemais, for which a new, full list of its pre-colonial coinage is presented, with some new types. The cities of the Decapolis are rather poorly represented, as are the Nabateans and Itureans. 13 Some single ‘exotic’ coins from Macedonia, Commagene, and Balanea found their way to Gamla, as well as three coins from Seleucia on the Tigris, which are interpreted as having arrived by Jewish pilgrims from Babylonia. Part II: Gamla — the coins in context. This part deals with the coins in the context of the excavations at Gamla, and presents an historical analysis of the development of Gamla based on the numismatic finds, but relying also on other archaeological and historical evidence. Because of the steep topography and the nature of the dirt floors, coins could often not be assigned well to floors. Thus, the analysis deals with three discrete units: the Hasmonean quarter, settled during the first century BCE only, the Eastern quarter, which includes the city wall and the synagogue and which was inhabited continuously through the Hasmonean period through to the Jewish War and the Western quarter, which was build mostly only in the first century CE. In particular, the beginning of the settlement at Gamla is suggested to have started as a Seleucid military post in the early second century BCE, as evidenced by over 600 second century BCE coins, in spite of the conflict with the ceramic evidence, which, apart from scattered fragments, places the pottery assemblages in the Hasmonean quarter not before the first century BCE. The settlement period at Gamla is divided into several phases that can be related to numismatically. Phase I: Fourth century to c. 200 BCE. One Tyrian coin and nine Ptolemaic ones might indicate some meager activity. Phase II: Seleucid domination (200– c. 80 BCE) 14 Phase IIa: 200–125 BCE indicates full Seleucid control. Seleucid coins are practically the only ones in circulation. Phase IIb: 125– c. 80 BCE. From 125 BCE Seleucid power was waning rapidly and the Golan was annexed to the Hasmonean state in the last campaigns of Jannaeus, c. 83–80 BCE. Contrary to common opinion today, and based on over 300 coins of Hyrcanus I, I believe that Gamla had a Jewish element already during the time of John Hyrcanus I (135–105 BCE) or, at the latest, in the early years of Alexander Jannaeus (104–76 BCE). The displacement of pagan elements from Gamla is evident also in the very dramatic drop in the coins of Tyre: while during the years 125–98 BCE over 600 Tyrian coins arrive at the site, following 98 until 40 BCE only 14 coins from that city arrive! Thus, one of the central arguments in this study is that in addition to the requirements of government, deliberate preference of Jewish coins by Jews can be demonstrated (as also their avoidance by the pagan population). Phase III: Jewish domination (c. 80 BCE–67 CE) Phase IIIa: The Hasmoneans (c. 80 BCE) to the rise of Herod in 40 BCE. This period sees the arrival of Hasmonean coins only, though older coins apparently still circulated. Phase IIIb: The Herodian dynasty to the Jewish War (40 BCE–67 CE). In spite the distance from Jerusalem, Jewish coins still form the majority of new coin arriving in this period. A detailed analysis of the coins of Alexander Jannaeus in the Western quarter, from locii closely dated to the first century CE by a variety of finds, and including a comparison to many other sites in Palestine, leads to the conclusion that his latest coins were in heavy use for many decades after his death. They may have been minted posthumously as well, but this cannot be proven from the evidence from Gamla. 15 Phase IV: after 67 CE. Six stray coins ranging from the late first century CE to the twentieth, reflect on chance visitors to the site. Part III: The Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and The Golan This part presents the results of an analysis of numismatic data from 186 sites in Galilee and the Golan and ten comparison sites from Syria, Decapolis, Samaria, the coastal plain and Judaea, to determine the monetary influence of the bronze coins of the cities of Sidon, Tyre and ‘Akko-Ptolemais, as well as that of the coins of the Jews, on Galilee and the Golan. The history of research. Three scholars have noted the unusually strong presence of Tyrian coins in Galilee. Kindler (1967) dealt mainly with Persian period coins from ‘Akko and concluded that Tyre was the main supplier of currency to all of Palestine not only in the Persian period, but also in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods. Hanson (1980), following large scale excavations at the Upper Galilee sites of Meron, H. Shema‘, Gush Halav and Nabratein, reached similar conclusions, but expanded them to include the Roman period, in which he claims the people of Upper Galilee traded in Tyre. This study is often quoted by New Testament scholars who try to reconstruct the Galilee of Jesus. Barag (1982–3) analyzed Roman provincial coins from some sites and from a hoard, and also reached similar conclusions, but added that the strong presence of the mint of Tyre is due also to Roman administrative control and regulation of bronze currency. The drawback of all these studies is their limited chronological or geographical scope. The present study expands considerably the database on which its conclusions are based, and reaches some very different conclusions. 16 An historic and numismatic background (regional and global) of the five periods. The choice of periods was dictated by divisions which can be detected in the numismatic record, though I am fully aware that a higher resolution (more periods) might yield insights into processes that cannot be seen in the present division. For each period the political background is presented, as well as the monetary system in Galilee and its place within the wider Mediterranean zone. The Persian period was not dealt with, as the work of Lemaire (1995) already presents an excellent analysis The periods are: Period 1. Ptolemaic (301–200 BCE). Period 2. Seleucid (200–125 BCE). Period 3. Hasmonean (125–63 BCE). Period 4. Early Roman (63 BCE–70 CE). Period 5. Middle Roman (70–256 CE). The geographical boundaries of the study are the modern political borders on the north and east, and the Jezre’el and Bet She’an valley to the south. The historical boundaries between Galilee and Phoenicia in the relevant historical periods is analyzed, drawing on historical sources (Greek, Roman and Rabbinical) as well as archaeological data and the results of the latest synthetic research. The sources present a dynamic boundary, depending on politics, administration, trade and ethnicity, but one that was always open because Galilee was the agricultural hinterland of the cities of Southern Phoenicia. Points of contact between Galilee and Phoenicia discusses the relations between the two entities, from trade in the Biblical period, through administrative subordination and again trade relations in the Roman period, attested in the donkey caravans of the Jews going to the fairs in the Phoenician cities. In spite of the economic relations that 17 never ceased, beginning in the Hasmonean period the relationship between Jews and Phoenicians is one of deep mistrust and hatred, rooted in the Hasmonean takeover of the agricultural hinterland the cities depended on. This animosity can be traced in the coin circulation patterns as well. Circulation of the coins of Southern Phoenicia in Galilee and the Golan examines the state of research today, based on historical, archaeological and synthetic studies. The study of Galilee is dominated today by Bible scholars, who try to reconstruct the economical realities of Galilee of Jesus, based on anachronistic data, which sometimes is relevant, but often not. Sources for the data and methodology. The data was culled from published material, collections, studies in progress by colleagues, but most and best was by the various kibbutz collections. The raw data was entered into a database, manipulated statistically, and fed into a GIS program that enabled to place all sites accurately on a map, together with the relevant numismatic information. The results are presented by a series of maps, some in colour, accompanied by a discussion and conclusions for each period. Period 1: The Ptolemaic period (301–200 BCE). Because the difficulty in identifying the mint on many of the Ptolemaic coins, the conclusions are partial. The distribution pattern observed conforms by and large to that expected in a closed monetary system, with the most prolific mints being best represented (Egypt and Tyre), with a natural diffusion of coins from other mints (Sidon and ‘Akko-Ptolemais) away from the mint. Period 2: The Seleucid period (200–125 BCE). It was found that in the early part of the period (200–162 BCE) the mint of ‘Akko-Ptolemais was the most prolific mint for bronze, supplying coinage on administrative authority to most of Palestine, except to 18 the area of Upper Galilee, where coins of Tyre are more abundant, indicating that this part was in the economic orbit of Tyre. Following what appear to be administrative reorganizations under Demetrius I (162–150 BCE), the mint of ‘Akko-Ptolemais reduced its output dramatically, turning in effect into a minor local mint. Now the mint of Tyre increased its output, becoming the major supplier of coinage in the region. Some anomalous clusters of Tyrian coins and finds of coins of Antiochus VII from the mint of Jerusalem are interpreted as a possible indication of Jews inhabiting Galilee at this time. A clustering of Sidonian coins in the northern Hula valley is interpreted as Iturean presence in contact with the Beqa‘a valley in Lebanon. Period 3: The Hasmonean period (125–63 BCE). The distribution of Hasmonean coins is seen to reflect the maximum extent of the Hasmonean state, and the clearly delineated border of coin distribution is interpreted as an ethnic boundary, indicating on one hand state controlled coin circulation, but also deliberate preference to use Hasmonean coins by Jews and their avoidance by the pagan population. The clustering of Sidonian coins in the northern Hula valley continues, and of the Phoenician coins, the coins of Tyre predominate. Period 4: The Early Roman Period (63 BCE–70 CE). The distribution of Jewish coins in this period (Herodian coins and those of the procurators) is again seen to reflect the ethnic boundary following the reorganizations of Pompey and Gabinius (63–55 BCE), one that eventually became the provincial boundary between Judaea and Syria. It is clearly seen that the use of Jewish coins continues in areas that had been in Hasmonean territory but were no longer so, reinforcing the conclusion that a preference on an ethnic background played a part in coin circulation in this period as well. With the creation of the Paneas district the clustering of Sidonian coins almost disappears and the number of Tyrian coins circulating in Galilee reaches its lowest. 19 Period 5: The Middle Roman Period (70–256 CE). In this period Jewish coins disappear entirely, and the coins of the cities are the only ones circulating, with the addition of some Roman imperial coins (mainly silver and gold), that show the increased monetization of the economy. The coin circulation is taken now to reflect mainly mint output and trade patterns, and the coinage of Tyre again clearly predominates all over Galilee and the Golan. Finally, a general summary is presented, discussing the importance of the study in showing that: • Coins can be an independent archaeological criterion in evaluating historical processes. • The distribution pattern of a large number of coins can effectively show circulation patterns and suggest the reasons for this pattern. • Circulation patterns can in turn can be used to make inferences about regional and chronological historical processes. • A regional pattern, such as presented in this study, can contribute to a considerably better understanding of trade patterns, political and administrative control and ethnic affiliations than data from single sites • Most importantly, it shows that patterns of coin circulation are dynamic; they cannot be attributed to a single cause: not to mint output, not to trade patterns, not to political boundaries or control and not to ethnic differentiation or preference alone, but they form combination that vary over time and space. Thus, in most cases, it is hazardous to project processes happening in one period to another. 20 21 Introduction This study seemingly includes two different subjects: the coins from Gamla and the monetary influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee. Yet for me there is a close relation between them, as my preoccupation with the second was born of my preoccupation with the first.1 The site of Gamla was identified in 1968 by Yitzhak Gal, in the course of a survey of natural resources in the Golan, on behalf of the Nature Protection Society and the National Parks Authority. The 14 seasons of excavations conducted there by the late Shmarya Gutmann have put to rest the controversy surrounding its identification (Syon 1995). Besides an occupation of the site during the Early Bronze Ages I–II, in the Second Temple period it was continuously occupied from the second century BCE, until its conquest by the Romans in 67 CE. Thus, that year provides a firm terminus ante quem for all the finds from the site. Gamla and its fall are described in detail by Josephus (War 4.1.1 [§1–83]). The finds from the site provide a rare glimpse into Jewish life in the late Second Temple period, including the earliest known synagogue to date in Israel, and an almost unprecedented opportunity to study a Roman battle site of the first century CE, that was never interfered with ever since (Syon 2002a). Until a full excavation report is published (in the foreseeable future), the results of the excavations at Gamla are accessible in English through several preliminary or popular publications (a partial list): Syon 1992; NEAEHL v.2:459–463 1 The form Gamla is preferred over Gamala, because it is apparently the way it was pronounced by the local population in antiquity. The form Gamala, the corrupted Greek form used by Josephus, is the way European and American scholars have referred to the site, but Israeli scholars invariably pronounce it Gamla. In the punctuated versions of the Mishna, Tosefta and Talmud — although medieval in date —, the name of the city always appears as Gamla – not Gamala. Greek corruptions of Hebrew and Aramaic words abound, and suffice it to cite the ubiquitous ‘kefar- ‫ ’כפר‬which turned into kapar-; Meidva-‫מידבא‬ which became Madaba, Gader that became Gadara and Yodefat that became Jotapata. Some Greek corruptions, e.g. Jannaeus for Yannai have become so ingrained that I decided to leave them alone, but for Gamla, and certain other forms central to this study, I prefer to use the form I think is the right one. 22 (with full bibliography up to 1993); Gutmann 1994; Goren 1994; Syon and Yavor 2001; Syon and Yavor, forthcoming. Some of the contributions to the final publication will be mentioned in the present study. Having participated in 13 out of the 14 seasons conducted by Gutmann, I have a first-hand experience of the site. Through an interest in numismatics that started at Gamla, I took upon myself to study the coins, a task that was begun and left unfinished by the late David Eidlin (Eidlin 1981). The study of the over 6300 coins excavated on the site has raised a number of interesting problems that have implications beyond the city of Gamla or its immediate vicinity: • The ceramic and numismatic evidence are at odds as to the beginning of the settlement at the site. • There is a heavy representation of Hasmonean coinage in first century CE contexts. • What is the significance of the huge quantities of Tyrian coins in the second century BCE, and why do the numbers drop dramatically in the subsequent periods? Parts I and II of this study try to answer these question in relation to Gamla. During my work at the Israel Antiquities Authority (henceforth IAA), studying coins from excavations all over Galilee, the questions concerning the circulation of Phoenician coinages took on a new dimension, prompting me to extend the questions to all Galilee and Golan. That Galilee was in the economic sphere of southern Phoenicia and especially Tyre had been noted in the past (Kindler 1967; Hanson 1980; Barag 1982–3), and recent research has often relied on these works to repeat the same statements. The vastly increased material since the publication of those studies allows for a reexamination of the evidence and extending it in time and space. Thus, 23 part III of the study will endeavor to map the monetary influence of the cities of Southern Phoenicia, namely Sidon, Tyre and ‘Akko-Ptolemais in Galilee and the Golan from Ptolemaic times to the end of civic coinage under Gallienus, a span of some 550 years. It is hoped that the material from Gamla, by its sheer number and variety of coins will provide a basis for further research to students of numismatics, monetary circulation and economy of the late Second Temple period. As this is essentially a numismatic study, the historical background will be kept to a necessary minimum for the understanding of the ideas expressed in this study. This background, rather than being presented summarily, will be invoked as necessary in the relevant sections. Galilee and the Golan will be looked at from a numismatic perspective. Thus, though other evidence, such as ancient sources and archaeology will be consulted and adduced as corroborative or opposing evidence, these fields will not be discussed in detail, as they are beyond the scope of this study. Acknowledgements The sheer number of people who have helped me in the various stages of this work precludes that all are thanked individually. The persons who allowed me access to their private collections, the curators of the Kibbutz collections I consulted and the unpublished excavation material I was allowed to use by my colleagues at the IAA and elsewhere are acknowledged in part III, in the listing of the sources for the material from the various sites. The help of the scholars who allowed me to consult far-away resources through the advent of speedy e-mail are acknowledged at the 24 relevant section. Several individuals however, helped me by counsel and advice, insights and cross-checking of data all along the way. These are Donald T. Ariel, Gabriella Bijovsky, Nimrod Getzov and Moshe Hartal (IAA), Zvi Yavor (Gamla Excavation team), Moti Aviam (University of Rochester), Douglas R. Edwards (University of Puget Sound), Arthur Houghton (American Numismatic Society), Andrea Berlin (University of Minnesota) Alla Kushnir-Stein (Tel Aviv University) Rafael Frankel (Bet Ha-‘Emeq) and Shraga Qedar (Jerusalem). Some of these and other individuals allowed me to cite from their unpublished works, as reflected by the many (17 at the time of writing) ‘forthcoming’ or ‘in press’ entries in the list of references. On the technical side, the invaluable help of Avinoam Breitstein is acknowledged, who scanned several thousand negatives of coins, and that of Idan Shaked, who taught me to use the GIS program essential for the production of the maps. I also wish to thank the many researchers who are preparing contributions to the final publication on Gamla, and who allowed me to use material from their studies before publication, and to my colleagues at the Akko office of the IAA for their help. A grant from the State of Israel General Custodian’s Office received through the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, allowed for the completion of this work in a reasonable time. 25 Part I Gamla: The Numismatic material 26 27 This part deals with 5895 identifiable coins out of 6314 found at Gamla during excavations. The majority (6164) were found during the 14 seasons of excavation by S. Gutmann (1976–1989), 24 during preservation and restoration works in 1990–1991 and the rest (126) in the four seasons conducted by myself and Zvi Yavor in 1997– 2000. The 153 additional coins from Gamla subsequently ‘discovered’ in the Kibbutz Sasa collection were not included in this part, but are considered in part III of this study. Unidentified 6.6% Seleucid 9.7% 419 610 Autonomous Phoenician 14.7% Herodians and Rom. Admin. 4.8% Other 1.4% 928 304 3964 89 Hasmonean 62.8% Figure 1. General distribution chart of the coins Two interim numismatic reports were published in the past. The first described c. 250 coins found up to 1978, and was published twice (Eidlin 1981; 1985).2 The other (Syon 1992–3), serves as the basis for the present study, and included the 6164 coins found until 1989. Several coins that were presented then as rare have since been recorded by other authorities and are not treated in any detail, and many coins were The late D. Eidlin of kibbutz Merhavia cleaned and identified the coins until 1987. Later seasons were handled by me. 2 28 re-examined and found to have been misidentified. Square brackets [ ] denote the catalogue number. General The pie chart in Figure 1 shows the quantity of coins in the major categories in both numbers and percentage. The most striking feature is the overwhelming majority of Hasmonean coins, in both relative and absolute numbers. The segment marked 'Autonomous Phoenicia' includes both full autonomous and civic coins. The ‘other’ category is broken down as follows: Local Civic Coinage (1) Modern Nabatean Late Roman 3 7 16 3 19 16 Iturean Ptolemaic 14 10 Other Autonomous Coinages Roman Imperial Roman Provincial and Colonial Figure 2. Coin classes in the ‘other’ category 29 Byblus Berytus Chalcis Sidon Damascus Tyre Paneas ‘Akko-Ptolemais Tiberias Caesarea Gamla Hippos Gadara Nysa-Scythopolis Samaria Jerusalem Ascalon Autonomous and civic mint Ptolemaic or Seleucid mint Jewish mint and Roman administration A r a b i a Petra Map 1. Mints in Palestine and Phoenicia represented at Gamla 30 Amphipolis (Macedonia) Commagene C i l i c i a Seleucia Pieria Antioch Cyprus Armenia Balanea Apamea Aradus Paphos Marathus Tripolis Gamla Seleucia on the Tigris Jerusalem Alexandria A r a b i a Autonomous and civic mint Ptolemaic or Seleucid mint Roman Imperial mint Jewish mint Map 2. Mints in outlying areas represented at Gamla The Earliest Coins A single tiny Tyrian silver coin from the second half of the fourth century BCE is the earliest coin found at Gamla. Eight early Ptolemaic bronze coins were found, in a poor state of preservation, making accurate attribution difficult. 31 Cat. No. 1, 2, 3 Ruler Ptolemy I or II Date 305–246 BCE Mint Tyre (1); Egypt (2) Tyre? Tyre ? Qty. 3 1 1 3 4 5 6, 7, 8 Ptolemy II (?) 282–246 BCE Ptolemy IV (?) 224–222 BCE Uncertain Figure 3. Ptolemaic coins Five late Ptolemaic coins of Ptolemy IX or X from Cyprus, dated c. 114/3–103 BCE are probably connected with the violent tour of Ptolemy IX Soter II (Lathyrus), following the unsuccessful siege of ‘Akko-Ptolemais by Jannaeus in 103 BCE (Josephus, Ant. 13.12.1–13.13.3 [§320–355], and see below, part II, p.109). 3 The doubts surrounding the identity of the king who minted these coins stems from the fact that Ptolemy IX Lathyrus ruled Cyprus only from 106/5 BCE, leaving him with little time to mint before his foray to the Levantine coast. His brother, Ptolemy X Alexander I, had ruled Cyprus from 114/3 BCE, thus having had ample time to mint in Cyprus (Gitler and Kushnir-Stein 1994–9:46). A sixth coin [12], Head of ZeusAmmon/Isis headdress, is probably of the same ruler and same period. Coins of the ‘two eagles’ type have been also found at Dora, Ginnosar and Yodefat (Jotapata of Josephus) (Gitler and Kushnir-Stein, 1994–9), in ‘Akko-Ptolemais itself (ibid. and Syon, forthcoming 1) and as an underwater hoard at ‘Atlit (Galili, Syon and Finkielsztejn, forthcoming). Seleucid Coins Among the 610 Seleucid coins found at Gamla, most kings from Antiochus III onward are represented, as can be seen in Figure 4. Not represented numismatically are Tryphon, Antiochus X, XI, XIII and Philip Philadelphus. These rulers had either a 3 Cat. Nos. 9–11, 13, 14. 32 very short reign, or the waning Seleucid influence under their rule kept their coins nearer to their mints in Antioch and Northern Syria. From among the late Seleucid rulers the kings who minted at Damascus are well represented: Demetrius III and Antiochus XII. The classification follows SNG Spaer, which, being a local collection, by its nature provides a large database of coins circulating in the region. Mints Phoenicia Byblus Sidon Tyre ‘Akko – Ptolemais Uncertain Ruler Judaea Syria Damascus Antioch Seleucia Pieria Uncertain Jerusalem Ascalon Antiochus III (223–187 BCE) Seleucus IV (187–175 BCE) Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE) Antiochus V (164–162 BCE) Demetrius I (162–150 BCE) Alexander I Balas (150–145) Demetrius II (first reign: 145–138 BCE) Antiochus VI (144–142 BCE) Antiochus VII (138–129 BCE) Demetrius II (second reign: 129– 125 BCE) Demetrius II or Antiochus VII (uncertain: 145–125 BCE) 1 1 4 2 25 2 17 15 88 31 7(?) 5 ?4 2 1 1 1 ? 5 3 4 1 4 2 59 11 3 1 2 9 10 270 2 6 10 1 1 4 9 5 4 1 19 29 2 10 1 Alexander II Zebina (128–122 BCE) Antiochus VIII and Cleopatra Thea (125–121 BCE) Antiochus VIII (121–96 BCE) Antiochus IX (114–101 BCE) Seleucus VI (95–94 BCE) Demetrius III (96–88 BCE) Antiochus XII (87–84 BCE) Seleucid, not otherwise identifiable (2nd c. BCE) Totals 1 3 524 Figure 4. Seleucid coins. Gray indicates inoperative mint Barag (2002) has recently suggested that this mint was active under Antiochus IV. Traditionally considered inactive, recently some silver tetradrachms and didrachms of both Attic and Phoenician weight have been attributed to ‘Akko-Ptolemais under Antiochus VII by Voulgaridis (2000:150–154, Pl.IX). 5 4 33 Denominations Attempt was made to classify the bronze denominations for Antiochus IV (Schlösser 1985; Le Rider 1994), but this has been neither universally accepted, nor proven for other rulers. Thus, in the catalogue the bronze issues were not assigned denominations, excepting the lepta and dilepta. Dating Many of the individual coins are dated, and thus, state of preservation permitting, their identification is full. Many others are worn to some degree, and the attribution is based on fragmentary inscriptions, dates or parts of dates, types and stylistic considerations. Figure 4 reflects only some of the uncertain attributions. For the sake of simplicity, some of the question marks attached to either ruler or mint have been omitted; these can be found in the catalogue. It is noteworthy that all the coins of Antiochus III were minted in Seleucid mints established after 200 BCE, and some of them are now tentatively attributed to military mints operating in the newly conquered territories, as suggested recently by Houghton and Lorber (2000–2; SC 1:356). There are few unusual coins among the finds deserving a separate discussion; relative rarities are the two coins of Antiochus V [62, 63], one of Antiochus VI [196] and Seleucus VI, [609] who produced few coins during their short reigns. Two coins [26, 27] that had been attributed to Antiochus I from the mint of Carrhae (Syon 1992–3:50, No.48), are now reattributed to Antiochus III, from an uncertain mint in Figure 5. Elephant of Antiochus III southern Koile Syria, based on many provenanced coins from the region (Houghton and Lorber 2000–2:47–48; SC 1:413, No. 1089) 34 One, apparently unique coin, is a small bronze (dilepton?) of Demetrius II that was formerly attributed to Gaza (Syon Figure 6. A unique coin of Demetrius II 1992–3:50, No.52) [186], based on the similarity of its tripod type to other issues of this ruler at this mint (Cf. e.g. SNG Spaer Nos. 1738–1743). Based on style, beveled edge, inscription and control mark however, it is reattributed by Arthur Houghton to an uncertain Palestinian or Phoenician mint.6 Obv. Diademed and draped bust of Demetrius II r.; dotted border. Rev. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ∆ΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ in two lines on r.,ΘΕΟΥ ΦΙΛΑ∆ΕΛΦΟΥ (the latter fragmentary) on l. [ΝΙΚΑΤΟΡΟΣ] (off flan), exergue date, if any off flan. Control mark on outer r. field: Z. 14mm., ↑, 2.04 g. Beveled edge. Silver Coins Six Seleucid silver coins were found, all from the mint of Tyre, and all fall within the date range 139–125 BCE. Cat. No. 203 204 243 244 245 246 Ruler Antiochus VII Denomination Didrachm Date 139/8 BCE Oblit. 130/29 BCE 129/8 BCE 128/7 BCE 126/5 BCE Demetrius II, 2nd reign Tetradrachm Control mark ∆? Between legs:> ? Between legs: > Between legs:{ Between legs:> ? Between legs: > Figure 7. Seleucid silver coins All the silver coins are struck on the Phoenician standard (equivalent to the Ptolemaic standard), which was introduced under Antiochus V in ‘Akko-Ptolemais and used in the Seleucid era exclusively along the South-Phoenician and Palestinian coast. This 6 I thank Arthur Houghton of the ANS for kindly discussing the coin with me. 35 standard was used alternately with the Attic standard, current in the Seleucid empire but scarce in archaeological material in Israel.7 Striking on this standard was most likely an acknowledgement by the Seleucids of the strong economic influence Egypt had had on this region when it was under Ptolemaic rule in the third century BCE, an influence still strong at the time of the Seleucids (Mørkholm 1984:96; Le Rider 1995:396f.; Houghton and Lorber 2002:54–55). The sheqels of autonomous Tyre, whose minting commenced in 125 BCE, continued to use this standard for nearly 200 more years (and see part III, p.164). Mints The Seleucid mint of Tyre far surpasses in quantity all others put together, a phenomenon to be looked at in some depth in part III of this study. The capital Antioch is second and the late Seleucid mint of Damascus third. ‘Akko-Ptolemais follows far behind. Other mints are sparsely represented, by 1–4 coins each (Figure 4). Municipal coinage This class of coins minted under the Seleucids was introduced by Antiochus IV (Mørkholm 1966) and continued intermittently down to the second reign of Demetrius II. Characteristic of these issues is the Seleucid ruler’s head on the obverse, as on the royal issues, but a local type and/or inscription, in Greek or Phoenician, naming the issuing city, on the reverse. At Gamla 12 coins of this class were found: Attic weight silver is exceedingly rare in Israel in excavation material; there are only 9 listed in the state collections, plus some hoards: IGCH: No. 1605 (Haifa), 1607 (Jericho), 1610 (Palestine) and a hoard from the Sea of Galilee (CH 8 No. 458: 64 Attic weight coins) and one from the sea near Haifa (CH 8, No. 477: at least 11 Attic weight coins). 7 36 Cat. No. 35 36 37, 38, 39 64 81 98 205, 206 241, 242, Ruler Antiochus IV Demetrius I Demetrius I or II Demetrius II, 1st reign Antiochus VII Mint Byblus Sidon Tyre Tyre Tyre Tyre Tyre Qty. 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 Type Bull’s head Galley Galley’s prow (1), galley’s stern Galley’s stern Galley’s stern Galley’s stern Galley’s stern, battering ram Astarte on galley Demetrius II, 2nd reign Sidon 2 Figure 8. Seleucid 'municipal' issues The Tyrian dilepta The majority of Seleucid issues are the ubiquitous Tyrian dilepta, showing on the obverse the head of the king and on the reverse a palm tree. Unfortunately, a great number of these were found in a much worn condition, not always permitting a full identification. A practically identical type was issued in Tyre following the inauguration of the autonomous coinage in 125 BCE and the Seleucid and autonomous dilepta are easily confused when in a worn condition. The large quantity of both Seleucid and autonomous dilepta found at Gamla enabled the creation of a checklist to facilitate the classification of both — see below, p.73 Hasmonean Coins The Hasmonean coin types are numbered according to Meshorer’s AJC1. This publication still supplies the most detailed classification for Hasmonean coinage, because in the most recent publication (TJC) the author decreased the number of subtypes. The more detailed classification of the coins according to AJC1 however, makes available a large body of data, should some new information come to light in the future. The Hasmonean coins from Gamla are thus classified according to the following assumptions: 37 a. It is now unanimously accepted that John Hyrcanus I was the first Hasmonean to strike coins, based on solid hoard and excavation evidence (Hendin 1996:67; TJC:25–26). Thus, all the coins bearing the name Yehohanan (‫ )יהוחנן‬are his. The date Hyrcanus I started striking his coins cannot yet be fixed. It is best assigned to the period following the death of Antiochus VII in 129 BCE, and even more likely following the death of Demetrius II in 125 BCE, when firm Seleucid control of southern Koile-Syria was lost for all practical purposes. It has been suggested that the Greek Alpha above type M of Hyrcanus I stands for Alexander (II Zebina, 128– 123 BCE) or Antiochus (VIII Grypus, 121–96 BCE) thus signifying the beginning of Hasmonean coinage with the consent of these rulers (Barag and Qedar 1980:18). For this study 125 BCE is assumed as the beginning date for Hasmonean coinage, and I believe it represents an acceptable compromise until new evidence comes to light. b. Were the coins bearing the name of Yehuda (‫ )יהודה‬struck by Aristobulus I (104 BCE) or Aristobulus II (67–63 BCE)? Meshorer now prefers to attribute them to Aristobulus II (TJC:27–29) but an attribution to Aristobulus I now seems assured, for reasons beyond the stylistic considerations adduced by Barag and Qedar (1980:18). Further support for the attribution comes from a hoard found in the Golan (Seyrig 1958:175–176 [=IGCH 1613]), which contained two coins of ‘Yehuda’, one of Jannaeus and 9 other otherwise unidentifiable Hasmonean coins together with 25 coins of Tyre dated 99/8 BCE, a coin each of Antiochus VII and VIII and an autonomous coin of Sidon with an illegible date. Thus, the latest coin appears to be that of Jannaeus. Lastly, at Mt. Gerizim a single ‘Yehuda’ coin was found, in a sequence of coins of John Hyrcanus (52 coins) and Jannaeus (480 38 coins), after which king no coins are attested until the Late Roman period (Magen 2000a:115). It is much more reasonable to insert the single ‘Yehuda’ coin between Hyrcanus and Jannaeus than to assume a single coin of Aristobulus II arriving a decade or so after the latest coins.8 c. Who struck the coins bearing the name YNTN (‫ ?)ינתן‬Meshorer first believed it was Jannaeus (AJC1:69–70, 74) and lately tentatively assumes it was Hyrcanus II (TJC:26–27). Kindler (1991:16–17) thinks that it was Aristobulus II (67–63 BCE). The attribution of coins to Hyrcanus II was discussed by several authors, based mainly on the evidence of the type ‘I’ and ‘H’ coins, which are supposedly overstruck on the later issues of Jannaeus, and were said to have been possibly struck already in the reign of Salome-Alexandra, following the death of Jannaeus (TJC:27; Barag and Qedar 1982:29; Rappaport 1984:38–39; Maltiel-Gerstenfeld 1987:56). In a recent work Schachar (2002:18–21) rather convincingly argued that the overstruck coins should be attributed after all to Jannaeus, and even to the early part of his reign. The name YNTN appears also on issues definitely attributable to Jannaeus, and the present study therefore adopts this scheme. For a higher resolution however, the charts and tables, when relevant, will show the YNTN coins as a separate entity. Based on a newly interpreted papyrus from Egypt, Van’t Dack et al. (1989:118–121) suggested that the accession date of Jannaeus be moved back to 104 BCE. The present study adopts this suggestion (and see part II, p.109). The same conclusion was reached independently by G. Bijovsky of the IAA coin department, who will more fully discuss the issue in the final publication of the coins from Mt. Gerizim. 8 39 The internal chronology of the various types defied so far a coherent classification, though Shachar’s attempt at this (2002:16–18) appears to be very close to the mark. Except for a few distinct types, it would appear that the paleographic variants of the inscription in wreath/crossed cornucopia type and the various forms of the star/anchor type do not reflect chronological changes. As no meaningful information can be extracted from the Gamla material concerning these issues, these will not be dealt with in this study. 2500 2499 1500 1000 Hyrcanus I Aristobulos I Jannaeus 500 288 1 R 381 150 41 K 27 S 18 M 41 N 87 88 29 J 7 A E F 76 G C 128 111 0 P L H I Figure 9. The distribution of Hasmonean coins according to type The absence of the palm branch/lily half-perutahs of Hyrcanus I (type O) and Jannaeus (type B) is notable. Though some of the very common star/anchor Ce type half-perutahs of Jannaeus are in such a bad state of preservation that some of them could conceivably be of these lacking types, the probability is very low. One lead coin [IAA18411] is possibly a Jannaeus type C, showing a star (?) on one side; the other Uncertain (inscription/cornucopia) ? 2000 40 side is blank. The arrangement of types in Figure 10 follows the new arrangement of New sequence TJC(2001) Meshorer AJC1 (1982) (TJC) except type R Ruler Yehohanan (YHWHNN) (helmet/parallel cornucopia), which is placed first in the sequence of Hyrcanus I (following Rappaport 1984:35–6), and thus type S follows. Types C (star/anchor) are placed at the end of the sequence for Jannaeus, probably introduced in the 80’s (Kindler 1968; TJC:39–40, 47, Shachar 2002:16–18) Thus, the period of Hasmonean rule represented numismatically at Gamla Ma Mb Mc Na Nb Nc Nd O Pa Pb La K Lb, Lc R Sa Sb Sc T Yehuda Ja (YHWDH) Jc Ca, Cb, Yehonatan (YHWNTN) Cc L Cd, Ce M D N A O B P1–45 Ea P46–53 Eb Q F R G Yonatan S1–32 Ha (YNTN) S33–36 Hb S37–46 Hc T I Figure 10. A concordance of Hasmonean coin types A AB AC B1–23 B24–25 B26–32 B33–34 C D1–16 D17–23 E F G H I1–4 I5–18 I19–66 J U V K spans altogether some 85 years — from c.125 BCE when presumably Hyrcanus I first struck coins, until c.40 BCE, presuming some coins of Jannaeus were struck posthumously (see p.116), and possibly less. And yet 62.8% of all coins found on the site are from this period, compared to 4.8% from the 107 years representing the Herodian dynasty from 40 BCE until the fall of the city in 67 CE. 41 At Gamla, more coins of Jannaeus were found than at any other single site. In fact, many of his coins were apparently found in contexts of the first century CE, implying posthumous use, or Figure 11. Coins of Jannaeus struck on incompletely cast flans. even posthumous minting, as already suggested by Rappaport (1984:39). The ubiquity and mass production of his coins is underscored by some 25 that were struck on incompletely cast flans. This issue will be revisited in some detail in part II of this study. Sub-type D Ruler Main Type a b c e Uncertain Total Hyrcanus I Aristobulus I Jannaeus YNTN Uncertain Total R S M N P L K J A E F G C H I Inscription/ cornucopia 1 1 9 20 6 50 39 25 6 213 117 7 626 97 96 9 53 24 1 10 11 57 55 1 8 2 10 6 4 9 7 11 22 14 2 65 22 12 198 10 15 373 440 2 319 17 861 1 1 27 18 41 87 88 41 29 7 288 150 76 2499 128 111 373 3964 Figure 12. Frequency of Hasmonean coin sub-types at Gamla 42 1000 500 d c b ? 0 a C R S M N P L K J A E F G H I ? Main Type Figure 13. Graphical presentation of the frequency of Hasmonean coin sub-types Type C was moved to the left to facilitate viewing. su b typ e e 43 Ruler Type Sub type Weight range (g) Diameter range (mm) 16 11–14 12–15 a 10–15 N c 11–15 Hyrcanus I a 11–14 P b 9–16 c 12–14 a 11–15 L b 11–15 K 11–15 Aristobulus I J 11–14 A 12–14 A 10–16 E b 12–15 a 11–15 F b 12–15 a 13–15 G Jannaeus b 11–15 a 10–17 b 10–15 c 9–17 C d 9–16 8–17 (many are e 0.15–1.89 elongated) a 1.05–2.90 11–15 H YNTN d 1.09–2.17 11–14 I 0.78–3.96 12–16 Figure 14. Weight and diameter ranges for Hasmonean coins R S M 3.69 0.91–2.46 0.79–2.75 0.61–2.10 1.43–2.20 1.52–2.17 0.63–2.81 1.44–2.08 1.03–2.37 1.07–2.74 0.83–2.43 1.22–2.44 1.36–2.53 0.79–3.30 1.36–2.65 1.04–2.80 1.46–2.40 1.09–2.67 0.95–2.64 0.45–4.26 0.17–1.81 0.50–3.52 0.32–1.87 44 Figure 15. Weight ranges for selected types of Hasmonean coins 3 number of coins John Hyrcanus I (all types) 2 1 0 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Weight (g.) 14 2 2.2 2.4 number of coins 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0.5 Jannaeus type Ca 1 1.5 2 2.5 Weight (g.) 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 number of coins 4 3 2 1 0 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 Jannaeus type Cb Weight (g.) 45 14 number of coins 12 10 8 6 4 2 Jannaeus type Cc 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Weight (g.) 10 number of coins 8 6 4 2 Jannaeus type Cd 0 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 Weight (g.) 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 20 number of coins Jannaeus type Ce 15 10 5 0 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 Weight (g.) 46 7 number of coins 6 5 4 3 2 1 Jannaeus type E 0 0.8 1.3 1.8 Weight (g.) 2.3 2.8 number of coins 3 2 YNTN (Jannaeus type H) 1 0 1 1.5 2 Weight (g.) 2.5 number of coins 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.5 1 1. 5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 YNTN (Jannaeus type I) Weight (g.) 47 The Herodian Dynasty Compared to the enormous quantities of Hasmonean coins, the number of coins of all the coins of the house of Herod found at Gamla is very modest. For the Herodian coins, TJC and RPC 1 are the preferred references. Certain Uncertain Total Herod 105 2 107 Archelaus 6 6 Antipas 60 1 61 Philip 36 36 Agrippa I 31 1 32 Total 242 Figure 16. Frequency of coins of the Herodian dynasty Herod As the Golan belonged to Herod's realm from the very beginning of his rule (see below, part II, p.110), it is not surprising to find one or two coins of the early part of his reign, from the group which is dated ‘year 3’ and that was apparently minted in Sebaste-Samaria in 40 BCE, when Herod was officially invested by the Roman Senate with the kingship.9 TJC type 44 46 49, 51 53–54 59 66 RPC1 Mint Samaria? Samaria? Jerusalem Jerusalem Jerusalem Jerusalem Cat. 757 756 758–759 760–763 764–852 853–862 Type Tripod / Pileus on couch10 Caduceus / Poppy seed pod Diadem with cross / Tripod Diadem / Tripod Anchor / Double cornucopia with Caduceus Cornucopia / Eagle Qty. 1(?) 1 2 4 89 10 4901 4903 4905 4906 4910 4909 Figure 17. Herod’s types The question of the date and mint is not finally settled. I here follow Meshorer (TJC:61–63). RPC1 (p.678), leaves the question unresolved and believes it is at present impossible to decide between 40/39 and 38/7 BCE. For a full bibliography for the dating of this series see Ariel, forthcoming 4, notes 7, 8. Some scholars believe that Samaria was not the mint for these coins (D. Barag, D.T. Ariel, pers. comm.). 10 Here I follow RPC1 (p.678) that in turn follows Jacobson 1986. Meshorer (TJC:64) holds that it is in fact a Roman apex, and does not mention Jacobson’s theory at all. The coin from Gamla is only half a coin, cut in two. The identification was made by D. Eidlin and is in any case questionable in view of the condition of the coin. 9 48 Archelaus Few of Archelaus' coins, minted in Jerusalem, found their way to Gamla, as indeed his coins are relatively rare in Galilee. Three of his types were found, represented by two specimens each. TJC type 68 72 73 RPC1 Cat. 863 864 865 866 867 868 Type Anchor / Double cornucopia with Caduceus Galley’s prow / Inscription in wreath Bunch of grapes / Helmet Qty 2 2 2 4912 4916 4917 Figure 18. Archelaus’ types Antipas Coins of Antipas from Tiberias and of Philip from Paneas (Caesarea Philippi) are more abundant. TJC type RPC1 Date Denomination Type Qty 76 77 78 79 80 81 83 84 87 88 91 92 93 4919 4920 4921 4922 4923 4924 4926 4927 4930 4931 4934 4935 4936 Year 24=20 CE Year 33=29–30 CE Year 34=30–31 CE Year 37=33–34 CE Years 33–37 ½ ¼ 1/8 1 ½ ¼ 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 Reed / Inscription in wreath Palm branch / Inscription in wreath 3 2 1 6 7 2 2 7 1 4 2 4 7 2 4 7 Year 43=39 CE ½ ¼ Palm tree / Inscription in wreath Palm branch / Inscription in wreath Cluster of dates / Inscription in wreath Palm branch / Inscription in wreath Obliterated 1 ½ Figure 19. Antipas’ types 49 Among the 61 coins of Antipas found, all five of his minting years are represented, with at least 2 denominations for each year (see Figure 19).11 On some the date is illegible, but as all these are of the palm branch type, they belong to years 33, 34 or 37. Most are in the bad state of preservation, unfortunately common for the issues of this tetrarch. Nevertheless, two specimens of a new variant of type 91 (unit, year 43) are recorded [906, 907], with ΕΤΟΥ/C instead of ETO/C for ‘year’ on the obverse inscription. It should be noted that RPC 1 (p.680) gives the full legend on the coins of ‘year 43’ as ΕΤΟΥΣ ΜΓ, as if all varieties carried a four-bar Sigma. Unfortunately, no comparable photograph is published.12 All the coins have an upright axis (12) or very close to it. Philip Philip is represented by 36 coins, most of them very worn from long use. Many of them carry the countermarks common to the coins of this ruler. In fact, some of the coins were assigned to Philip only on the basis of the presence of these typical countermarks, which have either of two shapes. One is a star, appearing on eight coins, always on the obverse, on the neck of the emperor. The second is in the shape of — possibly a variant of the Φ countermark appearing on some coins (e.g. TJC types 101c and 101d). At Gamla it appears on two coins on the reverse, both of which also carry an obverse countermark. Howgego, in his work on countermarks, omitted this variant from his corpus and only presents an obvious Φ (Howgego 1985:243, No. 690.) For the ‘Year 24’ coins I follow AJC2 (p.35–36) and RPC1 (p.680) and date them to 20 CE. In his new 1997 book, Meshorer dates them to 19 CE without elaborating (p.75–76). 12 The specimens in RPC1 are from Berlin and Vienna. Unfortunately, I was not able to confirm the readings for Berlin. The Vienna specimen is illegible (I thank Günther Dembski for sending me a photograph). 11 50 Contrary to the assertion of Meshorer (TJC:228) that all the coins of Philip have an upright axis (↑), two coins of ‘year 30’ (TJC type 103) found at Gamla have an inverse axis (↓). The undated coins of the ‘Jugate busts’ type (TJC type 100) I prefer to date to c. 30 CE, following RPC 1 (p.681) and Meshorer (addendum:108– 109) and not to 14 CE.13 TJC type 95 97 98 101 RPC1 4938 4940 4941 4943 Date Year 5=1 CE Year 12=8/9 CE Denomination Type Head of Augustus / Head of Philip Head of Augustus / Tetrastyle temple Counte rmarks 1+ 1 ½ Qty. 1 6 1 2 One on each coin: star Unclear , on obv. Two: stars Year 19=15/6 CE Year 1[?] (8–16 CE) 1 Head of Tiberius / Tetrastyle temple 1 1 ½ 1 1+ 1 1 3 2 102? 103 104 100 4944 4945 4946 4951 Year 30=26/7 CE Year 33=29/30 CE 30 CE (?) Jugate heads of Tiberius (?) and Livia / Tetrastyle Temple Head of Tiberius / Tetrastyle temple Bust of Livia / Hand holding 3 ears of corn Head of Tiberius / Tetrastyle temple Head of Tiberius / Date in wreath Bust of Livia / Hand holding 3 ears of corn 2 One coin with both counter marks. 106 107 109 111 4948 4949 4952 4953 Year 34=30/31 CE Year 37=33/4 CE Year 34 or 37 Obliterated 1 ½ 1 ¼ ½ 1 2 1 1 1 1 11 4 stars, one Head / Tetrastyle temple Figure 20. Philip’s types 13 In his new work, Meshorer goes back to his old suggestion of 14 CE (TJC:87). 51 Agrippa I Since the publication of AJC in 1982, a great number of changes have taken place in the identification and interpretation of the coinage of this king, based on new readings and new discoveries. The work that established the current chronology was that of Burnett (1987a), followed by RPC 1 and Meshorer (addendum). Still, not all questions have been solved. The question of the mint of the coins of ‘Year 5’ has not been settled satisfactorily. RPC 1 (p.683) asserts that the mint was at Caesarea Paneas, while Meshorer (in all his publications) opts for Tiberias, albeit with a question mark. While the seven coins found at Gamla cannot decide the issue on the basis of the distance from the mint, Paneas seems more plausible, based on the fabric and imagery on these fine coins. It is difficult to see Tiberias minting pagan imagery at this time, and later reverting to aniconic types under the Roman administration (see below). The relatively large quantity of the coins minted in Jerusalem found at Gamla tends to support Meshorer’s contention (TJC:97) that these were minted for more than one year, with an immobilized date. 52 TJC RPC1 Cat. Date Denomination Mint Type Qty. 113 114 116 117 (this specimen) 119 120 4974 4975 4976 4977 4979 4981 966 967 968 969 970 971– 974 975– 997 Year 2=37/8 CE ½ ¼ 1 Paneas Year 5=40/1 CE Head of Agrippa I / Young Agrippa II on horseback Head of Cypros / Hand holding three ears of corn Head of Caligula / Germanicus in quadriga Bust of Caesonia / Drusilla Head of Agrippa II / Crossed cornucopia 1 114 215 116 4 23 ½ 1/8 Year 6=41– 43 CE Perutah Jerusalem Canopy / Three ears of corn Figure 21. Types of Agrippa I Some of the very rare issues of Agrippa I were found in an excellent state of preservation, such as the 'Germanicus in quadriga' type and the 'Drusilla' type, both from the mint of Caesarea Paneas, underscoring the fine workmanship of this mint. The only ‘Agrippa II on horseback’ coin is a surface find from the 2000 season. Figure 22. Rare types of Agrippa I from the mint of Paneas The Roman Procurators Coins of all six procurators to Judaea who minted coins were found at Gamla. Procuratorial coins are now relatively common in northern Israel, and Gamla 14 15 This specimen mentioned in RPCsupp1:48, No. 4975. This specimen mentioned in RPCsupp1:48, No. 4976. 16 This specimen mentioned in RPCsupp1:48, No. 4977. 53 yielded 40 coins — against the 74 other recorded examples put together from this region.17 TJC type 311 313 327 328 331 333 340 342 345 RPC1 4954 4956 4964 4965 4967 4968 4971 4970 4972 Date 6 CE 9 CE 17 CE 18 CE 17–24 CE 29 CE 30 CE 54 CE 54 CE 59–62 CE Total Procurator Coponius Ambibulus Gratus Gratus Gratus Pontius Pilate Felix Festus Qty. 2 4 1 2 1 2 4 2 5 17 40 Figure 23. Coins of the prefects and procurators to Judaea The Roman Administration during 47–66 CE The four types included in this section have been dated, grouped and generally dealt with variously in the past. Thus, Kindler (1983–4) attributed them to Agrippa II; Meshorer in AJC2 included only the coin from Tiberias in Supplement III under Agrippa II (AJC2:279, No.5); while in the Addendum, supplement IX: “The Roman Administration under Agrippa II” he included the Paneas and Caesarea coins but not the Tiberias coin; RPC 1 catalogued all under their respective mints, though suggesting that they may have been minted by the procurators. Although the Tiberias coin can conceivably be catalogued as a civic issue as it explicitly names Tiberias, I here follow Meshorer (TJC:177–156; 261–262), which I believe is so far the best arrangement. Most of these coins were found in the western quarter of the city (areas R, RN, S). 17 Based on the data from part III. 54 Type TJC 347 348 RPC1 4851 4852 Denom. Mint Type Qty. Cat. 1038– 1040 1041 1042– 1046 Date 53 CE Unit Half Tiberias Palm branch / Inscription Head of Claudius / The three children of Claudius Head of Claudius / Anchor in wreath Bust of Nero / Bust of Agrippina 3 1 ←350 4842 c.47–54 CE 1047– 1050 1051– 1052 Caesarea Paneas 518 356 4848 c.47–54 CE 54/5 CE Caesarea Maritima Caesarea Maritima 419 360 4861 2 Figure 24.Coins of the Roman Administration, 47–66 CE The Great Revolt So far, no coins of the Jewish war minted in Jerusalem were found at Gamla. Issues of ‘Year One’ were minted not earlier than the winter of 66/7 CE (TJC:119), and the issues of ‘Year Two’ could have arrived no later than fall 67, altogether less Figure 25. A Jerusalem sheqel of the Revolt Year 2. than a year. Still, some silver sheqels of years one or two may yet come to light. In any event, one of these Jerusalem sheqels certainly served as the model for a unique coin type. Nine specimens are known, seven from the excavations of Gamla. The coin was discussed in English briefly by Meshorer (AJC2:129–131; 1986:224–225; TJC:130–131) and by me (Syon 1992–3:40–41; Pl.13:81–82). In Hebrew it was discussed by Eidlin (1981:94; 1985:146; 1994) and Meshorer (1997:116). All seven specimens from the city were found in the western quarter. An eighth coin appeared in the trade and may have been 18 19 One specimen from Gamla mentioned in RPCsupp1:47, No.4842/1. Mentioned in RPCsupp1:47, No.4861/3 55 looted from the site.20 A ninth specimen was recently found at Sartaba-Alexandrion, a desert fortress in the Jordan valley.21 A renewed inspection of the eight specimens available for study and the photograph of the ‘trade’ specimen overturns or alters some of the previously published conclusions. 1. All nine coins share the same obverse die, but two different reverse dies have now been identified. One reverse die is shared by six coins, the other by three. 2. The flans were thought to have been cast locally.22 Inspection shows that most coins show filing marks — some heavy — around the edges. This may possibly indicate that they were struck on older coins that were filed to prepare them for restriking. If so, the most likely coins to have been used for the purpose, those that match the weight and diameter range of these coins perfectly were coins of Tiberias: the largest (unit) denomination of Antipas and the “year 13” coins of the Roman administration struck in 53 CE. A metallurgical analysis carried out on one ‘Gamla’ coin [1055] and two coins of Antipas [894, 911] showed some similarity in that both have a very low lead content. This is not a significant similarity, though the number of coins sampled was too small to obtain a statistically valid result (see Ponting, appendix 1). The fabric of the coins also appears to be different: the Antipas coins are usually smooth and shiny, and are prone to bronze disease, while the 20 It was put up for sale in the following catalogues: Bank Leu A.G. Zürich, Auktion 36, 7–8 May 1985, lot 188; Superior Galleries, the Abraham Bromberg Collection, New York, 10. Dec. 1992, lot 390. The weight, as it appears in the catalogue is way too low in comparison with the others. This may be a weighing mistake, but I was not able to obtain a confirmation of the weight. 21 I wish to thank Mr. Gil Chaya who kindly allowed me to inspect the coin and provided me with the details and the photograph. There is no reason to doubt the reported provenance. The patina I saw is not like the patina on coins found at Gamla. 22 A metallurgical survey of the finds, carried out by Matthew Ponting (forthcoming), clearly point to a metal casting workshop operating at Gamla in the first century CE. 56 Gamla coins have a grittier feel, and are very stable. Until more conclusive analytical tests are conducted, I prefer to see these as locally cast flans. Cat. Rev. Die Wt. (g) Dia. (mm) Remarks 1 22 ‘trade’ 7.91 1053 1 11.05 22 Worn die? 1054 1 11.41 24 1055 1 12.26 23 1056 1 13.75 24 Worn die? 1057 1 13.80 24 1058 2 11.96 21 ‘Alex.’ 2 12.1 22 1059 2 12.59 21 Figure 26. Physical data for the ‘Gamla’ coins The dies are very crudely cut, obviously done under improvised conditions and by an unskilled artisan. The obverse shows a chalice, in clear imitation of the Jerusalem sheqels, which are generally accepted as showing one of the Temple utensils (TJC:117–118). Obverse and reverse die 1. ‫לגאלת יורשלמהק‬ Reverse die 2. ‫יורשלמהק‬YWRŠLMHQ LG’LT YWRŠLMHQ Figure 27. The paleography of the Gamla coins The inscription starts around the cup and ends on the reverse, which carries no design. The transcription shown here was created using information from eight specimens and differs from the one given by Meshorer in TJC (p.131). 57 It states: (‫‘ לגא)ו(לת ירושלים הק)דושה‬For the redemption of Jerusalem the H(oly)’.23 The crude and misspelled legend indicates that the die cutter was not familiar with the Paleo-Hebrew letters which he was meant to copy, or indeed with letters at all: some letters resemble more the square Aramaic script of the second temple period (e.g. ‫ ,)ה,מ,ת‬the first '‫ 'ל‬is upside down, the second retrograde and the last ‫ ל‬resembles an ‫ .א‬On the second reverse die, the ‫( י‬Y) and ‫( ו‬W) are hardly recognizable, but the ‫ש‬ (Š) and ‫( מ‬M) are better. Probably a relatively small number of these coins were minted altogether. This is borne out by the single obverse die shared by all. It is thus rather surprising to find two different reverse dies. The most conspicuous difference between the two dies is the form of the ‫( ש‬Š) and ‫( ל‬L). On the Jerusalem coins the wording is either ‫ירושלם‬ (YRWŠLM) or ‫( ירושלים‬YRWŠLYM). The spelling ‫( יורשלים‬YWRŠLYM) on both dies of the Gamla coins may indicate the local phonetic form of the name. The content of the legend also shows a radical departure from the Jerusalem coinage: the word ‫( לגאלת‬for the redemption of) appears on the Jerusalem coins only in year 4. The coin in its historical context will be discussed in part II (p.114) 23 The inscription was originally read by Joseph Naveh. The specimen he read was incomplete, and he could not have seen that at the beginning of the reverse inscription there are two letters: ‫(י‬Y) and ‫(ו‬W). 58 34234 26724 18433 88514 Figure 28. Five of the ‘Gamla’ coins Alexandrion Autonomous, civic and provincial coinages Under this heading come: 1. The autonomous and civic coinages of the cities of Phoenicia and Syria, from the second century BCE through to the first century CE. These mostly carry the head of Zeus, Melqart (in Tyre) or Tyche on the obverse, while the reverse usually carries a local type, the name of the city (or a symbol or monogram standing for it) and an epithet stating the autonomous and/or holy and inviolable status of the city (aÙtÒnomoj, ƒer£, ¥sàloj). The dates, when present, usually refer to a local era of autonomy, though some civic issues are dated by the Seleucid or Caesarean eras, e.g. at ‘Akko-Ptolemais. 2. Civic issues of Hippos, Gadara and Nysa-Scythopolis. The latter carry on the obverse the head of Gabinius, Dionysus or that of Tyche. The reverses show a variety of types, usually also carrying the ethnic of the city. These coins are classified as civic rather than autonomous, as there is no indication, neither in the historical sources, nor in the coinage, that these cities received a true autonomous status in the relevant period, like the Phoenician cities (Kindler 1982–3). 59 3. Roman Provincial (so-called Greek Imperial) and colonial coinages with portrait of the emperor, a local reverse type and the name of the issuing city. 4. Roman Imperial issues, struck in provincial mints, carrying Greek or Latin legends, but not the name of the issuing city. It should be stressed that the distinction between the different classes is not consistent in the published literature. The classes as outlined here are for convenience in categorization, but not all the coins fit easily in these categories. Some cities, e.g. Sidon and 'Akko-Ptolemais produced civic coinage alongside Seleucid issues already in the second century BCE and Antioch and Sidon produced civic and provincial coinage concurrently. Needless to say, these different classes may have been viewed and understood completely differently by their contemporaries than by us.24 For the sake of uniformity, the standard reference of choice was RPC 1 for coins struck from Pompey onwards and which meet the definition of ‘Roman Provincial Coinage’. For the earlier coinages the relevant volumes of BMC were quoted, which are still, unfortunately, the best available for many areas, especially Phoenicia. Newer studies of specific mints (e.g. ‘Akko-Ptolemais) were cited when available. 24 See RPC1:41–42 for an overview of civic coinages in the Roman period (there called ‘pseudoautonomous’). 60 Region City Qty. 1 3 Type Auton. Imperial Auton. Autonomous (Seated Zeus) Imperial SC coinage Imperial Eagle tetradrachms Auton. Civic Imperial Nero/ Claudius tetradrachm Auton., mainly galley types Auton. Auton. Auton. Auton. Civic Auton. Provincial Auton. bronze Auton. silver Civic and Auton. Date range at Gamla 187–31 BCE Tiberius: 19–20 CE c. 125–c. 100 BCE c.92–19/18 BCE Augustus to Nero (c. 5 BCE–67 CE) Nero: 60/1–63/4 CE 76/5 BCE Under Antony (37–31 BCE) 63–68CE 125 – 1st c. BCE 1st c. BCE (?) c.167–110 BCE c. 140 BCE 1st c. BCE 168–150 BCE (?) 111BCE–76 CE 37–52 CE 125 BCE–57/8 CE 125 BCE–63/4 CE End of 2nd c. – 1st c. BCE Under Claudius (41–c. 50 CE) Under Nero (66– 67 CE) 42–38 BCE 45/4 BCE Under Claudius (50/1 CE) Under Gabinius (c. 55 BCE) Caligula and Claudius (39–52 CE) Ptolemy son of Mannaeus (c. 70 BCE) Macedonia Commagene (?) Babylonia Amphipolis Seleucia on the Tigris 3 5 Antioch Syria Apamea Balanea Uncertain Uncertain Tripolis (?) Aradus Marathus Berytus Phoenicia Sidon Tyre 11 7 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 16 110 6 710 46 33 ‘AkkoPtolemais Hippos Gadara Decapolis NysaScythopolis Itureans Chalcis 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 Provincial Colonial Civic Civic Provincial Civic Provincial Auton. 61 Region City Qty. Type Date range at Gamla Uncertain Nabateans Phoenicia Palestine Various Uncertain Damascus Petra Sidon Tiberias Various 2 2 14 1 1 3 Civic Auton. Auton. Auton. 64–63 BCE (LA POMHΣ) Aretas III (84–71 BCE) c.129 BCE–40 CE Coins from after 67 CE 76/7 CE Hadrian, 120 CE Late Roman, 4th c. CE Ottoman, 1910 Imperial Imperial 1 Uncertain Imperial Figure 29. Autonomous and civic coinages — a conspectus Outlying regions Macedonia [1060] The single autonomous coin of Amphipolis in Macedonia is, as far as I am aware, a unique find in Israel. The type was minted for a long period (187–31 BCE), and beyond the common explanations of commerce or military travel I cannot offer any explanation for its presence at Gamla. It is extremely worn. Commagene [1061–1063]. The three coins of Tiberius found at Gamla are all of the same type, and are commonly held to have been minted in Commagene, though this is by no means certain (RPC 1:374–375). For their possible route to Gamla, see part II, p. 113) Babylonia [1064–1066]. The three coins of Seleucia on the Tigris found at Gamla are of common types, though the circumstances of their arrival at Gamla are obscure. They were minted in the late second–first century BCE, when Seleucia was apparently the only mint in Babylonia that had its own civic coinage under Parthian supremacy 62 (McDowell 1935:156, 158). In part II (p.99) these coins will be revisited in their context. Syria Only 26 coins of Syria were found at Gamla. Of these, not surprisingly, the majority (23) are issues of the capital Antioch, and especially the ubiquitous SC issues (see RPC 1:620–630). Antiochene silver A hoard of 27 coins found near an olive-oil press in area R yielded seven eagle tetradrachms of Nero, as well as 20 Tyrian sheqels (see below, p.67). The Nero tetradrachms are in a very fresh condition. The dates for them are as follows: Cat. No. 1067 1068, 1069 1070 1071–1073 Date 60/1 CE 62/3 CE 63 CE 63/4 CE Quantity Reference RPC1:616, No.4181 1 RPC1:616, No.4185 2 RPC1:616, No.4188 1 RPC1:616, No.4189 3 Figure 30. Antiochene silver Balanea [1091]. A rather surprising find is a coin of Balanea. This little known mint, at the site of the present-day village of Banias in Syria, is situated Figure 31. The coin from Balanea and a contemporary coin of Antony from Rome, c. 38– 37 BCE Syria, not Phoenicia.25 25 north of Phoenician Aradus and south of Syrian Laodicea ad Mare. It belonged to the peraea of Aradus (Strabo, XVI,2,12 [753]), hence it was in For general information on the city see Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopaedia, II/2, 2816-2817. 63 The coin found at Gamla is known from a single other specimen now in Berlin (=RPC 1:640, No. 4458). It is one of four denominations struck under Antony during 37–31 BCE. The radiate young head on the obverse — probably Helios — is likely copied from one of numerous contemporary Republican coins of Rome showing Sol. Uncertain mint [1092]. 26 The silver tetradrachm of Nero featuring a DIVVS CLAVDIVS reverse is a fine example of this type. In the past, it was usually attributed to Caesarea in Figure 32. Nero tetradrachm of an uncertain mint. Cappadocia, but apparently comes from either Syria or Judaea as argued convincingly in RPC 1 (p.605). The coin found at Gamla does not settle the question of attribution, but strengthens the Syrian option Phoenicia As can be seen from Figure 29, the coins of Phoenicia far outnumber all the other autonomous and civic mints put together. The single coins each of Aradus [1094], Marathus [1095] and Berytus [1096] do not deserve special comment. Sidon This mint is represented by 132 coins, only one a poorly preserved silver plated tetradrachm.27 The majority (110) are autonomous issues began in 111 BCE. Six are Roman provincial issues with the head of the emperor. 26 27 This specimen is mentioned in RPCsupp1:43, No.4122. Sidonian silver coins are common only from the Persian period. From its second period of autonomy (111 BCE) they are scarce in Israel and in general, because contrary to the Tyrian silver, meant for export, the Sidonian series were meant for internal circulation (Levy 2000). 64 One group of 16 coins deserves special comment.28 These are small coins, 9–12 mm in diameter, with a turreted Tyche head obverse and a rudder reverse. The reverse inscription is quite remarkable for such a small coin: ‫( לצדנם / אם כמב אפא כת / צר‬Of Sidon, metropolis of Cambe, Hippo, Citium (and) Tyre). A group of larger coins with a similar type and inscription was catalogued by Hill (BMC Phoen.:cvi; 155–156) as ‘post-Alexandrine coinage’, dated to 174–150 BCE, based on the similarity to coins of Antiochus IV and Demetrius I with the same reverse and inscription (Cf. SNG Spaer:184, No. 1312). Contrary to the municipal issues under the Seleucids, which always carry the King’s portrait, this group has a Tyche obverse, normally characteristic of autonomous or civic coinages. Thus, these small coins should best be classified as civic issues. I accept Hill’s dating in general and the reasoning behind it, but following the works of Mørkholm on the municipal coinages under Seleucid rule (1963, 1984:101–103), the date should be emended to 168–150 BCE (?). An interesting variant is one showing a Dionysiac cysta [1220]. While the type is common, the Greek inscription is Figure 33. Sidon — Dionysiac cysta. ΣΙ∆ΩΝΙΩΝ, instead of the usual ΣΙ∆ΩΝΟΣ on this type. Also unusual, though not unique, are the appearance on this coin of the Phoenician inscription ‫( צדנם‬cf. e.g. BMC Phoen.:167, No.149) and the date LΞΑ (51/0 BCE), in increasing order, contrary to the usual decreasing order (cf. e.g. RPC 1:653, No. 4572). One other specimen with this inscription is listed by Babelon (1893:254, No.1744) dated LΟΑ (41/0 BCE). 28 IAA Nos. 18654, 19154, 19637, 19722, 19815, 21064, 21241, 21276, 21630, 33735, 33750, 34214, 34399, 34640, 34842, 34929. 65 Another, apparently unpublished variant, is a portrait coin of Caligula [1222], showing on the reverse Europa riding the bull. To the right of Europa there is Figure 34. Sidon. Europa riding the bull a crescent. The majority of the Sidonian coins are of the ‘Astarte on Galley’ type, minted between 111–c.10 BCE (88 coins) and a galley type (26 coins). Statistically, the majority of the coins with an illegible date should be placed between 111–c.23 BCE, after which date there seems to be a 60 year gap until the next Sidonian coin, dated 37/8 CE. The coin dated 88 (24/3 BCE) fits nicely in the gap of minting observed by RPC 1 between 30/29 and 11/10 BCE, suggesting that this gap may yet be filled. Year 1 3(?) 4 (?) 25 26 29 31 36 42 51 54 57 59 Date BCE/CE 111/10 BCE 109/8 BCE 108/7 BCE 87/6 BCE 86/5 BCE 83/2 BCE 81/80 BCE 76/5 BCE 70/69 BCE 61/60 BCE 58/7 BCE 55/4 BCE 53/2 BCE Qty Year 2 1 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 5 2 1 5 5[.] 61 64 74 88 148 156 160 162 166(?) 169 16[.] 187 Date BCE/CE 61–52 BCE 51/50 BCE 48/7 BCE 38/7 BCE 24/3 BCE 37/8 CE 45/6 CE 49/50 CE 51/2 CE 55/6 CE 58/9 CE 50–59 CE 76/7 CE Qty 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 Figure 35. Dates on coins of Sidon Tyre The autonomous mint of Tyre, just as the Seleucid mint of that city, is represented at Gamla by the largest number of coins apart from the Hasmonean coinage — 756 in number. Of these 710 are bronzes and 46 silver sheqels and half sheqels (20 from the hoard). 66 With the inauguration of the Autonomous era of Tyre in the spring of 125 BCE29, the Tyrian mint continued its work uninterrupted 30 , and immediately produced autonomous coinage dated LA— “Year One”. The major, and almost only change, on both the silver and the bronze was replacing of the head of the Seleucid sovereign with that of Melqart or Tyche on the various denominations. Silver Of the 46 silver coins of Tyre, twenty form part of a hoard found in front of the olive oil press in Area R. One of the sheqels [1249] is a silver plated coin deliberately cut in two. Some of the surviving letters appear to have been re-cut and the inscription is blundered: …ΝΑΙ ΑΣΥ[ΛΟΥ] instead of … ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ. The date is ΖΞΡ (41/2 CE) with the numerals in increasing order. This was the usual practice up to about 55 BCE, after which the date on all Tyrian silver is with the numerals in decreasing order. This sheqel was cut in half, apparently to invalidate it once it was discovered that it was not 'real'. As the only legal 'Temple Dues' at the time— the yearly half sheqel tax each Jewish male had to bring to the Temple in Jerusalem (Kadman 1965; Meshorer 1984, and see below, part III, p.164) — probably great care was taken to avoid using counterfeit coins, though this is not explicitly stated in the Talmudic literature. What is stated however, is that invalidated coins were to be cut (Mishna, Kelim 12,7).31 Further examples of counterfeit Tyrian sheqels come from the city of David excavations (Ariel 1990:112) and Qalandia (Ariel 2003) The murder of Demetrius II in Tyre took place apparently in the spring of 125 BCE, as elucidated by Ehling (1998:147, and pers. comm.). 30 It has been convincingly argued by Kushnir-Stein (2001) that the silver issues of the cities that were newly freed from Seleucid control were minted for practical considerations and not for propaganda. 31 The perennial question whether or not Mishnaic realities can be projected back to the Second Temple period seems to be answered in the affirmative in this case. 29 67 The latest sheqel from Gamla is dated 189 (=63/4 CE), later than the terminal year of 58/9 claimed by Burnett (RPC 1:655).32 The Hoard The hoard comprises of 20 sheqels and seven Eagle tetradrachms of Nero. The earliest sheqel is from 8/9 CE, and the others are clustered in three groups: five sheqels between 17–20 CE, three sheqels between 34–37 CE and ten sheqels between 43–52 CE. A further sheqel cannot be dated. All seven Eagle tetradrachms date from 60–63 CE. While the Tyrian sheqels were generally of 95% pure silver (RPC 1:587), the eagle tetradrachms of these dates were only 79% fine (ibid.). This hoard is in fact a snapshot of the process by which the debased tetradrachms replaced the full value sheqels, eventually leading to their discontinuation (RPC 1:587, 607, 656). The hoard was found among fragments of a small juglet which probably contained it originally. It was found on a street, and therefore was not concealed deliberately. It stands to reason that it was lost during the fighting, when its owner tried to either escape with it or move it to a safer place. The following table presents the essential data of the Tyrian silver. Catalogue numbers marked with an asterisk are part of the hoard. 32 There is also a sheqel dated 64/5 CE (Brooks Levy, pers. comm.). 68 Cat. No. 1229* 1267* 1230* 1231* 1268* 1232* 1233 1234* 1235* 1236* 1237* 1238* 1239* 1240* 1241* 1242* 1243* 1244* 1245* 1246* 1247* 1248* 1249* 1250* 1251* 1252* 1253* 1254* 1255* 1269* 1270* 1256* 1257* 1258* 1259* 1260* 1271* 1261* 1262* 1263* 1272 1273 1274 1264* 1265* 1266* Denomination Tetradrachm Didrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Didrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Date 1 2 83 105 115 131 134 143 144 145 146 159 160 BCE / CE 125 BCE 125/4 BCE 44/3 BCE 22/1 BCE 12/1 BCE 5/6 CE 8/9 CE 17/8 CE 18/9 CE 19/20 CE 20/1 CE 33/4 CE 34/5 CE Wt. (gr.) 13.95 6.85 12.79? 12.55 6.75 13.98 13.15 13.82 14.01 14.10 13.88 13.97 14.08 13.75 13.85 13.71 13.48 14.79 13.51 13.89 13.94 13.68 6.46 (1/2 coin) Semester None Monogram ∞ “ “ Off flan or missing “ ∞? “ ∞? “ { { +I BN KP / BN KP / KP KP / ‘ KP /  KP / KP / ⁄ KP / ÷ KP I KP / ? KP /) KP / KP and oblit/ KP /) KP / If any, on missing half Off flan KP /´ KP / Eµ (?) KP / K[P] KP / KP / illegible KP / Eµ KP / Eµ KP / Eµ KP / !A KP / Eµ KP / Eµ KP / E KP KP / !A ∞ Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm (plated bronze) Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Didrachm Didrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Didrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Didrachm Didrachm Didrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm Tetradrachm 161 163 165 167 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 177 178 188 189 Oblit. Oblit. Illegible 35/6 CE 37/8 CE 39/40 CE 41/2 CE 43/4 CE 44/5 CE 45/6 CE 46/7 CE 47/8 CE 48/9 CE 49/50 CE 51/2 CE 52/3 CE 62/3 CE 63/4 CE 125 BCE– 66 CE 19 BCE66 CE ∞ ∞ ∞ “ ∞ ∞ “ ∞? ∞ ∞ “ ∞ ∞? ∞ ∞ “ “ “ “ “ ∞ ∞ “ “ ∞ “ “ ∞ “ Figure 36. Autonomous silver of Tyre, arranged by date 13.91 13.86 13.97 13.35 13.57 14.03 6.89 6.60 13.92 13.92 13.98 13.88 13.98 6.63 13.59 14.10 14.12 6.54 6.14 6.31 14.03 14.01 13.66 Oblit. Oblit. Oblit. Oblit. Oblit. Oblit. Oblit. KP KP KP / Eµ ? 69 Bronze The bronze coinage of Tyre found at Gamla is far more diverse and interesting than the silver. Besides the common types, which will not be discussed, the following sections will introduce some new types. The first 25 or so years of autonomy at Tyre are characterized by much experimenting with the bronze coinage, in which various ephemeral types were introduced and discontinued, until the mint finally settled on some fairly rigid combinations. Thus, initially the obverses carried both Tyche and Melqart even in the same denominations. Some Seleucid types were continued, later to be dropped in favor of the ubiquitous galley and palm types, both with a head of Tyche obverse. The head of Melqart reappeared on the bronzes later, on the club types, none of which was found at Gamla. The placement of the Tyrian symbol and the date also underwent some changes, and in these formative years they can be found on both right and left side, sometimes both on the same side. Except for silver sheqels dated LA (Year One), no bronze coins have been published so far for the very first years of autonomy. At Gamla there are four small bronze denominations that fill this gap. 1. [1275] Obverse. Head of Tyche r., veiled, wearing turreted crown. Dotted border. Figure 37. Lepton of ‘Year 1’: battering ram Reverse. Stylized battering ram l. Behind palm branch. In upper l. field, monogram of Tyre; on r., date: LA. Below: PtÒ ’ (?) Dotted border.33 33 The only other specimen known to me, from another die, is at the Haifa Municipal Museum, Inv. No. 1330. Courtesy of the museum. It is possible that a similar coin is referred to by Seyrig from the excavations at Oumm el-‘Amed, but unfortunately there is no photograph to compare (Seyrig 1962b, No.35). 70 This coin is a direct continuation of a similar Seleucid type of Tyre, first appearing under Antiochus VII [206] and its other known appearance in the last years of Demetrius II — the last dated 127/6 BCE (Rogers 1927:29, Nos. 124–124a; SNG Spaer:298, No.2250). Another small coin, attributed by SNG Spaer (p.300, Nos.2272–2274) to an ‘uncertain southern mint’ and to the second reign of Demetrius II has an obverse which carries an extraordinarily similar battering ram. It may be suggested that this coin is also from the mint of Tyre (one specimen, 17 mm, 1.35 g). In general, the type on the reverse of this coin is invariably described as ‘prow’, ‘spur’ or ‘forepart’ of galley on both Seleucid and Autonomous coinage. While most prows do incorporate a battering ram (cf. e.g. BMC Phoen.:55, Nos. 23–25 [Berytus]; SNG Spaer Nos. 2432–2435 [Alexander Balas], 2721–2723 [Antiochus IX]) the type of this coin is actually a battering ram on its own.34 The nature of the depicted object became very clear after the unique find of the bronze battering ram of ‘Atlit (Casson and Steffy 1991 and personal observation), though this information was not available to most authors. Similarly, the object on which the eagle stands on the reverse of Tyrian silver coinage of Phoenician weight, of both Seleucid and Autonomous issues, is also clearly a stylized battering ram and not a ship’s prow. 2. Obverse. Head of Tyche r., veiled, wearing turreted crown. Figure 38. Lepton: Stylized palm tree Dotted border [1367]. Reverse. Stylized palm tree. On l., monogram of Tyre. On r. date, mostly oblit. Dotted border. The dates noted are A and 34 For a number of rams mistaken for prows, cf. e.g. Babelon 1890:151, No.1168; SNG Spaer, Nos.1973–1978, 2272–2274. 71 ∆ (uncertain). The stylized palm tree complements very well the stylized ram and forms a smaller denomination of the same series (13 specimens, lepta, 9–12 mm, 0.53–2.00 g). 3. [1276] Obverse. Head of Tyche r., wearing turreted crown. Dotted border. Reverse. Stylized galley’s prow l. Above, monogram of Tyre. Date, if any, oblit. Below, PtÒ. Circle border (one specimen, Figure 39. Lepton. Galley’s prow 12 mm, 1.86 g.). Coin No. 3 is assigned to this series because of its similarity to the others in the stylized design, the monogram and inscription. Coins No. 1, 2 also annul the claim made by Hill (BMC Phoen.:liii) that Tyche appears veiled only from 111 BCE onwards. It is interesting to note the fact that all three denominations carry a Tyche obverse. Apparently in the very first years Melqart was reserved for the silver only and all bronzes carried a Tyche obverse. Beginning in year 3 (124/3 BCE), a new obverse was introduced, that of the head of Melqart. For a few years (3–11) both Tyche and Melqart appeared on dilepta with a palm tree reverse, and from then until year 28 the dilepta retained Melqart, and the Tyche/Palm type was promoted to a larger denomination. The ram and prow apparently disappeared entirely. The Melqart / palm tree dilepta The common Seleucid palm tree type was carried over by the independent mint of Tyre, as mentioned above in the section presenting the Seleucid coinage. The main change was replacing on the obverse the bust of the Seleucid king with that of Melqart, doing away with the reverse inscription naming the king, and adding the monogram of Tyre. 72 The autonomous dilepta were apparently minted in very large quantities, but for a limited time only, between c. 124–98 BCE. They have not yet been systematically published, and can easily be confused with the Seleucid dilepta of the same type, given also that both types have a beveled edge. The following checklist was drawn up to help classify the Seleucid and autonomous dilepta, based on fragmentary details. The large quantity of them at Gamla —1096 altogether (502 Seleucid and 594 autonomous) — allowed in most cases for a firm attribution when at least some detail was visible, yet many coins were only tentatively assigned to either group. The earliest date observed for these with some certainty is ‘year 3’—124/3 BCE and the latest ‘Year 28—99/8 BCE. Many specimens are crude and undated, and their attribution as autonomous rests on the observation that they carry no legends. All the ‘no monogram / no legend’ specimens are of the crude variety. Thus, in the first 28 years of its autonomy (125-98 BCE), Tyre issued at least 12 dated Melqart / palm tree series. Probably all the several hundred worn coins are of these dates, and the undated issues were probably minted during this period as well. It is noteworthy that in the same period relatively few other bronze issues are known. It is remarkable that besides Gamla, only very few specimens of the Melqart/Palm tree have been published. One is in the British Museum (BMC Phoen.254, No. 251, dated year 28), and the only other site where such coins were published is, as far as I am aware, Dura Europos, where 26 specimens of ‘year 28’ were recovered (Bellinger 1949:201, Nos.1881–1881a). Further specimens that I was able to identify during the collection of the database for the study in part III were found at Hagoshrim (site 6, five coins), Sasa’ (site 49, one coin, year 15), Gush Halav (site 54, one coin, year 15), Shihin (site 127, seven coins), Sha‘ar Ha‘amaqim (site 139, one coin) and a further 25 73 Feature On Seleucid Coins Head of the Seleucid king. On Autonomous Coins Head of Melqart. Obverse portrait For some kings the features are recognizable even if the coin is partly worn, e.g. Antiochus IV, Balas, and Demetrius II. ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ + Name in gen. Reverse inscription Date Monogram of Tyre i Hole centering Always present. Traces of a circular inscription are a sufficient criterion for attribution as Seleucid. Present on all issues after Antiochus IV. Not introduced by L, except under Demetrius I. Usually split by palm tree. Date range: ΕΛΡ–ZΠP (s.e.135– 187). P always present — its presence is sufficient for attribution as Seleucid. Never. The monogram only appears in the Seleucid period on some larger bronzes in the second reign of Demetrius II (129–125 BCE). On some issues, down to the first reign of Demetrius II (145–138 BCE). Presence of hole centering is sufficient for attribution as Seleucid. Usually it is the characteristic chubby face seen on the larger denominations and the silver sheqels, but sometimes can be confused with a Seleucid king. No inscription around the circumference. When other details are obliterated but it can be determined that there is no inscription around, this is a sufficient criterion for attribution as Autonomous. Mostly to the right side of the palm tree, but sometimes split. Mostly introduced by L. Date range recorded: Γ–HK (3–28; 124/3–99/8 BCE) On most issues. Traces of it are a sufficient criterion for attribution as Autonomous. Never. Size The style of the palm tree is usually not a good criterion, except for some very distinct types, as in the photographs: Usually larger (13–15 mm) before Demetrius II. Small (10–13 mm). Figure 40. Checklist of Seleucid and Autonomous dilepta of Tyre 74 coins of ‘year 28’ in a hoard found on the Golan (site 152a).35 Yet at Gamla there are close to 200 clearly dated coins of this type and about a further 400 that are unquestionably of the same type and probably of the same date range. It is quite likely that these autonomous issues are often misidentified as Seleucid issues because of their bad state of preservation. The obverse portraits are often off flan, unlike other Tyrian coins, suggesting a mass production. The portrait often uncannily resembles some Seleucid monarchs, suggesting perhaps the use of some ‘leftover’ Seleucid obverse dies at the Tyrian mint. The copious issue of years 14 and 15 (113/2 and 112/1 BCE) may possibly be associated with the activities of Antiochus VIII and IX. In 113/2 Antiochus IX took Sidon, ‘Akko-Ptolemais, Damascus and Ascalon. Tyre may have asserted its autonomy by minting a large issue precisely at this time. There is a possibility that the ‘year 15’ issue is also connected to the imminent autonomy of Sidon, which was inaugurated in the fall of 111 BCE. The internal chronology of the various styles, if they are meaningful at all, cannot be determined at this time. It is likely that if style is chronologically significant, then the crude issues with no monogram or date are the last, as more effort would be put in the very first issues, being important for progaganda. Later they were minted as massproduced small change, and eventually discontinued. 35 IGCH 1613; Seyrig RN 1958:175–176. 75 Quantity Certain Uncertain 1 1 3 3 1 6 2 Date Variants 124/3 123/2 120/19 119/8 Γ, L-Γ ∆, L-∆ L-Z H, L-H , LH 118/7 117/6 116/5 115/4 113/2 Θ I, L-I A-I, AI 1 1 3 1 LIB? i- L∆I [L] - ∆I ∆I, LI∆ i- EI i - IE LEI i-L²I 1 107 6 112/1 43 1 111/0 109/8 1 i -HI, L-HI 5 99/8 HK – PtÒ 6 i- no date 5 10 No date or monogram Figure 41. Melqart / Palm dilepta 76 ‘Akko-Ptolemais The non-Seleucid coinage of ‘Akko-Ptolemais is represented by 38 coins. The chronology of the coins of this city is still somewhat obscure, as are some of its eras. The best studies of the coinage of the city are by Seyrig (1962), who made major corrections to Kadman’s catalogue (1961), which is still the most comprehensive available. RPC 1 uses Seyrig’s classification, but lists only coins from Antony’s time onwards. Kontorini (1979) attempted to define chronologically the era of autonomy of the city while Stein (1990:112–118) corrected the Caesarean era of the city to 49 BCE. In brief, ‘Akko-Ptolemais issued civic coinage already under Seleucid rule, beginning in the time of Antiochus IV, when it also issued municipal coinage with the portrait of the king (none of which were found at Gamla). At some time in the late second c. BCE it received the title ‘holy’ (ƒer£). Probably in 125 BCE the additional title ‘inviolate’ (¥sàloj) was conferred on the city by Cleopatra Thea (Seyrig 1962a:29), and sometime later the title ‘autonomous’ (aÙtonÒmoj). Dates, when present, are first by the Seleucid era, later by one or two obscure eras, one of which is possibly Pompeian, and lastly by the Caesarean era, used until ‘Akko was made a colony very late in the reign of Claudius or under Nero. Of the ubiquitous Heads of Dioscuri/Cornucopia type there are 13 specimens. Unfortunately, most are in a poor state of preservation, not permitting to ascertain the exact legend and the existence of a date. Thus, the only chronological gauge we have is the fabric; the beveled edge specimens (4) can be assigned, following Seyrig, to the 77 reign of Antiochus IV, and those with a normal flan to sometime in the late second – early first century BCE.36 There are 12 specimens of the Head of Tyche / standing Zeus with scepter type, all dated LΘ (year 9) of an unknown— perhaps Pompeian — era (Seyrig 1962a:31, Nos. 13–14), and most are countermarked with an obscure countermark. Among the Gamla material, two apparently new types and four new variants have been identified. These will be presented in a chronological order. 1. Obverse. Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Border of dots. Reverse. Astarte on prow of galley to l., under her l. arm rudder (?), her right hand raised, holding bird (or aplustre). On l., Figure 42. ‘Akko. New ‘Astarte on Galley’ type monogram of Ptolemais. Across: ΙΕ–ΡΑΣ. The monogram is not the usual V but of a different form [2000]. Two similar coins were found in excavations in ‘Akko in recent years (IAA 48924 (unpublished); Syon 2000a:38*), 3 more from H. Karkara in Western Galilee (site 40 in part III) and a further one from Tel ‘Emeq, also in Western Galilee (site 73 in part III).37 The shape of the monogram varies on the coins. This new type probably belongs with Seyrig types 28 and 29. All three coins share the 'Astarte on galley's prow' Figure 43. ‘Akko. New ‘Tyche’ type reverse, but the coin from Gamla has a turreted Tyche obverse and not the head of Zeus. It may thus be a smaller 36 On the significance and chronology of beveled edge coins of Palestine and Ptolemais see KushnirStein 2000–2. 37 The coins from H. Karkara are from the Kibbutz Eilon collection and that of Tel ‘Emeq from the Kibbutz Evron collection. Another copy, of a different die, is in the Haifa Municipal Museum, inv. No. 1231. Courtesy of the Museum. 78 denomination. The dating of this series is problematic; a late second century– 49 BCE date is suggested. 2. Obverse. Head of Tyche, wearing turreted crown. Border of dots. Reverse. Tyche, holding cornucopia and aplustre. Date: LE. On r. ΠΤΟ/[ΛΕΜΑ/ΕΩΝ]. Apparently unpublished [2014]. It was issued in year 5 of the Caesarean era of ‘Akko-Ptolemais (45/4 BCE) and seems to be a half-denomination of Seyrig Nos. 15– 16. Both have the 'Tyche standing on prow with aplustre and cornucopia' reverse, but ours has a turreted Tyche bust obverse and not the head of Zeus. 3. Zeus and Tyche / Tyche. Two specimens [2015, 2016); These are Seyrig type 18, but with a hitherto unpublished date: LI (40/39 BCE). Figure 44. ‘Akko. New date LI. IAA 17570 4. [2017]. This coin is Seyrig type 25, minted under Claudius, but with an unpublished date. The letter Π is clearly visible on the right, but because of corrosion Figure 45. ‘Akko. New date ΠΘ effects on the edge of the coin, no other letter can be seen. Year ΠΘ=89 (41 CE) would be the earliest to be expected for Claudius, whose features on the obverse are quite clear, and who began his reign in January, 41 CE. 5. [2018]. As above, but unpublished date ;=90 (41/2 CE). Figure 46. ‘Akko. New date ; 79 6. [2019]. This early colonial Founder type (Seyrig type 31, 32), one of three found at Gamla and minted apparently in 67 CE, is unfortunately quite as badly preserved as all the other known coins of the series, but the rightmost Figure 47. ‘Akko, colonial. Founder type: Vexillum inscribed XII vexillum is quite clearly inscribed XII. Assuming that all coins of this type bear the same numerals, this then refutes the claim by RPC 1 (p.659) that the numeral on the rightmost vexillum is XI. On the other hand, given the great variation in both the obverse and reverse legends on this type (Kadman 1961:110, Nos.92–96; Seyrig 1962a:44; RPC 1:660), one may perhaps assume that a similar variation exists in the numerals on the vexilla, thus both XI and XII being possible. In the following pages a new arrangement of the pre-Colonial coinage of ‘AkkoPtolemais is suggested, based on both published and unpublished material. 80 Figure 48. The pre-colonial civic coinage of ‘Akko Based primarily on Seyrig 1962a. Incorporating Alla Stein’s correction of the commencement of the Caesarean era in 49 BCE; Incorporating corrections from RPC 1, Voulgaridis 2000 and unpublished coins from Gamla and ‘Akko. Voulgaridis Seyrig No. RPC1 No. No. Diameter range Kadman No. Weight range Obv. Rev. Inscription Monogram Date Beveled edge No. Remarks 1 a1 1 1–10 23– 25 12–15 Radiate head of Ant. IV Bust of Tyche Jugate Heads of Dioscuri Head of Apollo Zeus stg. ‘Municipal’ 2 a2 2 59– 61 11, 13– 24; 26– 27 50– 52 271 (=54 a) Not in corp us 20 5–8 Nike 3 a3 3 12– 18 2–4 Cornucopia Vertical: ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙ∆Ι Various 4 a4 4 15– 17 1.5–3 Lyre Under Antiochus IV: 169-164 BCE (and perhaps later) Yes 5 a5 5 13 2–2.5 Head of Artemis Stag 6 a6 Not in Seyrig 13 2.12 Head of Zeus Ear of corn None 81 Voulgaridis Seyrig No. RPC1 No. No. Diameter range Kadman No. Weight range Obv. Rev. Inscription Monogram Date Beveled edge No. Remarks 7 b 6 Not in corpus 17 2.95 Jugate Heads of Dioscuri Head of Zeus Cornucopia Vertical ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙ∆Ι ΙΕΡΑΣ none Before 126/5 BCE Yes 8 9 10 11 c1 c2 c3 c4 7 8 9 12 55– 58 25; 28–31; 33–39; 41 18– 19 12– 17 12– 13 15– 16 3.5– 5.5 1.3– 3.2 1.77 3–3.5 Zeus stg. (most undated) Vertical Jugate Heads of Dioscuri Head of Apollo Jugate busts of Dioscuri Cornucopia (all dated) Lyre (only 187, 188 SE) Tyche stg., w. cornucopia and scepter ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙ∆Ι ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ Various Various increasing Seleucid dates 125-116 BCE Seyrig: “Emission possibly connected to Cleopatra Thea” No Voulgaridis: : “under Demetrius II, 2nd reign” 48 45– 46 49 None No dates 12 d 13 10 1.08 Head of Apollo Jugate Heads of Dioscuri ΛΑΣ,ΒΣ Lyre Double cornucopia None 11 42 16 3.15 None V (112/1, 111/0 BCE) LΓΣ Silver No “Probably last coins under Seleucid domination” (110/9 BCE) 82 Voulgaridis Seyrig No. RPC1 No. No. Diameter range Kadman No. Weight range Obv. Rev. Inscription Monogram Date Beveled edge No. Remarks 14 e 30 47 14– 15 2–3 Draped busts of the Dioscuri Tyche stg., holding cornucopia and aphlaston LΘ (Πτολεµαεων ιερασ αυτονοµου) Seyrig: “Unknown era of autonomy” Probably very late 2nd or early 1st c. BCE.” Kontorini 1979, Nos. 1– 11 Voulgaridis: “Preceding a Pompeian era, possibly preceding Jannaeus’ attack” No 15 28 62 20– 21 3.90 Head of Zeus Astarte on prow LE? V Horizontal ΙΕ-ΡΑΣ 16 29 79 ?–15 2.85 Unclear. LEΣ? No Seyrig is not sure where to place these coins. Not in corpus Not in Seyrig 17 13 2.84 Head of Tyche with turreted crown Astarte on prow. Behind, aphlaston If any, oblit. Probably late 2nd-early 1st c. BCE, according to context. One from Gamla (Cat. 2000), two from ‘Akko (Syon 2000a), 3 from H. Karkara, 1 from Tel ‘Emeq, Western Galilee. 83 Voulgaridis Seyrig No. RPC1 No. No. Diameter range Kadman No. Weight range Obv. Rev. Inscription Monogram Date Beveled edge No. Remarks 18 13 76, 84 21– 23 7–8.5 Head of Tyche with turreted crown Zeus stg., draped, leaning on scepter, holding ears of corn 19 14 85 18– 21 4.9–7 Same Same, with nothing in his hand. Tyche stg. On prow, holding cornucopia and rudder. Behind palm branch Vertical ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙ∆Ι ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣΥ Vertical ΑΝΤΙΟΧΕΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙ∆Ι (retrograde?) (ΤΗΣ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣΥ) None LΘ 56–54 BCE? Seyrig: “Uncertain era, possibly Pompeian” Maybe under Gabinius? No 20 15 69–71 22– 25 8–12 Head of Zeus, behind palm branch Same Head of Tyche with turreted crown Same Horizontal ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΕΩΝ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ Various LE (45/4 BCE) Caesarean Era 21 16 Rev. of No. 70 23– 25 8–13 Same, crude style. Vertical ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΕΩΝ No LE (45/4 BCE) Cat. 2014 Not in Seyrig Not in corpus 22 17 4.01 Same Horizontal ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΕΩΝ Not in corpus 23 17 7.76 Same Horizontal ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΕΩΝ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣΥ LΘ (41/40 BCE) 84 Voulgaridis Seyrig No. RPC1 No. No. Diameter range Kadman No. Weight range Obv. Rev. Inscription Monogram Date LΘ (41/40 BCE) LI (40/39 BCE) from Gamla: Cat. 2015,2016 Beveled edge No. Remarks 24 18 66– 68, 80 23– 25 7–13 Jugate heads of Zeus and Tyche Head of Antony, surrounded by wreath Same Same 25 19 73 24– 25 22– 24 4740 Horizontal Same ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΕΩΝ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ 9.5–12 None Decreasing LIA (39/8 BCE— Caesarean era) Antony and Cleopatra No 4741? 4742 26 20 74 9–10.5 Bust of Cleopatra Tyche stg. On prow, holding palm and cornucopia and rudder Circular ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΕΩΝ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΑΣΥΛΟΥ Some possible LΓ (35/4 BCE, regnal date) Decreasing LKΓ (27/6 BCE) LΛA, LAΛ (19/8 BCE) 27 21 77 21–22 9–12.5 Head of Zeus surrounded by wreath 4743 Horizontal ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΕΩΝ ΙΕΡΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΥ No None 28 22 Not in corpus 19– 24 4744 11–12 Same, and border of dots Same Tyche holding cornucopia, leaning on scepter. Circular ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΕΩΝ … None LMA (9/8 BCE) No After Actium Not in corpus No 29 23 20 Same Oblit n.a. n.a. 85 Voulgaridis Seyrig No. RPC1 No. No. Diameter range Kadman No. Weight range Obv. Rev. Inscription Monogram Date Decreasing LΛA (19/8 BCE, Caesarean era) From ‘Akko, IAA 63448 LM∆ (6/5 BCE) Beveled edge No. Remarks 30 24 83 4745 16– 19 3.5–6 Head of Tyche with turreted crown surrounded by wreath Perseus advancing left, holding head of Medusa Horizontal ΛKH (=AKH) None No ΛKч (=ΑΚΗ) Increasing Tyche stg. holding cornucopia and rudder Oblit. Inscr. Head of Claudius Θ; (99 C. era) and AIL (11 31 25 88, 89 20– 24 4746 regnal= Circular ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙΕωΝ ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙ∆Ι (50/51 CE). Dates Π[Θ] (decreasing!)(41 CE) and ; (41/2 CE from Gamla, Cat. 2017, 2018 7–13 32 26 85a (=27 2), 86– 87 82, 90 None 18– 20 4.5– 7.5 Zeus stg. naked, leaning on scepter Circular ΓΕΡΜΑΝΙΕωΝ Seyrig: “Last pre-colonial coinage” No Θ; (50/51 CE) 4747 33 27 14– 15 2.5–3 Perseus LΘ; (50/51 CE) LΘP (mistake) 4748 86 Decapolis Hippos This nearby city is represented by a single coin, dated 42–38 BCE, of the only known issue before a long gap in production that ended only in 67/8 CE, the year Gamla fell. Gadara Three coins of Gadara were found. Two civic issues dated LK (Year 20=45/4 BCE), both from the same dies, and a third from the reign of Claudius, dated L∆IP (year 114=50/1 CE). Nysa-Scythopolis Three coins from this mint were found. One is a relatively rare issue dating to the time of Gabinius, c. 55 BCE (Barkay 1994–9:54, No.1). The other two are common provincial issues under Caligula and Claudius. Iturean coin Only one certain Iturean coin was found, that of Ptolemy son of Mennaeus, minted in Chalcis in ca. 73/2 BCE (Kindler 1993:285, No.2). On the coins of the Itureans see now Herman 2002. Uncertain These two coins [2030, 2031], minted in c. 64–61 BCE, had been attributed in the past to Gadara, following Seyrig (1959:71). Lately doubts have been cast on this attribution (KushnirStein 2000-2:82–83). RPC 1 altogether omitted Figure 49. Uncertain mint: Athena / LA ΡΩΜΗΣ them because of this uncertainty (Burnett, pers. comm.), though they are perhaps the ultimate example of the beginning of Roman Provincial Coinage. The date LA falls between 87 64–61 BCE, and the naval attributes of the battering ram and aplustre may on one hand suggest a coastal city, but may equally hint at the naval power of the Romans. Their find spot at Gamla reinforces a northeastern attribution, as to the bet of my knowledge all Figure 50. Uncertain mint: Heracles / LA ΡΩΜΗΣ provenanced coins of this type were found in this area. Nabatean Coins Fifteen coins that are certainly Nabatean were found at Gamla: 2 of Aretas II, 2 of Aretas III and 11 of Aretas IV. One further coin is probably of Aretas II [2034]; it is of the same size and fabric as the known coins of this king (KushnirFigure 51. Aretas II Stein and Gitler 1992-3). The obverse is nearly obliterated, and (?): Nike facing right the reverse shows Nike, very similar to the Nike on the coins of Aretas II, except that she faces right and seems to be holding an ankh shaped object— probably a wreath with a ribbon hanging down. The large number of coins of this type attributed to Aretas II and studied by Kushnir-Stein and Gitler show Nike invariably facing left and holding three upright branches. Still, as they observed a huge variability in style and execution, I prefer to attribute this coin to the same class and ascribe the right-facing Nike to a die-engraver’s idiosyncrasy. Coins later than 67 CE Six coins were found at Gamla that postdate its fall in 67 CE. 1. An autonomous coin of Sidon, dated 76/7 CE, an apparently unpublished date for this series [1206]. 88 2. A common coin of Tiberias, minted under Hadrian and dated 120 CE [2048]. 3. A coin of Valentinian I, dated c. 370 CE [2049]. 4. A coin of Theodosius I (378–395 CE) [2050] 5. A Late Roman coin of the fourth century CE [2051]. 6. A modern Turkish coin dated 1910 [2052]. Only the coin of Valentinian was a surface find, but it should be remembered that natural processes of erosion and water on the steep slope caused coins to move down and be buried. There is no way to connect these coins with any settlement on the site, and they remain chance finds dropped by occasional visitors.38 Uncertain Coin The following coin has not been satisfactorily attributed: Cat. 1093. Obv. Bearded head r.(?) Possibly Zeus, or one of the late Seleucid kings. Rev. Tyche standing l., leaning on tiller. To her right vertically three letters, possibly a date. On her left unclear vertical inscription: …ΠΟ followed by either Λ or ∆, and then by I or T. 16 mm, ↑?, 4.51 g. The type appears frequently on coins of Tripolis, Damascus and ‘Akko-Ptolemais in the first century BCE, as well as on some late Seleucid types, but none matches this combination of obverse and reverse types, the position of inscription and its partial content. 38 Several other relatively recent objects were found at Gamla: a Turkish pipe, a silver ring and a Syrian military uniform button. All these were found at some depth, and not on the surface. 89 Gamla: The Coins in Context Part II 90 91 The distribution of coins in the different excavation areas When one comes to analyze the coins in the context of the areas and loci in which they were found, one has to take into consideration three important factors: one uncontrollable, the other two partly so. Eastern Quarter Cisterns Round Tower Area A Byzantine Cemetery Area C Area G Area B Area BA Area M Area H Cistern Area S Area RN Area K Area T Area R N 0 125 250 500 m Map 3. Gamla — Site plan. Only major areas are shown. First, the natural processes that brought about the eventual collapse of the buildings of Gamla caused, because of the steep slope, a mixing of archaeological material from different levels. Thus, in any excavated building, the debris that filled the volume of 92 the rooms contained coins (and other artifacts) that came from higher up the slope, from other buildings. Second, as virtually all floors were soft dirt floors, more often than not, material from occupation and floor levels could not be separated from the debris above it. Lastly, in the first seasons of excavation the sifting was not done as intensively as in the subsequent seasons, possibly creating a statistical bias when comparing the different areas. For the purpose of the analysis, the excavated areas of Gamla are grouped into three chronological groups (Map 3): Areas B and D (a sub-area of B) form the Hasmonean quarter, and represent the earliest phase of excavated remains. In these areas, only 11 (!) out of 1753 identifiable coins are later than the turn of the era— and of these, three postdate the fall of the city. This terminus ante quem accords well with the pottery assemblages in these areas, which all clearly date to the first century BCE and no later (Berlin, forthcoming). It does not, however, accord well with the earliest coins found in these areas (see below, p.97). Areas A, BA, BE, C, E, F, G, H, HN, L, M, T (not all shown on the plan) form the Eastern quarter, and include the city wall and synagogue. This area, though inhabited up to and including the Great Revolt, already existed in the Hasmonean period. Areas K, R, RN, S, in the Western quarter represent the latest phase, and appear to have been constructed not before the Herodian period, based on the architectural, as well as other material culture remains (see below, p.110). The following charts do not include 505 coins that are either surface finds in the unexcavated areas of the city, or unidentifiable coins. 93 2500 2000 1500 1122 2370 Ptolemaic and Seleucid Autonomous and civic 2nd1st c. BCE Hasmonean Jewish, post Hasmonean 1000 500 0 428 305 311 7 8 79 130 37 11 231 432 256 86 Autonomous, civic and imperial- 1st c. CE Hasmonean quarter Eastern quarter Western quarter Figure 52. Chronological distribution of coins in the various areas 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Hasmonean quarter Eastern quarter Western quarter Autonomous, civic and imperial- 1st c. CE Jewish, post Hasmonean Hasmonean Autonomous and civic 2nd1st c. BCE Ptolemaic and Seleucid Figure 53. The relative quantities of coins in the different areas The numismatic chronology of Gamla In this section the different phases in the history of Gamla will be analyzed, from a numismatic point of view. The division into chronological phases was chosen to reflect meaningful points in the history of Gamla, and is based more or less on the political domination of the Golan, i.e. Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Jewish rule. As will be 94 seen, this arrangement, as indeed any other one, is not perfectly satisfactory, as the currency used at any given time is a reflection not only of political, but also of ethnic and economic factors. Thus, for example, the minting of the Hasmonean rulers does not perfectly fit these phases; around 98 BCE there appears to be a turning point in the currency arriving at Gamla. The revival of the Hellenistic cities in the area, following the conquests of Pompey and the administrative arrangements of Gabinius (63–55 BCE), which included minting activity, hardly left an impact on Gamla at all. In the following, for the historical background I rely heavily on the most recent work on the Golan (Hartal 2003). Phase Dates Ptolemaic and Seleucid Hyrcanus I Aristobulus I Jannaeus YNTN Hasmonean (unidentifiable) Herodian Tyre Jewish I+IIa 3rd c. –125 BCE 576 (527 from Tyre) 307 IIb 125–80 BCE 42 IIIa 80–40 BCE 6 IIIb 40 BCE -67 CE ←104 BCE 29 ←103 BCE 3037 239 ←76 BCE 351 304 627 Autonomous and civic 1 Sidon ‘Akko-Ptolemais Other Autonomous issues Imperial, Provincial and Colonial 16 5 3 14 99/8 BCE→ 59 5 12 6 2 6 54 16 17 32 56 (41 silver) 13 14 34 Figure 54. Distribution and quantities of coins at the whole site of Gamla Phase I— fourth century to c. 200 BCE (9 coins) The presence of the single autonomous Tyrian coin from the late fourth century BCE cannot be explained historically. Such coins are well documented all over Galilee, as 95 indeed elsewhere too, and it should best be described as a stray find, probably brought at a later time. The part of the Golan where Gamla is located was, in the Ptolemaic period, a land sparsely inhabited by nomadic peoples, forming a buffer zone between the Lagids and the Seleucids (Hartal 2003:209), as indeed all the southern Levant may have been regarded as such a buffer zone (Smith 1990:123–124). We possess practically no historical information from this period concerning the area and hardly any archaeological material. At Gamla only eight, very worn Ptolemaic coins were found. They might indicate some sort of activity at the site at this period. One proposition is perhaps that of a Ptolemaic military post in the third century BCE, the predecessor of the one from the Seleucid period (see below). Conversely, their worn state might also suggest that they arrived already after 200 BCE, under Seleucid domination. It should be added that at most sites where they are found at all, Ptolemaic coins are generally found in relatively small numbers in comparison with coins of other periods, and this seems to hold true all over the country.39 Phase II— Seleucid domination (c.200–c. 80 BCE— 1629 coins) The Golan came under Seleucid domination following the battle of Paneion in 200 BCE. The archaeological evidence suggests that the number of settlements increased, and that the Seleucids also built a line of small forts in the southern and central Golan (Hartal 2003:210, with further bibliography). Though nominally under the Seleucids, the area of Gamla was still rather sparsely populated. From the last quarter of the second century BCE, with the rapid decline of Seleucid power, the Golan was without 39 For example in Jerusalem and environs: Ariel 1982:279. 96 a firm political control and became a ‘no man’s land’ between the two local powers: the Nabateans to the southeast, ruling in the Hauran and the Itureans in the northern Golan (Hartal 2003:242). Into this vacuum entered the third power in the area: the Hasmonean king Jannaeus, who took control of the Golan sometime between 83 and 80 BCE. Phase IIa: c. 200–125 BCE Judging by 16 coins attributed with certainty to Antiochus III (223–187 BCE) found at the site, some (military?) activity may have taken place here immediately following the fifth Syrian war (202/1–198 BCE). It is noteworthy that all were minted in Seleucid mints established after 200 BCE, and some of them are now tentatively attributed to military mints operating in the newly conquered territories, as suggested recently by Houghton and Lorber (SC 1:356). Coins of Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE) are more abundant: 28 coins, all but three from the mint of Tyre. It would appear that around this time a firm Seleucid presence was established at Gamla, most probably in the form of a small military fort. The peak of Seleucid activity can be seen to have been between the first reign of Demetrius II through to the end of his second reign (c.145–125 BCE). The vast majority of some 300 otherwise unidentifiable Tyrian ‘palm tree’ dilepta probably belong to this period. This increased monetary activity indicates an increased presence — civilian or military — looking towards Tyre as its main supplier of currency. In the later part of this period, the military activity may have been in face of the Nabatean threat on one side and that of the Hasmonean state on the other. All Seleucid silver coinage too falls in the later part of this period, between 139 and 126/5 97 BCE. In this phase, the majority of the coins come from the Hasmonean and Western Quarters in about equal proportions (43%) and about 13% from the Eastern Quarter. Non-Seleucid coins Only 24 non-Seleucid coins from this sub phase were found. Most of these were issued around the time of Antiochus IV, notably the 16 civic coins of Sidon discussed in part I (p.64), and 5 civic issues of ‘Akko-Ptolemais. In addition a coin each from Aradus and Marathus as well as one from Amphipolis in Macedonia were found— all autonomous issues. The seeming conflict of the numismatic and ceramic evidence At Gamla there is very scant archaeological evidence for the second century BCE except for the coins. While about 20% of the pottery forms found in the Hasmonean quarter first appear at other sites in contexts of the later second century BCE, production of almost all of these continued into the early first century BCE, precluding the identification of a clear second century BCE occupation phase. About ten scattered pottery fragments of BSP (a black slipped, lustrous fine ware), datable to the second half of the second century BCE were found, all in the Hasmonean quarter. This form did not continue into the first century BCE and is described by Berlin as residual debris (Berlin, forthcoming). These fragments, together with some 600 coins — 293 from the Hasmonean quarter alone — from between 200 and 125 BCE cannot be dismissed lightly. Since it is extremely unlikely that all of them arrived on the site between 25 to 75 years after they were minted, and though mostly worn from use, their presence argues for a considerable occupation already in the second century. The archaeological evidence from all over the Golan clearly indicates a surge of 98 activity and new settlements beginning in the mid-second century BCE (Hartal 2003:210; Smith 1990:125–127). Elsewhere I have argued that the round tower forming the top of the city wall from the time of the Great Revolt was constructed already in the Seleucid period, based on its round shape and mostly ‘header’ construction (Syon 2002a:139) and that it formed part of a Seleucid fort. All the evidence taken together suggests that the remains of this early settlement or military fort have not yet been found and excavated, except the tower, where later activity has obscured earlier evidence. As the vast majority of Phase IIa coins were found in the Hasmonean quarter and the Western quarter, it stands to reason that the remains of this elusive settlement should be located somewhere between the two. It is possible that the vigorous first century CE building activity in the western quarter— at least in the excavated parts—obliterated all traces of it. Phase IIb—125–c. 80 BCE In the last quarter of the second century, there is a major shift in the numismatic record. This shift is in the minting authority but not in the mint, and is no doubt connected with the death of Demetrius II in Tyre, the last Seleucid ruler to exercise at least a loose control over the kingdom. Now the coins of autonomous Tyre dominate (616 coins), followed far behind by some other civic and autonomous Phoenician issues, and 42 coins of the last Seleucid kings, from Antiochus VIII onward, which is actually a rather large number, considering their relative rarity. The products of the Tyrian mint dominate the numismatic record throughout phase II, indicating that the connections with this city transcended a mere political sphere of influence and were commercial as well (see part III, p. 231). The vast majority of the Tyrian coins of this 99 subphase—608 out of 616— are the small palm tree dilepta minted between 125 and 99/8 BCE and which surprisingly are extremely rare elsewhere (see part I, p.71). Other coins Other than autonomous Tyrian and Seleucid issues, coins from this subphase are few: civic coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais (13), autonomous issues of Sidon (9), the earliest Nabatean issues of Aretas II (3) and two autonomous coins of Antioch. Seleucia on the Tigris Three coins from Seleucia on the Tigris (see part I, p.61) were found. No considerable Jewish population is attested at Seleucia on the Tigris in the Hasmonean period (Oppenheimer 1983:220–221), but the products of this mint, circulating in all of Babylonia (McDowell 1935:181) must have reached all the Jewish centers there. Only a handful of coins of this mint have been found in Israel, and this is the only instance of more than one found at the same site. These coins are much worn, and one may speculate that they arrived with Jewish pilgrims or immigrants who came from Babylonia to Eretz-Israel during the Hasmonean period and passed through Gamla, subsequently entering local circulation because their similar size and feel to Phoenician coins. The earliest reference to pilgrims and immigrants is from the time of Herod (Josephus, Ant.17.2.2 [§26]), when Zamaris the Babylonian Jew was settled in Batanea, with the main directive of defending the pilgrim routes, but if in his time there was already a great enough traffic of pilgrims to warrant their protection, the trend no doubt began earlier. Conversely, such two-way traffic is attested at the other end of the route by Jewish 100 coins of Hyrcanus I through to the Great Revolt that were found at Dura Europos in Syria (Bellinger 1949:199)40 and two Hasmonean coins at Nisibis (Seyrig 1955:94). The beginning of Jewish settlement in the Golan While it is generally accepted that the Golan became heavily populated by Jews following the conquests of Jannaeus (Hartal 2003:246, with further bibliography), the numismatic evidence at Gamla suggests a substantial Jewish population there before his arrival. This Jewish population is evident in the following: 1. The large number of coins of Hyrcanus I (135–104 BCE). The beginning of Hasmonean minting by Hyrcanus I was tentatively put in this study to 125 BCE (see above, part I, p.37). At least 310 coins of Hyrcanus I — and probably more assuming that some of the 360 illegible ‘inscription in wreath / crossed cornucopia’ coins are his — cannot be dismissed as having all arrived some 25 years after his death. Conversely, a Seleucid garrison would certainly not have used Hasmonean currency. 2. Thirty coins41 of Aristobulus I (104/103 BCE)42 were found, as far as could be ascertained the largest quantity of his coins ever found at one place. They too cannot have all arrived some 25 years after they were minted.43 3. The passage by Josephus, (War 1.4.8 [§103–106]; Ant. 13.15.3 [§394]) describes Jannaeus’ campaign to the north in 83–80 BCE, in which Jannaeus took, among other lands, the Golan. At this point in time Josephus’ sources still refer to Gamla as a 40 Bellinger claims that the coins of Hyrcanus I were brought by his soldiers who accompanied Antiochus VII on his Parthian campaign in 130–129 BCE. This is not likely, as Hyrcanus had not yet minted coins at the time. 41 Twenty nine from the excavations and one in the Kibbuz Sasa collection. 42 Having claimed that the beginning of Jannaeus’ reign should be put one year backwards (pp.39, 109), the reign of Aristobulus I should be adjusted as well. The traditional dates are given here, as trying to adjust his regnal years is beyond the scope of this study. 43 Though Meshorer (TJC:29) claims that hundreds of coins of ‘Yehuda’ are known, in all of the IAA database there are but 21 coins of ‘Yehuda’ listed, and far less in all the major collections. See also part III, p. 234. 101 ‘strong fortress’ rather than as a city. Here he deposed Demetrius, the governor of Gamla, because he heard complaints about him.44 In all likelihood this Demetrius was a self-appointed tyrant, or — less likely — a Seleucid officer or a governor appointed by one of the last Seleucid kings. The passage can be best understood as alluding to the local Jews as the initiators of the complaints to the Jewish king against their governor, choosing the opportune moment when Jannaeus was close by. In contrast to other places mentioned in connection to this campaign, which were destroyed, Gamla was not, further supporting my suggestion. 4. A Talmudic passage dealing with cities of refuge. According to this passage (Tos. Makkot.2:2), Qedesh in Galilee, which had been assigned already by Joshua as a city of refuge (Josh. 20.7–9), was not functioning as such, so they assigned Gamla instead, until Qedesh was conquered. This passage is taken to reflect a reality in the Second Temple period, when Jews returning from the Babylonian exile, following the Declaration of Cyrus, were setting up anew all the Jewish religious institutions. It should be stressed that while projecting rabbinic literature on older historical reality is usually hazardous, Klein (1935) has convincingly argued that rabbinic passages dealing with cities of refuge in the Second Temple period seem to be reliable and to reflect the early Hasmonean period. Qedesh, a Tyrian city, was apparently conquered by Jonathan Maccabaeus in 145 BCE but not held by him, as evidenced also by recent excavations there (Herbert and Berlin 2003:54). Thus, Gamla must have been a sizable Jewish settlement prior to the conquests of Jannaeus, to qualify as a city of refuge. 44 Thus in War. In the parallel passage in Antiquities Josephus has Jannaeus himself complaining about Demetrius. 102 Hartal (2003:180–181) is baffled by the presence of coins of Hyrcanus I at Kh. Kanef, Har Snaim (on Mt. Hermon), Betsaida and especially Gamla, because he finds no evidence in the ancient sources to any conquests by Hyrcanus in this area. There is no need to associate the Jewish presence at Gamla at this time with any conquests by Hyrcanus, but rather to the settlement in an unsettled area by people looking for land. One of the major problems facing the early Hasmoneans was the shortage of land, and the early campaigns were, in part, for the acquisition of land for settlement (BarKochva 1977:170–173). It should not be surprising therefore to find groups of landless Jews settling in this area, though the choice of the site of a Seleucid fort is somewhat surprising. Hartal himself suggests (2001:237) that the Golan was a ‘sovereignty vacuum’ at this time, allowing for strong groups to do as they pleased. The same problem in fact exists in Galilee as well, where we possess no sources indicating when it became dominantly Jewish, and yet scores of coins of Hyrcanus I were found there, some definitely arriving during his lifetime, e.g. at H. el-Shuhara, where six coins of his were found out of 14 Hasmonean coins, and of these—five are of the same type (Syon, 2002d). Some of these finds will be outlined in part III of this study. The sudden and very dramatic drop in the quantity of Tyrian coins in or around 98 BCE is noteworthy in this respect. This date coincides more or less with the beginning of the reign of Jannaeus, so an influx of Jews at this time might account for the strong presence of the coins of his two predecessors. Admittedly though, this evidence is not sufficient, because a similar trend of a dwindling Tyrian coinage is observed elsewhere too, in regions where it cannot be explained by Jewish presence (part III, p. 231 f.). Based on the strong presence of the coins of Hyrcanus I and Aristobulus I though, I prefer to see a Jewish presence — if not domination — 103 already under Hyrcanus I. Two stampes Rhodian amphora handles found at Gamla, one dated to 107 BCE (Ariel, forthcoming 2) can be taken on one hand to prove a non-Jewish presence at the site at this time, but it need not exclude the possibility of Jewish inhabitants. Before the Hasmonean conquest The first two decades of the first century BCE are represented first and foremost by Hasmonean coins, specifically those of Jannaeus. It stands to reason, based on the arguments presented above, that some of his coins reached the area even before he captured it. Besides the Hasmonean coins there are very few new coins arriving at this time: About ten coins of autonomous Tyre, three coins of autonomous Sidon, twenty Seleucid coins of Demetrius III, Seleucus VI and Antiochus XII, mainly from Damascus, and two autonomous coins of Antioch. The dramatic decline in the number of non-Jewish coins arriving at Gamla as soon as a considerable Jewish presence is established there is not accidental. This phenomenon has been observed already by several authors, and reflects on the almost exclusive use of Hasmonean bronze coinage by the Jews — and only by them (see below, part III, pp.227 and 244). This trend (illustrated for Tyrian coins in Figure 55) is seen in the published literature for example at Meron, Gush Halav, H Shema‘ and Nabratein,45 and recently at Yodefat,46 H. Qana (Syon, 2002g) and el-Shuhara.47 In part III (Map 19) this trend will be seen graphically all over Galilee, within the Hasmonean domains. Raynor (1990) tabulates the numismatic finds from all four sites, and states (p.232) “There is an almost total lack of small Tyrian monies precisely during the duration of the Hasmonean coinage....[This] attests to Gush Halav coming under the sphere of influence of the Jewish state...” 46 Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam (1997:160–161) suggest a distinct replacement of Seleucid and Phoenician coinage with Hasmonean coinage, hence an ethnic change in the population. 47 Syon 2002d. The replacement of the gentile population by a Jewish one is also borne out by the large, handmade pithoi found on the floor of the early phase but not in the last phase, which contained 45 104 Phase IIa (75 years) 524 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Phase IIb 628 (45 years) COINS Phase III (147 years) 70 12 5B C 0B C 20 Figure 55. Coins from the mint of Tyre in the various phases In this connection it should be noted that this phenomenon usually does not touch upon the circulation of silver coinage, as there was no Jewish alternative to the silver sheqels of Tyre until the Great Revolt, and these blatantly pagan sheqels were used by Jews even for the temple dues (TJC:73–78; Meshorer 1984, and p.164 below), and certainly for trade. Still, at Gamla, except for two single silver pieces (a tetradrachm and a didrachm) dated to the first two years of the autonomy of Tyre (125, 125/4 BCE), there is an inexplicable gap in the silver for the next 80 years, until 44/3 BCE! Phase III— Jewish domination Phase IIIa— The Hasmoneans (c.80–40 BCE) There is no question that the Golan became part of the Hasmonean state following the conquests of Jannaeus (War 1.4.8 [§104–105]; Ant. 13.15.3[§393–394]), and Gamla apparently became the capital of the Gaulanitis district at this time or shortly the Hasmonean coins. This type of pithos and its variants are common throughout Galilee and it is suggested that it serves as an indicator of a gentile population (Aviam and Amitai 2002:122–127, but see p.153). 80 BC E67 12 5 0- -8 C E E E 105 afterwards (Hartal 2003:246). Huge quantities of coins of Alexander Jannaeus attest to a major phase of growth in this period — demographic and probably economic — no doubt following the annexation of the Golan to the Jewish state and an influx of Jewish settlers. The pottery in the Hasmonean quarter, while not showing affluence, indicates reasonably comfortable living and the means to buy and use imported pottery (Berlin, forthcoming). This time however, the numismatic evidence has to be looked at differently. The majority of Hasmonean coins were found in the Western quarter, which was established only in the first century CE, or in the reign of Herod at the earliest, and this phenomenon will be discussed below. To obtain a more meaningful set of data for phase IIIa, we need to look, in addition to the picture at the whole site, at the Hasmonean quarter in particular. The phase IIIa period of occupation here overlaps the Hasmonean period at Gamla, implying that the coinage found in this quarter reflects the currency in that particular period. Excavations of the Hasmonean quarter (areas B, D) yielded remains almost exclusively of the Early Bronze Age and the first century BCE (Gutmann and Wagner 1986; Gutmann et al. 1990; Gutmann 1994:112–124; Berlin, forthcoming). The finds prove that this quarter fell into disuse very late in the first century BCE, though the enigma concerning the causes for the abandonment of this quarter is unlikely to be completely solved. In particular, the following are noteworthy: • Of the otherwise ubiquitous knife-pared lamp that appears in large numbers at the site (c. 1500 spouts), less than 50 examples were found here. • Of the cut and lathe-turned limestone vessels, of which some 250 pieces were found all over the site, here only 2–3 fragments were found. 106 • Based on a preliminary inspection, virtually all glass found in this area is mold-made and not blown. • As far as evidence of the Revolt is concerned, of 1700 arrowheads found at the site, only 26 were found here, most on- or close to the surface; of close to 2000 ballista balls at the site, only five! (Syon 2002a:141) Phase I+IIa 3rd c. to 125 BCE Ptolemaic and Seleucid Hyrcanus I Aristobulus I Jannaeus YNTN Hasmonean (unidentified) Herodian Tyre 1 Sidon 6 288 (271 from Tyre) 121 IIb 125–80 BCE 14 IIIa 80–40 BCE 3 IIIb 40 BCE67 CE Jewish ←104 BCE 14 ←103 BCE 801 90 ←76 BCE 96 7 Autonomous and civic 251 99/8 BCE→ 2 7 8 12 2 (one silver) 2 4 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 1 6 4 Other Autonomous 1 3 4 1 issues Figure 56. Distribution and quantities of coins in the Hasmonean quarter Figure 56 presents the distribution and quantities of the coins in the Hasmonean quarter. The quantities were determined as accurately as possible, but it should be taken into consideration that on many of the Phoenician coins the date is illegible and thus they can be dated only broadly. The important features are as follows: 107 Small dilepta from Tyre—Seleucid as well as Autonomous— make up 29% of the coins in this quarter. As stated, the minting period of the majority of these spans the years 145–99/8 BCE, and their presence in such large quantities in the Hasmonean quarter implies that they were still heavily used in the first century BCE, as indeed most of them are very worn from use. Though the Golan was taken by Jannaeus only some 4 years before his death, his coins form the majority of the coins in this quarter, at 64 percent. The coin issues he struck were apparently not distributed evenly throughout his reign. Some issues, especially the star/anchor type that was among his last, were struck in huge quantities after 79-8 BCE (TJC:39). The degenerate type Ce, apparently his last issue, or one that may have been struck by his successors as well (see below, p.116), is represented by only 224 specimens in this quarter (13%) (as opposed to 541 coins of this type in the Western quarter [16%]) and 112 specimens of type Cd (‘year 25’) as opposed to 172 in the Western quarter. The relatively large number of coins of Hyrcanus I (121 coins) and Aristobulus I (14 coins) suggest, as discussed above, that at least some arrived either during their respective reigns, or at the very beginning of Jannaeus’ rule. Non-Hasmonean coins in the Hasmonean quarter The most striking feature in this sub phase though, is the dramatic decline of the arrival of Phoenician — or indeed any non-Hasmonean — coins. Only two (!) coins from the mint of Tyre, so prominent in the preceding phase, arrived definitely between 98 BCE and the reign of king Herod (14 coins for the whole site). Seven further ‘galley’ type Tyrian coins can be only generally dated 125–first century BCE, but even counting them the decline is dramatic. 108 In contrast, the number of coins arriving from Sidon increases in the Hasmonean period: Eight coins are dated between 80 and 40 BCE, and a further 12 are dated between 111 and 10 BCE, so statistically at least could have arrived after 80 BCE. Other coins that arrive at this time are four from ‘Akko-Ptolemais, and one each from Berytus, Apamea, one Nabatean and one Iturean coin. Non-Hasmonean coins throughout the site During phase IIIa effective Roman domination in Palestine was established, beginning with the conquests of Pompey in 63 BCE, and the administrative reorganization of the country under Gabinius in c. 55 BCE. According to the extant evidence, as argued persuasively by Hartal (2003:249, with relevant bibliography) against the current opinions, the central Golan was not detached from Judaea by Pompey, because it was at the time heavily populated by Jews. Thus, though Gamla did not experience any major upheaval in this period, the significant events in the surrounding regions, and especially the re-founding of the Hellenistic cities by Pompey and Gabinius no doubt had an impact on it in some way, perhaps economically. The echoes of these events can be traced only on a minor way in the few coins from this period that arrived at Gamla from mints that were located not too far away geographically, but were a world apart from Jewish Gamla. All the following coins are dated by the Pompeian era: One coin of Nysa-Scythopolis (Bet She’an), dated to the time of Gabinius; Two coins of Gadara, dated to ‘year 20’ (45/4 BCE); One coin of Hippos, dated c. 42–38 BCE. Iturean and Nabatean coins are surprisingly few, contrary to what could be expected in a region neighboring these two local powers. 109 Only one Iturean coin of Ptolemy son of Mennaios was found, dated to 73/2 BCE. The two Nabatean coins of Aretas III, dated 84–71 BCE straddle the division line between our sub-phases IIb and IIIa, and it is impossible to tell when they actually arrived and under what circumstances. It should be also noted that these early city coins, following the refoundations by Pompey and Gabinius, were apparently minted in small issues and were for use locally. In Samaria and Judaea at least, the only major bronze currency available at the time was the Hasmonean one. The six late Ptolemaic coins of Ptolemy IX or X from Cyprus, dated 114/3–103 BCE (see part I, p.31) are probably connected with the violent tour of Ptolemy IX Soter II (Lathyrus) in Galilee and Judaea, following the unsuccessful siege of ‘AkkoPtolemais by Jannaeus in 103 BCE (War 1.4.2 [§86]; Ant. 13.12.2–13.13.3 [§324– 355]). 48 The circumstances of their arrival to Gamla are unknown and somewhat surprising, as the sources do not mention any advance of his as far as the Golan. Still, it is the only logical connection possible. Six autonomous coins close the list, all dated c. 80–70 BCE: three from Antioch, and one each from Berytus, Apamea and possibly Tripolis. Jewish preference of Hasmonean coinage prevented the arrival of many foreign coins, though the bronze coinage extant from the preceding period was obviously still in circulation, based on the very worn state of most. As only one silver Tyrian sheqel dated 44/3 BCE [1230] and a silver-plated tetradrachm from Sidon [1113] from this subphase were found, it can only be speculated that major economical transactions at this time were carried out with Tyrian sheqels, as was the case elsewhere in the 48 Recent scholarship on the war of 103–101 BCE., and especially a newly interpreted papyrus, proves that Cleopatra III was already in possession of ‘Akko in September 103 (Van ‘t Dack et al. 1989:50– 61, 109). This bears also on the accession of Jannaeus, which should now be put in 104 BCE (see part I, p.39). 110 region. It is difficult to explain why silver coins were not found from this subphase in greater numbers. Their total absence from the Hasmonean quarter, and their appearance in larger quantities in the subsequent phase in the Western quarter, argues against the simple explanation of low loss- and high recovery rates of silver pieces. No satisfactory answer is offered; part of it might lie in that Gamla was of a minor economic significance at this time, though in Jerusalem we see a similarly small number of silver coins — only 7 — in the Hasmonean period (Ariel 1982:312, table 3), or that most transactions were on a local level and much of it was in the nature of barter. What is interesting is the sudden increase of the number of coins of Sidon over those of Tyre in this period. Again, this phenomenon is not isolated. As will be detailed in part III (p. 215), coins of Sidon mostly outnumber those of Tyre in the northern Golan in most periods. Though this is most noticeable in the area of Paneas, some coins obviously diffused further south. Noteworthy is also the Sidonian type of the ‘Zeus and Tyche/Galley’. It is generally dated in BMC Phoenicia (Pp.164–165, Nos.137–142) to 78–46 BCE, though RPC 1 (p.653, No. 4596) extends the range to 2/1 BCE. Eight out of ten such coins at Gamla were found in the Western quarter (the other two in the Eastern quarter), and the two with legible date (48/7 and 38/7 BCE) suggest that they arrived at the mid-later end of their range. This might indicate some sort of increased activity in relation to Sidon towards the end of phase IIIa — perhaps at the expense of Tyre. Phase IIIb— From the Herodians to the Great Revolt (40 BCE–67 CE) This subphase covers the last period of Gamla, the 107 years between the accession of Herod in 40 BCE until the fall of the city in 67 CE. 111 As amply demonstrated by Hartal (2003:250, with relevant bibliography), since the Golan had not been taken away from Judaea by Pompey, it was obviously not granted to Herod in 20 BCE by Augustus, together with the Paneas region (Josephus, War 1.20.4 [§398–400]; Ant. 15.10.3 [§360]). Thus, the Jewish Golan did not experience any administrative or major political changes from the days of Jannaeus to the Great Revolt. There was quite obviously an economic boom beginning at Gamla at this time, reflected partly in the architecture of the Western quarter and the fine olive-oil press situated there (Gutmann and Wagner 1986; Wagner 1987). This implies vigorous monetary activity, as indeed there is a considerable increase in silver coins found in this phase (49 coins). Yet the total number of coins arriving to Gamla in this phase is only 420. One likely explanation is that Hasmonean coinage was still so plentiful as to render the import of other bronze coinage for local use unnecessary (see below). The Western quarter yielded 84% of the coins arriving in this phase. Autonomous and Civic 17% Herodian 9% Autonomous + Civic 2% Roman imperial, provincial and colonial 1% Nabatean 3% Roman Imperial 5% Roman Provincial 3% Colonial 1% Hasmonean 88% Herodian 71% Figure 57. Coins arriving in phase IIIb – all Gamla Figure 58. Currency in the Western quarter in phase IIIb 112 Herodian Coins Compared to the enormous quantities of Hasmonean coins, the number of coins of the house of Herod found at Gamla is very modest, as indeed throughout the Golan (Hartal 2003:185–186). Still, they make up 71% of coins arriving in this phase. At Gamla there are just slightly less Herodian coins than in all the other recorded sites of Galilee and Golan put together. 49 Most of the Herodian coins were found in the Western quarter (84%), substantiating the claim that this quarter was most active during phase IIIb. Taking the coin finds in the Western quarter only, and assuming that Hasmonean coins were still circulating in the last phase, the Herodian coins drop to only about 9% of the currency. Figure 58 does not take into consideration the use of old Tyrian or Sidonian money that may have still circulated in phase IIIb, but such a calculation would alter the percentage only very slightly. Though Gamla was in Philip's tetrarchy, the fact that more coins of Antipas than those of Philip were found (see part I, p.48) can be explained by the more favorable position of Tiberias for the people of Gamla. It was both more easily accessible and it had a Jewish population, as opposed to the predominantly pagan population of the Paneas area. Agrippa II No coins of this king were found at Gamla, even though it was in his territory from 53–54 CE onwards (Josephus, Ant. 20.7.1 [§138]). The suggestion made by Meshorer (TJC:103) that Agrippa II may not have minted before 67/8 accords well with the 49 Hartal 2003:180–181, Table 15, and sites in part III of this study. 113 finds. The coins which form his first series (TJC Nos.127–133)50 were minted less than a year prior to the siege of the city. A theory recently put forward (Lönnqvist 1997) suggests that the abundant ‘Year 6’ issue of Agrippa I was, in fact, minted by Agrippa II in Caesarea Maritima in 66/7 CE. Without discussing other flaws of the theory (see on this now Kushnir-Stein 2000–2:81), the fact that at Gamla 23 such coins were found and not a single coin of Agrippa II from the nearer mints of Paneas and Sepphoris (even if rare), invalidates it. Most of the ‘anachronistic’ (according to Lönnqvist) finds of this coin type with coins of the later procurators and with coins of the First Revolt can be explained simply by the enormous quantities of this type that were issued, a phenomenon known also with the coins of Jannaeus (see below). Phoenician Coins Just as in phase IIIa, the paucity of Phoenician coins arriving in phase IIIb is striking. Only 18 Sidonian coins date later than 40 BCE (autonomous and provincial), and 56 coins of Tyre. Of the Tyrian coins, 41 are silver (one plated), this time clearly indicating the silver currency in circulation. Twenty-seven of these were part of a small hoard, found on a street, in front of the olive oil press in the Western quarter (Part I, p.67). Other coins The three coins of Tiberius, commonly held to have been minted in Commagene, are enigmatic (see part I, p.61). It is tempting to suggest that they arrived at Gamla by the auxiliary troops that Antiochus IV of Commagene contributed to Vespasian’s army (Josephus, War 3.4.2 [§68]). Two such coins were found at Yodefat (Josephus’ Jotapata), yet another is known from from Sepphoris, both places along Vespasian’s 50 And Cf. RPC1:685, Nos.4988–4992. 114 route to Gamla. One further coin was found at H. Beer Sheva (site 104 in part III), also conceivably en route for Vespasian, and among the sites fortified by Josephus (War 2.20.6 [§573–574]; Vita 187–188) and finally one from near Hagoshrim (site 3), which is very close to Paneas, where Vespasian stationed his army after the battle of Yodefat (War 3.9.7 [§443–444]). In the state collections there are only two further such coins, from an unknown location. On one hand, their extremely worn condition and the fact that all four were found in the Western quarter where the battle had hardly reached, make this proposition weak. On the other, three colonial coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais minted in 66–67 CE were also found in the Western quarter and these undoubtedly arrived during- or very shortly before the siege. The 11 coins of the Nabatean king Aretas IV (9 BCE–40 CE), are undoubtedly connected with interactions— perhaps commercial— with the southern part of the Hauran, where Nabateans lived (Hartal 2003: 219–222) The autonomous Gamla coins and the relations with Jerusalem These coins (Part I, p.54) are probably the single most important small find from Gamla, a tangible link between archaeology and a dramatic historical episode. They were undoubtedly struck at Gamla, and the single find from Alexandrion does not alter this conclusion. That coin probably arrived there by someone who fled from Gamla; the desert fortresses were always a popular destination for refugees. 51 Alternatively, but less likely in my opinion, it may have been carried there by a Roman soldier. 51 Alexandrion is thought to have been held by a Roman garrison from early on, as it is not mentioned by Josephus at all in connection with the revolt. This question should, perhaps, be reopened (see Tsafrir 1982; NEAEHL, sv. Sartaba-Alexandrion, with further bibliography). 115 These coins were produced during the siege or immediately preceding it, more as a propaganda effort than as currency. It was meant to make a political/religious statement to the Jews, and possibly to the Romans. This coin challenges the traditional view of a fragmented Jewish front that was preoccupied mainly with internal strife and the defense of isolated sites by pockets of rebels, presenting Vespasian with an easy prey of towns and strongholds instead of a unified front.52 On the contrary, it shows that even under the most difficult siege conditions, the people of Gamla still remembered the original aims of the revolt, symbolized by ‘the Redemption of Holy Jerusalem’. 53 Meshorer (AJC2:130; TJC:131) interprets this slogan as seeking redemption by divine intervention as opposed to self-reliance, a wording introduced when the prospects of a victory were already nonexistent: thus at Gamla in 67, and in Jerusalem in ‘Year Four’. Rajak (2002:182–183) effectively shows that organized Jewish resistance had nothing to do with expectations of immediate divine redemption. I believe that this coin also bears on Galilee-Jerusalem relations in this period, much debated— and mainly negated— by New Testament scholarship. The religious ties centered on the Temple worship, which involved the three annual pilgrimages and the tithes are accepted by all, but based on Mark (16.7) and Q, different kinds of Judaism and a very deep opposition are suggested between Galilee and Jerusalem.54 Recently even archaeological evidence is taken to show this rift (see below, Part III, p.154). I see, on a historical and archaeological basis, that these ties were strong: administrative, as shown by the very act of sending Josephus to command Galilee and 52 53 See recently Rappaport 1992a:101–102 and Horsley 2002:102. And see note 59. 54 A full discussion on the topic is beyond the scope of this study. The following deal with the issue, with copious bibliography: Freyne 1987, 1999 (esp. pp.49–55), 2001; and Reed 1999. Freyne is utilizing the archaeological evidence in line with the present study. 116 Golan (Josephus, War 2.20.4 [§568]) and economic, evident in the ubiquitous knifepared lamps and limestone vessels found at most first century Jewish sites in Galilee. Limestone vessels and knife-pared lamps were developed in Jerusalem and are a significant archaeological indicator of Jewish ethnicity in the first century CE (Magen 2000b; Gibson 2003). Their use spread to Galilee early on, and some were manufactured locally (Gal 1991; Aviam, forthcoming 1). At Gamla and Yodefat though, many of these lamps were actually brought from Jerusalem, as evidenced by petrographic analysis of several such lamps.55 At Gamla, the close ties to Jerusalem in the late Second temple Period receive an additional confirmation by the abundance of the coins minted in Jerusalem arriving in this period (see part III, p. 244), and certainly by the Gamla coin. It is noteworthy that most Israeli historians, as opposed to European and American New Testament scholars, do not see at all an issue in the Jerusalem vs. Galilee question. To them Galilee was an integral part first of the Hasmonean state and later of the Jewish nation. They do not see at all a Galilean Judaism and a Judaean Judaism.56 Coins of Jannaeus circulating in the first century CE. An enigmatic phenomenon has been observed by researchers at many sites all over Israel, and that is the apparent use of coins of Alexander Jannaeus scores or even hundreds of years after they were minted. The use of old bronze coins in general is a well-known phenomenon (Howgego 1985, passim; Augé 1987). Some coins were kept in circulation until they were worn The petrographical analysis was carried out by A. Shapiro, IAA. NAA analysis carried out on such lamps from Meron, Jerusalem and Ovdat showed that they were all produced in Jerusalem (Gunneweg and Perlman 1985). Twenty-four knife-pared lamps from Masada were analyzed and found to have been manufactured at Jerusalem (16), the northern coast (4) and the shephela (1) (Yellin 1994) 56 Uriel Rappaport, Yuval Shachar, Aharon Oppenheimer, in a symposium held in Jerusalem in December 2003. 55 117 beyond recognition, and then sometimes they were countermarked to revalue them. This phenomenon is often associated with military movements, necessitating large amounts of cash, and with the need for small change, not always available in sufficient quantities in new coin. Some of these worn coins then found their way to tombs, as burial offerings or as Charon’s obol, a phenomenon prominent in Galilee especially in the third century CE (Syon forthcoming 4). Yet the appearance of coins of Jannaeus in later contexts seems to transcend these general observations. The following table presents some of the evidence, both synthetic (Rappaport, Meshorer), and specific: Site General Reference Rappaport 1976:186; 1984:39 Meshorer TJC:42 Find or quote “It seems that the copious coinage under Jannaeus rendered any additional ‘small money’ [under Queen SalomeAlexandra] unnecessary, though some posthumous coinage in his name might have been struck under her rule”. “We can but suggest that Alexandra-Salome did not strike any coins, unless she continued to mint those of her husband Jannaeus after his death”. “It seems not unlikely that types of Alexander Jannaeus continued to be struck after his death”. “In the beginning of the Herodian period it is likely that some of the ubiquitous Hasmonean bronze coins remained current…..It is unlikely that such a large number of coins was withdrawn from circulation so quickly”. Hundreds coins of the small, poorly struck type of Jannaeus were found in Herodian (late 1st c. BCE) contexts in the Jewish Quarter excavations in Jerusalem. Two coins of Jannaeus and 5 other early coins: “The inclusion of coins which predate the hoard— even by a number of centuries—is most likely due to the fact that they continued in use, indistinguishable in size and shape from the worn modules of the fourth, fifth and first half of the sixth centuries CE”. “Often as not these [Hasmonean, mainly Jannaeus] coins are found together with Roman coins of the 4th century, a fact which had caused considerable puzzlement until we found increasing evidence of the presence of those coins in Jewish hands at that date”. One coin of Jannaeus and six Late Roman coins in a Byzantine hoard of 485 coins. “It thus seems that in the 5th c. CE coins of Seleucid and Hasmonean kings were acceptable for inclusion in a hoard or deposit”. Samaria Jerusalem Kirkman 1957:48 Ariel 1982:287; Ariel, pers. comm Gush Halav Bijovsky 1998:80, and note 1 Upper Galilee (Meron, H. Shema‘ and Gush Halav) Merot Korazim Hanson 1980:51 Kindler 1986a:315– 316 Ariel 2000:35* 118 Kh. Tabaliya Bijovsky 2000 Three Hasmonean coins (two of Jannaeus) together with 24 coins of Agrippa I and the procurators and two Jewish War coins. Two Hasmonean coins were found on the latest floor. The whole complex dates between c. 42 and 70 CE (Kogan-Zehavi 2000:164). “The occurrence of a relatively large number of Hasmonean coins in the SE (area 5) seems consistent with the hypothesis that these coins, and especially those of Alexander Jannaeus, remained in circulation long after the end of Hasmonean rule.” “The insignificant number of types Ca, Cb, Cc (three coins altogether) would also suggest that type Ce (88 coins) was struck post-Jannaeus and were lost in large numbers at Samaria some years later, possibly following the rehabilitation of the city by the Romans” Scant evidence of a settlement in the Hasmonean period, no historical evidence to suggest destruction by either Hyrcanus I or Jannaeus. Twenty six type Ce coins (23 from a hoard) begin a numismatic sequence through the first half of the first century CE, strongly supporting the idea of posthumous minting. Yodefat Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam 1997:156–157 Samaria Adapted from Shachar 2002:47 Gibeon Adapted from Shachar 2002:60–61; Pritchard 1962, 1964 Figure 59. Coins of Jannaeus in later contexts The evidence in the table can be broken down into four groups: a. Coins of Jannaeus forming part of the currency in the late Hasmonean and early Herodian periods, because of large quantities still available, because of posthumous minting— or both (Rappaport, Meshorer, Samaria, Jerusalem). b. Coins of Jannaeus present in small quantities as currency in the Late Roman Period, possibly as stray finds by the population, and ending up in circulation because of their similar look and feel to the Late Roman currency (Gush Halav, Upper Galilee, Merot, Korazim). At all these sites the occupation continued uninterrupted — or almost so — from the Second Temple period to the Late Roman period. c. Gamla, Yodefat and Kh. Tabaliya form a third group— where coins of Jannaeus formed part of the currency not only in the early, but also in the later Herodian period, up to the Great Revolt, that is, some 143 years after the death of the king. The test-case for this statement at Gamla is the Western quarter. This quarter yielded the largest quantity of Herodian and other first century CE coins, 86% of the limestone vessels (Gibson 2003 and forthcoming), 80% of the knife-pared lamps and 119 together with the pottery, indicate an occupation only — or mainly — in the first century CE.57 Yet a full 75% (2370 coins) of the coins in this quarter are Hasmonean, and of these 79% (1885 coins) of Jannaeus.58 Breaking down the group further, 85% of the coins of Jannaeus in this quarter are of the star/anchor type, with all its variants, but especially the small and crude type Ce (541 coins), which are evidently the last type minted by the king (Shachar 2002:18 and passim). In contrast, type Ce is represented by only 224 specimens in the Hasmonean quarter (13%). d. A fourth group consists of Samaria and Gibeon, where posthumous minting can be suggested with some confidence. It is close to impossible to see all these coins as being strays or residual coins from the Hasmonean period, though evidently some are. Just as the second century BCE Seleucid coins continued in use in the Hasmonean quarter in the first century BCE, it is natural for a coin type that is readily available in large quantities to be used some time, even some decades after its minting, but its regular use as currency almost 150 years after it was struck requires some proof. As stated earlier, virtually all floors at Gamla were soft dirt floors, and more often than not, material from occupation and floor levels could not be separated from the debris above it. In general, some 24 loci could be separated in the Western quarter, in which a first century CE floor level could be discerned with reasonable certainty, and where near this level some or all of the following were found: Complete or intact first century CE pottery assemblages, many fragments of knife-pared lamps (and two 57 The glass has not yet been fully analyzed, but it appears that the vast majority of glass fragments in the Western quarter are of blown glass, the technology of which was invented around the turn of the era. 58 Again, statistically, many of the 213 otherwise unidentifiable inscription/cornucopia type are probably his. 120 intact lamps), fragments of limestone vessels, blown glass fragments, and coins, some Herodian and other first century CE coins, but mostly coins of Alexander Jannaeus, other Hasmonean coins and second century BCE Tyrian coins (Figure 60). In particular, seven key loci are presented in detail in Figure 61. Other Hasmonean 12% Herodian 11% Jannaeus 54% Other 1st c. CE coins 4% Seleucid 5% Autonomous 2nd–1st c. BCE 14% Error! Reference source not found. Figure 60. Coins at floor levels in selected loci in the Western quarter…………… 121 Locus and context Locus 5033, in domestic building 5030. The only stone paving in a domestic space at Gamla. Coins 2 c. BCE (8); Jannaeus (13: all type C, of these 6 type Ce); Other Hasmonean (2); Herod (1); Antipas (3); Agrippa I (1); Roman (1) Autonomous 1st c. CE (1) nd Other artifacts 25 knife-pared lamp spouts; several limestone vessel fragments; 1st c. CE pottery. Locus 5036, domestic building 5030. Ash layer and tabun near floor level. Locus 5038, domestic building 5030. Floor level. 2nd c. BCE (2); Jannaeus (15: 12 type C, of these 5 Ce); Other Hasmonean (4); Herod (2); Antipas (2); 2nd c. BCE (2); Jannaeus (6: all type C, of these 3 Ce); Other Hasmonean (1); 1st c. BCE (1); Herod (1); Agrippa I (1); Procurators (1); Roman (1) Locus 5005. Room adjacent to olive oil press hall—at floor level. Locus 2051. Room in a domestic building, at doorsill level where the only human remains at Gamla were found. Locus 5011. Olive oil press hall— at floor level. 6 knife-pared lamp spouts; several limestone vessel fragments; 1st c. CE pottery. 8 knife-pared lamp spouts; 1 complete Hellenistic lamp; many limestone vessel fragments; Complete 1st c. CE vessels: 2 bowls, 5 cookpots; Arrowhead. 4 knife-pared lamp spouts; 2nd c. BCE (3); Jannaeus several limestone vessel (9: 8 type C, of these 3 Ce); Other Hasmonean (3); fragments; Complete 1st c. CE Philip (1); Autonomous Gamla (1) cookpot and 2 jars; Arrowhead. 2nd c. BCE (3); Jannaeus 2 knife-pared lamp spouts; 2 limestone vessel (2: one type Cc ); fragments; 2 intact pottery bottles; 3 arrowheads. nd 16 knife-pared lamp 2 c. BCE (3); Jannaeus spouts; 6 limestone vessel (17: all type C, of these 8 Ce); Other Hasmonean (4); fragments; Numerous complete 1st c. CE Autonomous 1st c. BCE (1); Autonomous 1st c. CE cookpots and jars (1) Locus 5151. Basement floor Knife-pared lamps: 11 2nd c. BCE (1); Jannaeus spouts, 2 complete; many (9: all type C, of these 5 Ce); Other Hasmonean (4); limestone vessel fragments; complete 1st c. Antipas (3); Philip (2); Procurators (1) Roman CE vessels: 1 jar, 1 jug, 1 administration 1st c. CE juglet; 1 ESA cup; (1) Catapult bolt. Figure 61. Gamla — some critical loci in the Western Quarter 122 These data, from Gamla, Yodefat and other sites indicate that Jews in the first century CE used Hasmonean coins in regular circulation, alongside fresh coinage. Coins of Jannaeus were the most plentiful, but coins of Hyrcanus I are found as well. While there is no question that one reason was that they were apparently still available in large quantities, it would appear that Jews also preferred Hasmonean currency for nationalistic reasons.59 Thus, these coin stayed in local circulation and commerce in the first century CE within areas inhabited by Jews. While there is nothing in the data from Gamla to serve as proof of posthumous minting of coins of Jannaeus, it does not contradict the possibility. Phase IV— After 67 CE The six coins (part I, p.87) that date after the fall of Gamla are most certainly stray finds. The three Late Roman coins are most likely connected with the activity at the nearby village of Deir Qaruh. The other coins were likely dropped by occasional visitors. In this context a small assemblage of third century CE pottery is noteworthy, found in area D, at the very top of the ridge in the Hasmonean quarter (Berlin, forthcoming, appendix 1) 59 See also Aviam, forthcoming 1. Also, I cannot agree with Horsley’s statement (2002:87) that ‘nationalism is a modern concept that is anachronistic when applied to ancient societies’. 123 Part III The Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee 124 125 This part of the study will attempt, based on a numismatic database from 186 sites, to map the circulation and distribution of south Phoenician coins throughout Galilee and the Golan geographically and chronologically, and infer from this distribution the relative influence of Sidon, Tyre and 'Akko-Ptolemais on the monetary circulation in this region, its patterns and their meaning. The distribution of coins will be used as an independent criterion that can be compared to the geographical distribution of other elements of material culture that suggest regional diversity and even ethnic identity, and its value as such assessed. Before presenting the actual data however, it will be useful to delineate the history of research, chronological and geographical range of the study and methodology, and to present the current state of research on a number of points that might be expected to bear on monetary circulation, such as trade patterns, political boundaries and ethnicity. History of Research That Galilee was in the economic sphere of southern Phoenicia and especially Tyre, had been noted in the past mainly in three works, and recent research has often relied on these works to repeat the same statements. Kindler (1967) dealt with the Persian period, basing his study mainly on coins found at Tel ‘Akko, including a small hoard. He rightly observed that Tyrian influence was felt more to the south of Tyre than to the north of it, a statement borne out by the new studies of Elayi et Elayi (1993) and Lemaire (1995), as outlined below. Another conclusion Kindler reached is that in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods Tyre was the main supplier of currency — silver and bronze — for the whole of Palestine. The present study will show that this statement is not completely accurate. 126 Hanson’s (1980) numismatic study of the Upper Galilean sites of H. Shema‘, Meron and Gush Halav became more or less the ‘standard reference’ for the large number of New Testament scholars trying to paint the Historical Jesus and Galilee in the first century CE and looking for numismatic data to draw conclusions about economy and trade.60 Hanson’s study contains many inaccurately identified coins. Based on coin counts alone, from the Hellenistic through the Roman periods, Hanson concluded that the inhabitants of Upper Galilee chose to trade in Tyre, rather than in closer ‘AkkoPtolemais; that Tyre was a major supplier of money to the Levant and that Tyre was the center of economic influence for a peripheral area that included Upper Galilee in its orbit. While some of these observations are correct for some of the time, the sweeping conclusion encompassing the whole Hellenistic and Roman periods is certainly untrue, as is the assertion that coins from e.g. Tyre found at a site necessarily indicate that they reached the site directly from Tyre. Barag (1982–3) concentrated on the so-called Greek Imperials of the first two-anda-half centuries CE, found in two hoards and at several sites in Galilee. He drew on the conclusions of Hanson, but added that another reason for the high ratio of Tyrian coins compared to other local mints was the probable intervention of the Roman authorities, which apparently kept a strict control on the quantities of bronze minted by the cities. The same conclusion is expressed by Kindler (1982–3:87), discussing the whole of Syria-Palaestina in the Roman period. Briefly but accurately touching on the subject is also an article by Kindler (1986b), discussing bronze coin circulation on the Golan in the first century CE (my translation and paraphrase): 60 For a selection of statements drawn on this work see below, p.160. 127 “The numismatic evidence would indicate that the Golan, though in close proximity to Galilee, was a separate economic zone….whereas the large number of coins of Tyre found in the north of the country suggest that Tyre was the main supplier of currency to this region, here the picture obtained is completely different. Here many coins of Sidon were found, and especially from the first century CE….This large percentage of coins of Sidon in the north east of the country is sufficient to force a reconsideration of accepted conceptions about the currency there, and it might even show different economic influence zones created by Tyre and Sidon” The vastly increased material since the publication of those studies allows now for a re-examination of the evidence and extending it in time and space. Chronology The chronological framework of this study begins in the Ptolemaic period (third century BCE). The preceding Persian and Alexandrine periods have already received due attention from the standpoint of monetary circulation (Elayi 1990; Elayi et Elayi 1993; Lemaire 1995), and I feel that I can give no meaningful contribution. The study ends within the reign of Gallienus, when the last local civic minting finally ended and the base imperial antoniniani took over. The division into chronological segments was chosen to be such that the dividing lines could be observed in the numismatic record, yet reflect as far as possible political events, which is the more customary criterion for defining periods. Thus, the periods in this part differ also from those in part II, where only Gamla was looked at. As will be seen, this division, as indeed any other, is not perfect, but is still the best for the purposes of this study. The present study examines in detail the pattern of coin circulation in Galilee. However, a broader view of the place of these coins in the monetary systems of the region will be given, to show that a study of Galilee within its own context is relevant. 128 In particular, the number of mints operating in each period, their relative output, and the authority behind the minting will be briefly presented. The Persian period and Alexander the Great (6–4th century BCE) To sum up briefly: the circulation of the money of the Phoenician cities in the Persian period demonstrates a reasonably clear and consistent pattern, whereby coins of Tyre dominate in Galilee, and coins of Sidon from Samaria southward. New data from Galilee61 superimposed on the maps of Elayi et Elayi (1993:Figs.23, 25, 27) and Lemaire (1995:198) do not alter the picture at all. This pattern appears to be dependent on the colonial territories of these cities, which started already in the Biblical period. Thus, in this period, Jaffa and Dora are known to have been Sidonian territory while Ascalon was Tyrian (Briquel-Chatonnet 1995:594–595, with full bibliography). Though Gaza is considered by most scholars to have been autonomous, others have postulated that it was under direct Persian rule and yet others believe it was under Tyrian suzerainty together with Ashdod (unpubl. paper). Some Sidonian influence in Gaza is hinted by Sidonian style antropomorphic coffins found there (Stern 1971). Galilee, especially the coastal strip, was part of the ancient Tyrian kingdom. That is not to say of course, that Tyrian coins are not found in Sidonian ‘territory’ and vice versa, but their proportion is relatively small. It is especially instructive in this context to observe on the two distribution maps of Sidonian and Tyrian coins all along the Levantine coast (Elayi et Elayi 1993:Figs.23, 25), that Sidonian coins are sparse around Tyre (Fig. 23), and Tyrian coins are practically nonexistent around Sidon (Fig. 24). The coins in question, both silver and bronze, were minted by the authority of the 61 Data from recent excavations which are being prepared for full publication by me. 129 cities, as a secondary authority to the king of Persia. Actual Persian coins did not circulate in this area. The Ptolemaic Period (c. 301–200 BCE) This period of 100 years 62 matches fairly well both the political and numismatic realities, as currency in Galilee (as elsewhere in the Lagid realm) was strictly Ptolemaic (with very few other coins here and there), conforming to the closed monetary policy of this dynasty.63 Other parts of the former empire of Alexander the Great, though ruled by different individuals, was a unified zone of currency of silver of Attic standard, whereas Ptolemaic Egypt created a closed economy, and a new standard of silver. Foreign silver coins are hardly found at all in local hoards or excavation material, and the only place outside of Ptolemaic territories where Ptolemaic coins are found in some quantity, is the Peloponnesus, where they might have arrived as subsidy to the local dynasts backed by Egypt (Hackens 1968:82–90). All the mints of the Ptolemaic dominions, including Phoenicia and Palestine, were subject to instructions from the central authorities, and the products of the Ptolemaic mints of Berytus, Sidon, Tyre, 'Akko-Ptolemais, Jaffa and Gaza are expected to have circulated indiscriminately within the kingdom, just as those of Alexandria or Cyprus. It should be pointed out that ‘Akko-Ptolemais (Aké at the time) however, passed into Ptolemaic hands only in 281 BCE, and in general, the Ptolemaic minting in the Phoenician cities was of a short duration. Silver was struck only between 266 and 241 BCE at Tyre and for an even shorter period at Sidon and ‘Akko-Ptolemais.64 The rest of the coin supply arrived from the central mint in Alexandria and from Cyprus. 62 63 The land had been already under brief Ptolemaic rule during 320–315, 312/1 and 302 BCE. For an overview of this policy that still stands the test of time, see Jenkins 1967. 64 For details of the minting of the Palestinian and Phoenician mints, see Kindler 1996. 130 Except for some minor variations, the finds in Egypt, Cyprus, Palestine and Phoenicia include more or less the same mixture of types and mints, though in varying proportions, depending on a natural diffusion — the slow circulation of coins away from the mint by way of local trade and taxpaying. It will be seen that while this may be true for the silver, the bronze currency shows a somewhat more localized pattern. The Seleucid Period (200–125 BCE) For 75 years, Seleucid coinage was the dominant currency in Galilee, as elsewhere in Palestine. Yet Ptolemaic influence was still strongly felt on the economy, as indicated by the obvious preference for Ptolemaic weight silver coins. The Seleucid kings eventually succumbed to this economic reality by starting themselves to strike Phoenician weight (=Ptolemaic weight) silver in ‘AkkoPtolemais under Antiochus V (164–162 BCE), but mostly from the reign of Alexander Balas (150–146/5 BCE) onward. These circulated in Southern Koile Syria, i.e. Phoenicia and Palestine (see also Le Rider 1995). From the reign of Alexander Balas onward, Tyre was the leading mint of silver, with practically no break until 125 BCE, the year that marked the end of Seleucid domination of this city. At Sidon the minting of Seleucid silver was more sporadic, down to 111/0 BCE, when the city became autonomous. 'Akko-Ptolemais minted until the reign of Antiochus IX in 107/6 BCE, at first small issues, but from c. 128/7 BCE large issues of both Attic and Phoenician weight silver. All Phoenician mints struck both Attic and Phoenician weight silver, but the production of Phoenician weight dominated, except at 'Akko-Ptolemais. However, Attic weight Seleucid silver is very scarce in Palestine in this period65 and conversely, the phenomenon of the Phoenician weight silver is peculiar only to this 65 See footnote 7 in part I. 131 part of the Seleucid kingdom. The few Attic weight hoards found in the ‘Phoenician weight zone’ do not constitute an exception to the rule, because except for one hoard from the Sea of Galilee, they were found on the boundaries of the two circulation zones (Le Rider 1995:401). 'Akko-Ptolemais may have struck Attic silver because it was the provincial capital and thus obliged to strike these also for the north. These issues were then shipped to the Attic circulation areas. The Seleucid kingdom was thus divided into two distinct economic spheres, as a concession to local preferences. Southern Koile Syria and Phoenicia formed a closed economy as far as silver is concerned, isolated from the rest of the kingdom, and conforming more to the Ptolemaic pattern (Le Rider 1995:402), while the north used the Attic standard, common to most of the Greek world. The reason why under Antiochus V the authorities started to mint Phoenician weight silver is variously interpreted by Le Rider (1995:403–404) as either filling a need of a depleted currency, in which the old Ptolemaic currency was simply in shortage which grew more acute under Alexander Balas, or — based on Antiochus V’s experience— Balas wanted to use this coinage as propaganda, decreeing that Ptolemaic silver was not to be used any more in the province. This last interpretation is not convincing, as he may equally well have decreed that Attic currency be used instead. Nevertheless, this period was one of a much more open economy, so besides the far greater and more varied output of the Seleucid mints, also a somewhat greater variety of other bronze coins is found in Galilee, but not by much (see Figure 62, p.191). The main mints issuing coins in this period, and whose products reached Galilee with regularity were Antioch, Sidon, Tyre, 'Akko-Ptolemais and Damascus. Coins of Ascalon, Gaza and other mints are rare. 132 Though the chief authority for minting was the Seleucid king through his administration, we also find in Galilee and the Golan the municipal and civic bronze issues of Sidon, Tyre and ‘Akko-Ptolemais, but only the latter in any appreciable numbers (see Figure 62, p.191). These were first minted in the reign of Antiochus IV, as the open economic policy of this king favored the granting of certain privileges to the cities, which were seen as ‘responsible partners’ in the economic efforts of the kingdom. The municipal issues were distinguished by the imperial portrait on the obverse and a local type on the reverse and were issued from 19 mints throughout the kingdom beginning in 169 BCE (Mørkholm 1984:101). The fully civic issues were fewer, notably those of Sidon and 'Akko-Ptolemais66, and these had a local type for the obverse. Under Demetrius I most municipal bronzes disappeared, except those of Tyre and Sidon. At this time the Greek world to the northwest was already being engulfed by Roman power. While the Romans did not seek to impose their own coinage on the territories they conquered, there was a change nevertheless, which cannot be readily explained in economic terms.67 Before the Roman intervention it is not unusual to find in the Greek world three, or even four different monetary and metrological systems in hoards (Giovannini 1978:8), including Seleucid issues until 190 BCE (the defeat of Antiochus III by the Romans at Magnesia). After c. 165 BCE however, the royal coinages and most of the old ‘Alexanders’ disappeared, to make way for a new silver coinage, the stephanophoroi, that were of a uniform standard, but minted in many cities; the bronzes continued in a great variety (ibid. 81). The only anomalous 66 For other civic issues of the period see BMC Phoenicia (Carne, Berytus, Marathus and Tripolis) and BMC Palestine (Ascalon, Gaza). See also Part I, pp.64, 75. 67 For an overview of the Greek coinage sytems in the Hellenistic period see Marcellesi 2000. 133 region was the kingdom of Pergamum, with a base silver cistophorus, which created its own closed economy modeled on the Egyptian system. The end of the period for the purpose of this study is set at 125 BCE. This date is very meaningful numismatically for Galilee, being the year Tyre inaugurated its autonomous coinage, but reflects also on the political realities of the period. Seleucid rule did not end formally with the death of Demetrius II in that year, it became, however, practically impotent and was characterized thereafter by incessant fratricidal wars, usurpers and pretenders, until its final demise in 63 BCE. The Hasmonean Period (125–63 BCE) A period of 63 years. In this politically unstable period, local dynasts and tyrants established themselves in many parts of the disintegrating Seleucid kingdom, and southern Koile Syria is representative of the general pattern, though the activity in this small region was perhaps somewhat more vigorous than elsewhere, with more participants claiming their share of the spoils. Numismatically, this period is the start of the autonomous coinages all over the Seleucid kingdom and Judaea. Galilee is representative of the general pattern. Seleucid coins were still being minted and largely circulated in other parts of Syria, and the best-represented Seleucid mints in this period in Galilee are those of Damascus and Antioch. In 125 BCE Tyre started its copious autonomous coinage, followed shortly by Sidon (112 BCE). 68 'Akko-Ptolemais became free of Seleucid control roughly around 110 BCE, but did not proceed to mint silver as the other cities did, and its ‘autonomous’ era remains enigmatic (see part I, p.75). 68 For other cities that became independent of Seleucid rule and their eras see Kushnir-Stein 2001:43–44. 134 Hyrcanus I started minting the first Jewish autonomous coins very soon after 125 BCE (see part I, p.37). Nabatean and Iturean coins appeared in the region somewhat later in the period (see part I, p.86–87), though never common in Galilee or the Golan. As far as silver is concerned, the Autonomous sheqels of Tyre, and to a much lesser degree those of Sidon, formed now the currency, and these were accepted by the Jewish population as well, for lack of a Jewish alternative for silver (and see below, p.164). Towards the end of the period, there was hardly any minting activity in Judaea, excepting perhaps possible posthumous minting of Jannaeus type Ce by his successors (see p.116), though in Galilee the coins of the Phoenician cities were an alternative to Hasmonean coinage in non-Jewish teritories. To the south, neighboring Egypt still retained its closed system, and its influence in Palestine remained in the Phoenician weight silver from the Phoenician mints and now also from Ascalon, beginning in 103 BCE. As mentioned above, the Seleucid domains in northern Syria continued using the Seleucid coinage, with the partial influx of the newly autonomous coinages. In the Greek world there were no significant changes from the preceding period and even the kingdom of Pergamum, under Roman rule from 133 BCE, retained its unique monetary system. The Early Roman Period (63 BCE–70 CE) A period of 134 years, in which many political changes took place, the most important being the establishment of the Roman principate.69 With the conquests of Pompey in 63 BCE and the administrative reorganizations of Gabinius in 55 BCE, direct Roman rule effectively began in Palestine. With it came also the refounding of many of the cities that had been devastated by Hyrcanus I and 69 An excellent overview of the numismatics of this period is the introduction to RPC1. 135 Jannaeus, some of which started issuing coins, albeit in small quantities, within a few years, counting a Pompeian era. Among them were Gadara, Hippos and NysaScythopolis in- and around Galilee. 70 These coinages, apart from being a manifestation of autonomy, probably served to supply an urgent need for currency which, in Samaria and Judaea at least, was otherwise available at the time as Hasmonean coinage only. Hasmonean coinage was now only briefly and sparsely minted under Antigonus, for whom only two coins have been published from Galilee, from Yodefat and Bet She’an (Ariel 1998b: 132–133). The first colonial coinage of the region, that of Ptolemais, appeared under Nero and imperial issues of Antioch, starting under Augustus also arrived, but in general Phoenician coins were still dominant. At Jewish sites, in addition to Hasmonean coins still circulating coins of Herod, Agrippa I and the procurators now predominated, as well as the coins of Antipas and Philip, sons of Herod. Coins of Philip (minted in Paneas-Caesarea Philippi) are found mainly in his tetrarchy, in which the Jews were a minority. Few of the autonomous Jewish coins minted in Jerusalem during the Great revolt arrived to Galilee and the Golan. The Jewish silver sheqels were based on the Phoenician standard, and their ephemeral character did not make any lasting impression on coin circulation in Palestine in general, and in Galilee in particular. The silver was still mainly supplied by Tyre, though towards the close of the period, probably in 66 CE71, the inferior ‘eagle’ tetradrachms of Antioch brought their minting to an end. As will be shown below, (p. 244) in this period, in contrast to the previous one, the circulation pattern of Jewish coins was not only one of preference. 70 71 For the corrected Pompeian eras of all the Palestinian cities see now Stein 1990:169–170. The latest recorded sheqel is dated 64/5 CE. See n.32. 136 The outbreak of the Great Revolt seems to have initiated a substantial minting at 'Akko-Ptolemais, Dora, Hippos, Sepphoris, Caesarea, Nysa-Scythopolis, Gerasa, Gadara and Damascus, though the reasons for this are not clear (RPC 1: 585). Nabatean coins, though plentiful under Aretas IV (9 BCE–40 CE) are not found in any quantities in the north, even though the Golan bordered on Nabatean territory, Gamla being an exception (see part I, p.87). The question of the need for authorization of the local provincial coinages by the Romans is still open. I think that there can be no question that all minting, both silver and bronze, had to be authorized from now on in some way by the Romans, though it is not clear how deeply they were involved in the actual details. RPC 1 (p.3) believes that permission was required in every case, but Johnston (1985:103) claims that any system of control must have become unworkable as the provincial issues proliferated. It is speculated that the mint outputs were regulated, but the choice of types was left to the cities, and even the presence or absence of the emperor’s portrait was largely a matter of choice and did not imply a different system; in Syria and Phoenicia the portrait was adopted fairly late in the reign of Augustus, and even then civic issues without an imperial portrait (the so-called ‘pseudo-autonomous Greek Imperials’) continued concurrently, as at Tyre, where portraits of the emperor appeared only after the establishment of the colony in c. 198 CE (RPC 1:39–42).72 The partial ‘Romanization’ of coinage was well under way by now all over the empire, but not in all aspects. The Romans were happy in most cases to adopt the local monetary system, and so local provincial coinages vary widely in their nature. In Egypt the closed system continued under the Romans, only the types and portraits 72 On the lack of portrait on the Tyrian sheqels see also p.164. 137 changing for both silver and bronze.73 At the other extreme, in the western provinces (Spain, Gaul, Italy) local coinage ceased altogether under Caligula and Claudius, probably as a politically motivated move; these provinces subsequently used Roman imperial coinage (RPC 1: 19). Between these two extremes, Greece, Asia Minor and Syria adapted in different ways. The Roman denarius dominated the silver currency as far east as Greece and Cyrenaica, in Asia Minor denarii circulated alongside local silver, and in Syria the local silver predominated (ibid., p.6), such as the Tyrian sheqels, the coinage of Antioch and several smaller mints (see list in RPC 1:13). This pattern in Egypt and Syria implies that these coinages were at least in part made to satisfy local needs, civil and military (ibid., p.8). Roman Republican denarii are extremely rare in Palestine (N. Ahipaz, unpublished seminar paper), and imperial denarii make their appearance only late in the period, and not in great numbers — a notable exception being the ‘Isfiyya hoard dating to the time of the Great Revolt, close to 70 CE, which contained 160 denarii of Augustus (Kadman 1965). These arguments also show that in the Roman Empire monetization was neither uniform, nor complete, and the supply of silver varied from region to region (Duncan-Jones 1999:79). It is probable that in Syria, and thus in Galilee as well, Roman units of account were adopted in this period, as implied by references in the New Testament and in later rabbinic texts (Howgego 1984–85) but there does not seem to be enough evidence for the actual use of such denominations at large. These probably did occur, but alongside older denominations, based on local and Greek systems (RPC 1:587–588).74 73 The coinage of Roman Egypt, though of a closed economy, did reach beyond the boundaries of Egypt in various interesting ways. See Burnett 2002. 74 For a recent attempt to sort out the various denominational systems and units of account in Palestine the Hellenistic-Roman period, see Weiser and Cotton 1996. 138 The circulation pattern of Roman imperial bronze was similar largely to that of the silver, though some major centers, notably Antioch in Syria and Caesarea in Cappadocia, produced imperial bronzes for circulation in wide areas of the eastern provinces, and the products of Antioch are often found in Galilee and the Golan as well. Yet the most striking feature of the bronze coinages of the period is the local provincial coinages, reaching about a hundred mints under Augustus (the bulk of them in the province of Asia), and doubling in the following period.75 The end of the period was chosen to coincide with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE.76 This date had dire consequences for the Jewish nation, but was also an abrupt breaking point in the nature of local coin supply in Palestine, with the end of true Jewish coinage and the procuratorial coinage that was made for Jewish use. The Middle Roman Period (70–c. 256 CE) A period of c. 185 years.77 The Great Revolt brought about great political changes in Palestine in general, but Galilee emerged from it relatively unscathed. Galilee and the Golan were divided administratively between the province of Iudaea and the kingdom of Agrippa II until c. 100 CE, but this division did not materially impact monetary circulation. The coins of southern Phoenicia dominated again: those of Sidon, which issued provincial and civic issues up to the reign of Elagabalus, when it was made a colony, and those of Tyre, civic up to the reign of Septimius Severus, and colonial afterwards. In the Flavian period (69–96 CE) there was a severe reduction in the 75 The thorny question of local bronze denominations is far from solved. For a taster of the problems involved see RPC1:30–37, as well as Weiser and Cotton 1996. 76 The unique phenomenon of Masada, which fell only in 73 or 74 CE is not taken here into consideration. 77 Though somewhat outdated and inaccurate on some points, Sutherland 1967 offers a good overview of the whole period. The introduction to RPC 2 (Vespasian to Domitian) adds a few points relevant to the early part of the period. 139 number of mints and their output all over Palestine and Phoenicia, but from Trajan onwards coins from a host of new or renewed provincial mints were seen in circulation in Galilee, notably those of Paneas, Tiberias, Sepphoris, Scythopolis, Caesarea Maritima, Neapolis and Bostra, but others too, less prolific and further away. Silver denarii from the mint of Rome are more common in Palestine from the Flavian period onward, though they are scarce in site finds (only about 400 denarii are recorded in the Israel State Collections, most from hoards), and occasional copper alloy coinage of Rome itself is also found.78 The Bar-Kokhba revolt of 132–135 CE, which is so prominent in the numismatic record of Judaea, left no traces at all in Galilee. The last autonomous Nabatean coinage, that of Rabbel II (70–106 CE) did not reach Galilee and the Golan, but is accounted for in Judaea.79 The last phase of the period, from the reign of Septimius Severus onward is characterized by a great increase of the number of cities of Palestine and Arabia that produced coinage, including many coloniae. This minting was very irregular, characterized by closure and reopening of mints and outputs wildly varying from reign to reign, coupled with a great number of types. Bronze coinage had a far more important role in the later part of the period, as silver became scarce. The close of the period came when the much debated economic crisis of the third century overtook Palestine as well, and the influx of inferior billon antoniniani of the second half of the century from the imperial mints brought the provincial minting to a gradual end. Two of the mints that interest us specifically in this study, Tyre and 'Akko-Ptolemais were among the last to issue coins, down to the reign of Gallienus. Butcher (1996:110–111) has convincingly shown that the end of civic minting happened apparently by 255/6, 78 On some aspects of Roman coins circulating in the area, see Carradice and Cowell 1987; Butcher 1996; Duncan-Jones 1999. 79 As far as I am aware, a single coin of Rabbel is known from the north, from Kh. El-Beda in the northern Golan (site No. 23 below). 140 as no civic coins are known under the various usurpers whose ephemeral reign came after this date. In the Roman Empire in general, the early part of this period was the time of the pax Romana, and the period after 215 CE brought the incessant wars on the eastern frontier. The silver circulating in the Levant was mainly the base imperial tetradrachm minted in Antioch and at many other subsidiary mints, including Tyre Sidon and 'Akko-Ptolemais — until the reform that introduced the even baser antoninianus under Caracalla. This period saw the floruit of the copper alloy80 city coinages all over the provinces east of Italy, but especially in Asia Minor and the Levant. The phenomenon of the bronze provincial coinages has been succinctly stated by Burnett (1987b:60): ‘Exactly why a particular city chose to mint at a given time, and why its issue was of a particular size, is not clear. It is these two features of provincial coinage, its irregularity and the volatility of its scale of production, that have defied most attempts to find a single convincing general explanation for its issue. The coins themselves are of little help, as their inscriptions reveal little of the motives for their minting. The reasons seem to lie more in the realm of local rather than Roman needs.’81 One phenomenon that is apparently restricted to Asia Minor is that in the third century several central mints struck coins for a great number of cities (Kraft 1972), so that the ethnic on the coin does not always identify the mint. Fortunately this is not the case in Syria and Phoenicia. The end of the provincial coinages is variously interpreted. Butcher (1988:11; 1996:112) seems to be in a minority stating that their replacement by the antoniniani 80 This term indicates the varied physical makeup of these coinages: copper,bronze and brass (RPC1:xvii). 81 On the role of bronze coinage in the Roman economy see also Harl 1997. 141 “proved beyond doubt that the provincial coins were inferior and were sensibly crushed by the Roman imperial issues which brought simple order to a previously chaotic state of affairs”. Most scholars though, believe that the physically large provincial bronzes were intrinsically more valuable than the very thin and base antoniniani, and it was simply not worth producing them any more. 82 The Geographical boundaries of the study. The term ‘Galilee’ as used in this study should ideally reflect the geographical area included on an East-West axis between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river, and on a North-South axis between the Litani river in modern Lebanon in the north and the Carmel ridge, the Jezre’el and Bet She’an valleys in the south. To confuse matters, in the various historical periods referred to, the territory of Galilee had a different size and subdivisions. Thus, Western Galilee is a modern term, which includes the coastal plain as well as the foothills and first mountain ranges north of ‘Akko, an area that never was part of the historical Galilee. The terms Upper or Lower Galilee however, not only are used today, but were used by Josephus and the rabbinic literature as well, along the same division line as today (the Bet Hakerem valley just south of the Mt. Meron massif). In what follows, the context should usually clarify whether the reference is geographical or historical, but sometimes this is explicitly stated, as necessary. 82 For a different view see also Carson 1967. 142 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km Paneas HULA VA L L E Y 280 H 270 Western Galilee WESTERN M O U N TA I N S C O A S TA L PLAIN EASTERN M O U N TA I N S Golan JORDAN VA L L E Y Upper Galilee M T. MERON BLOCK M 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa B E T H A - K E R E M VA L L E Y Gamla 250 ‘AKKO PLAIN Lower Galilee Tiberias 240 Sepphoris Mt Karmel 230 Jezre’el Valley Lebanon-Israel International Border 220 Legio Nysa-Scythopolis 210 200 Map 4. Galilee and its geographical subdivisions (after Frankel et al. 2001). The geographical limits of the study to the north and east are, unfortunately limited to the modern political borders between Israel on one side, and Lebanon and Syria on the other, except for such meager excavation or hoard data that has been published, such as Oumm el-‘Amed for Galilee, and Sia‘ and Beirut for comparison purposes. To the south, the limit ia at the Jezre’el and Bet She’an valleys, the traditional borders of the historical Galilee. According to Josephus the Jezreel valley was not included in Galilee in his time, the border passing near Xaloth, at the foot of the Nazareth range (War 3.3.1 [§39]), rabbinic sources however state that in the Roman period the border was at Legio, near Megiddo (BT. Gitin 7.3; JT Bava Mezia 7.7). Bet 143 She’an and its immediate vicinity are included as well, because in the Hasmonean period it certainly formed a continuation of the Jewish Galilee, as evidenced also by the coin finds from the city itself and nearby sites (see below). Since Jewish settlement continued there until the Great Revolt and after, as evidenced by Josephus (War, passim.) and rabbinic sources, its inclusion is warranted throughout the chronological range of this study. Certainly in the Roman period, and most probably as early as latter part of Jannaeus’ reign, the central Golan was considered to be part of Galilee by the Jewish population making this area highly relevant for the study. This affinity of the Golan to Galilee is shown first in the main literary source of the period, Josephus, where he mentions ‘Judas the Galilean’ (War 2.8.1 [§118]) and then ‘Judas the Gaulanite, from a city whose name was Gamala’83 (Ant. 18.1.1 [§4]) and the fact that he himself was appointed by the Jerusalem council to be the governor of both Galilee and Golan (War 2.20.4 [§568]) and that he fortified Seleucia, Sogane and Gamala, all in the Golan (War 2.20.6 [§574]; Life 37). The rabbinic literature as well refers to Gamla as being in Galilee (Safra, Behar 4.1; BT ‘Arakhin 32.2–3). 84 From an archaeological perspective, Eric Meyers, studying Upper Galilean sites of H. Shema‘, Gush Halav and Meron, stressed the very strong geographical, administrative — and certainly cultural — ties of the Jews in Galilee to the Jews in the Golan (Meyers 1976:99–100). Ceramic evidence also tends to support the continuity between Golan and Galilee in the Second Temple and later periods (Adan Bayewitz 1993:247–249; idem. 2003; Meyers 1985: 127). 83 84 Not all accept this equation. For a different view see Smith 1971 and Goodman 1999:615. On other aspects of the Golan as part of Galilee, see Ben-David 1995. 144 The above conclusions do not hold for the northern Golan, a pagan and later Christian area, though its affinity to Phoenicia can be demonstrated in the Hellenistic through the Roman period (Hartal 2003, passim), becoming part of provincia Phoenice proper in the first century and is thus still relevant for inclusion in this study. The boundary of Phoenicia with the historical Galilee and the Golan — historical and archaeological evidence Phoenicia was never a fixed geographical entity, nor was it the sum of the territories of its constituent cities (Salles 1995:562–563). The ‘official’ territories of the various Phoenician cities are largely unknown, and changed with their changing fortunes. Pseudo-Scylax, writing in the fourth cemtury BCE, describes the entire Levantine coast as being dominated by the cities of souther Phoenicia, Tyre and Sidon. Thus for example, in the Persian period, Jaffa and Dora were Sidonian territory while Ascalon was Tyrian (Briquel-Chatonnet 1995:594–595). Of these, Dora was considered part of Phoenicia from the Pompey onward, but not as the territory of any of the Phoenician metropoleis. Within Galilee itself in the biblical period, H. Rosh Zayit, not far from ‘Akko, was a Phoenician fort in the Iron Age II, on the border of Tyrian territory, and possibly under control of that city (Gal and Alexandre 2000:199). Recent excavations at Qedesh in upper Galilee raise the possibility that in the Persian period it was either the administrative center for Tyrian control over the geographical Galilee (or parts of it) or an Achaemenid customs station on the border (Herbert and Berlin 2003:16, 53– 55). As the knowledge we possess today is too sketchy, no map is offered to supplement the following discussion on the boundaries. 145 The Ptolemaic Period (c. 301–200 BCE) In this period Galilee may have been a toparchy, as the name Galila is mentioned in the Zenon Papyri (Westerman and Hasenoehrl 1936:6–8) but the border between Phoenicia and Galilee is not attested in the sources and was in fact meaningless. The boundary between the territories of Tyre and the newly named Ptolemais passed probably somewhere between Akhziv and the ‘Ladder of Tyre’. The Golan as well was divided into several toparchies (Hartal 2003:208–209). In this period, as well as in the following one, the boundaries were administrative only and did not affect the little trade and commerce that there was between the two areas. The Seleucid Period (200–125 BCE) With the conquests of Antiochus III, 'Akko-Ptolemais served as the capital of the administrative unit of the paralia, i.e. the coastal strip, following the Ptolemaic administrative divisions. According to Bengtson (1964:158–179), who analyzed the mention of the various strategoi — governors and their domain in the ancient sources — mainly the book of Maccabees, Josephus and Polybius, as well as inscriptions — in 162 BCE a new internal district boundary was created along the coast, with its border at the Ladder of Tyre (at the point where the modern Israel-Lebanon border crosses the coastline). From this point in time Koile Syria, with its capital at ‘Akko Ptolemais ran from there south to Egypt — and Phoenicia extended north to the River Eleutheros. This conclusion was followed also by Le Rider (1995:392), though most researchers ignored it. As will be seen below (p.209), in 162 BCE coin circulation in Galilee changed quite dramatically, lending support to this suggestion. Galilee as such is not mentioned as a separate administrative unit, and in fact it was probably carved up between 'Akko-Ptolemais and Tyre (and possibly Sidon to a lesser 146 extent), as their agricultural chora and ‘backyard’. Likewise, the Golan was part of Koile Syria and Phoenicia and we have evidence of Phoenician influence there in the material culture and coin circulation (see below). The recent excavations at Qedesh, and especially the large cache of bullae found there, some with Phoenician inscriptions, prove that this area remained Phoenician— specifically Tyrian— in character. The excavations prove that it was a major administrative center in the Persian and Seleucid periods, possibly no less than the seat of government for an eparchy85 with strong ties to Tyre (Herbert and Berlin 2000; 2003). The Hasmonean Period (125–63 BCE) In this period the boundary is more significant, because of the creation of the Hasmonean state with its Jewish identity. The boundary between the territory of 'Akko-Ptolemais and Galilee in the early part of this period is probably marked along a line of forts in Western Galilee (Aviam 1989; Frankel et al. 2001:109). The border of Tyrian territory in Western Galilee may be marked by the life-size relief of a human figure carved on the northern cliffs of Nahal Keziv, marking the border between Tyre and the territory of 'Akko-Ptolemais, as Frankel et al. suggest (ibid.). The border between the Hasmonean kingdom and the territories of 'AkkoPtolemais and Tyre is thought by some to be reflected in the ‘Baraita of the Borders’, a rabbinic text whose main purpose is to define the limits of certain Jewish religious injunctions. For that reason its significance as an indicator of real borders is doubtful (Di Segni 1989). The passage, compiled in the Mishnaic period, is thought to reflect on the Hasmonean period, a time of a postulated heavy Jewish population on the 85 The actual subdivisions of the Seleucid satrapies is largely speculative. Sartre (1989:122) believes Galilee was such an eparchy, based on the ‘aia’ ending of Γαλιλαια. 147 coastal strip of Western Galilee up to Tyre —(Frankel et al. 2001:108, 111–113; p.112 Fig. 4.2; see also below, Map 5, p.149). 'Akko-Ptolemais itself was never part of the Hasmonean state, contrary to the implied border according to the Baraita. The numismatic finds (below) add a new point on the border of the territory of ‘Akko. Further east, the border between the Jewish Galilee and Tyrian territory was at Qedesh (Cadasa). The recently identified fort at Qeren Naftali, was apparently a Hasmonean outpost opposite Qedesh, from which it is only 4 km distant (Aviam 1997 and below, p. 226). The ‘Baraita of the Borders’ suggests a Jewish population north of Qedesh (idem.:112, Fig. 4.2, p.139), implying conquests of the Hasmoneans in this area too, though the existence of such a population has not been proven. In I Macc. 11.63–73 it is implied that Qedesh was not conquered by the Hasmoneans, and recent excavations there bear this out. The site was burned and abandoned in — or soon after — 145 BCE, but the Hasmoneans did not stay. There is not a single Hasmonean coin on the site and the subsequent and rapid revival of the site continues the same material culture as before (Herbert and Berlin 2000; 2003:54–55). In any event, Qedesh was a border site throughout its history (Herbert and Berlin 2003:16). Sometime during this period the northern Golan was inhabited mostly by Itureans, central Golan became Jewish (see part II, p.100), while the south was part of the chora of the city of Hippos. While there was no concrete boundary with Phoenicia, the influence of Phoenician material culture in the northern Golan and Hula valley is evident (see below, p.153) 148 The Early Roman Period (63 BCE–70 CE) Following the conquests of Pompey and the administrative reorganizations of Gabinius in 55 BCE, the Hasmonean state diminished considerably, and remained effectively only in areas of a significant Jewish population, creating in Galilee a cultural border. The territory of 'Akko-Ptolemais and thus of Phoenicia was extended southwards to include the head of Mt. Carmel, as far south as Dor (Josephus War 3.3.1 [§35]). Southeast of the city, Jewish Chabulon marked the border with Galilee (Josephus, War 2.18.9 [§503–504]; Life 43). At the time Herod was the governor of Galilee, some territories were seized there by 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km TYRE Paneas 280 QEDESH Golan 270 GUSH H A L AV BA QA ( P eq i in ) MEROT THELLA 260 P TO L EMA IS Upper Galilee H. BEER S H E VA K E FA R H A N A N YA ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa KABUL Gamla Lower Galilee 250 Tiberias 240 Sepphoris Mt Karmel 230 XALOTH Jezre’el Valley 220 Legio Nysa-Scythopolis 210 200 Lebanon-Israel International Border Baraita Border Josephus Border Map 5. The borders of Galilee according to the ‘Baraita’ and Josephus (after Frankel et al. 2001) 149 Marion, governor of Tyre, and returned in 42 BCE under instructions of Antony. By the time of Josephus, the Jewish territories had further receded, and only Eastern Upper Galilee and all of Lower Galilee and the central Golan were Jewish. A large number of farmsteads appearing in the mountains of Western Galilee are hesitantly attributed by Frankel et al. (2001:113) to an initiative of the newly founded colonia Ptolemais to settle veterans, implying that this area was in the city’s territory.86 In Upper Galilee, the border between Tyrian territory and Galilee apparently passed in Nahal Dishon (Frankel et al. 2001:111); Qedesh is again mentioned as ‘belonging to the Tyrians’ (Josephus, War 2.18.1 [§459]). The cultural border eventually became a political one under Herod and his sons, finally becoming the border between the provincia Iudaea created after the death of Agrippa I in 44 CE, and the provincia Syria. The territories ruled by Agrippa II were incorporated into Iudaea with the death of the king, c. 100 CE. The Middle Roman Period (70–c. 256 CE) This period saw the creation of the provincia Palaestina in 135 CE, which included all of Galilee and the Golan, except the area of Paneas. 'Akko-Ptolemais, Tyre and the territory of Paneas were now in the provincia Phoenice. The borders of the province with Phoenicia reflected the ethnic makeup of Galilee in the western part, while in the Golan it reflected the borders of the former territories of the Herodians. The border can be traced in the Hula valley by the distribution of certain pottery types (below), while in Upper Galilee its course is uncertain. In any event, these borders were to a large measure a crystallization of the cultural boundaries that had been in the making for the previous 250 years. 86 On the colonia of Ptolemais and the question of veteran settlement and its range, see Applebaum 1989. 150 Points of contact between Phoenicia and Galilee Historical sources87 Phoenicia as such is known to have been the source of several commodities that were exported — some widely, such as purple dye, glass, linen, metalwork, cedar wood, silver coins, and some in a more restricted zone, such as pottery and fish. These commodities are attested in the literary sources (the Bible, various Greek and Latin authors, Josephus and the rabbinic literature), in the archaeological record or in both. Galilee in turn exported produce, including olive oil, wine, grain, flax and slaves (in the Ptolemaic period, at least). Southern Phoenicia was poor in agricultural land and depended on Galilee as its agricultural hinterland. The dependence of Phoenicia on Galilee is reflected also in the episode when people of Tyre and Sidon tried to appease king Agrippa I because the livelihood of their land depended on it (NT, Acts 12.20). At least from the Hasmonean period onwards, the population of Galilee was a mixed one, of Syrians, Phoenicians and Jews. If we accept the continuity of Jewish presence in Galilee since the Assyrian deportations, then this mix began earlier. In the early Roman period this ethnic mix was observed and commented on by Strabo (16.2.34 § C760): “[The northern part is] inhabited in general ... by mixed stocks of people from Egyptian and Arabian and Phoenician tribes…they live mixed up thus” In the Hasmonean period certainly, the most prominent characteristic of the relations between the Jewish Galilee and the Phoenician cities was one of constant 87 The following has been culled from a few of a large number of works dealing with aspects of economy in Palestine, and does not pretend to be exhaustive. Recent works were preferred, as these usually include the main points of older research. Rather than bring a multitude of references, the section is presented summarily. Some of the works consulted are Freyne 1980; Stern 1981; Rappaport 1988; Kashtan 1989; Oppenheimer 1990; Dan 1990; Safrai 1990; Rappaport 1992b, 1993; Aviam 1994; Safrai S. 1994; Safrai Z. 1994; Stern 1995; Meyers 1997; Sperber 1998; Freyne 2000; Lapin 2001, Hartal 2003, Shatzman 2003. 151 animosity. The expansion of the Hasmonean state at the expense of 'Akko-Ptolemais, Tyre and Sidon caused resentment from these cities at their loss of a prime agricultural hinterland. 88 As there were no poleis in Galilee at this time, these Phoenician cities had carved up the land to serve their own agricultural needs. I Macc. (5.14–23) reflects this in the early days of the dynasty: “…messengers, with their garments torn, came from Galilee and made a similar report; they said that the people of Ptolemais and Tyre and Sidon, and all Galilee of the Gentiles had gathered together against them to annihilate us." In the Golan things were different. The Hasmonean kingdom bordered on the north with the Iturean principality, later to become the Paneas district, and the border was fixed by agreement and not war. The animosity between the Phoenician cities and Jewish Galilee persisted into the Roman period. In 42 BCE Antony ordered Tyre to return land taken from Jews in Galilee sometime earlier (Josephus, Ant.14.12.3–4 [§313–315]) and elsewhere Josephus remarks, in connection with Qedesh (Cadasa) that it was 'a strong Mediterranean village of the Tyrians, which always hated and made war against the Jews' (War 4.2.3 [§105]), and again ‘while of the Phoenicians it is known the Tyrians have been most of all in the same ill disposition towards us’ (contra Apionem 1.13). 'Akko-Ptolemais, with the help of Sidon, actively tried to oppose the advances of Jannaeus at the beginning of his rule (Ant. 13.12.2 [§329]).89 The grant of colonial status to 'Akko-Ptolemais in c. 54 CE no doubt partially served to better keep an eye on Jewish Galilee. 88 Of course this animosity was not restricted to Galilee, and as a generalization it can be said that the Hasmonean state was at war with the Hellenistic cities and the culture they represented. 89 Interestingly, Tyre is not mentioned as an adversary of Jannaeus in this passage, but it is claimed by Syncellus (ed. Dindorf, p.559) that he later (?) attacked Tyre and besieged it. There is no corroboration of this episode in any other source, and its historicity is doubtful; perhaps a mix-up has occurred with Alexander the Great’s campaign against Tyre. 152 Yet economically the ties continued, as this was advantageous for both sides. 'AkkoPtolemais served as an outlet to the produce of Galilee and the Jezreel valley, and there seems to have been a well-frequented, direct route between Tyre and Sidon on one hand and Upper Galilee, the Hula valley and Northern Golan on the other. Only in the early first century CE was there a change in these ties that were to last until the Great Revolt, to be discussed below. The rabbinic literature is full of passages referring to the economic interaction between Phoenicia and Galilee. These passages refer to the Roman period, when all three south Phoenician cities and the roads connecting them with Galilee appear to have seen much traffic of goods by the Jewish population of Galilee.90 Many Jews also lived in the Phoenician cities already in the first century CE, as we learn from Josephus (War 2.21.1 [§588]; Life 10), who refers to Jews of Tyre who came to fight alongside John of Gischala. This vigorous economic activity cannot have arisen overnight, and it is reasonable to assume that in some ways it is the continuation of the economic ties that began already in the Iron Age. In particular, noteworthy are the passages telling of large donkey caravans, frequent enough to call for religious injunctions (JT Demai 1.22.a; Tos. Demai 1.10). These caravans carried produce to Tyre and Sidon, but no doubt returned laden with supplies acquired there. The periodic fairs at 'Akko-Ptolemais and Tyre were apparently very central to the Galileans (JT Aboda Zara 1.4) and we hear of people even from Bet She’an who went to Tyre and Sidon (BT Pesahim 50.b). 90 Needless to say that the road system did not develop overnight, and is certainly not as late as the second century CE as has been claimed for long. See on this TIR:21 and Strange 1997:39–42. 153 Archaeology Contrary to historical sources that normally provide evidence by their very existence, the archaeological record can be useful also by examining not only the presence, but also the absence of classes of material culture. In recent years the archaeological evidence is well utilized to observe regional diversity and even to distinguish between different ethnic groups, based on their preference- or avoidance of certain elements of material culture. Pottery Phoenician semi-fine ceramic wares, apparently ‘made in Tyre’ and vicinity, as documented by Berlin (1997), show the area in which Phoenician ethnic elements in the Hellenistic period preferred this ware to others— along the coast and in the Hula valley. The Roman period successor of the semi-fine baggy jar is again found in the Phoenician areas of Western Galilee, but not inland (Frankel et al. 2001:63, 132; Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov 2002). In contrast, the Kefar Hananya and Shihin 91 wares, are found in the same period in Eastern Upper Galilee, Lower Galilee, the southern Hula valley — all Jewish at the time — and in Jewish Golan (idem.:64–65, 132; Adan Bayewitz 1993 and 2003; Aviam, forthcoming 1; Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov 2002; Avshalom-Gorni and Shaked, forthcoming). According to recent studies (Frankel et al.:61–62, 109–110, 132; Aviam, forthcoming 1), in the Hellenistic period, and probably earlier too, a third ethnic entity existed alongside Jews and Phoenicians in Galilee, one that is allegedly recognizable through its material culture remains in the form of a coarse, handmade pottery termed 91 For some reason the form ‘Shikhin’ is the more common one, but according to the official transcription rules it should be Shihin. 154 GCW (Galilean Coarse Ware). According to Aviam this population was pagan, nonPhoenician, but its ethnic identity remains at present unknown, though Ma‘oz (1986:163–165) suggested they were the Itureans. It should be added however that these conclusions rest at the moment on a single opinion.92 The northern Golan too could be distinguished by its pottery repertoire from the Jewish central Golan, and trade relations between the two regions appear accordingly to have been minimal. The Itureans can be traced from the Hellenistic period onwards through their unique pottery termed ‘Golan ware’, found in the Northern Golan. In the central Golan Kefar Hananya ware was dominant, arriving in small quantities to the northern Golan until the mid-second century CE, after which it was completely replaced by two new local pottery types: ‘Hawarit ware’ and ‘Paneas ware’ (Hartal 2003:134, 140). Another phenomenon concerning pottery and ethnic identity in Galilee has been studied recently by Berlin (2002). According to observations based on her work at Gamla, Paneas, Tel Anafa, Yodefat, and on published material93, a dramatic change occurred at Jewish sites in Galilee early in the first century CE. While in the first century BCE Jewish Kefar Hananya ware and Phoenician ESA (Eastern Sigillata A— a red slipped, fine tableware) is found side by side at Jewish and non-Jewish sites — incidentally indicating an effective road network and marketing system — following the death of Herod, ESA completely disappears from Jewish sites, its place taken by simple, local wares. Shihin type storage jars make their appearance at this time — but only at Jewish sites. This is a well-fired, thin walled bag shaped storage jar that was manufactured at Shihin (Asochis) near Sepphoris. At non-Jewish sites in Galilee and 92 93 The pages quoted from Frankel et al. are the work of Aviam as well. From Betsaida, Capernaum, Caesarea, Ramat Hanadiv, Samaria, Jerusalem, Jericho and Qumran. 155 Golan, both within Jewish domains (i.e. within Herodian territories there was a nonJewish population as well) and outside, ESA continues to be found, as well as Kefar Hananya wares, but no Shihin jars. This distribution implies that since no political barrier to commerce suddenly sprung up between Phoenicia and Herodian domains, the break was along ethnic lines: the Jews abruptly rejected Phoenician wares and the Syro-Phoenician population did not buy the commodities sold by Jews in Shihin jars. Precisely at this time also the limestone vessels and the knife-pared lamps appear at Jewish sites (see part II, pp.105, 115–121). While at first sight it would appear that the reasons for these changes are only religious, i.e. the Jews becoming more observant as far as purity was concerned, at the same time in Samaria (the region, not the city) and Judaea, while adopting the more stringent purity regulations, showy ESA ware is continued to be found at Jewish sites, indicating that in Galilee the causes were different. According to Berlin (forthcoming), this change is due to that “northern Jews, including residents at Gamla, chose to begin dining in a considerably more simple and communal manner, one quite different not only from their own parents and grandparents, but also from many of their contemporaries in Judea and especially Jerusalem …The adoption by northern Jews of a new and very simple style of group dining in part communicated disaffection from Roman mores” Thus ESA wares were rejected not because they were Phoenician, but because they were serving vessels, which did not fit in with this new style of dining. The coin circulation patterns in this period could also be interpreted in this way, but other interpretations are possible as well (see below, and p. 237 f.). Beginning in the Roman period, another cause arose that might account for material culture differences. Customs duties levied on merchandise crossing the provincial borders (Dinur 1990:142) made the export of certain goods, pottery apparently 156 included, not profitable. For Galilee these duties started with the creation of the provincia Iudaea (6 CE, enlarged in 44 CE), that included a border through the geographical Galilee, and for the Golan around 100 CE, when the Paneas area was detached from Judaea and attached to Syria94 (Hartal 2003:142). Burial customs Burial patterns also differ considerably between the Phoenician-influenced areas (the coastal plain, Western Galilee, and the far-Upper Galilee) on one hand, and the Jewish Lower and Upper Galilee on the other. For the Late Persian-Early Hellenistic period, Phoenician influence exists, but is rare in the excavated material.95 Cypro-Phoenician pottery grave goods were found as far south as Migdal Ha-‘Emeq, at the northern side of the Jezreel Valley, dated to the late fourth century BCE (Syon 1998). A single Phoenician cremation burial from the Hellenistic period is known from all of Galilee. An alabaster urn and many pottery vessels were discovered at Kh. Buda, in Western Galilee foothills, dated to the end of the third–beginning of the second century BCE. Phoenician influence is seen also in inscribed, gabled tombstones from the Hellenistic period found in the coastal plain, in Roman period sarcophagi groups found in the Western and northern Upper Galilee (in present day south Lebanon), near Qedesh and on the fringes of the northern Hula valley, which are practically identical to sarcophagi in the cemetery of Tyre, and lead coffins from the workshop of Sidon. Beginning in the Roman period, some customs were shared between Jews and pagans, such as the use of sarcophagi, coffins and mausolea, though differences can On Philip’s death in 34 CE, his tetrarchy was attached for a very short period to the province of Syria, only to be given to Agrippa I in 36/7 CE by Gaius (Ant. 18 4.6 [§108], 6.10 [§235–237]; War 2, 9.6 [§181]). On the death of Agrippa I in 44 CE the whole of his kingdom was again made part of Syria (War 2, 11.6[§218–222]). In 53 CE Philip’s domains were given to Agrippa II (Ant. 20, 7.1 [§137–138]; War 2, 12.8 [§247–249]). Sometime late in the reign of Agrippa II, or at his death, parts of his domains were detached and put under direct Roman rule: Paneas, Hauran, Trachonitis and Batanea to Syria, and Gaulanitis to Judaea (Hartal 2003:266–267). 95 The discussion on burial customs is based largely on a paper by Aviam (forthcoming 2), who graciously allowed me to use the material. 94 157 be observed in their details, based on the Jewish religious imperative of abstaining from figurative art. In the second–third centuries CE96, small finds can be indicative of ethnicity: Phoenician burials contain many coins, glass vessels (especially bowls) and metal bracelets, while in Jewish tombs lamps (many with a broken discus), pottery and ossuaries (up to the early third century) predominate (Barag 1986; Aviam and Syon 2002; Getzov and Stern forthcoming). The circulation of coins of Southern Phoenicia in Galilee and the Golan — the state of research. This section will examine historical references on coin circulation and current scholarship about the interpretation of coin finds, with special attention to relevance for the area under discussion. While silver coins traveled well, being accepted practically everywhere because of their intrinsic value97, bronze coins usually needed a good reason to travel far from their source, except for the products of some of the major mints (see above, p.138). Indeed, the minting place of otherwise unidentified coin types is often suggested by the area where the majority of that type has been found. Naturally, single coins, even ‘exotic’ ones, can turn up almost anywhere and should not receive undue attention and speculation.98 96 At present there is no archaeological evidence at all in Galilee that can shed light on Jewish burial customs of the Hasmonean and Early Roman (pre 70 CE) periods. 97 An exception was in Ptolemaic controlled areas, where non-Ptolemaic currency was strictly not allowed to circulate; silver would be taken by the authorities and re-struck. For Egypt this policy continued even in the Roman period. On the other hand, Seleucid and Ptolemaic silver, for example, is well attested in Peloponnesian hoards (Hackens 1968). 98 A recent example is a first century BCE coin of Gadara found in Tall Knedij in northern Syria, on the ribs of a corpse. Heidemann and Noeske (2001) argue that it arrived to Mesopotamia by soldiers, which may or may not be the case. Such arguments for a single coin are irrelevant. The very worn coin was most likely placed in the grave because it was worthless, possibly as Charon’s obol. See also Marcellesi 2002:29, trying to instill historical meaning into single coins found in Alexandria. 158 Unknown bronze coins would be usually treated with suspicion, and they could travel far in quantity only when minted by a central government and under special circumstances: a. Coins consigned to supply various areas of the country. b. Similar types produced at different mints, so they would be recognized and acceptable far from their source. c. Coins traveling with the army and spent far from the mint. When none of the above applies, some other explanations have to be sought. It is customary to speak of an ‘economic sphere of influence’ of a city, which assumes that coins of a city that minted bronze coins, would be found only — or predominantly — in its chora, i.e. its agricultural hinterland and the villages which were administratively subordinate to it. Yet there is no question that the coins of the three Phoenician cities under discussion, Sidon, Tyre and ‘Akko-Ptolemais reached much farther afield than their chora, a phenomenon addressed in this study. Studies of monetary circulation are mainly of two types: one analyzes the source of coins found at a given site, and the second analyzes regional patterns, based on coin finds at various sites. The first kind relies primarily on excavation data, stray finds and possible hoards found at a site, while the second type has relied mainly on hoard data, and less on excavation evidence and stray finds.99 As the majority of hoards in the periods discussed are o precious metal, such studies often miss the ‘local picture’, involving the bronze coinage. A pertinent observation on the difference between hoards and site finds was made by Butcher (1988:28): 99 The work of Elayi et Elayi (1993) discussed above deviates from this and counts also spot finds, stressing their importance. A diverse (and often entertaining) collection of papers dealing with coin circulation in Roman Britain, based mostly, but not exclusively, on hoards is Casey and Reece 1988. 159 “Casual loss should represent a random sample of what was in circulation, with a bias in favour of low-value coins that no-one was prepared to spend much time on recovering. The hoarder on the other hand, had some criterion for choosing the coins he did – either taking the worthless junk from the bottom of his purse or the sum of his savings in high value coin, but rarely the two mixed together. … The selectivity of hoards and the accident of their loss makes them of less use in studying circulation than coins dropped in the marketplace.” Military actions and troop movements are considered to have had an impact on coin circulation. Payments to soldiers could arrive from a central mint or coins could travel with mercenaries (and enter the local economy), but in general mostly silver coins are considered in this respect. Anomalous concentrations of bronze coins, far from their mint, are usually associated with troop movements as well (Butcher 1988:27). Mint output is also expected to affect the circulation and frequency of coins found. We have no historical evidence of mint outputs, so reliance on coin finds to estimate it should be used with caution. Silver coins especially could— and often were— melted and restruck, so that a very large issue may have left only a small number extant today.100 It is most often assumed that in an open monetary economy it was the trade patterns that were mainly responsible for monetary circulation and vice versa—that coins found at a site or region by necessity reflect the trade patterns of that site or region. Below follow a few views on this, later to be discussed in light of my findings. Such an action can be suggested if a large number of dies can be identified for a small number of extant coins. For Ptolemaic Egypt we have an explicit reference in the Zenon papyri to the practice of melting foreign coins and supplying foreign merchants with local silver in exchange (Select Papyri II.409). Studies addressing the reasons for minting also exist, but do not concern us here. See lately Howgego 1990. 100 160 Hanson (1980:53) assumed that the people of Upper Galilee traded exclusively with Tyre. Some later works somewhat mitigated this sweeping statement, such as Meyers (1985:124–125), who concedes that other coins found indicate trade with other regions, but still equates coins with trade exclusively. The Roman period has received disproportionate attention in relation to earlier periods, primarily due to the interest of New Testament scholars, and the availability of the rabbinic sources. Based mostly (but not exclusively) on coin finds, we find the following diverse statements: “It is obvious that some residents of Upper Galilee/Golan chose to trade via those gentile cities which encircled it and influenced trade and economy. Chief was Tyre, whose influence is disproportionately well reflected in the coins found in both Galilees” (Meyers 1997:58) and “The definitive urban influence in this region, especially in the north (near Meron, Gush Halav, and H. Shema‘) is Tyre” (idem.:61). and “ [Based on ceramic and architectural material], the southern extent of Tyrian influence is the Nazareth ridge. The areas west of this line fell into the cultural and economic orbit of ‘Akko” (idem. 62). Z. Safrai, speaking of the Roman period after 70 CE states:101 “ Finding foreign coins in the Land of Israel and coins from the Land of Israel abroad might serve as a good indication of foreign trade, as well as of those countries engaging in commerce with the land of Israel (1994:399–400).” Further on (ibid.) he states, based on several hoards from Galilee that Safrai’s section ‘Numismatic Evidence’ (pp.399–404) should be used with caution; the numbers of coins he quotes are often incorrect, and the totals of the percentages add up to over 100%. He uses bronze city coins and provincial silver tetradrachms indiscriminately, even after having stated (p.399) that for imperial coins, the mint which supplied them was of no economic implications and was related only to matters of administration. 101 161 “Most of the trade and commerce in the rural sector of Northern Israel was with cities outside the Land of Israel.” Finally, on p. 402 he reiterates Meyers’ opinion: “It is logical to suggest that the large number of Tyrian coins [in Galilee] simply reflects the great amount of trade with that city” Horsley (1995:11) is among the first to question the absolute validity of the equation coin circulation=trade patterns, though on the wrong grounds: “It seems highly unlikely that one can move directly from the incidence of Tyrian coinage to trade with Tyre. … Overland trade was expensive”. This statement concerns the middle Roman period, when overland trade is actually very well attested in the rabbinic literature and appears to have been widespread. Lapin (2001:119) also raises questions in this regard: “The connection between the distribution of coins and "markets" is far from simple, but the extent that coins circulated or were hoarded at the village level seems a rough index of the extent to which at least some members of the village population made use of money either for storing wealth or for exchange” Along a different line, Goodman (1983:133), speaking of the Middle Roman period (132–212 CE), tends to see very little interaction between the ‘self sufficient’ villages of Galilee and the cities therein, and believes that he underscores this view by stating that: “It would seem that even villages in the immediate vicinity of Sepphoris and Tiberias felt no necessity to rely on the coinage of those cities, but preferred the products of Tyre and elsewhere” In the Levant, in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, silver was the most common currency in the monetary economy for large and medium scale economic transactions. 162 Bronze nevertheless figured prominently, especially on the local level. Harl (1997:225) believes that Rome succeeded in monetizing the markets of her entire empire, but barter economy also did exist at varying levels in the different periods (Duncan-Jones 1999:62). Safrai (Z. Safrai 1994:302) actually questions the extent of monetary transactions as late as the Talmudic period. In the Hellenistic period however, the share of barter and subsistence economy was no doubt greater. A rapid economic change is postulated for Palestine in the Herodian period by Freyne (2000), seeing increased specialization and more sophisticated exchange mechanisms, and hence a more widespread use of money. According to him, this change, induced by Roman rule, was fully felt only from the reign of Antipas onward. Kelly (2001) attempts to show that the use of small change (i.e. copper alloy coins) distinguishes urbanized societies with an extensive division of labor from autarkic ones. According to this, in subsistence economies monetary transactions are few and large, so silver is sufficient to take care of these. In such societies, the incentive to produce small change is low. Conversely, as soon as a marked division of labor exists, people need to make small and frequent purchases, for which small change is needed. Thus, increased circulation of bronze coinage is an indication of increased urbanization, but not necessarily of monetization, which may have existed beforehand. The moneychangers attested in the New Testament and the rabbinic literature102 dealt chiefly in breaking up silver into smaller change and back again into silver, but apparently also converted ‘international’ currency. The institution existed in rural E.g. John 2.14–15; M. Bava Mezia 4.4–6; M. Ma‘aser Sheni 4.2; M. Shavuot. 7.6; Tos. Ma‘aser Sheni 3.2; Tos. Sheqalim 1.5., JT Yevamot 16.4 (83.2). 102 163 areas as well, but it functioned chiefly in the cities where the fairs were held and ‘big money’ was to be found. An interesting reference is found in Tos. Sheqalim 2.13, where a merchant from far away, who supplied the Temple in Jerusalem with wine, oil or cereals, would ask to be paid in the currency of his own country, but is paid instead by the Temple authorities in whatever currency happens to be handy. If he wishes, he could then go to a moneychanger and convert his money into his own currency, since in Jerusalem many currencies were available. Unfortunately, we cannot tell whether this passage refers to silver coinage, bronze, or both. The role of bankers in the diffusion and circulation of money in connection with tax collection is well attested in the Karanis (Egypt) Papyri from the Roman period (summary in Harl 1997:226). They would take the small change from taxpayers, convert them to silver (billon tetradrachms in the case of Roman Egypt) which they would pass on to the provincial authorities and would return some of the silver and all the bronze to the market hungry for small change in meeting the costs of the administration. The exchange of currency could have been accomplished, in addition to interprovincial trade, also by way of local trade, fairs and local markets, which are well documented in Galilee in the Roman period (Lapin 2001:130–133), but no doubt existed to some extent already earlier, so that coins from different mints need not have arrived at a site directly from the mint and do not necessarily reflect on trade connections specifically with that site. This is especially true in cities, with their large turnover of people from outside. Thus, size and complexity make urban centers relatively poor archaeological indicators of currency in a region; rural sites with substantial coin finds are far better. 164 Probably the superlative example to the interaction between Phoenicia and Palestine in the late Hasmonean and Early Roman periods was the Tyrian silver sheqel. From simply a reliable means of payment it eventually became central and essential to the complex mechanism of the Jewish Temple tax collection.103 There can be no question that its high purity was instrumental to this choice, but, as Butcher astutely observes (1996:105), there was simply no other silver coinage circulating in the area, the Antiochene tetradrachms belonging, until the reign of Nero, to a different currency system. The sheqel was accepted, notwithstanding the graven image of Melqart impressed on it, as the Jews had no silver coin of their own until the Great Revolt. 104 The speculation by RPC 1 (p.584) that Tyre did not adopt the imperial portrait on its sheqels in the Roman period because the Jewish preference to aniconic coinage should not be pressed any further. The Jews were indeed apparently the best ‘customers’ of this coinage, and if the blatantly pagan head of Melqart did not deter them, neither would have an imperial portrait. The 95% pure sheqels were eventually replaced by the more base (c. 79%) tetradrachms of Antioch, minted under Nero, with a short time span (c. 60–66 CE) when the two circulated side-by-side, as illustrated by the hoard from Gamla (above, part I, p.67) and the hoard from Dominus Flevit, where Sheqels of the Jewish war, Tyrian sheqels and one Neronian eagle tetradrachm were found together in a tomb (Spijkerman 1961).105 In regions where local silver and denarii of greater intrinsic 103 As Liver (1963:186–190) has convincingly shown, the institution of the half sheqel tax cannot be earlier than the late Hasmonean period. This institution became so strong that some of the sages in rabbinic literature thought that it was a direct continuation of the biblical regulation in Exodus 30.11 (idem.). 104 The view of Meshorer (1984) that beginning under Herod and until the great Revolt the Tyrian sheqels were minted in Jerusalem is maintained also in his new work (TJC:73–78), though no one else seems to accept this view. For strong arguments against this theory, see Levy 1993, 1995 and Weiser and Cotton 2002:235–243. 105 Another hoard showing the simultaneous circulation of Jewish War coins, eagle tetradrachms and Tyrian sheqels is discussed by Meshorer 1985b. 165 worth circulated together there must have been some legal compulsion to accept the two coins together (Burnett 1987:88). In our case, the sheqels were withdrawn and replaced by the ‘eagle’ tetradrachms as a matter of policy (RPC 1:607), a process that would have happened anyway when ‘bad money drives out good’ according to economic principles. The choice of the eagle as type for these baser tetradrachms, though stylistically resembling the Roman aquila must have been a deliberate solicitation of the trust of the consumer for a new product that replaces an old favorite.106 The deep penetration of the Tyrian sheqels into the consciousness of the population of the area is shown by the many references to it in the rabbinic literature, composed at least a century after the sheqels ceased to be produced. 107 The term ‘Tyrian silver’ is used on three inscriptions from Gerasa dated to the first century CE (Welles 1938:374 ff.). It is applied to the ‘eagle tetradrachms’ in a late second century debt document found in the Murabba‘at caves (De Vaux 1961:240, No.114). It is even used in three papyri found at Dura Europos in the mid-Euphrates area (Baur 1931:211; Rostovzeff 1936:425, 429), also from the second century and also applied to the then current eagle tetradrachms of (mainly) Antioch. The term is also used in the ketubba of Babatha, from the famous archive found in the Judaean desert caves, and which dates to 125 CE (Yadin et al.1994:90–91).108 Another aspect possibly affecting patterns of monetary circulation is the rivalries between the Phoenician cities themselves. In the period following Alexander the Great’s conquests, 'Akko-Ptolemais no doubt gained in power at the expense of Tyre, which resisted Alexander and at least to some extent suffered damages consequently. When Tyre eventually started minting the base tetradrachms under the Severans, they also carried the eagle; this was interpreted by Sutherland (1967:94) as copying the old Antiochene design. This may be true, but in fact the Antioch designs from the time of Nero were modeled on the original Tyrian sheqels! 107 For a sampling see Meshorer 1984 and TJC:73–78. 108 See now also in Yadin et al. 2002:113, 126–127, 162–163. 106 166 In the early Seleucid period, 'Akko-Ptolemais received another boost in its status, being in a favorable position: close, but not too close to Ptolemaic Egypt. It became the seat of the governor of the paralia district. This is the only period after Alexander the Great when 'Akko-Ptolemais minted silver 109 , and not surprisingly, the first Phoenician standard silver was minted here, under Antiochus V. Eventually Tyre recovered its leading economic role, and from 125 BCE its silver sheqels were the preferred currency for some 190 years in a wide area. While 'Akko-Ptolemais was affected more directly by the Hasmonean expansions and thus was more involved with Galilee and the Jews in the Hellenistic period, by the Roman period we hear of Tyre and 'Akko-Ptolemais figuring about equally in the rabbinic literature. Sidon appears to have taken a third place in its interactions with Galilee all along, but its influence was great south of Galilee in the Persian period, and possibly later. We have seen that in the Persian period its coinage circulated more in Samaria and Judaea, and that the coastal strip from Dora southwards was mostly colonized by Sidon. The inscriptions mentioning a Sidonian colony in Marisa (Peters and Tiersch 1905: 37–40) and at Yavneh-Yam in the time of Antiochus V and earlier (Isaac 1991) signals its influence in the Hellenistic period, as does the letter to Antiochus IV by the ‘Sidonians in Shechem’ referred to by Josephus (Ant. 12.5.5 [§258–264]). In Upper Galilee we have a reference to Sidon from the Biblical period, when it is implied that the Dan area was Sidonian territory (Judges 18.28). Josephus (Ant. 18.6.3 [§153] ) mentions a boundary dispute between Damascus and Sidon in the time of Tiberius, which could imply that Sidon was, in fact influential in this area.110 109 110 The single silver civic issue (Seyrig 1962a, No.10) was minted under Seleucid domination too. A.H.M. Jones (1931:266) takes this passage and interprets it as if the Iturean principality was divided up between Tyre, Sidon, Berytus and Damascus by Augustus in 24 BCE. In his later work (1971:287 ) he states that in the Byzantine period this arrangement was still in force, when some 167 To sum up, some historical sources, archaeological evidence and their current interpretation were looked at, as well as some differing conceptions of what coin circulation means and how coin finds should be interpreted. In addition, we brought some rabbinic references that might bear on coin circulation. Below, I will attempt to relate to these various theories and conceptions in light of the actual coin distribution patterns observed. Methodology and basic assumptions The present study is of the second kind, i.e. it analyzes a region. It relies predominantly on excavation data and site finds, and less on hoards, though these are considered as well. Silver hoards were considered independently, but bronze hoards were counted in with site finds, as these reflect local circulation well. Single silver coins were counted with site finds. The source for the data The data for this part was culled from several sources: 1. Published material. 2. The Israel state collections: a. Material without publishing rights, courtesy of the IAA state collections and coin department. b. Excavation material that was provided to me courtesy of the excavators and the numismatists studying and preparing the coins for publication at the IAA coin department. villages around the foot of Mt. Hermon apparently answered to the bishop of Tyre, implying, that they still belonged to Sidon. Seyrig (1951:28) quotes Jones on this. 168 c. Coins from excavations and surveys from Galilee and the Golan, which are studied and prepared for publication by myself. 3. Private collections. 4. Kibbutz collections in Galilee. This last category especially was found to be very valuable, as it represents many years of coin collecting in the vicinity of the kibbutz and its agricultural lands. Some of the collections were found neatly arranged and catalogued, but others were found in a state less than desirable. In some cases the coins were found partly cleaned or not at all, and the identifications were done by me on the spot. Only certainly provenanced coins were taken into consideration, and those that could be identified with a chronological resolution sufficient for the present study. The Ptolemaic coins especially were difficult to deal with in this respect, as these are notoriously difficult to fully identify under the best of circumstances, so unless the collections were reliably catalogued, the ‘field identification’ often consisted of only identifying the Tyrian club or the monogram of ‘Akko-Ptolemais on the reverse. In some cases the numismatic material was so rich, that some tentative historical conclusions could be arrived at concerning the site, even if it had never been excavated or surveyed. Technical method The main product of the study is a set of maps, showing the distribution of the coins of Sidon, Tyre and 'Akko-Ptolemais in Galilee in the periods in question, and a discussion on their interpretation. As an unavoidable but extremely interesting ‘spinoff’, the distribution of Jewish coins in the Hasmonean and Early Roman period is also presented. 169 1. The numismatic material collected was entered into a relational database program by site, first as raw data including details of individual coins, and then as groups by period, indicating the minting authority, the mint and quantity of coins. Several simplifications were made to facilitate the manipulation of data: a. Coins with no clear date visible, and which might belong to more than one chronological period, were placed in the period where there was a majority of dated coins of similar type. For example, a Tyrian galley type with illegible date might belong to period 3 or 4. If at a certain site there were more dated coins of similar type in period 3 than 4, the undated coin would be assigned to period 3 on strength of probability. For large numbers of such undated coin, they were divided proportionally between the two relevant periods. b. Coins with mint or date completely unknown were ignored. c. When the mint was uncertain, but was either Tyre or Sidon, the coin was attributed to the more heavily represented mint of the two at the site. For large number of such coins, they were divided proportionally between the two mints. d. In periods 4 and 5, the coins of Agrippa II were treated as city coins and not as Jewish coins. 2. Data from selected sites in each period was converted to percentages, showing the number of coins by which each mint/minting authority is represented at a given site as a percentage of the total number of coins for that period. The selection of sites was based on ignoring sites with either single coins or with coins only of ‘other mints’. For periods 3 and 4 however, sites containing Hasmonean or Jewish coins were retained entirely, even if they contained a single coin. 3. The data was linked through old Israel Grid map references to a GIS program, showing the sites at their accurate position on the map, either as a dot, or as a 170 miniature pie chart showing the percentage of coins of each mint at that site, for the relevant period. 4. Finally the maps were imported to a vector graphics program to visually enhance them. No rigorous statistical methods were used, as it was felt that the widely varying quality and quantity of coins from each site would not give meaningful results through such analyses. There are sites with hundreds of coins and sites with a single coin. Needless to say, the data is only a sample of the ‘population’ of coins in antiquity, reflecting not so much a random sample, which statistically could be thought as giving a fair representation of the population, but rather a fortuitous assemblage of sites, dependent on the availability of excavation data, local collections, my ability to locate the collectors through personal connections and the willingness of the collectors to share the information. Thus, some areas, such as the Western and Upper Galilee and the Bet She’an valley have a much denser coverage than Lower Galilee and the fringes of the Jezre’el valley, certainly not reflecting any reality of antiquity, but pure chance. The apparent ‘white spots’ in the plain of ‘Akko and the central Jezre’el valley are of course due to their being prime agricultural land, with very few sites within them. Another problematic factor is the use, in any one period, of coins from previous periods; in other words, coins that circulated for decades. In part II of this study it was shown for Gamla (pp. 109, 116) that old coins continued to circulate, sometimes for extended periods, but as a rule this factor could not be separated out in a study of this scope, partly because of the lack of stratigraphic data for most of the sites and partly because it would have made the presentation very cumbersome. Thus, for each period 171 the coins discussed are those that were minted and presumably arrived at the site in the period. Lastly, it should be obvious that large cities introduce a distortion of the observed patterns, as by their nature there was in them a larger turnover of people and coins than at rural sites. The patterns of circulation arrived at in Galilee were compared to some wellpublished sites outside of Galilee as a way of control and comparison. Most of these sites are urban sites (Pella, Samaria, Dora, Jaffa), some rural (H. ‘Eleq, H. ‘Aqav, Bet Zur) and two cult sites (Sia‘, Mt. Gerizim). The Sites The 196 entries in the site list include 182 specific sites in Galilee, one hoard associated with a specific site (52a), two hoards from broadly defined areas (133a, 152a) one entry of stray finds from a smaller area (153a) and ten sites from outside of Galilee. The list of sites includes a very brief summary, including name, map reference, number of coins and their source, and published references when available. To allow for as complete a picture as possible, account is given of coins found at the site that are later than the periods covered by the study, e.g. pre-Alexandrine (fourth c. BCE), Late Roman, Byzantine, Islamic and Medieval coins. When available, a general reference about for excavations at the site is included as well, if it reflects on the Hellenistic-Roman periods. The list of sites is followed by a conspectus of coins, according to periods and mints, at a resolution suitable for this study. A fully detailed inventory of the coins is not given, because of considerations of space and because many of the coins still await full publication and the information given to me was on condition that it be used as statistics only. 172 173 1. H. Nuha. Map ref. 20272951. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:45, No.389. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Umayyad, Ottoman. 2. Kefar Gil‘adi. Map ref. 20442945. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA survey, by I. Shaked, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 3:861; TIR. Coins from other periods: none. 3. Hagoshrim Avocado. Map ref. 20952935. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 214. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Zandjid, Ayyubid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 4. Tel Barom. Map ref. 20422922. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan. Other available publication(s) on the site: HA/ESI 112:8*. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 5. Kh. Khisas. Map ref. 20792924. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 5. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Syon 2000b). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Zandjid/Ayyubid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 6. Hagoshrim. Map ref. 20852918. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Weinberg 1973:46). Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 2:7; 14:3; 15:5; 41–42:4. Coins from other periods: none. 7. Giv‘at Shhumit. Map ref. 20432907. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA survey, by I. Shaked, coins studied by D. Syon. 2. Kibbutz Sede Nehemya collection. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Umayyad. 8. Qal‘at Bustra. Map ref. 21272990. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 8. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Dar 1993:101–102. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 9. H. Snaim. Map ref. 21752975. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 35. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan. 2. Dar 1993:82–84. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 4:1322–1324; Dar 1993. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Ayyubid, Mamlûk. 10. Mazra‘at Jebel Siri (Hermon). Map ref. 21562961. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Dar 1993:153. Other available publication(s) on the site: Dar 1993. Coins from other periods: Ayyubid, Mamlûk. 11. Dan-Dafna. Map ref. 21062937. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 17. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Survey. 2. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan, excavated by I. Shaked, coins studied by D. Syon. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Mamlûk. 12. Snir. Map ref. 21312938. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 4. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation, excavated by Y. Stepansky, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 48–49:24. Coins from other periods: Mamlûk. 13. Paneas. Map ref. 21502947. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 112. 174 Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan. 2. Kibbutz Sede Nehemya collection. 3. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. 4. IAA Excavation (City), excavated by V. Tzaferis, coins studied by G. Bijovsky. 5. Reshef collection (IAA). 6. IAA excavation, excavated by H. Smithline, coins studied by D. Syon. 7. IAA Excavation (Pan Temple), excavated by Z.U. Ma‘oz, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 1:143–146; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Ayyubid, Mamlûk. 14. H. Sa‘ar. Map ref. 22202948. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Dar 1993:139. Other available publication(s) on the site: Dar 1993. Coins from other periods: none. 15. Omrit. Map ref. 21212916. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 32. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan. 2. Kibbutz Sede Nehemya collection. 3. Excavation (Syon, forthcoming 2), excavated by J.A. Overman, coins studied by D. Syon. 4. Kagan collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 65–66:3; TIR s.v.Nebi Huda. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Zandjid/Ayyubid, Crusader, Mamlûk. 16. Tel Turmus. Map ref. 21072909. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation, excavated by H. Smithline, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: ESI 20:3*–4* (preliminary). Coins from other periods: Mamlûk. 17. Tel Na‘ama. Map ref. 20612868. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sede Nehemya collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: ESI 7–8:138–140. Coins from other periods: none. 18. Tel Sheikh Yusuf. Map ref. 20802873. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 35. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sede Nehemya collection. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Ayyubid, Crusader, Mamlûk. 19. Dawwara. Map ref. 20902870. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sede Nehemya collection. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Fatimid, Mamlûk, Armenia, Ottoman 20. Tel Anafa. Map ref. 21052869. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 334. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Meshorer 1995). 2. Kibbutz Sede Nehemya collection. 3. Kagan collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: Herbert 1995; TIR. Coins from other periods: Alexander III, Late Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman. 21. H. Zemel. Map ref. 22402891. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 8. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Ariel 2002). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 2:535; Hartal 2003: 12–31; TIR. Coins from other periods: none. 22. Wadi Haliweh. Map ref. 21342857. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 16. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kagan collection (IAA). 2. Reshef collection (IAA). Coins from other periods: Alexander III, Late Roman. 23. Kh. el-Beda. Map ref. 21422855. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 9. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kagan collection (IAA). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Abbasid, Ayyubid. 24. Tel Yardinon. Map ref. 21232845. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 36. 175 Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA survey, by I. Shaked, coins studied by D. Syon. 2. Kagan collection (IAA). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 25. Khiyam el-Walid. Map ref. 21132831. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 10. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA survey, by I. Shaked, coins studied by D. Syon. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 26. Bab el-Hawa. Map ref. 22292835. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 16. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Hartal 2003:40–133), excavated by M. Hartal, coins studied by N. Ahipaz. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 27. Oumm el ‘Amed. Map ref. 16652835. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 76. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Seyrig 1962b). Other available publication(s) on the site: Dunand and Duru 1962. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 28. Rosh Haniqra. Map ref. 16032777. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation, excavated by H. Abu ‘Uqsa, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:16, No.72. Coins from other periods: Mamlûk. 29. Akhziv. Map ref. 15992726. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 15. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (HA 108:12–15; Abu ‘Uqsa and Katsnelson 1999), excavated by H. Abu ‘Uqsa, coins studied by D. Syon. 2. IAA Excavation (Ariel 1994). Other available publication(s) on the site: ESI 20:9*–10*; TIR, s.v. Ecdippa. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 30. el-Tuweiri. Map ref. 16132703. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 17. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Evron collection, R. Bok. 2. Kibbutz Sa‘ar collection, B. Safrai. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:12, No.30. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 31. H. Shaqof. Map ref. 16252715. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Eilon collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:17, No.74. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Mamlûk. 32. Kh. Hamsin. Map ref. 16402725. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Eilon collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:18, No.87. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Mamlûk. 33. Mazzuva. Map ref. 16412741. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 4. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Mazzuva collection, H. Lev. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:18, Nos. 89, 90. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 34. H. ‘En Koveshim. Map ref. 16632761. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:20, No.107. Coins from other periods: not recorded. 35. Hanita. Map ref. 16652770. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 22. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Barag 1978). Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:20, No.108. Coins from other periods: none. 36. H. Idmith. Map ref. 16912761. 176 Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Eilon collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:22, No.132. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Mamlûk. 37. H. Seraf. Map ref. 16882747. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Eilon collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:21, No.122. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, Mamlûk. 38. Jurdeikh. Map ref. 17112781. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Eilon collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:28, No.196. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Mamlûk. 39. H. ‘Erav. Map ref. 17172762. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 17. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Eilon collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 2:457; Frankel et al. 2001:28, No.195. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Mamlûk. 40. H. Karkara. Map ref. 17082754. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 15. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. 2. Kibbutz Eilon collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:27, No.188; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Mamlûk. 41. Eilon (Gadna Hill). Map ref. 17122737. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Eilon collection, R. Getzov. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Mamlûk. 42. H. Galil. Map ref. 17322731. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 4. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Eilon collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:28, No.200; TIR, s.v. Gelil. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Mamlûk. 43. Birket Risha. Map ref. 17482782. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Eilon collection, R. Getzov. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Mamlûk. 44. H. Ma‘ar. Map ref. 17412764. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Eilon collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:29, No.206. Coins from other periods: not recorded. 45. Iqrit. Map ref. 17612756. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 20. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation, excavated by F. Vitto, coins studied by G. Bijovsky. 2. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 45:6; Frankel et al. 2001:29, No.213. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 46. H. Bazir. Map ref. 17782774. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:30, No.221. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Mamlûk. 47. H. ‘Aqrav (hoard). Map ref. 17992743. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 20. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA collection, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 37:7; Frankel et al. 2001:31, No.234. Coins from other periods: none. 48. Tel Rosh. Map ref. 18152718. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. 177 Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:36, No.280. Coins from other periods: Mamlûk. 49. Sasa. Map ref. 18642704. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 44. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 53:3; ESI 1:104; Frankel et al. 2001:36, No.290; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 50. Sasa West. Map ref. 18652701. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 13. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Smithline 1997). Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:36, No.288. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Late Roman. 51. Kefar Bar‘am. Map ref. 18902720. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 6. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (HA/ESI 111:4*–6*), excavated by M. Aviam, coins studied by D. Syon (forthcoming 3). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 1:147–149; Frankel et al. 2001:37, No.292; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Mamlûk. 52. Kh. el-Shuhara. Map ref. 19142748. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 21. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Syon 2002d), excavated by A. Amitai, M. Aviam, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: Aviam and Amitai 2001; Frankel et al. 2001:42, No.344 [H. Sanif]). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Mamlûk. 52a. Kh. el-Shuhara (hoard). Map ref. 19142748. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 22. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: see site 52. Coins from other periods: none. 53. H. ‘Alwa. Map ref. 19262714. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:42, No.349. Coins from other periods: Mamlûk. 54. Gush Halav. Map ref. 19192701. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 687. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Raynor 1990). 2. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. 3. Hoard (Hamburger 1959). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 2:546–550; Frankel et al. 2001:41, No.340; TIR, s.v. Gischala. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III, Late Roman, Byzantine. 55. Aviv Caves. Map ref. 19452763. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:43, No.358. Coins from other periods: none. 56. Tel Qedesh. Map ref. 19992795. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 72. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (University of Minnesota, University of Michigan), excavated by S. Herbert, A. Berlin, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 3:855–857; Herbert and Berlin 2000, 2003; Frankel et al. 2001:44, No.369; TIR, s.v. Cadasa. Coins from other periods: Alexander III, Late Roman, Mamlûk. 57. Qedesh (Temple area). Map ref. 19982799. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 23. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan. 2. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 3:857–859; Frankel et al. 2001:44, No.369; TIR, s.v. Cadasa. 178 Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Late Roman, Byzantine. 58. Qeren Naftali. Map ref. 20302775. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 15. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan. 2. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. 3. IAA Excavation, excavated by M. Aviam, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: Aviam 1997; Frankel et al. 2001:45, No.380; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Ottoman. 59. Kh. Khureiba. Map ref. 19992757. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:44, No.368. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Islamic. 60. H. Qazyon. Map ref. 19992721. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 9. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan. 2. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. 3. Excavation (University of Haifa), excavated by R. Hachlili. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:43, No.367; TIR, s.v. Qision. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 61. Merot. Map ref. 19972705. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 12. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation( Ilan and Damati 1987). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 3:1028–1031; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Early Islamic, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 62. Kh. Mallaha. Map ref. 20482773. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA collection, excavated by I. Shaked, coins studied by D. Syon. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Ayyubid, Mamlûk. 63. Darbashiya. Map ref. 21092771. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 14. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan. Coins from other periods: Mamlûk. 64. Makbarat Banat Ya‘akub. Map ref. 20922701. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA survey, by I. Shaked, coins studied by D. Syon. Coins from other periods: Ottoman. 65. H. ‘Eitayim. Map ref. 160268. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 73. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Barag 1982–3, Barag 1986). 2. IAA Excavations, excavated by G. Edelstein, Y. Ben-Yosef. 4. IAA collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:12, No.24; TIR, s.v. Nea Come. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 66. Nahariya. Map ref. 160268. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 12. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Porat and Gal 1999, Syon 2002f), excavated by L. Porat and Z. Gal; H. Abu-‘Uqsa, coins studied by D. Syon. 2. IAA Excavation (Ariel 1993). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 3:1089–1090; TIR, s.v. Nea Come. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III. 67. Kabri. Map ref. 16302680. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 6. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Syon, forthcoming 4), excavated by N. Getzov, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: HA/ESI 13:6*–7* (preliminary); Frankel et al. 2001:13, No.31; TIR, s.v. Kabritha. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 68. Kh. el-Shubeika. Map ref. 16652690. 179 Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavations (Syon 2002e). Other available publication(s) on the site: Avshalom-Gorni at al. 2002. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Abbasid. 69. Kh. Muslih. Map ref. 16162656. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 51. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Evron collection, R. Bok. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:12, No.28. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 70. Tell el-Sumeiriya. Map ref. 15902630. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 12. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Bijovsky 1997). 2. IAA Excavation (Berman and Ariel 1999). Other available publication(s) on the site: Abu ‘Uqsa 1997; Rochman-Halperin et al. 1999. Coins from other periods: Byzantine, Crusader, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 71. Kuweikat. Map ref. 16572639. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 4. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Bet Ha-‘Emeq collection, R. Frankel. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:13, No.35. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Early Islamic, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 72. Asherat. Map ref. 16522641. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 7. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Ariel 1998a). Other available publication(s) on the site: Smithline 1998; Frankel et al. 2001:14, No.44A. Coins from other periods: none. 73. Tel ‘Emek. Map ref. 16452634. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 354. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Evron collection, R. Bok. 2. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:13, No.34. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine. 74. H. Bet Zeneta. Map ref. 17082697. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Ariel 2000a). Other available publication(s) on the site: Getzov 2000; TIR, s.v. Zenita. Coins from other periods: Byzantine, Crusader, Seljuq. 75. Mi‘ilya. Map ref. 17472699. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:25, No.161; TIR. Coins from other periods: not recorded. 76. Kh. ‘Alya. Map ref. 17502690. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 20. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA collections. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:25, No.162; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 77. Suhmata. Map ref. 17872679. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Makhouly and Avi-Yonah 1934; Frankel et al. 2001:26, No.179. Coins from other periods: not recorded. 78. H. Tefen. Map ref. 17442618. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 13. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Aviam 1989. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:24, No.158; TIR. Coins from other periods: none. 79. Hurfeish. Map ref. 18272692. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 35. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Syon 2002c; HA/ESI 111:97*), excavated by H. Abu ‘Uqsa, I. Shaked, coins studied by D. Syon. 2. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. 3. IAA Excavation (Ariel 1997). Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:33, No.247; TIR. 180 Coins from other periods: Alexander III, Mamlûk. 80. Ghabbatiya. Map ref. 18542688. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 37. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:34, No.259. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 81. H. ‘Ofaim. Map ref. 18832662. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:83, No.118. Coins from other periods: none. 82. H. Zeved. Map ref. 18962645. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Coins from other periods: none. 83. Rama. Map ref. 18452605. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 5. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA excavation, excavated by Z. Yeivin and N. Gofen. 2. IAA excavation, excavated by V. Tzaferis. Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 44:7; Frankel et al. 2001:33, No.253; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 84. H. Qiyyuma. Map ref. 19392671. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:39, No.311; TIR. Coins from other periods: none. 85. 'Ein el-Zeitun. Map ref. 19642650. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:40, No.324. Coins from other periods: none. 86. Nabratein. Map ref. 19792677. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 56. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Raynor 1981). 2. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 3:1077–1079; TIR, s.v. Kefar Nevoraia. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Crusader. 87. Meron. Map ref. 19152653. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 305. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Raynor and Meshorer 1988). 2. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 3:1024–1027; TIR. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Late Roman, Umayyad, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 88. H. Shema‘. Map ref. 19142647. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 87+. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Hanson and Bates 1976). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 4:1359–1361; Frankel et al. 2001:38, No.304; TIR, s.v.Thecoa II. Coins from other periods: Alexander III, Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Abbasid, medieval, Ayyubid, Seljuq, Mamlûk. 89. Sammu‘iya. Map ref. 19272627. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA collection. 2. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: Frankel et al. 2001:38, No.307; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 90. Zefat. Map ref. 19682639. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 10+. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Hoard (IGCH No.1622). 2. IAA collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: TIR, s.v. Sepph. Coins from other periods: none. 91. ‘Akhbara. Map ref. 19662603. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 5. 181 Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA collection, chance find. Other available publication(s) on the site: ESI 9:14;TIR, s.v. Acchabaron. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 92. ‘Ateret. Map ref. 20902678. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 44. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Hebrew University), excavated by A. Boas, R. Ellenblum, coins studied by R. Kool. 2. Kibbutz Gadot collection. 3. IAA Golan Survey, by M. Hartal, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. Coins from other periods: Byzantine, Early Islamic, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 93. Qasrin. Map ref. 21622661. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 18. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation, excavated by R. Hachlili, Z.U. Ma‘oz, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. 2. IAA Excavation, excavated by A. Killebrew, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. 3. IAA Excavation, excavated by Z.U. Ma‘oz, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 4:1219–1224; TIR, s.v. Qazrin. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Mamlûk. 94. Qusbiyye. Map ref. 21902655. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Golan survey, by H. Ben David, coins studied by N. Ahipaz. Other available publication(s) on the site: TIR, s.v. Qazbiya Coins from other periods: none. 95. ’Ashe (Golan). Map ref. 23242645. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Golan Survey, by M. Hartal, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 96. Yahudiya. Map ref. 21612603. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sede Nehemya collection. 2. Golan survey, by H. Ben David, coins studied by N. Ahipaz. Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 73:7. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Ayyubid, Mamlûk. 97. ‘Akko-Ptolemais. Map ref. 15602580. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 290. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavations (many preliminary reports in Ha and ESI), excavated by D. Goren, D. Avshalom-Gorni, M. Hartal, H. Smithline, E. Stern, D. Syon, A. Tatcher, coins studied by D. Syon. 2. Kibbutz Sha‘ar Ha-‘Amaqim collection, Y, Naor. 3. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. 4. Kibbutz Eilon collection, R. Getzov. 5. Reshef collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 1:16–31; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Zandjid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 98. ‘En Hamifraz. Map ref. 15932573. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 242. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Evron collection, R. Bok. 2. Kibbutz Eilon collection, R. Getzov. 3. Kibbutz Nir David collection, D. Segal. Coins from other periods: none. 99. H. ‘Uza. Map ref. 16442577. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 10. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation, excavated by N. Getzov, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: BenTor 1966; ESI 13:19–21. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Zandjid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamlûk. 100. Tel Keisan. Map ref. 16442531. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 30. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Fulco 1980). 2. IAA stray find. 182 Other available publication(s) on the site: Briend and Humbert 1980; NEAEHL 3:862– 867; TIR. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Late Roman, Byzantine. 101. H. Qab. Map ref. 17692571. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation, excavated by Y. GurinRosen, E.J. Stern, H. Smithline, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: ESI 13:17–18; HA/ESI 112:11*–14* (preliminary). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Abbasid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamlûk. 102. H. Mistah. Map ref. 18022506. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3–4. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA survey, by M. Aviam, coins studied by D. Syon. Coins from other periods: none. 103. H. Zalmon. Map ref. 18582545. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 24. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. 2. Private collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 2:450; TIR, s.v. Selamen. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Umayyad. 104. H. Beer Sheva. Map ref. 18942595. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 20. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. 2. Private collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 2:454; Frankel et al. 2001:32, No.237; TIR, s.v. Beersheba II. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III, Umayyad. 105. Kefar Hananya. Map ref. 18962586. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 6. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Bar Ilan university), excavated by D. Adan-Bayewitz, coins studied by D.T.Ariel. Other available publication(s) on the site: ESI 6:74; 7–8:108; Frankel et al. 2001:31, No.236; TIR. Coins from other periods: Byzantine, Islamic. 106. Huqoq. Map ref. 19582544. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Private collection, Kibbutz Huqoq. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 2:454; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 107. H. Ravid. Map ref. 19422508. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 10. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Private collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 2:454; TIR. Coins from other periods: not recorded. 108. Tel Kinrot. Map ref. 20082529. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Fritz 1983). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 1:299–301. Coins from other periods: none. 109. Korazim. Map ref. 20302573. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 4–17. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Meshorer 1973, Ariel 2000b). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 1:301–304, Yeivin 2000; TIR, s.v. Chorazin. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Islamic. 110. Capernaum. Map ref. 20432541. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 140. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Spijkerman 1975). 2. Hoard (IGCH 1602). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 1:291–296; TIR. Coins from other periods: Alexander III, Late Roman. 111. Betsaida. Map ref. 20932573. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 243. 183 Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Kindler 1999a). 2. Excavation (University of Omaha), excavated by R. Arav, coins studied by A. Kindler. Other available publication(s) on the site: Arav and Freund 1995, 1999; TIR. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III, Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Abbasid, medieval Europe, Zandjid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 112. Gamla. Map ref. 21952565. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 6054. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavations (This study). 2. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. Other available publication(s) on the site: See Introduction. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Late Roman. 113. H. Kanaf. Map ref. 21482530. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 11. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Ariel 1980). 2. IAA Excavation (Ariel forthcoming 1). Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 67–68:11; 73:9; 77:2; ESI 4:57; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Mamlûk. 114. Deir ‘Aziz. Map ref. 21692523. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Jordan Valley College), excavated by H. Ben David, Z.U. Ma‘oz, coins studied by N. Ahipaz. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 2:542; HA/ESI 111:11*–12*; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad. 115. Hispin. Map ref. 22672508. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 2:586–588; TIR, s.v. Chaspin. Coins from other periods: none. 116. No name 1 (Golan). Map ref. 22812497. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 4. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Golan Survey, by M. Hartal, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. Coins from other periods: Mamlûk. 117. Kursi. Map ref. 21122480. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 5. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Sharabani 1983). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 3:893–896; TIR, s.v. Chorsia. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad. 118. Haifa (hoard). Map ref. 14582443. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 94. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA collection. Coins from other periods: none. 119. Shiqmona. Map ref. 14622479. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 7. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Elgavish 1974). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 4:1373–1378; TIR, s.v. Sycamina. Coins from other periods: none. 120. Rushmiya. Map ref. 15032439. Number of coins from periods 1–5: ‘several’. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (HA 43:4). Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 43:3; 48–49:33; 53:5; 56:15. Coins from other periods: not recorded. 121. ’Ibillin. Map ref. 16832476. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (HA/ESI 109:18*–20*), excavated by A. Mukari, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 86:12; TIR, s.v. Abelim. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 122. Tel Mador (Kh. Abu Madawar). Map ref. 17012470. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Private collection. Coins from other periods: not recorded. 184 123. Yodefat, Shifat. Map ref. 17632487. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 300+. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Adan-Bayewitz and Aviam 1997 [esp. pp.155–159]). 2. Survey (Berman 1962). 3. Kibbutz Nir David collection, D. Segal. Other available publication(s) on the site: TIR, s.v. Iotapata. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Late Roman, Umayyad, Mamlûk. 124. H. Qana. Map ref. 17872475. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 49. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Syon, 2002 g), excavated by D. Edwards, coins studied by D. Syon. 2. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan. Other available publication(s) on the site: Edwards 2002; TIR, s.v. Cana. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Late Roman, Byzantine, Abbasid, Crusader, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 125. H. ‘Ofrat. Map ref. 16922435. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 4. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Peleg 1990). Other available publication(s) on the site: TIR, s.v. Kh. Et Tayyibe. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 126. Tel Hanaton. Map ref. 17442434. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 5. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Haifa University), excavated by R. Gertwagen. 2. IAA stray find. Other available publication(s) on the site: ESI 7–8:71–72. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamlûk/Ottoman. 127. Shihin. Map ref. 17572409. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 235. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan (all coins were fully cleaned and identified). Other available publication(s) on the site: Strange, Groh and Longstaff 1994, 1995; TIR, s.v. Asochis (misidentified at Tel Hannaton). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Islamic. 128. H. ’Es‘ad. Map ref. 19022484. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 7. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Private collection. Coins from other periods: no record. 129. Ginnosar boat site. Map ref. 19922498. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 23. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Gitler 1990). Other available publication(s) on the site: Wachsmann 1990. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Abbasid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 130. Arbel Caves. Map ref. 19682477. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ilan 1989–90. Other available publication(s) on the site: TIR, s.v. Arbela I. Coins from other periods: Byzantine. 131. Migdal. Map ref. 19882477. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 165. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Syon 2002b:33*–36*), excavated by H. Abu ‘Uqsa, coins studied by D. Syon. 2. Hoard (Meshorer 1976). 3. Excavation (Corbo 1976). Other available publication(s) on the site: TIR, s.v. Magdala. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 132. Arbel. Map ref. 19552467. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 81. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Dolev 1988. 2. IAA collection. 3. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. 4. IAA Excavation, excavated by M. Aviam, coins studied by D. Syon. 5. Reshef collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 1:87–89; TIR, s.v. Arbela I. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Ayyubid, Ottoman. 133. Tiberias. Map ref. 20002440. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 25+200. 185 Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 2. Hoard (IGCH 1615). 3. Kibbutz Sede Nehemya collection. 4. IAA Excavation (Rahmani and Sharabani 1983). 5. Reshef collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 133a. Kinneret (hoard) unspecified site along the shore of the lake. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 125. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Degani collection, Kibbutz Dan. Coins from other periods: none. 133b. Bet Ma’on. Map ref. 19852427. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 59. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation, excavated by H. BenNahum, L. Porat, H. Abu ‘Uqsa, coins studied by D. Syon. The site is in modern ‘Upper Tiberias’ on the mountain above the lake, and yielded remains from the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods, not directly connected to the city founded by Antipas. HA/ESI 109:15*– 16* (preliminary). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Abbasid, Ayyubid. 134. Hippos. Map ref. 21222426. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 28. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavations (Haifa University), excavated by A. Segal, coins studied by A. Berman. 2. IAA collection. 3. Reshef collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 2:634–636; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad. 135. ’El-‘Al. Map ref. 22012458. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 7. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Gibson and Urman 1990. Other available publication(s) on the site: TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 136. Sumaqa. Map ref. 15392307. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 13. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Kindler 1999). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 4:1412–1415; Dar 1999; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, Mamlûk. 137. Kefar Hasidim. Map ref. 15802390. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sha‘ar Ha-‘Amaqim collection, Y, Naor. Coins from other periods: none. 138. Jalame. Map ref. 15892370. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 8. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Merker 1988). 2. Kibbutz Sha‘ar Ha-‘Amaqim collection, Y, Naor. Other available publication(s) on the site: Weinberg 1988; TIR, s.v. Jellemeh. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 139. Sha‘ar Ha-‘Amaqim. Map ref. 16082369. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 126. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Haifa University). 2. Kibbutz Sha‘ar Ha-‘Amaqim collection, Y, Naor, excavated by A. Segal, coins studied by Y. Naor. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 4:1339–1340. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Ayyubid, Mamlûk. 140. Betlehem of Galilee. Map ref. 16812380. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (ESI 18:29–30 [preliminary]), excavated by A. Oshri, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Abbasid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 141. Bet Shearim. Map ref. 16252344. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 6. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 186 1. Kibbutz Sha‘ar Ha-‘Amaqim collection, Y, Naor. 2. Kibbutz Eilon collection, R. Getzov. 3. Reshef collection, RM 4089. 4. IAA collection. 5. IAA excavation, excavated by Eliot Braun, Fanny Vitto. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 1:236–248; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 142. Kh. Umm Ahmad. Map ref. 17082382. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Mamlûk. 143. H. Shimshit. Map ref. 17312386. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 5. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). Coins from other periods: Mamlûk. 144. Sepphoris. Map ref. 17652399. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 176. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Bunnell 1937). 2. IAA Excavation (Syon 2001). 3. Excavation (Hebrew University), excavated by E. Meyers, E. Netzer, Z. Weiss, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. 4. Excavation (University of South Florida), excavated by J. Strange, Z. Weiss, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. 5. Kibbutz Sasa collection, R. Getzov. 6. IAA collections. 7. Kibbutz Nir David collection, D. Segal. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 4:1324–1328; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Umayyad. 145. Migdal Ha-‘Emeq. Map ref. 17212312. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Shalem 1996:38). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 146. Yafia‘. Map ref. 17602320. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 4. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (HA 108:33–34), excavated by H. Abu ‘Uqsa, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: ESI 20:24*–25*; TIR, s.v. Iaphia. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Ottoman. 147. Kh. el-Tirya. Map ref. 18112338. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 7. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Islamic. 148. Kafr Kanna. Map ref. 18202390. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 7. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation, excavated by Z. Gal, B. Hanna, coins studied by D. Syon. 2. Ditzi collection (IAA). 3. Excavation (Bagatti 1964–1965). Other available publication(s) on the site: Gal and Hanna 2000; TIR, s.v. Cana. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 149. Tel Govel. Map ref. 18632370. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 17. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Private collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:105, No.155. Coins from other periods: no record. 150. Kafr Kama. Map ref. 19102360. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation, excavated by H. BenNahum, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:140–141, No.196; TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Umayyad. 151. H. Mesah. Map ref. 19022329. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation, excavated by D. Syon, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 65–66:5; TIR, s.v. H. Massah. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Ayyubid. 187 152. ‘En Betah. Map ref. 21862395. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Golan Survey, by M. Hartal, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. Coins from other periods: none. 152a. Golan (hoards). Map ref. . Number of coins from periods 1–5: 47. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Survey. 2. Hoards (IGCH No. 1600 — burial 125 BCE; IGCH 1613, early 1st c. BCE). Coins from other periods: none. 153. No name 2 (Golan). Map ref. 21462371. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Golan Survey, by M. Hartal, coins studied by D.T. Ariel. Coins from other periods: none. 153a. Sha‘ar Hagolan area. No specific location. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 11. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Israel Museum collection. Coins from other periods: no record. 154. Umm el-Zinat. Map ref. 15622281. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 10. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Private collection. Coins from other periods: Alexander III. 155. Yoqne‘am. Map ref. 16052300. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 5. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Meshorer 1996a). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 3:805–811; TIR, s.v. Camona. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III, Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Crusader, Ayyubid, Ottoman. 156. Tel Qiri. Map ref. 16002270. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 4. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Meshorer 1987). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 4:1228–1229. Coins from other periods: Umayyad. 157. Mishmar Ha-‘Emeq. Map ref. 16352244. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz Sha‘ar Ha-‘Amaqim collection, Y, Naor. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 4:1200–1203. Coins from other periods: no record. 158. Midrakh ‘Oz. Map ref. 16452230. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 6. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Private collection. Coins from other periods: no record. 159. Meggido. Map ref. 16752213. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 40. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Newell 1939). 2. Kibbutz Nir David collection, D. Segal. 3. Excavation (Segal 1999). Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Zandjid, Ayyubid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 160. Legio. Map ref. 16772202. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 19. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA excavations, excavated by H. Abu ‘Uqsa, coins studied by D. Syon. 2. Ditzi collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Islamic. 161. Merhavya. Map ref. 17912235. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 136. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:53, No.77. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III, Late Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Ottoman. 162. El Kader. Map ref. 18882296. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz ‘En Dor collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:115, No.166. 188 Coins from other periods: none. 163. H. Qamal. Map ref. 19402294. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 10. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Private collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:149, No.210; TIR. Coins from other periods: not recorded. 164. H. Zafzafot. Map ref. 18682276. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 5. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Kibbutz ‘En Dor collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:113–114, No.165; Frankel 1988–9. Coins from other periods: none. 165. Tamra. Map ref. 18822267. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation, excavated by L. Porat, coins studied by D. Syon. Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:88, No.126; TIR. Coins from other periods: Alexander III, Late Roman, Byzantine. 166. Na‘ura. Map ref. 18752245. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Reshef collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: ESI 13:33–34; Zori 1977:59–60, No.90. Coins from other periods: Abbasid. 167. Giv‘at Boleq. Map ref. 18612215. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 72. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). 2. Private Collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:57–59, No.89. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Late Roman, Islamic. 168. Tel Yizre’el. Map ref. 18102182. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 6. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 34–35:8; ESI 7–8:189–195; TIR, s.v. Iezreel. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Islamic. 169. Giv‘at Qumi. Map ref. 18722189. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 262. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). 2. Private Collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:69–76, No.108; TIR. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III, Late Roman, Ottoman. 170. Shatta. Map ref. 19032175. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 8. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Reshef collection (IAA). 2. Ditzi collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 31–32:8; Zori 1977:84, No.119; TIR, s.v. Bet ha-Shittah. Coins from other periods: Alexander III, Late Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 171. Tel Slawim. Map ref. 18852161. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 36. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Reshef collection (IAA). 2. Ditzi collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: HA 15:11; TIR, s.v. Tell el Firr. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Ayyubid, Mamlûk. 172. H. Shamot. Map ref. 19132162. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 121. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). 2. Private Collection. Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:86, No.125; Landau 1966 (The Hefzibah inscription). Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III. 173. Bet Alfa. Map ref. 19032139. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 33. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA collection. 2. Reshef collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:34, No.45; TIR. 189 Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Ayyubid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. 174. Tel Basul. Map ref. 19492128. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 47. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Reshef collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1962:190, No. 147; TIR. Coins from other periods: Alexander III, Umayyad. 175. Sede Nahum. Map ref. 19562144. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 38. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: TIR. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Ottoman. 176. Hanot Bet She’an. Map ref. 19682132. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 2. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 177. Nysa-Scythopolis (Bet She’an). Map ref. 19692133. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 449. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Fitzgerald 1931). 2. IAA Excavation (Berman 1992). 3. IAA excavation, excavated by K. CovelloParan, coins studied by D. Syon. 4. Reshef collection (IAA). 5. IAA Excavations, excavated by G. Mazor, coins studied by G. Bijovsky, A. Berman. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 1:214–235; TIR. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III, Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, Ayyubid, Mamlûk. 178. H. Haman. Map ref. 19832124. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 5. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1962:152, No.43 (called there Tel Iztabah). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Islamic. 179. Hamadia. Map ref. 19942139. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine. 180. Tel Eshtori. Map ref. 19952113. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (ESI 19:28*–29* [preliminary]), excavated by D. Shalem, coins studied by D. Syon. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. 181. H. Yahmi. Map ref. 19862178. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 1. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). Other available publication(s) on the site: Zori 1977:93–95, No.140. Coins from other periods: Mamlûk. 182. H. Parwa. Map ref. 19842077. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 4. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Ditzi collection (IAA). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Crusader. Comparison Sites Sia‘ (Hauran). Number of coins from periods 1–5: 142. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Augé 1985). Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Islamic. H. ‘Eleq (Mt. Carmel). Number of coins from periods 1–5: 137. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Barkay 2000b). Other available publication(s) on the site: Hirschfeld et al. 2000; TIR, s.v. Ramat Hanadiv. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III, Late Roman, Byzantine, Abbasid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. H. ‘Aqav (Mt. Carmel). 190 Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Barkay 2000a:88–90). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 4:1257–1260; Hirschfeld et al. 2000; TIR, s.v. Ramat Hanadiv. Coins from other periods: Late Roman, Armenia, Ottoman. Pella. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 80. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Sheedy et al. 2001. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 3:1174–1180. Coins from other periods: Late Roman. Samaria (city). Number of coins from periods 1–5: 796. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Reisner 1924). 2. Excavation (Kirkman 1957). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 4:1300–1310; TIR. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III, Late Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad, Abbasid, Crusader, Ayyubid, Mamlûk, Ottoman. Mt. Gerizim (Samaria region). Number of coins from periods 1–5: 3885+. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. IAA Excavation (Magen 2000a [shortlist]), excavated by Y. Magen, Y. Zionit, coins studied by G. Bijovsky. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 2:484–492; TIR. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III. Dora. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 164. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavation (Meshorer 1996b). Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 1:357–372, Stern 1996; TIR. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III, Late Roman. Jaffa. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 227. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Meir 2000. Other available publication(s) on the site: NEAEHL 2:655–659; TIR, s.v. Ioppe. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III, Late Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader. Bet Zur. Number of coins from periods 1–5: 252. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Excavations (Sellers 1933, 1968). Other available publication(s) on the site: TIR. Coins from other periods: pre-Alexandrine, Alexander III, Late Roman, Islamic. Hebron (hoard). Number of coins from periods 1–5: 124. Source of coins (and relevant publication if available): 1. Hoard: CH3 (1977) No.61; buried c. 131. Coins from other periods: none. 191 Period 1. Ptolemaic (300-200 BCE) 2. Seleucid (200–125 BCE) 3. Hasmonean (125–63 BCE) Sidon Ptolemaic (8) Seleucid (35) Civic (18) Tyre Ptolemaic (166) Seleucid (1495) Categories ‘Akko-Ptolemais Ptolemaic (5) Other Other coins, mainly Seleucid, Side and Aradus (19) Other coins, mainly Other Seleucid mints, Ptolemaic, Side, Aradus mainly Antioch (397) (21) Other: mainly Nabatean, Seleucid, Mainly Hasmonean Iturean, Antioch, Damascus and Ascalon, Cyprus (5632) Antioch (217) (Ptolemy IX) (70) Jewish: Herodian Others: dynasty, mainly procurators, Roman Imperial: Roman denarii and Nabatean and bronze (39) administration city coins and Great Revolt (185) (723) Roman Imperial: denarii, provincial Other city coins (1098) tetradrachms and bronze (135) Other Ptolemaic mints, mainly Egypt and Cyprus (268) Seleucid (309) Late Seleucid (44) Civic (86) Autonomous (192) Autonomous (891) Civic/ Autonomous (?) (304) 4. Early Roman (63 BCE–70 CE) Autonomous (83) Autonomous (189) Civic/Autonomous and colonial (104) 5. Middle Roman (70– 256 CE) Autonomous and colonial (81) Autono mous (368) Colonial (398) Colonial (221) Figure 62. The division of the periods and the minting authorities in each. In brackets: the total number of coins. 192 Figure 63. Conspectus of Coins by site and mint (number of coins) Period 1 sites: Ptolemaic coins 300–200 BCE. Other Ptolemaic mints 133b Other coins 134 139 140 151 156 158 159 161 163 167 168 169 171 172 173 177 182 Site Sia' H. 'Eleq Dor Mt. Gerizim Samaria Pella Jaffa Bet Zur 6 1 1 2 1 1 7 2 2 2 7 2 14 1 2 1 8 Site No. 1 Sel. 6 Sel. ‘Akko Sidon Tyre 3 10 13 18 20 22 25 27 30 33 35 39 41 44 45 49 50 51 52 54 56 57 66 69 70 73 79 80 86 87 88 91 92 97 98 99 100 104 108 111 112 122 123 124 127 129 133 1 2 1 9 2 1 3 2 3 2 17 6 1 7 1 3 1 Sel. 1 1 1 2 20 1 2 1 2 13 13 1 41 1 ‘Akko Other ptol 2 14 107 7 210 3 13 34 1 Sel. 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 2 48 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 12 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 11 1 3 4 1 47 5 3 2 1 1 Comparison sites Sidon Tyre 16 4 3 26 1 2 17 6 Other 1 Sel 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 sel+8 1 2 1 10 1 3 1 1 12 3 1 2 2 1 1 193 Period 2 sites: Seleucid coins 200–125 BCE Sidon civic Tyre 200162 1 2 162125 ‘Akko Other 2 1 4 Sel. 200162 4 1 1 Civic 200162 Sel. 162125 Other Sel. 14 1 3 2 3 1 10 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 10 1 2 8 7 7 2 9 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 47 2 2 14 44 1 26 10 1 2 1 1 6 2 5 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 6 Site No. 2 3 8 9 11 13 14 15 19 20 21 24 26 27 30 31 32 34 36 37 38 39 42 43 47 48 49 50 51 52 52a 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 65 66 69 70 71 73 75 78 3 2 1 Sidon 22 4 2 1 9 1 14 1 2 1 49 8 4 10 15 3 1 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 30 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 194 Sidon civic Tyre 200162 3 1 1 1 10 162125 ‘Akko Other 1 5 3 2 Sel. 200162 1 5 19 5 23 1 Civic 200162 1 Sel. 162125 Other Sel. 2 1 9 2 1 2 2 30 1 58 1 1 8 1 1 5 1 6 23 3 4 24 10 4 1 10 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 48 1 1 1 4 24 3 Site No. 79 80 81 86 87 88 90 92 93 94 96 97 98 99 100 102 103 104 105 106 107 109 110 111 112 113 114 116 119 123 124 127 129 130 131 133 133b 134 135 139 144 147 152a 153a 154 155 158 160 161 163 Sidon 2 1 8 1 4 4 1 4 1 55 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 13 69 79 58 458 5 1 7 126 6 63 1 1 1 12 3 2 11 7 1 1 1 5 1 24 7 1 5 3 16 1 1 8 16 5 1 13 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 16 4 3 1 1 10 195 Sidon civic Tyre 200162 1 162125 ‘Akko Other 1 Other Sel. 6 9 42 53 2 19 14 1 2 1 25 3 Other Sel. 200162 Civic 200162 1 2 2 1 13 6 1 1 23 2 1 19 1 1 1 6 1 1 20 1 1 26 2 1 95 2 1 Sel. 162125 Other Sel. 1 Site No. 164 165 167 168 169 170 171 172 174 175 176 177 178 180 181 182 Sidon 3 2 2 2 12 2 Comparison sites Tyre Sidon civic 200162 162125 1 4 c. 200 25 1 4 2 124 ‘Akko Sel. 200162 16 1 H. 'Eleq Dor Mt. Gerizim Samaria Pella Jaffa Bet Zur Hebron (hoard) 2 2 Sidon Site Civic 200162 Sel. 162125 4 5 1 3 1 c.800 127 2 6 135 2 19 11 13 196 Period 3 sites: Autonomous coinages 125–63 BCE. Hasmonean Hasmonean ‘Akko civic ‘Akko civic ‘Akko Sel. Other Sel. ‘Akko Sel. Other Sel. 8 1 46 4 1 6 1 3 2 1 1 25 1 12 5 5 1 32 1 Site No. Site No. Other 3 5 9 11 13 17 20 22 24 27 38 40 47 49 50 51 52 54 56 58 61 63 64 65 66 69 73 77 78 80 83 84 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 12 13 1 1 1 85 2 5 2 2 1 4 25 1 1 1 2 4 12 6 44 1 1 6 1 1 1 6 10 2 1 1 2 5 2 3 1 1 1 1 12 4 97 98 99 100 102 103 104 106 107 109 110 111 112 113 115 119 120 121 122 123 124 126 127 129 130 131 132 133 133 a 133 b 134 135 136 139 143 144 145 148 152 3 1 1 20 20 2 7 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 5 1 4 2 23 409 2 2 1 'several' 1 1 391 14 17 1 1 1 63 4 697 2 13 1 24 1 1 2 7 240 7 8 1 14 3 3 2 1 29 1 3 1 1 1 1 18 159 17 2 3 1 2 1 81 1 1 20 22 200 + 125 2 7 1 3 12 1 2 1 20 121 45 + 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 5 3 8 6+ 2 1 Other Sidon Sidon Tyre Tyre 197 Hasmonean ‘Akko civic ‘Akko Sel. Other Sel. 4 1 3 18 72 Other Sel. 1 37 3 2 Site No. a 153 a 154 156 158 159 160 161 163 164 167 169 170 171 172 174 177 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 32 8 1 6 1 2 5 1 5 3 16 20 1 2 Comparison sites ‘Akko Civic Hasmonean ‘Akko Sel. Site Sidon Tyre H. 'Eleq Dor Mt. Gerizim Samaria Pella Jaffa Bet Zur 1 8 257 41 1 3 27 1 2 2 568 72 25 30 20 1 1 14 1 1 Other Other Sidon Tyre 198 Period 4 sites: Autonomous and provincial coinages 63 BCE–70 CE. Imperial Imperial 19 8 1 2 1 1 2 1 Site No. Site No. Jewish Jewish 1 2 1 1 3 1 10 319 3 38 2 2 10 1 17 6 3 5 2 2 3 3 18 38 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 30 4 1 11 4 ‘Akko ‘Akko Other coins Other coins 1 1 16 1 68 9 Sidon Sidon Tyre 1 3 4 6 8 9 11 12 13 15 17 18 20 22 23 24 30 33 40 41 42 49 54 56 58 60 64 68 73 74 80 83 86 87 88 90 92 93 94 96 97 35 1 34 1 Tyre 2 1 3 62 12 4 2 1 1 4 1 18 2 1 6 1 1 1 9 4 1 2 4 1 8 1 15 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 26 1 1 1 1 19 1 2 5 21 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 8 2 1 5 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 8 2 4 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 5 1 16 1 98 100 103 104 105 106 107 110 111 112 113 123 124 125 127 128 129 131 132 133 133b 134 136 138 139 142 144 147 148 153a 154 158 159 161 162 164 167 168 169 171 173 11 1 1 39 30 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 4 1 199 174 175 177 4 24 1 34 1 2 17 1 Comparison sites Other coins Imperial 102 3 4 26 4 1 Jewish ‘Akko Sidon Sia' H. 'Eleq Dor Samaria Jaffa Bet Zur Tyre Site 1 2 1 4 1 2 62 6 168 42 4 Imperial Site No. Jewish ‘Akko Other coins Sidon Tyre 200 Period 5 sites: Provincial coinages ‘Akko colonial Tyre colonial Tyre autonomous Other cities 70–256 CE. ‘Akko colonial Tyre colonial Tyre autonomous Other cities 2 3 1 2 1 13 6 14 9 53 8 1 8 10 64 10 3 1 2 1 4 5 2 2 5 26 23 44 6 1 2 5 75 Imperial Sidon 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 18 19 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 35 39 40 41 44 45 46 48 49 51 54 56 57 60 61 62 65 1 43 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 3 3 1 30 6 7 2 4 4 5 2 1 Sidon 1 7 1 1 1 4 1 6 1 10 1 4 12 14 13 1 10 8 3 2 1 14 2 2 1 1 2 9 2 1 1 8 1 1 2 2 1 5 1 14 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 2 1 1 4 2 4 6 37 1 2 1 2 1 21 10 1 83 5 5 8 1 173 3 5 4 7 24 1 1 7 1 1 14 9 3 15 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 76 79 80 82 83 85 86 87 88 91 92 93 95 97 98 99 100 101 103 104 105 107 109 110 111 117 118 123 124 127 128 129 131 1 5 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 2 3 9 7 12 13 6 4 2 2 9 4 1 12 9 1 1 1 1 15 8 1 7 27 3 1 3 2 1 4 1 6 3 1 2 2 2 5 10 43 1 2 2 14 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 7 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 32 1 16 5 4 2 6 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 4 28 1 12 2 3 1 Imperial Site No. Site No. 201 ‘Akko colonial ‘Akko colonial Tyre colonial Tyre colonial Tyre autonomous Tyre autonomous Other cities Other cities 22 20 108 Other cities 27 9 2 10 67 11 43 Imperial Sidon 132 133 133b 134 136 137 138 139 141 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 152 153a 154 155 157 159 160 165 166 167 169 171 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 4 1 1 12 1 15 2 27 24 8 6 6 3 22 2 1 21 1 2 1 12 1 1 2 173 175 177 178 179 3 1 7 1 1 8 1 Sidon 2 5 3 Comparison sites 3 ‘Akko colonial Tyre autonomous Tyre colonial 2 7 1 12 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 6 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 17 8 1 34 127 9 Sia' H. 'Eleq H. 'Aqav Dor Samaria Pella Jaffa 1 1 6 1 2 9 2 5 1 3 2 6 4 5 1 2 3 1 5 20 1 3 10 11 2 Imperial 1 Sidon Site 15 1 2 1 Imperial Site No. Site No. 202 Period 1: The Ptolemaic Period (300–200 BCE) Commentary As mentioned above, the Ptolemaic period is problematic because of the inability often to fully identify the coins. It is quite possible that in spite of the effort to avoid uncertain coins, some of the coins classified under ‘other Ptolemaic mints’ are in fact from Sidon, Tyre or ‘Akko-Ptolemais. Nevertheless, the data available show that of the three mints under discussion Tyre clearly predominates, not only in Galilee but elsewhere too. At Sia‘ in Syria, even though only two Ptolemaic coins were found, the absence of the mint of Tyre should be considered significant, because this trend continues also in the following periods, indicating that this region was not economically connected to Phoenicia. Products of the mint of ‘Akko-Ptolemais are found in the vicinity of the city (site 99) but curiously not in the city itself. They are found also in and around the Jezre’el and Bet She’an valleys, and in Samaria region (Samaria, Mt. Gerizim) coastal plain (Jaffa) and Judaea (Bet Zur), but not at all in the rest of Galilee or the Golan. This trend is decidedly significant, appearing in subsequent periods even more pronouncedly. The mint of Sidon is represented in an ‘erratic’ manner, appearing along the coast of Western Galilee at four sites: 27, 66, 98, (a single coin at each) and 73 (two coins), one coin at Betsaida (site 111) and then at Nysa-Scythopolis (site 177), Pella, Mt. Gerizim and Jaffa. In subsequent periods a much more consistent — if enigmatic — pattern will be observed. 203 The paucity of non-Ptolemaic (mainly third century Seleucid) coins is immediately apparent, though not surprising, appearing at only five of the selected sites (20, 27, 139, 159, 172) and at two sites outside of Galilee (H. ‘Eleq and Samaria). 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 13 Paneas 20 27 280 35 41 270 44 56 57 45 79 49 50 Golan 30 66 69 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 Haifa 54 86 73 99 100 Upper Galilee 260 98 104 108 122 123 Lower Galilee 124 Tiberias Sepphoris 111 112 Gamla 250 240 139 Mt Carmel 230 140 151 156 158 159 Jezre’el Valley 163 167 169 172 161 220 177 210 Sidon Tyre ‘Akko-Ptolemais Nysa-Scythopolis 200 Map 6. Ptolemaic period: coins of Sidon, Tyre and ‘Akko-Ptolemais (all sites) Conclusions The virtual predominance of Ptolemaic coins throughout Galilee and elsewhere is of course not surprising, given the nature of the Ptolemaic monetary system. It is quite likely that the majority of third century Seleucid coins, all bronze and most of Antiochus III, arrived in fact after the Seleucid conquest of 200 BCE. There can be no question that of the three mints under discussion, the mint of Tyre was the most prolific, minted for the longest duration (Kindler 1996), so its coins diffused further away. Even in the vicinity of ‘Akko-Ptolemais, coins of Tyre 204 predominate by far. The pattern for Upper Galilee and the Golan is thus reasonable, considering the easiest route was to Tyre, rather than ‘Akko-Ptolemais. The pattern in the Golan especially, probably heavily garrisoned at the time (see Hartal 2003:209– 210, with references), reflects more on routes of military pay rather than on economic activity. Butcher (in press) reports a large percentage of Tyrian coins for this period in Beirut as well. The pattern shown by the coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais however, is different. The fact that the present data includes no Ptolemaic coins of the city that have been found within the city itself can only be explained by chance. While its coins do appear in the vicinity of the city itself, they diffuse only southward, as single finds, to the Jezre’el and Bet She’an valleys and further south, but not to other parts of Galilee. The small output of the mint cannot by itself account for this pattern, and neither can administrative subordination, as ‘Akko-Ptolemais was in Phoenicia and the other sites with coins of ‘Akko were not. Perhaps here an economic/trade pattern should be sought, ‘Akko being the closest major port to the eastern valleys. The Tyrian coins in the Jezre’el and Bet She’an valleys should probably again be explained by military presence and traffic. Whether or not this explanation would be valid for sites in Samaria as well is questionable, but possible, given the very small output of the mint of Jaffa. This suggestion however breaks down when we look at Lower Galilee, which is in a more favorable position towards ‘Akko than towards Tyre, yet the latter mint is the only one represented in this region (Map 6), albeit at a small number of sites altogether. Here the pattern reflects perhaps economic activity, oriented towards Tyre, but more probably the large output of the mint of Tyre. The appearance of coins of Sidon at sites south of Galilee (Mt. Gerizim, Jaffa) could possibly be explained by the continuation of the trend of the Persian and Alexandrine periods, when this mint 205 predominated in the area (see p.128), but their appearance along the coast of Western Galilee, especially around ‘Akko-Ptolemais (sites 66, 73, 98) where they did not show up in the preceding periods is enigmatic and no plausible explanation can be offered at present. To sum up: The distribution of coins in this period is rather confusing, and no coherent pattern emerges. The main factors affecting it are probably military movement / deployment and to a lesser degree trade patterns. This is in keeping with 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km Paneas 20 27 280 56 Golan 270 66 79 Upper Galilee 54 260 111 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 99 98 100 123 Lower Galilee Gamla 97 250 112 Haifa 124 Tiberias 240 Sepphoris Mt Carmel 139 Sidon Tyre 230 156 Jezre’el Valley Dor 220 159 H. 'Eleq 161 172 177 Nysa-Scythopolis ‘Akko-Ptolemais Other Ptolemaic mints Non-Ptolemaic coins 210 Pella 200 Sia' Mt. Gerizim Samaria Jaffa Beth Zur Map 7. Ptolemaic period: selected sites 206 the notion that the products of the various mints circulated more or less indiscriminately, as would be logical to assume under such a closed system (see above, p.129). The majority of coinage circulating in Galilee (and in Judaea, to judge by the sites brought here for comparison), relied mostly on coins from Egypt itself. Figure 64. Period 1: Selected sites (percent of total coins for the period): Other Ptolemaic mints (mainly Egypt) Site No. Sidon ‘Akko Other coins Comparison sites Site Other Ptolemaic 100 45 94 64 82 60 76 64 20 27 54 56 66 73 79 97 98 99 100 111 112 123 124 139 156 159 161 172 177 33 4 50 2 5 25 43 20 38 25 100 30 67 25 26 32 24 75 57 78 62 75 40 30 25 4 Sia' H. 'Eleq Dor Mt. Gerizim Samaria Pella Jaffa Bet Zur 2 9 52 4 27 10 20 12 32 Tyre 5 10 50 38 25 33 88 80 45 50 Tyre 85 40 62 75 33 8 20 50 Sidon ‘Akko 3 2 6 4 6 20 6 33 5 3 50 74 59 70 3 Other 5 5 207 Period 2: The Seleucid Period (200–125 BCE) Commentary In contrast with the preceding period, this one is characterized by a great variety of types, so the ability to attribute the coins to kings and mints was the rule, rather than the exception. A new ‘complication’ arising in this period is the fact that besides the royal Seleucid issues, Sidon and ‘Akko-Ptolemais also issued civic coinages (see part I, pp. 64, 75) and all three issued the so-called municipal coinages as well (see part I, p.35). While it was natural to include the municipal issues with the royal issues, the civic issues had to be given some consideration. Thus, for Sidon, the civic issues are 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 3 11 9 Paneas 20 27 280 52a 270 Golan 92 73 260 Upper Galilee ‘Akko-Ptolemais 111 103 Lower Galilee 112 Gamla 250 Haifa 129 Tiberias 240 Sepphoris Mt Carmel 230 155 Jezre’el Valley 220 Nysa-Scythopolis 210 200 Map 8. Seleucid period: coins of Sidon (all sites) too few to make any statement concerning their distribution, appearing only at four sites (Gamla [112], Shihin [127], Yoqne‘am [155] and Samaria) and for ‘Akko- 208 Ptolemais it was found that the distribution pattern of the civic and royal issues is very much overlapping. The end result is that all civic coinages were grouped with the royal ones, and maps 8–13 reflect this decision. Coins of Sidon appear only at thirteen sites (Map 8), one of them a silver hoard (site 52a). At most of the sites there are 1–3 coins, except at Tel ’Anafa (site 20) with ten coins. A clustering of coins of Sidon can be observed in the northeastern Hula valley, while they are completely absent in Lower Galilee, the Jezre’el and the Bet She’an valleys. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 3 11 9 Paneas 20 27 280 52a 270 Golan 92 73 260 Upper Galilee ‘Akko-Ptolemais 111 103 Lower Galilee 112 Gamla 250 Haifa 129 Tiberias 240 Sepphoris Mt Carmel 230 155 Jezre’el Valley 220 Nysa-Scythopolis 210 200 Map 9. Seleucid period: Coins of Tyre (all sites) 209 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 8 3 11 13Paneas 20 26 280 34 270 39 43 49 50 52 52a 54 87 104 105 111 61 Golan 79 70 69 73 Upper Galilee 260 78 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 Haifa 98 100 123 102 124 112 Gamla 250 240 127 144 Sepphoris 139 Mt Carmel Lower Galilee 133 133b Tiberias 230 154 220 155 156 Jezre’el Valley 163 165 168 169 181 172 171 175 176 Nysa-Scythopolis 177 180 182 158 160 161 210 200 Map 10. Seleucid period: Seleucid and civic coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais (all sites) A rather dramatic change is observed in the relative distribution of the coins of Tyre and ‘Akko midway along the Seleucid period. When plotting the distribution of coins of Antiochus III to Antiochus IV (200–164 BCE) on one map and then those from Demetrius I to the death of Demetrius II (162–125 BCE) on another, a very different picture obtains (coins of Antiochus V are too few to make an impact). While there is no certainty when this break occurred, there are good arguments to place it in 162 BCE. First, the short reign of the infant Antiochus V (164–162 BCE) is naturally a continuation of his father’s reign, and the appearance of the first Phoenician standard silver in ‘Akko during this short reign emphasizes the importance of this mint at the time. Second, Demetrius I, a rival to the succession line of Antiochus IV may have 210 initiated an administrative reorganization of Koile Syria-Phoenicia, which most probably coincided with the boundary changes mentioned above (p.145) that took place in 162 BCE. This year is thus taken as the dividing line between the two maps that follow. In contrast to the other period maps, which show selected sites only, these show all sites with coins of either Tyre or ‘Akko. Period IIa (200–162 BCE) 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 2 3 11 15 20 26 13 Paneas 2 27 280 34 31 66 69 70 260 43 39 36 37 75 79 48 56 49 50 52 54 87 104 105 96 112 Gamla 110 116 133 Tiberias 133b 147 134 60 61 86 92 Golan 270 73 80 Upper Galilee 97 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa 98 100 123 250 102 Lower Galilee 124 127 240 139 Mt Carmel 230 144 Sepphoris 155 Dor 154 Jezre’el Valley 158 160 161 164 165 169 168 171 163 220 H. 'Eleq 210 172 181 175 180 182 177 Nysa-Scythopolis Pella 200 Samaria Jaffa Beth Zur Map 11. Seleucid period a: Coins of ‘Akko and Tyre (200–162 BCE, all sites) 211 The absolute predominance of the coins of ‘Akko in most parts of Galilee is overwhelming. Contributing to this picture is the fact that it can now be asserted that ‘Akko-Ptolemais minted bronze coinage already under Antiochus III (SC 1:256, 416). Coins of Tyre do appear, but they are concentrated in Upper Galilee, the Hula valley and the Golan. Two anomalies stand out. One is a clustering of coins of ‘Akko at the northern Hula valley (sites 3,11,13), though they are few in number. The second is some clustering of coins of Tyre in the western Lower Galilee (sites, 123, 127, 144). This may have some significance, as will be be elaborated further on. Another striking phenomenon is the very high percentage of Seleucid coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais at the comparison sites outside of it: H. ‘Eleq, Pella, Samaria, Jaffa and Beth Zur, even to the complete exclusion of coins of Tyre. 212 Period IIb (162–125 BCE) 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 3 11 15 20 14 13 Paneas 21 26 27 280 24 56 57 39 42 49 Upper Galilee 78 103 51 52 54 87 88 55 Golan 61 86 92 94 34 32 270 30 65 69 73 98 100 123 102 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 Haifa 106 107 129 110 111 113 114 112 Gamla 116 250 Lower Galilee 130 124 133b 144 Sepphoris 240 127 139 Mt Carmel 134 230 Jezre’el Valley Dor 220 158 160 H. 'Eleq 161 168 167 172 175 180 Nysa-Scythopolis 177 Pella 210 200 Samaria Mt. Gerizim Jaffa Beth Zur Map 12. Seleucid period b: Coins of ‘Akko and Tyre (162–125 BCE, all sites) After 162 BCE the picture changes dramatically. The distribution of the coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais shrinks both in the geographical area they are found in, as well as in absolute numbers. There are now in Galilee only nine sites that have coins of ‘Akko. Their presence at the comparison sites shrinks as well, appearing now only at Bet Zur. Here again two anomalous clusters stand out. Even when considering the dramatic shift in the dominant mint in Galilee, the Bet She’an valley, showing coins of ‘Akko in all periods, shows a concentration of Tyrian coins. The cluster in Lower Galilee 213 that had an unusual concentration of Tyrian coins before 162 BCE still does, wedged as it were between ‘Akko and the Bet She’an valley, breaking the continuity of the sparse appearance of the coins of ‘Akko. Furthermore, most of these sites have a large number of coins (especially Nos. 123, 124, 127 and 144), which make the anomaly all the more significant. There can be no question that in the period from 200 to c. 162 BCE the mint of ‘Akko-Ptolemais, being also the district capital, was the main supplier of bronze currency not only to its chora, but to most of Palestine, if the figures from the sites used here for comparison can be relied on statistically. In Jerusalem the picture appears to be the same (Ariel 1982:279; Gitler 1996, passim). Even at Beirut (Butcher, forthcoming), coins of ‘Akko outnumber those of Tyre by far in this period. The dramatic change under Demetrius I should be attributed to a policy change, perhaps a result of the new administrative division suggested above (p.145), after which the mint of ‘Akko became a local, almost insignificant mint for bronze, the leading role being taken now by Tyre. 214 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 9 3 11 Paneas 20 27 280 56 57 39 50 52 54 86 87 88 110 111 113 92 Golan 26 270 79 73 Upper Galilee 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 Haifa 98 100 123 Lower Galilee 112 Gamla 250 124 133 240 Tiberias 127 139 Mt Carmel 134 144 Sepphoris Sidon 230 Jezre’el Valley Tyre Dor 220 158 161 169 172 175 177 Nysa-Scythopolis ‘Akko-Ptolemais Other Seleucid Other Coins H. 'Eleq 210 Pella 200 Samaria Mt. Gerizim Jaffa Beth Zur Hebron (hoard) Map 13. Seleucid period (all): Selected sites 200–125 BCE Conclusions The foregoing analysis demonstrates the problems associated with choosing a chronological division, which can never be exactly ‘right’. While for most purposes of this study the choice of the period 200–125 BCE for the Seleucid period is good, Map 13, encompassing the whole period, shows that it is not of a sufficient resolution for 215 identifying the break that occurs at ‘Akko-Ptolemais around 162 BCE. Map 13 in fact is good for showing the relative distribution of other coins current in period 2. The majority of coins in circulation in this period appear to have been minted under Antiochus III and IV, and this holds true for both the mint of Tyre and that of ‘Akko. We can also clearly see that the distribution pattern of the coins of the three cities transcends the pattern observed by Berlin (1997) of the distribution of Phoenician semi-fine wares. These wares are well distributed in all Phoenician regions, i.e. the coastal strip as far south as Dora and the Paneas region (Berlin 1997:82–83, Figs. 11– 13), whereas the coins show a marked segregation into what might be termed ‘orbits’ of the three cities. Is it a deliberate preference of coins of one mint over the other, economic reasons, administrative directives or a combination of all? The clustering of coins of Sidon in the Northern Hula valley begins a trend that we shall see to increase very much in period 3, disappear in period 4 and return again in period 5, for which it has been commented on by Kindler (1986b:533). There are two plausible, not mutually exclusive explanations for this clustering: a. A distinct preference for bronze coins of Sidon. b. Trade patterns. It would seem that The Paneas region was well connected to Tyre especially, as indicated by the Roman road connecting the two cities (TIR, maps). This suggests that older roads, both main and secondary existed there in the Seleucid period. Sidon was reached from the Paneas region by way of a similar, direct road. The clustering of Sidonian coins only in the Paneas region and not elsewhere might imply that these coins reached this specific area directly from the mint, even though above (p.164) I cautioned against such sweeping conclusions for Tyrian coinage. This clustering 216 might, then, be another form of the phenomenon discussed by Berlin (1997, and above, p.153), by which Phoenicians actually preferred pottery products ‘made in Phoenicia’. As briefly remarked on p.167, according to Judges 18.28 the Dan/Paneas area was a Sidonian colony in the early Biblical period, so might it be possible to suggest, based on this very clear and strong clustering of Sidonian coinage in this very area a continuing ‘local patriotism’ looking at Sidon as its metropolis?111 This phenomenon would also be in line with the observations of Millar (1983) of a conscious historical tradition and identity among the Phoenicians, one that lasted through the Roman period. Thus, the mixture of Sidonian and Tyrian coinage reflects on both cities being on the route of the commercial interests of the Paneas region. Another, simpler explanation might be that the coins of Sidon reached the Paneas area with the Itureans, who were establishing themselves in this area around the midsecond century BCE (Hartal 2003:224), and whose center was in the Beka‘a valley in Lebanon. If it could be shown that coins of Sidon were the preferred currency there, it would follow that these coins diffused southward by way of commerce. Unfortunately we have no evidence from the Beka‘a valley to lend any support to this theory. Z. Safrai (1994:402) already suggested the possibility that trade with the Golan revolved around the road which goes through the Beqa‘a valley. Though there is evidence in the Roman period about Sidonian influence in the area, following the dissolution of the Iturean principality (p.167 and n.110), we cannot say if that influence reflects far older traditions or administrative divisions, by which the Mt. Hermon foothill area was the hinterland of Sidon. Assuming that after the settling by the tribe of Dan some of those Sidonians remained. The book of Judges was apparently written in the 8–7th century BCE, with much editing in later periods (Amit 1999:375), but Yadin (1965:53) places the episode an the end of the12th century BCE, when the kingdom of Sidon was weakened after a war with Ascalon. 111 217 The ‘orbits’ of the coins of Tyre and ‘Akko-Ptolemais seem to be more complex. The heavy concentration of Tyrian coins in Upper Galilee throughout the period can be reasonably seen as an economic orbit centering on Tyre, with perhaps easier road access, but an administrative reason as well cannot be ruled out. The coins of ‘Akko however, show that until c. 162 BCE they formed the bulk of bronze coinage in Galilee, encroaching even on the Tyrian ‘zone’ of Upper Galilee. They seem to predominate also in Samaria and Judaea, suggesting administrative reasons; ‘Akko was not only the seat of government for the Seleucid administration of the paralia district, but also a major military base. 112 Thus its products are the ones carried southward from ‘Akko, by troops, officials, and regular commercial transactions. As seen from Map 13, this generalization breaks down at Dora and Jaffa, where their position as port cities allowed for a more mixed currency. To complicate matters further, a study on excavated coins from Beirut (Butcher 2002) shows, that there too, in this period, coins of ‘Akko outnumber those of Tyre (15 vs. 7). Butcher counted only the coins of Antiochus IV from ‘Akko, but it stands to reason that several of the many small ‘Head of Apollo/Apollo standing’ type of Antiochus III found there are also from the mint of ‘Akko-Ptolemais (SC 1:416–417; Syon, forthcoming 1), increasing the ratio. Butcher suggests that the coins from ‘Akko-Ptolemais may have arrived as a consignment to be used there as legal tender. Moreover, he found that this specific type of Antiochus III is absent in areas where Tyrian coinage predominates, i.e. near Tyre and at Oumm el-‘Amed, but we see it is abundant in Samaria (27 coins) Mt Gerizim (hundreds113) and Bet Zur (25 coins), an Its character as a military base under Antiochus III and IX is attested to by epigraphic evidence (Rappaport 1988:38). It stands to reason that it was such throughout Seleucid domination. 113 Information courtesy of G. Bijovsky, IAA. Only a small part of the Mt. Gerizim coins were available for entry in the database for this study. 112 218 observation that strengthens our argument for different circulation areas for the different mints. The Bet She’an valley, apart from the constant presence of the coins of ‘Akko, also shows a greater influx of Selucid currency from other Syrian mints, especially Antioch. This is no doubt due to its geographical situation on a major road intersection open to the east and northeast. A very similar distribution is observed at Pella to the east. To sum up, contrary to the accepted view, it appears that ‘Akko-Ptolemais was possibly the main supplier of bronze coinage to Palestine and some parts of Phoenicia in the Seleucid period, until and including the reign of Antiochus IV.114 The only area where this was different was Tyre and its hinterland, including Upper Galilee and the Golan. Tyre dominated in the production of silver throughout the period. This circulation appears to have been controlled by the authorities, though patterns of trade influenced it to some extent. Within the general pattern some anomalous regions appear, such as the Paneas area and lower Galilee, where it may be possible to observe a local circulation pattern based, at least partly, on deliberate preference (below). Galilee and the Golan in the the Seleucid period were the agricultural hinterland of ‘Akko and Tyre, and the urban centers therein (Sepphoris, Gamla, Paneas, Tiberias) emerged only in the Hasmonean and Early Roman periods. Thus, for the school of Biblical scholars seeing in the Galilee an economic backwater at the time, it might come as a surprise to see such prolific evidence of a monetized economy already in the second century BCE. Of course any conclusions concerning Samaria and Judaea must remain tentative until more detailed studies are carried out. 114 219 Jewish presence in Galilee before the Hasmoneans? This topic has received much attention in the past few decades. Opinions range from total denial of the possibility that Jews lived in Galilee before the Hasmonean period (as either a residual population since the Assyrian exile or otherwise), to firm assertions to the presence of such a population and all shades in between. 115 The numismatic data collected in this study offers two pieces of evidence that seem to favor such an early Jewish presence, though how early, cannot be determined. The first piece concerns four sites in western Lower Galilee that are far closer to ‘Akko than to Tyre, and where contrary to economic ‘common sense’, coins of Tyre, rather than ‘Akko are the only ones after 162 BCE, but they appear in considerable quantities even before that date. No economic explanation can fit this pattern, as the distance of these sites from ‘Akko is but one third of their distance to Tyre. The change in the relative mint output of these two mints alone cannot explain the fact that at all four sites together just a single Seleucid coin from the mint of ‘Akko from 164 to c. 125 BCE was found, plus some of the late second century BCE civic or autonomous issues of the city (these belong in fact to my period 3). These are Yodefat (Jotapata), Hurvat Qana (124), Shihin (Asochis) and (to a lesser extent) Sepphoris: Site ‘Akko-Ptolemais Early Late (200–162 BCE) (162–c.110 BCE) Tyre Early (200–162 BCE) Late (162–125 BCE) Yodefat (site 123) H. Qana (site 124) Shihin (site 127) Sepphoris (site 144) 7 5 24 4 12 civic 1 civic 1 civic 1 Seleucid 4 civic 1 0 2 1 123 11 57 5 Figure 65. Early and late Seleucid mints in western Lower Galilee This issue has been touched on by too many scholars to bring a full set of references. For a sampling see e.g. Klein 1967:4–18; Tadmor 1968; Rappaport 1967; Schürer 1973 II:7–12; Freyne 1980:37; Fuchs 1981; Sievers 1990:99, Frankel 1998, all with further bibliographies. 115 220 It is not very likely that this area suddenly came into the natural economic orbit of Tyre, and there may be some ground here to suggest that deliberate choice played a part in the obtaining picture. The common denominator of at least three of sites (Sepphoris, Shihin and Yodefat) is that they are known Jewish sites from historical and rabbinical sources. I believe that H. Qana was too. While the hypothesis suggested below is admittedly speculative, it may be worthwhile to examine this preference on an ethnic background, given that this shift in the ‘preferred’ mint occurred just about the time of the Maccabean revolt (see above, p.209). On one hand, ‘Akko-Ptolemais was the polis that figured most prominently in the actions of the Greek cities against the early Hasmoneans, and on the other, the school siding with a residual Jewish population in Galilee prior to the Hasmonean expansion, place the center of this population exactly in the western Lower Galilee where these sites are (Rappaport 1993:28, Aviam 1996). For Shihin and Sepphoris specifically, it is claimed that since a large Jewish population is attested there in the very early days of Alexander Jannaeus, when Ptolemy Lathyrus attacked the city in 103 BCE (Josephus, Ant. 13.2.4 [§ 336]), it must have been a sizable Jewish settlement earlier, i.e. towards the end of the Seleucid period. Could it be that such a Jewish population, encouraged by the victories of the Maccabees, would decide suddenly to prefer economic relations with Tyre instead of the closer, but hated ‘Akko? The second piece of evidence concerns a rather surprising number of coins of Antiochus VII from the mint of Jerusalem have been found in Galilee: 221 Site Number of coins of Antiochus VII from Jerusalem Gush Halav (site 54) 1 Gamla (site 112) 4 Yodefat (site 123) 2 Shihin (site 127) 1 Arbel (site 132) 1 Tel Basul (site 174 ) 1 Bet She’an (site 177 ) 2 Figure 66. Coins of Antiochus VII from the mint of Jerusalem found in Galilee….2 As far as I am aware, this coin is not very common, and there are 28 such coins listed in the state collections apart from those on this list: 16 from Jerusalem, six unprovenanced, one further coin from near Bet She’an, and five more from sites in Judaea. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km Paneas 280 Golan 270 Gush Halav (1) Upper Galilee 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa Lower Galilee Yodefat (2) Shihin (1) 240 Gamla (4) 250 Tiberias Arbel (1) Sepphoris Mt Carmel 230 Jezre’el Valley 220 Nysa-Scythopolis (2) 210 Tel Basul (1) 200 Map 14. Coins of Antiochus VII from Jerusalem in Galilee We have seen earlier that in the Seleucid period most of the Seleucid coinage in Samaria and Judaea appears to have been supplied by the northern mints of ‘Akko Ptolemais and Tyre. What then do the probably rather insignificant issues of the mint of Jerusalem do so far north from their source? The type was unique to Jerusalem and 222 would not be naturally acceptable everywhere. The first five sites on the list were unquestionably Jewish sites in the early Roman period, explicitly mentioned by Josephus. The numismatic picture suggests that Tel Basul is most probably a Jewish site as well, which was destroyed in the Jewish War and never recovered (p.244). Nysa-Scythopolis (Bet She’an) is known to have been conquered by Hyrcanus I and to have had a sizeable Jewish population at least down to the Jewish war, but 2 Macc. 12:29–31 implies a Jewish population already in the time of Judas Maccabeus, in that “the Jews who lived there bore witness to the goodwill that the people of Scythopolis had shown them” The presence of these coins might then suggest that they arrived from Jerusalem by way of Jews that returned from the yearly pilgrimages to the Temple. This in turn would place the beginning of Jewish presence at these sites as early as the reign of Antiochus VII (138–129 BCE). 223 Figure 67. Period 2: Selected sites (percent of total coins for the period): Other Seleucid Other Seleucid 10 40 64 26 100 65 37 48 43 23 24 11 27 54 39 43 60 1 20 Other Seleucid 25 64 17 26 40 47 11 ‚Akko 67 7 82 60 52 8 85 Site No. Site No. Sidon Sidon ‚Akko ‚Akko Other 3 8 9 11 20 26 27 39 50 52 54 56 57 73 79 86 87 88 92 97 98 100 110 111 112 113 123 124 6 40 20 13 2 58 8 83 10 2 8 30 18 10 12 4 3 1 3 50 72 84 98 70 73 90 82 90 85 70 42 100 73 63 91 5 40 9 99 69 90 100 82 58 28 17 60 20 13 8 127 133 134 139 144 158 161 169 172 175 177 15 4 1 65 84 40 12 63 7 9 13 14 17 24 16 9 6 10 11 29 22 25 6 29 10 73 1 6 4 12 16 11 29 5 Comparison sites: Sidon Site 12 3 'Eleq Dor Mt. Gerizim Samaria Pella Jaffa Bet Zur Hebron (hoard) 63 50 18 24 2 6 26 1 4 29 1 0.5 13 8 10 2 100 0.5 35 2 Other 4 Tyre Other Tyre Tyre 224 Period 3: The Hasmonean Period (125–63 BCE) Commentary A dramatic change takes place in this period with the advent of the Hasmoneans and their coinage. Whereas in the preceding periods the circulation of coins was within a single political unit, now we have a boundary in Galilee which is at the same time ethnic and political, which for matters of coin circulation was almost as good as a solid boundary. Though straying somewhat from the declared subject of this study, it is impossible not to touch on the subject of Jewish coinage in this, and the following periods (see below). 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 9 3 11 20 13 Paneas 17 280 22 38 40 270 58 Golan 77 73 260 80 Upper Galilee ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 Haifa 112 Gamla Lower Galilee Tiberias 250 240 144 Sepphoris Mt Carmel 230 Jezre’el Valley 220 Nysa-Scythopolis 210 200 Map 15. Hasmonean period: Coins of Autonomous Sidon (all sites) The coins of Sidon still cluster in the northern Hula valley— the Paneas region— and they are even more prominent than in the Seleucid period, not only by percentage but by absolute numbers as well. Except at ‘Akko and Sepphoris, single coins of Sidon are found only at six other sites, all in Upper Galilee. Two possible explanations were 225 offered for this clustering in the preceding period (p.215). The greater part played by the Itureans in this region in the Hasmonean period, together with the increase in the quantity of Sidonian coins, might support the second explanation, i.e. that the coins arrived from the Iturean center in the Beka‘a valley. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 3 11 5 20 9 13 Paneas 27 280 56 40 47 52 61 86 49 51 80 50 54 87 58 Golan 270 65 69 260 64 92 73 Upper Galilee ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa 98 100 Lower Galilee 111 106 129 Tiberias 112 Gamla 250 240 127 139 Mt Carmel 133b Sepphoris 230 145 Jezre’el Valley 220 159 167 169 177 Nysa-Scythopolis 210 200 Map 16. Hasmonean period: Autonomous coins of Tyre (all sites) The number of sites with coins of Tyre is seen to drop considerably (Map 16) and to retreat mostly to Upper Galilee and to the northern Hula valley. The decline is even more pronounced when sites with single coins are removed (Map 19). In fact, if we remove the site of Gamla with c. 700 coins of Tyre, then the greatest number of coins of the three Phoenician cities is now that of ‘Akko-Ptolemais. 226 The coinage of ‘Akko is now more prominent around the city itself, and continues to appear in Lower Galilee and the Bet She’an valley (Map 17). There are fewer sites than in the preceding period, but the decline is far less dramatic than that of Tyre. The strong presence of ‘Akko at Qedesh (site 56) is noteworthy. The most dramatic change by far however, is the takeover of Hasmonean coinage in the eastern Galilee, the Golan and to a lesser extent, the Bet She’an valley. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 13 Paneas 20 280 56 40 52 54 73 99 100 123 103 Lower Galilee Upper Galilee Golan 270 65 66 69 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 Haifa 260 98 111 129 Tiberias 112 Gamla 250 119 240 124 Mt Carmel 230 139 126 127 Sepphoris 144 134 Jezre’el Valley 163 167 170 172 177 Nysa-Scythopolis 158 220 161 169 210 Civic Seleucid 200 Map 17. Hasmonean period: Civic and Seleucid coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais (all sites) Conclusions While Map 18 shows all sites that yielded at least one Hasmonean coin, Map 19 is more meaningful for evaluating their impact. This map shows, in effect, the boundaries of the Hasmonean state in Galilee at its peak, one that eventually became 227 the boundary between the Roman provinces of Judaea and Syria. As discussed above (p.149), this boundary is clearly an ethnic one as well. Excepting the large urban center of ‘Akko-Ptolemais, where small numbers of Hasmonean coins could have arrived by a variety of circumstances, and a few anomalous areas to be discussed below, the almost complete exclusion of Phoenician coins from the Hasmonean controlled areas — and vice versa — is very clear. This is in keeping with past observations (above, p.103), but seen here at far more sites. I believe that this phenomenon, though certainly deriving from the fact that Hasmonean currency was expected by the state to be the main currency within its domains, is also a reflection of preference/rejection on an ethnic background, otherwise it is hard to explain the very minor diffusion of currencies across this boundary. In the following period I shall argue for a similar preference, and there it will be even easier to demonstrate. One problematic site in this respect is Pella. According to the latest analysis by Shachar (2002:50–54), Pella was abandoned after its conquest by Jannaeus, c. 83–80 BCE, just as reported by Josephus (Ant. 13.15.4 [392–397]; War 1.4.8 [103–105]). However, the presence of 29 Hasmonean coins, and not of the latest types of Jannaeus, would suggest that these were in circulation in a pagan city during the Hasmonean period, contrary to the hypothesis I just presented. In several cases I think we can pinpoint the boundary of the Hasmonean state with its neighbors with great accuracy: 1. In the eastern Hula valley the boundary passed just north of Tel Yardinon (site 24). Though Tel Anafa (site 20) did yield 12 Hasmonean coins, the excavators claim that it was not inhabited between c. 75 BCE and the first century CE. The coins though, 228 suggest some Hasmonean presence, even if ephemeral.116 The boundary at this point was in all probability with the territory of the Itureans. 2. In the eastern upper Galilee the border was situated between Qedesh (site 56) and Qeren Naftali (site 58). Though Qedesh was clearly in Tyrian territory (see above, p.147), in this period late Seleucid coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais form the majority of coins. 3. In the eastern Upper Galilee the Mt. Meron massif formed the boundary, illustrated by the dense line of settlements at Kh. El-Shuhara 117 (site 52), Gush Halav (54), Meron (87), H. Shema‘ (88) and H. Beer-Sheva (102). Against them stands Ghabbatia (site 80), and perhaps as negative evidence, Sasa, Sasa West and Kefar Bar‘am (sites 49, 50, 51), with single coins of Tyre each. In Western Galilee the border between the territory of ‘Akko-Ptolemais and Hasmonean Galilee seems indeed to have passed along the line of forts identified by Aviam (1989; Frankel et al. 2001:109). Of these only one — H. Tefen, site 78 — yielded Hasmonean coins, but it was not a settlement proper, but rather a fort. 4. In Lower Galilee the border between the territory of ‘Akko and Galilee was most likely at Hanaton (site 126), at the western edge of the Bet Netofa valley. In the Roman period a road connected ‘Akko to Sepphoris through this site (TIR, maps),118 so it is possible that Hanaton was a border station.119 The Hasmonean coins are hardly visible on the pie-chart on Map 19, as they form a small percentage. 117 I would like to point out that the excavators of the site differ in opinion (Aviam and Amitai 2002). 118 In TIR, Asochis is placed mistakenly at the site of Tel Hanaton. 119 The surveyors of Shihin reached a similar conclusion, that Hanaton (Tel Badawiya) was a ‘strategic and fortified post in various periods’ (Strange, Groh and Longstaff 1994:227). 116 229 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 3 9 13Paneas 20 24 280 58 52 270 63 Golan 69 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa 97 98 100 121 61 54 84 86 87 Upper Galilee 88 90 89 78 83 104 91 103 123 122 102 124 92 93 152a 109 110 111 113 112 Gamla 115 135 250 120 240 107 129 133a 130 131 132 Lower Galilee 133 Tiberias 127 133b 144 148 Sepphoris 143 Mt Carmel 230 136 154 Jezre’el Valley 164 167 169 170 171 172 174 176 220 159 160 161 Nysa-Scythopolis 210 200 Map 18. Hasmonean period: Hasmonean coins (all sites) 4. The city of Hippos is said by Syncellus to have been conquered by Alexander Jannaeus (Chronographia, ed. Dindorf: 558–559), though Josephus does not mention this event. Josephus does, however mention that it was liberated by Pompey (Ant. 14.4.4 [§75]) and that it was not demolished (War 1.7.7 [§156]). This might be taken to imply that it was for a time in Jewish hands and taken without a fight. It is seen however that no Hasmonean coins have been found there at all, in contrast to Pella, which was conquered by Jannaeus and shows a large percentage of Hasmonean coins. Hasmonean coins might certainly appear at Hippos in future excavations, but it is worthwhile to note this absence in connection with the relative reliability of Syncellus and Josephus. 230 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 3 11 9 13 Paneas 20 22 27 56 58 40 47 80 73 52 54 86 90 88 109 111 110 133a 135 134 112 Gamla 92 93 152a 280 24 63 Golan 270 69 78 Upper Galilee 87 83 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 Haifa 119 120 240 98 100 123 250 104 103 129 130 Lower Galilee 124 132 131 126 127 144 Sepphoris 139 Tiberias 133 133b Mt Carmel 230 Sidon Dor 220 Jezre’el Valley 161 159 169 171 Tyre ‘Akko-Ptolemais 167 170 172 177 Nysa-Scythopolis 174 ‘Hasmonean Seleucid Other coins 210 Pella 200 Samaria Mt. Gerizim Jaffa Beth Zur Map 19. Hasmonean period: Selected sites 5. The fort of Rushmiya on Mt. Carmel (site 120) yielded only Hasmonean coins (their number is not stated). This accords well with the extent of Hasmonean possessions as given by Josephus (Ant. 13.15.4 [§396]), which included Mt. Carmel. There can be no question that this fort kept an eye on the territory of ‘AkkoPtolemais, beginning at the foot of the mountain. The picture for the Bet She’an valley appears distorted because of the choice of the beginning date of period 3 in 125 BCE. We have it from Josephus (Ant. 13.10.3 [§280]; War 1.2.7 [§66]) that Scythopolis itself was taken already by Hyrcanus. The 231 numismatic picture from the city and vicinity however, shows, in addition to Hasmonean coins, a variety of late Seleucid coins from ‘Akko, Antioch and Damascus and autonomous and civic coins of Tyre and ‘Akko. All these however, with two exceptions (a coin of Demetrius III (96–87 BCE) and one of Tyre, 104/3, both found at Scythopolis), predate the conquest of the city, which took place probably in 109 BCE (Barag 1992–93:11, n.41). Thus, for the early part of the period and until the Hasmonean conquest, the circulation pattern observed for the coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais in Galilee continues that from the preceding period, though there seems to be a slight rise in the number of late Seleucid and civic coins seen across Galille, ate the expense of the shrunken influence of Tyre. The data available is not enough to claim the same for Samaria and Judaea with any certainty, but it stands to reason that it was indeed the case. The sites here chosen for comparison certainly show the same pattern. By the days of Alexander Jannaeus however, the mint of ‘Akko again seems to have lost its importance and became a local mint supplying mostly the territory of the city, including the Carmel coast: Shiqmona (site 119) and Dor. The pattern for Tyre seems to have changed already at the beginning of the period, as we see far fewer sites with Tyrian coins (42 sites as opposed to 95 in period 2). Most of those (where dating within the period was possible) yielded coins only from the early part of the period (125–c. 98 BCE), before the Hasmonean domination: at Tel Anafa (site 20), all 25 Tyrian coins date before 84 BCE; at Gamla (site 112), 615 out of 623 Tyrian coins of this period date no later than 98 BCE; at Shihin (site 127) all 29 Tyrian coins date to 125–98 BCE; a hoard found on the Golan (site 152a) contained 25 Tyrian coins, all dated 99/8 BCE. This decline is hard to explain, but 232 appears to be real, as at Beirut too, no Tyrian autonomous coins from this period were found at all (Butcher 2002). One possible explanation could be that when Tyre opened its autonomous mint it reduced the production of bronze and concentrated more on the silver, but the 615 coins from Gamla dated 125–98 BCE somewhat weaken this proposition. The Golan is seen to retain a somewhat stronger link to Tyre in these early years (125–98 BCE), and since there is a clear change in minting authority at Tyre in 125 BCE, the reason must be commercial, not political. There are two apparent anomalies in Map 19. One concerns the Paneas region, the other the vicinity of ‘Akko-Ptolemais. In the Paneas region we see a small amount of Hasmonean coins in an area that was not, as far as we can tell by other evidence, under Hasmonean control. These are Hagoshrim Avocado (site 3), one coin of Jannaeus; H. Snaim (site 9), one of Hyrcanus I; Paneas itself (site 13), with two coins of Jannaeus and two unidentified Hasmonean coins. 120 However, in the following period some of these sites, plus others, again yield Jewish coins minted in Jerusalem (see below). The overwhelming evidence for the region north of Tel Anafa points to its having been a pagan area. Thus, either local economic interaction between Jews and Itureans resulted in this circulation pattern which carried Jewish coins to pagan sites, or indeed they arrived only in the early Roman period, when it was given to Herod, having remained in circulation for a long time, as demonstrated for Gamla and elsewhere (part II, p.116). Berlin (1997:85, and note 10) already remarked about the ambiguous and mixed nature of this region at this time.through the evidence of pottery. In the vicinity of ‘Akko-Ptolemais we have three sites (not counting ‘Akko itself), unquestionably in the territory of ‘Akko, with Hasmonean coins: Kh. Muslih (site 69), 120 Paneas at the time was a cult site only, to become a city only under Philip. 233 one of Jannaeus; ‘En Hamifraz (site 98), 3 of Jannaeus; Tel Keisan (site 100), one Hasmonean. These can be explained probably by some diffusion of minor currency across the ethnic division lines, because economic interaction is not likely to have stopped completely between ‘Akko, who depended on Galilee for produce, and the Jews therein, who needed the revenue. Looking now at the ‘Baraita of the Borders’ (see discussion above, p.146) through numismatic spectacles, it appears that the numismatic evidence cannot confirm any Jewish population in Western Galilee, let alone a dense one, neither in the Hasmonean period (Map 19), and certainly not in the early Roman period (Map 30). The only site north of ‘Akko with Hasmonean coinage is H. Muslih (site 69, 1 coin). Based on the arguments above, it stands to reason that any Jewish population in this area would have found a means of procuring Jewish coinage. Thus, the argumentum ex silentio in this case appears to be significant in suggesting that the baraita reflects at best on the Roman period (post 70 CE), when a small Jewish population within the predominantly pagan area of Western Galilee is attested in rabbinic literature,121 a population that nevertheless received attention from the sages in regulating their religious duties. In fact, it may be suggested that this population only began after the Great Revolt, possibly as a natural result of the well-attested Jewish traffic to the commercial outlets and fairs of ‘Akko-Ptolemais and Tyre (see above, p.152). To sum up: The creation of the Hasmonean state reduced considerably the demand for the bronze coinage of ‘Akko-Ptolemais and that of Tyre— at least in the study area. Tyrian silver however continued to play a major role in the Palestinian economy. Sidon, never a major factor in coin circulation in Galilee, is seen to supply a For a wider perspective on the baraita and references to the rabbinic literature, see Frankel et al. 2001: 108, 111–113. 121 234 somewhat greater proportion of coins to the Paneas area, at the expense of Tyre. The distribution pattern of Hasmonean coins outlines the extent of the Jewish settlement in Galilee at the peak of the Hasmonean state. A reasonably accurate boundary can be drawn, corroborating by and large the state of research today obtained from historical sources and archaeological evidence, and some fine-tuning of the borders is now possible. The data cannot unfortunately supply the chronology of the Hasmonean penetration into Galilee, but one piece of evidence goes towards confirming that under Judah Aristobulus (104–103 BCE) Galilee and the Golan were already strongly Jewish. A by-product of the data collected for this study is the realization that most of the provenanced coins of Judah Aristobulus I in the country122 originate from Galilee and the Golan. The following table presents the data: Number of coins of Aristobulus I North Gush Halav (site 54) 1 Meron (site 87) 1 Qasrin (site 93) 1 Gamla (site 112) 30 Shihin (site 127) 2 Tiberias (site 133) 1 Sepphoris (site 144) 1 Golan hoard (site 152a) 2 Samaria/Judaea Jaffa 1 Mt. Gerizim 1 Jerusalem 8 Site Figure 68. Provenanced coins of Aristobulus I Though Meshorer (TJC:29) claims that ‘hundreds’ of coins of ‘Yehuda’ are known — probably in the markets — in all of the IAA database there are but 21 coins of Aristobulus I listed, and far less in all the major collections. Though reasonably some of these coins arrived later, in the time of Jannaeus, the statistics suggest that most 122 In part I, p.37 I gave my reasons for assigning the coins bearing the name Yehuda to Aristobulus I. 235 arrived in his lifetime. This numismatic picture thus corroborates quite well the historical evidence, namely that in his short reign, Aristobulus operated mainly in the north (Josephus, Ant. 13.11.3 [§318–319]).123 The exact range of his military activities and against whom they were directed are subject to much debate. For a recent summary see Hartal 2003:225–227. 123 236 Figure 69. Period 3: Selected sites Hasmonean Hasmonean Seleucid Seleucid 27 33 100 38 5 3 65 11 20 47 23 20 6 50 9 1 25 62 13 80 32 89 46 40 29 50 100 13 100 16 2 31 20 18 78 56 Seleucid 20 8 9 2 18 69 38 88 77 91 Site No. Site No. Sidon Sidon ‘Akko ‘Akko Other Other 1 46 Other 9 7 4 2 Tyre Tyre 3 9 11 13 20 22 24 27 40 47 50 51 52 54 56 58 63 69 73 78 80 83 86 87 88 90 92 93 97 98 100 103 104 109 110 111 112 119 66 81 50 10 47 100 28 13 50 40 19 6 6 10 1 40 7 86 25 14 1 9 8 100 55 100 100 100 20 2 15 25 5 7 50 13 6 36 10 70 70 97 67 100 5 1 15 2 50 90 89 2 100 100 87 94 100 25 33 50 6 11 11 75 83 100 100 79 83 120 123 124 126 127 129 130 131 132 133 133a 134 135 139 144 152a 159 161 167 169 170 171 172 174 177 26 7 3 12 100 1 13 100 97 88 72 7 100 100 100 100 100 67 75 50 33 Comparison sites Hasmone an Sidon ‘Akko 73 31 14 4 5 Tyre 21 4 8 Site Dor Mt. Gerizim Samaria Pella Jaffa Bet Zur 67 6 4 11 39 81 78 25 16 4 17 1 14 14 7 100 1 1 237 Period 4: The Early Roman Period (63 BCE–70 CE) Commentary In comparison with the preceding period, the changes in the early Roman period are not great, but some are meaningful. The number of sites with coins of Sidon drops from 16 to 10 (Map 20), and the clustering of them in the northern Hula valley disappears. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 3 Paneas 280 Golan 270 54 72 Upper Galilee 87 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 110 250 112 Gamla Haifa Lower Galilee 124 Tiberias 240 127 Mt Carmel Sepphoris 230 Jezre’el Valley 220 173 210 Nysa-Scythopolis 200 Map 20. Early Roman Period: Autonomous Sidon (all sites) The distribution of sites with Tyrian coinage is seen to remain constant at 40 sites (Map 21), but the actual numbers drop considerably (868→186), because now we do have to take into consideration Gamla, where this drop also occurs. The number of sites where coins of ‘Akko occur drops from 34 to 16 (Map 22) — by more than 50%! 238 Of the 65 sites that had (even single) Hasmonean coins in period 3, only 41 continue having Jewish coins in period 4, but 21 sites now have Jewish coins that did not have Hasmonean coins in period 3. After discarding sites with one single coin in either period, we see that only 10 sites with Hasmonean coins do not have later Jewish coins. The following table summarizes the data. Figure 70. Hasmonean and Herodian coin distribution Site No. Hasmonean coins Herodian coins Site No. Hasmonean coins Herodian coins 3 6 13 20 24 52 54 58 63 78 83 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 97 98 100 103 104 107 109 110 111 112 113 1 4 12 6 7 240 8 14 12 2 20 121 45 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 3 5 1 4 2 23 4092 2 18 2 9 8 15 26 1 2 5 21 2 1 1 1 5 63 1 2 1 3 1 11 319 3 120 123 124 125 127 129 131 132 133a 133 134 135 136 139 144 148 152a 154 159 161 164 167 169 171 172 174 177 6 392 14 82 1 20 22 125 200 6 1 32 1 12 1 8 6 1 2 5 5 3 16 20 38 2 2 10 1 17 6 8 2 2 18 38 1 1 4 1 4 31 4 24 34 239 Maps 23–29 and Figure 70 present the distribution of ‘Jewish’ coins: the coins of the Herodians, the procurators and the Roman administration by mint. These include: • • • Paneas, minting for Philip, the Roman administration, Agrippa I and II; Tiberias, minting for Antipas and the Roman administration; The mints of Jerusalem, Samaria 124 and Caesarea, minting for Herod, the procurators 125 , Agrippa I, the Roman administration and autonomous coins during the Great Revolt. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 1 4 3 13 Paneas 15 22 18 280 20 56 33 42 49 73 Upper Galilee 58 Golan 270 30 54 87 88 105 86 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa 97 103 111 129 131 Tiberias 112 Gamla 250 123 124 Lower Galilee 128 132 240 138 Mt Carmel 230 127 144 Sepphoris 142 139 134 Jezre’el Valley 153a 161 220 169 176 Nysa-Scythopolis 210 200 Map 21. Early Roman Period: Autonomous Tyre (all sites) But see n. 9. Some scholars, e.g. Hill 1914:ci, have suggested that the procurators minted in Caesarea, but the overwhelming evidence suggests Jerusalem (see Ariel 1982:288–289). In any case, they are from Judaea. See now also Kushnir-Stein 2000-2:80–81. 125 124 240 Maps 24, 25, 27 show the mints singly, the size of dots indicating relative quantity at the various sites, while Map 28 shows all mints, though for this map about 20 sites with one single coin from the mint of Jerusalem were discarded to enhance visibility. Conclusions The abrupt disappearance of the clustering of the coins of Sidon in the Paneas area is immediately apparent, especially when compared to the preceding period (Map 19). In absolute numbers, we have 192 coins of Sidon in period 3 (almost half from Tel Anafa alone), and 83 in period 4. While the clustering will return to some extent in period 5 (Map 33), the number will remain low at 81 coins. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km Paneas 280 41 42 270 Golan 30 69 73 Upper Galilee 87 104 103 112 Gamla 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa 97 98 250 Lower Galilee 123 Tiberias 240 144 Sepphoris 139 Mt Carmel 230 Jezre’el Valley 220 167 Nysa-Scythopolis 210 200 Map 22. Early Roman Period: Civic and Colonial coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais (all sites) There are two possible reasons for this drop. One is a reduced mint output at Sidon in this period, though as far as I am aware Sidon minted all along the period, if 241 intermittently (see part I, p.63). The fact that the clustering returns in the following period suggests, that its disappearance in this period is not due to lack of coins but to a reason that prevented them from reaching the area. Thus, the more attractive possibility is the annexation of some of the former Iturean principality to Herod and the formation of the Paneas region, as well as a tighter control of currency in the domains of Herod and Philip. This latter explanation would also fit the sudden increase in Jewish coins in what is clearly a pagan area, suggesting that the authorities encouraged the use of their official coinage. This might also partly explain the significant drop in the distribution of the coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais. There should not have been a great change in the outlet for its coins: the Jews kept using their own money as before, further south Caesarea started 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 8 3 11 6 18 13 Paneas 12 20 23 24 280 40 270 58 54 60 86 90 96 111 113 112 Gamla Golan 68 Upper Galilee 260 87 88 104 64 92 93 94 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa 97 83 98 100 250 106 110 123 Lower Galilee 107 129 132 131 124 125 127 144 148 147 133 133b Tiberias 103 240 134 Mt Carmel 230 139 Sepphoris 136 154 Jezre’el Valley 162 164 153a 220 158 159 210 167 169 171 175 Nysa-Scythopolis 174 176 200 Map 23. Early Roman Period: Jewish coins (all sites): Herodians, procurators, Agrippa I 242 minting, while to the north the city of Tyre controlled the market. Even Dor, formally in Phoenicia, does not show a single coin of ‘Akko in this period. An attempt to trace the shrinking of the Jewish territories after Pompey by looking at the sites that had Hasmonean coins but do not have Herodian coins fails. Many of such sites are known to have been Jewish in the Herodian period or later, yet do not have a single coin to show for it, e.g. Merot (site 61), Akhbara (site 91) and Korazim (site 109). The sites with Jewish coinage now form a recognizable pattern (Map 30). They align exactly on the provincial border between Syria/Phoenicia on one side and the Herodian 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 8 6 3 13 Paneas 20 23 280 58 Golan 270 54 Upper Galilee 87 86 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa 111 Lower Galilee 112 Gamla 250 129 Tiberias 240 Sepphoris Mt Carmel 139 230 Jezre’el Valley 220 Nysa-Scythopolis 210 200 Map 24. Early Roman Period: The mint of Paneas: Philip, Roman administration and Agrippa I (relative quantities) domains/Judaea on the other. The sites along this line show a marked mixing of currency, not only of ‘Akko, Tyre and Sidon, but of other local coinages as well. This time it would be reasonable to assign factors of trade and economy to this phenomenon along the border. 243 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 13 Paneas 280 40 270 54 Upper Galilee 60 86 Golan 64 93 96 111 112 Gamla 87 104 103 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa 250 123 240 Lower Galilee 107 131 133 Tiberias 132 134 Sepphoris Mt Carmel 139 147 Jezre’el Valley 230 220 159 169 Nysa-Scythopolis 210 200 Map 25. Early Roman Period: The mint of Tiberias: Antipas and the Roman administration (relative quantities) The site of Tel Yardinon (site 24), which was suggested in the preceding period as forming the northern border of Hasmonean territories in the Hula valley, yields in this period Jewish coins exclusively, the latest being no less than four coins of the Jewish War. Later coins appear only in the second century CE. In this case, the numismatic evidence alone is sufficient to identify this site as Jewish, possibly suffering in the Great Revolt and later restored. Thus, the evidence of this site can be adduced to the arguments of Avshalom-Gorni and Shaked (forthcoming) and move the border of the Jewish settlement north of their suggested line at Kibbutz Gonen by some three kilometers. 244 Thus, by and large, in this period the Jewish coins predominate in the Jewish areas, simply because these are part of the currency system encompassing the by now shrunk Judaea, and the Herodian domains in the north. It can be seen from Figure 63 that Jewish coins form numerically the single largest group in the study area in this period. Moreover, contrary to the observation of Hartal (2003:185–186) that Herodian money was not the chief currency of the period, it in fact forms a full third of coins in the northern Golan. The observation that Kefar Hananya pottery arrived to the Northern Golan in small quantities in this period (Hartal 2003:140–142) is also in line with such an explanation of a local trade and currency system, just as the observation that Kefar Hananya pottery ceases to arrive there in the mid-second century, is more to do with the creation of the provinces of Palaestina and Phoenice in 135 CE than with ethnic differences (ibid.). However, just as it was argued for the beginning of Jewish settlement at Gamla in the Hasmonean period (part II, p.100), it can be argued that a deliberate preference of Jewish coins can be observed in this period as well. The area of the city of NysaScythopolis was not in Herodian territory, yet we know of a sizable Jewish population there, which was practically exterminated in the Great Revolt (Josephus, War 2.18.3 [§466–468]). A Jewish population is in fact attested here already in the time of the Maccabees, according to 2 Macc. 12:29–31. Maps 18 and 30 show that there was a rural Jewish settlement too in the valley, especially west of the city, but still in the territory of Scythopolis. These sites yielded more than just single coins: at Giv‘at Qumi (site 169) there are 30 Jewish coins of the first century CE and at Tel Basul (site 174) 24 coins. This last site does not appear again in period 5 and it was most probably destroyed or abandoned in the Great Revolt. These settlements clearly continue the pattern from the Hasmonean period, and the strong presence of Jewish 245 coins outside of their formal currency zone indicates, to my belief, that they were used here out of preference. Superimposing the borders of Josephus (Map 26) on the distribution of coins, one can see that the sites with Jewish coins draw a border further east than expected. Notably the Peqi‘in (Baqa) and Kabul area totally lack such coins. As there is no reason to reject Josephus on this point, and because there is a lack of sites in the database precisely in this area, chances are that such coins will be discovered in the future. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km Paneas 280 QEDESH Golan 270 TH ELLA Upper Galilee BAQA (Pe qiin) 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa KABUL K E FA R H A N A N YA Gamla 250 Lower Galilee Tiberias 240 Sepphoris Mt Carmel 230 XALOTH Sidon Tyre ‘Akko-Ptolemais Jewish coins Other local coinages Roman Imperial Jezre’el Valley Dor 220 H. 'Eleq 210 Legio Nysa-Scythopolis Lebanon-Israel International Border Josephus Border 200 Map 26. The borders of Josephus superimposed on the coin distribution map Returning now to Berlin’s suggestion concerning a deliberate avoidance of ETS wares by Jews, as a differentiation from the aristocracy in Jerusalem (above, p.154), the numismatic data seems to contradict this thesis by showing the heavy use of the currency that came from Jerusalem. While an argument claiming that this was simply the currency available would be true, just as we have demonstrated that the Jews in 246 the Bet She’an valley could use a coinage they preferred even though it was not ‘coin of the realm’, so Jews all over Galilee could surely avoid a coinage that had negative connotations for them. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 6 3 1112 18 13 Paneas 20 24 280 Golan 270 68 Upper Galilee 54 87 88 86 92 94 90 111 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa 97 83 98 100 123 106 Lower Galilee 124 132 107 131 Tiberias 110 112 Gamla 113 250 240 139 Mt Carmel 230 125 127 144 Sepphoris 148 133 133b 136 154 Dor Jezre’el Valley 158 159 162 164 167 169 171 175 153a 220 H. ‘Eleq 210 177 Nysa-Scythopolis 174 Pella 200 Map 27. Other Jewish coins: Mattathia Antigonus, Herod (Samaria [?] and Jerusalem), Archelaus, procurators, Agrippa I and Jewish War Map 28 shows the distribution of the coins from the mints supplying Galilee: Paneas, Tiberias and the mints of Samaria, Jerusalem and Caesarea combined. The coins of Paneas are seen to be quite restricted to the tetrarchy of Philip; only four coins are recorded outside of this area. The coin at the site of the Ginnosar boat (site 129) most probably arrived from across the lake. The coins of Tiberias show a somewhat wider distribution than the extent of the tetrarchy of Antipas, most notably reaching the Golan in some numbers. This again can probably be seen as a preference 247 of the Jews of the central Golan of trading with Jewish Tiberias rather than with pagan Paneas, given also the relative proximity of the former. Noteworthy is the fact that at Paneas itself two coins of Antipas but only one of Philip were found, that at Tiberias only a single coin of Antipas, at Sepphoris none at all of Antipas and at Capernaum only a single Jewish coin was found: a coin of the Jewish War from Jerusalem. No special importance should be attached to these facts, as they apparently represent the chance factor in the excavations, just as the fact that Kefar Hananya, a Jewish site par excellence, did not yield a single Jewish coin from any period. 248 Figure 71. The breakdown of Herodian mints in Galilee and Golan Tiberias Site No. J’lem, Samaria, Caesarea Site No. Tiberias 68 14 Paneas Paneas Site Hagoshrim Avocado Hagoshrim Qal'at Bustra Dan-Dafna Snir Paneas Tel Sheikh Yusuf Tel Anafa Kh. el-Beda Tel Yardinon H. Karkara Gush Halav Qeren Naftali H. Qazyon Makbarat Banat Yakub Kh. elShubeika Rama Nabratein Meron H. Shema' Zefat 'Ateret Qasrin Qseibeh Yahudiya 'Akko Tel Keisan H. Zalmon H. Beer Sheva Huqoq H. Ravid Capernaum Betsaida Site Gamla H. Kanaf Yodefat, Shifat H. Qana H. 'Ofrat Shihin Ginnosar boat site Migdal Arbel Tiberias Hippos Sumaqa Sha'ar Ha'Amaqim Sepphoris Kh. El-Tirya Kafr Kanna Sha'ar Hagolan area Umm elZinat Midrakh 'Oz Meggido El Kader H. Zafzafot Giv'at Boleq Giv'at Qumi Tel Slawim Tel Basul Sede Nahum Bet She’an J’lem, Samaria, Caesarea 3 6 8 11 12 13 18 20 23 24 40 54 58 60 64 68 83 86 87 88 90 92 93 94 96 97 100 103 104 106 107 110 111 3 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 2 13 1 1 1 6 1 1 16 15 112 113 123 124 125 127 129 131 132 133 134 136 139 144 147 148 153a 154 158 159 162 164 167 169 171 174 175 177 54 1 197 3 24 2 2 10 1 4 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 27 4 24 1 34 13 3 6 2 14 38 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 15 2 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 5 1 3 249 The local coinages minted in the area, notably those of Sepphoris, Hippos, NysaScythopolis, Gadara and Dor play a very minor role in the observed circulation. Very few such coins were found, even in their mint cities. The civic coins of Antioch though are much more widespread. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 3 6 20 8 13 Paneas 23 280 24 40 58 54 Upper Galilee Golan 270 60 86 64 93 87 88 104 103 107 260 83 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 Haifa Lower Galilee 111 129 131 Tiberias 96 112 Gamla 113 250 123 125 124 132 240 139 Mt Carmel 230 133 127 133b 144 Sepphoris 147 134 136 Jezre’el Valley Paneas Tiberias 220 159 167 169 171 174 177 Nysa-Scythopolis Jerusalem/Caesarea 210 200 Map 28. The mints of Paneas, Tiberias and Samaria/Judaea Finally, the paucity of Roman imperial coins is immediately obvious, appearing at no more than ten sites, with a total of 39 coins (of these 19 from Gamla). This is in keeping with the established pattern, and will be seen to rise sharply in the following period. 250 The sites used for comparison outside of Galilee show the expected pattern. At Sia‘ in the Hauran the majority of coins is Nabatean, as this was a major cult site, and the rest Herodian, reflecting the fact that Sia‘ was in the territory of Philip and later Agrippa I. The complete lack of any Phoenician coinage is consistent, showing Sia‘ to be outside the monetary circulation of Phoenicia. Samaria and Judaea use mostly Jewish coinage, as expected. The high percentage of Jewish coins at Dor is somewhat surprising, considering it was in Syria, not Judaea. Here the reason is surely commercial, as except the sea, its easiest outlet was towards Judaea, by which it was virtually surrounded. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km Paneas 280 Philip Golan 270 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa Gamla 250 Antipas 240 Tiberias Hippos Sepphoris Mt Carmel Karmel 230 Jezreel Valley Paneas Tiberias Jerusalem/Caesarea 220 Legio Nysa-Scythopolis 210 200 Map 29. The tetrarchies of Antipas and Philip imposed on the coin distribution To sum up: Though under indirect Roman rule for most of the period under consideration (63 BCE–44 CE), the Jewish presence in Galilee is very obvious in the numismatic finds, yet the creation of the provincial border across Galilee appears to have been the single strongest reason for the observed circulation patterns. Along the boundaries the effects of commerce and trade across this border are visible. In addition, as in the preceding period, a preference of Jewish coins on an ethnic background can be observed as well, albeit this time only in areas outside Herodian 251 territories. The coins of the Phoenician cities of Sidon, Tyre and ‘Akko-Ptolemais reach in this period the lowest circulation in the study area. For ‘Akko at least, this is a very small area indeed. The impact of Roman imperial coinage is visible, but still negligible. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 3 6 12 13 Paneas 15 22 20 23 24 18 280 40 42 270 58 49 54 86 88 104 103 107 131 Tiberias Golan 30 69 73 Upper Galilee 87 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 Haifa 98 123 110 111 113 112 Gamla 250 123 125 Lower Galilee 124 132 240 127 144 Sepphoris 133 134 133b Sidon Mt Carmel 230 139 Tyre ‘Akko-Ptolemais Jewish coins Other local coinages Roman Imperial 136 Jezre’el Valley Dor 220 159 H. 'Eleq 167 169 171 177 Nysa-Scythopolis 174 210 200 Sia' Samaria Jaffa Beth Zur Map 30. Early Roman Period: Selected sites 252 Figure 72. Period 4: Selected sites Imperial Site No. Jewish Sidon ‘Akko Other Tyre 3 6 12 13 15 17 18 20 22 23 24 30 40 42 49 54 58 73 86 87 88 97 98 103 104 107 110 111 112 113 38 37 18 40 100 33 18 67 19 100 50 41 6 50 36 40 34 9 33 67 5 20 33 73 33 100 67 50 50 5 50 8 29 3 80 4 40 33 50 50 70 50 79 3 70 100 20 33 71 73 20 22 40 33 100 6 73 59 100 50 14 5 8 50 3 8 3 123 124 125 127 131 132 133 134 136 139 144 159 167 169 171 174 177 14 7 15 57 14 19 14 25 4 19 13 13 6 20 9 7 51 29 100 72 81 86 67 50 67 75 73 100 80 69 100 92 62 8 7 25 25 33 2 22 4 31 4 Comparison sites: Imperial Jewish 18 Sidon ‘Akko 4 Tyre Site Other 34 88 7 13 6 7 20 12 5 4 Sia' 'Eleq Dor Samaria Jaffa Bet Zur 2 1 2 2 2 3 97 93 5 60 40 84 13 88 8 100 Imperial 13 8 8 Site No. Jewish Sidon ‘Akko Other Tyre 253 Period 5: The Middle Roman Period (70–256 CE) Commentary The most notable feature of this period is the quite dramatic rebounding in the share of the Phoenician mints in the coin circulation in Galilee, and especially that of Tyre. Coins of Sidon are now found at 25 sites as opposed to ten in the preceding period, though numerically it is still only 81 coins. Tyre is up from 31 to 64 sites and from 186 to 764 coins! Figure 63 shows virtually the same quantity of 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 8 9 3 12 13 Paneas 15 18 20 25 26 280 35 270 45 49 Upper Galilee 29 65 69 72 Golan 53 87 92 95 111 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 Haifa 98 101 Lower Galilee Gamla 250 129 Tiberias 240 144 Sepphoris Mt Carmel 139 230 Jezre’el Valley 220 173 210 Nysa-Scythopolis 179 200 Map 31. Middle Roman Period: Provincial coinage of Sidon (all sites) autonomous coins minted in the 128 years between 70 and 198 CE as colonial coins minted in the 58 years between 198 and 256 CE.126 Thus the intensity of minting is Tyre received colonial status in 198 CE from Septimius Severus. This status was revoked for some four years under Elagabalus, but this did not impact the distribution pattern. 126 254 seen to be twice as high in the colonial period. ‘Akko-Ptolemais is up from 16 sites to 36, also doubling the quantity of coins. The coins of Sidon, Tyre and ‘Akko are now seen to reach virtually all parts of Galilee (Map 31, Map 32, Map 33). These maps however include single coin finds too, so the real impact of the mints is best seen in Map 34. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 4 7 27 280 3 5 10 18 56 57 62 15 19 16 20 25 9 13 Paneas 23 24 270 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 Haifa 35 39 44 46 45 40 41 29 32 60 51 48 61 49 54 30 76 79 68 80 86 67 65 69 87 85 71 Upper Galilee 82 88 70 73 104 91 105 98 110 103 28 Lower Galilee Golan 92 93 111 Gamla 250 123 127 144 Sepphoris 148 145 146 118 240 107 129 128 131 132 133 Tiberias 133b 150 153a 117 134 152 138 Mt Carmel 139 141 230 136 154 Jezre’el Valley 157 220 159 160 167 169 171 175 176 Nysa-Scythopolis 210 178 200 Map 32. Middle Roman period: Autonomous and colonial coins of Tyre (all sites) The clustering of the coins of Sidon is yet again evident in the Paneas region, though heavily outweighed by coins of Tyre. This clustering (for this period only) was already observed by Kindler (1986b), though his analysis was based on only 49 coins of which 37% were from Sidon and 35% from Tyre. The strength of Tyrian coins is seen to be heavy also in Upper Galilee, and surprisingly, in the vicinity of ‘Akko. The pocket of Tyrian influence in Lower Galilee around Sepphoris is still there, as is a concentration along the foot of the 255 Carmel range. The Bet She’an valley seems to be now at the edge of Tyrian influence. The pattern for ‘Akko is still one of a local coinage surrounding the city, though some coins now again reach Upper and Lower Galilee, the Carmel range and the Bet She’an valley. The presence of Roman imperial coins now is very much evident throughout the study area, as is the presence of other local coinages, from the proliferating mints in this period. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 13 Paneas 280 35 Golan 270 260 ‘Akko-Ptolemais Haifa 30 67 65 69 72 71 70 73 97 98 79 Upper Galilee 49 54 87 86 83 104 110 Lower Galilee Gamla 250 124 118 240 129 131 Tiberias 133 144 Sepphoris 149 146 Jezre’el Valley 137 138 139 Mt Carmel 141 230 220 159 160 166 167 171 173 176 210 Nysa-Scythopolis 200 Map 33. Middle Roman period: Colonial coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais (all sites) Conclusions All the study area, as indeed all of the Levant was now part of the Roman economy. With the exception of the Nabatean kingdom, which still minted fully autonomous coins until 106 CE when it was annexed to the Roman Empire, the coinages 256 circulating in the area were part of one currency system. It appears that the provincial boundary that passed through Galilee was no more an official or ethnic barrier to the circulation of bronze coins. Thus, in this period more than in any other, the coin distribution pattern is evidence of trade and commerce, or in other words, of the increased monetization of the economy. The Jewish cultural area, so prominent in the numismatic record in the two preceding periods, now disappears from view, but its presence can be seen in a host of other classes of evidence, both literary and archaeological, as outlined partly above (p.150 f.). The abundance of the coinage of Tyre in this period is explained in both its strong economic position and its prolific mint, the two reasons not being completely dissociated from one another. Though we do not possess direct evidence of mint outputs, the relative quantities recovered can be a fair — if not accurate — guide to this output. Thus, in the study area, coins of Tyre number ten times that of Sidon and 3.5 times that of ‘Akko. Because the study area encompasses virtually all the circulation zone of the coins of ‘Akko, but not that of Tyre, this ratio was certainly much higher in reality. It is this pattern that New Testament scholars observed in the numismatic finds of the excavations in Upper and Lower Galilee (see outline above, p.160 f.). It is this pattern that they have been trying to project backwards to the first century CE, as sweeping evidence of the trade with Tyre and of a fully monetized economy already then. As already asserted throughout this study, there is no question that the silver of Tyre was indeed the strongest currency up to 66 CE, when it was supplanted by Roman provincial and imperial silver. The pattern for bronze coinage in the Early Roman period (Map 30) however, indicates that Tyre had a relatively minor monetary 257 role in Galilee, though it must be admitted that this role is most evident at some of the Jewish sites of the Upper and Lower Galilee which were best studied and published: Nabratein, H. Shema‘, Yodefat and Sepphoris (sites 86, 88, 123 and 144 respectively). Thus, while some of the conclusions reached by those scholars based on the numismatic evidence for the second and third centuries may be valid for the first century, especially when backed by other evidence, fully projecting the economic conditions of the post-70 CE Galilee backward to the time of Jesus is hazardous at best. As outlined above, we know from the rabbinic literature that Tyre, Sidon and ‘Akko were the preferred trade destinations of the Jews in Galilee in the Roman period. Though we do not possess similar documents in regard to the preferences of the pagan population, the numismatic evidence shows that the currency of these cities reached the pagan areas with just about the same intensity. This is especially notable for the coinage of Tyre in the Paneas region and north of ‘Akko. There is no reason to assume that the pagan population had a basically different economic behavior, except the Jewish religious injunctions that influenced the Jews’ preference or avoidance of certain products and wares. These preferences, studied in depth for pottery (see p.153) cannot be observed in the coin distribution pattern. One of the strongest pieces of evidence regarding the relative strength of Tyrian coinage can be seen in Western Galilee, north of ‘Akko. Although only 10–15 Km from ‘Akko itself, the coins of Tyre clearly outnumber those of the nearby city. The explanation is not likely to be one of administrative boundaries, as the rabbinic literature indicates that the border between the territories of ‘Akko and Tyre passed somewhere near the Ladder of Tyre, north of the clustering observed on Map 34 258 (Frankel et al. 2001:113). Besides, the effect of such a territorial boundary on coin circulation in this period is questionable. An explanation claiming ethnic or ‘localpatriotic’ preference for Tyre is also rather unconvincing, as this area had always been in the territory of ‘Akko. The answer must then lie in economic considerations, i.e. trade patterns, but mostly coin supply. 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 3 18 27 8 15 20 24 25 9 13 Paneas 280 57 65 35 29 30 67 72 69 73 45 79 76 80 87 88 104 103 110 132 131 133 133b 49 54 270 66 60 61 86 92 Golan 93 70 260 Upper Galilee ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 Haifa 118 240 98 123 124 127 138 139 144 111 Gamla 250 128 Lower Galilee Sepphoris 148 Tiberias 134 149 146 Sidon Tyre ‘Akko-Ptolemais Other City coins Roman Imperial Mt Carmel 230 141 136 154 159 160 H. 'Eleq Jezre’el Valley Dor 220 167 169 171 173 175 177 Nysa-Scythopolis 210 Pella 200 Sia' Samaria Jaffa Map 34. Middle Roman Period: Selected sites 259 Though beyond the scope of this study, it is instructive to briefly look at the other cities that minted in this period (not including silver or billon coins). 127 The predominant mints whose coins circulated in Galilee were as follows (in descending order of number of coins present): Caesarea Maritima, Nysa-Scythopolis, Antioch, Tiberias, Bostra, Gadara, Neapolis, Sepphoris, Alexandria, Hippos, Aelia Capitolina, Paneas and Gaza. The areas of Galilee where such city coins were found in the greatest numbers are (in descending order): the Bet She’an valley, the tetracomia area of Upper Galilee (the Meron-Gush Halav area); the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, Paneas, Sepphoris and Western Galilee. Not surprisingly, the coins of Paneas, Tiberias and Nysa-Scythopolis were found in the greatest quantity near the cities that minted them. The coins of Sepphoris however, were found in the greatest quantities around the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, followed by Upper Galilee and the Bet She’an valley, but not around Sepphoris itself. The Bet She’an valley has the highest incidence of the coins of the cities of the Decapolis and Arabia, namely Abila, Pella, Gadara, Bostra and of the cities of Samaria, Judaea and the south: Neapolis, Aelia Capitolina and Gaza. Less expectedly however, the coins of Gaba and Alexandria are found here in the greatest proportion as well. The mint of Damascus shows up most around Tiberias, while coins of Hippos are commonest in Upper Galilee, followed by the Bet She’an valley. Most of the few coins of Petra are found in Upper Galilee. The civic coins of Antioch are concentrated in Upper Galilee, followed by Western Galilee and Paneas. The coins of Caesarea Maritima are the most abundant by far. About two- In the following analysis it is felt that the results are biased by the extremely rich collections from the Bet-She’an valley, so all conclusions must remain tentative. 127 260 thirds of Caesarean coins come from the Bet She’an valley, followed by Upper Galilee with c. 15%. All other areas show only a few coins. Roman imperial money from Rome itself is now much more widespread, especially aurei and denarii and a some bronze, mostly from Severan dynasty onwards. If in the Early Roman period we had in the study area 39 Roman imperial/provincial coins, of which 28 were silver tetradrachms, in the present period we have 134 coins, of which two are aurei, 53 are denarii and 14 billon tetradrachms (not including hoards). This trend illustrates well the monetization and the incorporation of the area into the Roman monetary system (see above, p.138). The comparison sites show the same pattern. Though a breakdown for the comparison sites is not shown, the majority of coins found there are from the nearest large mint. Thus, at Dor, H. ‘Eleq and Jaffa most coins come from Caesarea, at Samaria from Neapolis, followed closely by Caesarea, while at Sia‘ the majority come from Petra (before 106 CE) and later from Bostra and Canatha. Pella is relatively far from the major mints, and there Gadara, Bostra and Nysa-Scythopolis are represented about equally. Map 34 shows that coins of Tyre were so plentiful that they diffused south and east to Samaria, Judaea and Pella in small numbers. The only comparison site with a single coin of ‘Akko is H. ‘Eleq on Mt. Carmel. 261 Figure 73. Period 5: Selected sites Site No. Sidon Other city coins Imperial Site No. Sidon ‘Akko Tyre ‘Akko Tyre Other city coins 50 20 40 83 61 96 80 60 67 43 44 40 32 20 70 83 80 57 63 79 69 82 80 84 Other city coins 62 82 84 69 77 79 3 8 9 13 15 18 20 24 25 27 29 30 35 45 49 54 57 60 61 65 66 67 69 70 72 73 76 79 80 86 87 88 92 93 97 98 103 104 110 111 2 20 54 15 4 14 43 22 6 5 11 12 2 89 15 33 67 41 50 50 22 100 88 66 57 56 29 37 33 29 38 51 83 50 52 22 42 66 35 65 48 44 40 50 60 30 29 44 50 13 30 22 1 9 80 23 45 25 24 7 50 56 6 17 10 22 24 52 50 71 50 22 8 6 4 21 17 5 15 2 23 11 20 7 17 12 10 4 5 3 13 17 50 32 44 29 28 13 6 4 1 20 6 4 29 50 13 3 5 11 34 29 3 65 19 52 50 49 36 20 62 29 2 33 61 64 62 118 123 124 127 128 131 132 133 134 136 138 139 141 144 146 148 149 154 159 160 167 169 171 173 175 177 33 40 17 26 4 12 30 11 43 22 20 41 50 60 17 10 14 19 9 15 11 8 12 100 17 60 13 5 4 2 14 24 40 23 50 6 10 7 9 8 7 4 Comparison sites: 3 Sidon ‘Akko Tyre Site Imperial 13 9 10 25 7 18 6 14 8 7 17 13 3 11 Dor 'Eleq Jaffa Pella Samaria Sia' 25 9 6 6 16 3 Imperial 20 20 3 10 22 6 2 20 24 22 9 12 8 12 262 Conclusions The analysis of the distribution maps of coin finds (mainly site finds) across Galilee and the Golan in five different periods proves that it is a powerful tool for assessing coin circulation. Coin circulation in turn can be used to make inferences about regional and chronological processes. While data from single sites, or even clusters of sites has been used in the past for an attempted analysis of trade patterns, political control and lately ethnic affiliations, it is seen that a region-wide pattern, such as presented in this study, can contribute to a considerably better understanding. Most importantly, it shows that patterns of coin circulation cannot be attributed to a single cause: not to mint output, not to trade patterns, not to political boundaries or control and not to ethnic differentiation or preference alone. It is dynamic and varies over time and space. In particular, in this study it was used in several ways: 1. It contributed an independent criterion in supporting, or refuting conclusions arrived at by literary or other archaeological evidence. Such is the case for the boundaries of the Hasmonean expansion in Galilee, the ‘Baraita of the Borders’, the border as recorded by Josephus and the postulated avoidance of ETS wares by Jews in the first century. The claim of the sweeping domination of the coinage of Tyre in Galilee used by scholars to reflect on trade in the much debated first century is put in its right proportion. It is shown that while the analysis of the cluster of excavated sites in Upper Galilee (Meron, Nabratein, H. Shema‘ and Gush Halav) might have given rise to such a claim, the wider picture obtained by the present study shows this to be valid in the post 70 CE period, and not in the preceding one. Indeed, it would seem that coin circulation and trade patterns — as observed in pottery distribution for example 263 — have much less in common than might be expected. Is this due to far less monetization than previously thought in the pre-70 CE period? Or perhaps it is silver that was mostly used for transactions on the scale that would show up in the archaeological record? Circulation of silver cannot be mapped on a level that was done here for the bronze, as most information comes for hoards, and its general circulation patterns are quite well known anyway (see p.157 f.). For period 5 (70–256 CE) the observable increase in both the quantity and the number of mints of bronze coinage can also be taken to confirm the argument for greater urbanization, reflected in greater division of labor, hence a greater need for ‘small change’. This is in accord with what we know of the great urbanization undertaken in the East under the Severan dynasty. Notwithstanding, the overwhelming presence of the coins of Tyre in this period must indicate an abnormally great rate of production, which in turn must be explained by some sort of regulation by the Roman authorities. 2. In some cases it brought into better focus an issue that has been observed in the past, but its scope was not realized, such as the strong demarcation of the areas influenced by the mints of ‘Akko-Ptolemais and Tyre in the Seleucid period. 3. In some cases the patterns emerging raise new questions that have not been asked before, because coin circulation is the only class of evidence that shows that pattern. Cases in point are the clustering of Sidonian coins in the Paneas region, the surprising presence of coins of Antiochus VII from the Jerusalem mint and the fate of Hippos under the Hasmoneans. Not all such questions have been answered, and new discoveries are needed to settle them. 264 4. The patterns sometimes offer definitive statements for unexcavated sites, hardly in need of confirmation through any other source. Such is the case for determining that Tel Yardinon in the eastern Hula valley and Tel Basul in the Bet She’an valley were Jewish settlements in the Hasmonean and Early Roman periods. 5. In other cases, coin circulation was expected to bear on a question, but was found to remain silent on the point, e.g. the distribution of Phoenician semi-fine wares in the Hellenistic period. 6. Ethnicity and the evidence for it in the material culture have been claiming the interest of more and more researchers lately (see p.153 f.). Surprisingly perhaps, coins have proven to be one such class of evidence. While the minting of coins was often considered to be a privilege and a boost to national or local pride, as far as I am aware the phenomenon of the deliberate preference to use certain coins for ethnic/religious reasons — as in the case of the Jews using the coins of the procurators — is unparalleled, as is the hypothesized pre-Hasmonean Jewish presence in Lower Galilee which preferred coins of Tyre over those of the far closer mint of ‘AkkoPtolemais in the Seleucid period (period 2). To this might be added a possible such preference by ‘Sidonians’ in the Paneas region, but admittedly this is speculative, and an explanation by Iturean presence is apparently a better one. The choice of the resolution of the chronological divisions in this study certainly plays a part in the patterns achieved. While I believe that the present divisions are the best for the purpose and scope of this study, no doubt that other patterns would emerge if the chronological boundaries were different. Specifically, breaking up periods 2, 3, 4, 5 into sub-periods would yield more maps, maybe in different color concentrations, 265 and perhaps some other historical processes could be observed in their light. Such a division was done only in period 2, where it bore directly on the subject of study, and commented on in period 3, discussing the distribution of Hasmonean coins in the Bet She’an valley (p.230). We have not dealt in detail with the coins other than those of Southern Phoenicia and the Jews, and there is ample room for further studies on the circulation of these ‘other’ coinages and its meaning. What is clear however, that locally produced bronze coins (as opposed to royal coins) from outside the region were always a minority, as is indeed to be expected. On this background, the fact that many cities in the study area that minted, are found to almost completely lack coin finds of their own mint in period 4 (e.g. Sepphoris, Paneas, Tiberias) is enigmatic, but perhaps should be simply attributed to chance. Does the pattern in Galilee and the Golan reflect on that in other areas of Palestine? The few sites chosen for comparison cannot, of course, be used to make an assertion on this point. It is felt however that the trend shown by these sites suggests that at least as far as Jewish coins are concerned, the answer is yes. How far south did the influence of Tyre and ‘Akko reach in the various periods is yet to be mapped, and the role of the major mints of the south, such as Ascalon and Gaza in the earlier periods, and the Nabateans and Caesarea in the later periods has been addressed in the research only in a small way, and mainly in regard to silver coinage. Admittedly, even in Galilee and the Golan there is a lack of data in some key points, such as the Kabul and Peqi‘in area, bearing on the question of the boundary of the Jewish settlement as outlined by Josephus. Future finds will probably refine the conclusions arrived at, fill out some empty areas, define clearer boundaries and 266 perhaps offer some more assertive statements. I believe however, that the general patterns observed are accurate and will stand the test of time. 267 Appendix: Metallurgical Analysis of the Gamla Jewish War Coin The Gamla siege coin [1055] is made of a low-tin bronze. It differs from the other ‘War’ coins in that, whilst containing a similar amount of tin, it contains no appreciable lead. Those other coins containing no lead are also without tin. As far as minor and trace impurities go, the Gamla coin is very similar to the other coins. It does have an elevated nickel content, but this may be purely fortuitous and not representative of the issue in general. In general, the Gamla coin is made of metal from the same general ‘catchment’ area as the other coins and general domestic metalwork. Where it differs is in the alloying, primarily observed in the absence of lead. 10 8 6 Revolt year 4 4 Revolt year 3 Revolt year 2 weigth % tin 2 Agrip pa Ist Gamla coin 0 -10 0 10 20 30 Herod A ntipas weight % lead 268 Element Antimony Arsenic Cobalt Copper Gold Iron Lead Manganese Nickel Silver Sulphur Tin Zinc Total Type Gamla coin Mean N Mean Minimum Maximum N StdDev Mean Minimum Maximum N StdDev Mean Minimum Maximum N StdDev Mean Minimum Maximum N StdDev Mean N 0.077 1 0.037 0.018 0.056 2 0.027 0.05 0.006 0.094 2 0.062 0.105 0.088 0.121 2 0.023 0.138 0.128 0.149 3 0.011 0.124 1 0.02 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 2 0 0.03 0.01 0.06 2 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.04 2 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.06 3 0.03 0.01 1 0.0041 1 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 2 0 0.0068 0.0037 0.01 2 0.0045 0.0024 0.0015 0.0032 2 0.0012 0.0043 0.0028 0.0052 3 0.0013 0.0034 1 96 1 79.4 72.7 86.1 2 9.5 81.9 67.8 96 2 19.9 65.3 55.6 75 2 13.7 79.6 74.1 83.1 3 4.8 76.8 1 0.001 0.06 0.19 1 1 1 Agrippa I 0.014 0.02 5.75 0.001 0.02 0.03 0.027 0.02 11.47 2 0.018 2 0 2 8.09 0.001 0.001 0.001 2 0 0.002 0.001 0.002 2 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 2 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 3 0 0.001 1 0.01 0 0.01 2 0.01 0.02 0 0.03 2 0.02 0.01 0 0.01 2 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 3 0 0.01 1 0.172 0.038 0.305 2 0.189 1.114 0.051 2.177 2 1.503 0.067 0.035 0.098 2 0.044 0.098 0.033 0.224 3 0.109 0.035 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 2 0 0.08 0.05 0.1 2 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 2 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 3 0 0.05 1 2.02 0.01 87.6 0.15 0.01 73.4 3.89 0.01 101.8 2 2.65 2 0 2 20 98 96 2 2.8 84 0.001 1 0.06 1 0.038 1 0.07 1 5.02 0.02 101.6 1 1 1 War year 2 0.002 0.03 11.46 0.001 0.02 0.19 0.003 0.03 22.74 2 0.001 2 0 2 15.95 2.66 0.05 0.26 0.03 2 2 5.06 0.08 100 3.39 0.03 5.42 0.03 War year 3 0.002 0.07 12.82 0.001 0.02 8.74 0.003 0.12 16.9 2 2 2 0.002 0.07 5.78 War year 4 (#30) 0.001 0.08 11.7 0.001 0.02 7.04 0.001 0.15 19.91 3 0 3 3 0.06 7.13 6.77 0.01 98.6 5.41 0.01 97.7 7.48 0.01 99.8 3 1.18 3 0 3 1.1 5.15 0.01 69.9 5.69 0.05 98.2 2 2 2 20 0.38 0.03 War year 4 (#29) 0.001 0.03 15.72 1 1 1 5.68 0.01 98.6 1 1 1 The graph shows that the amount of lead appears to be determined by the amount of tin. I would interpret this as the use of lead to compensate for a lack of tin. Generally lead is regarded as a cheaper white metal, and the two were related in the minds of people in the past (Pliny – Naturalis Historia, book 34) - so this could be a form of 'debasement', although I would tend to think of it in terms of availability. The chronology is mixed, with ‘year four’ revolt coins having both high and low lead. It is also interesting to see the ratio: the ideal would have been a 10% tin bronze with no 269 lead (indeed the high-status norm) — but we see a value ratio of 1:5 (25% of lead making-up for 5% of tin) which is consistent over all these issues. Interestingly, the earlier Antipas coins are those with the highest tin (close to the 10% assumed optimum) and these have virtually no lead. The Gamla coins 'fits' best with the Antipas coins in terms of this model - having no lead, but its lower tin content would also place it close to the coins of Agrippa. 270 Abbreviations AJC1 Y. Meshorer 1982. Ancient Jewish Coinage. Vol.1: Persian Period through Hasmoneans. Dix Hills. AJC2 Y. Meshorer 1982. Ancient Jewish Coinage. Vol.2: Herod the Great through Bar Cochba. Dix Hills. ANSMN ANSNNM BAIAS BASOR American Numismatic Society Museum Notes American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BMC Arabia G.F. Hil 1922. British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins: Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia. London. BMC Galatia W. Wroth 1899. British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins: Galatia, Cappadocia, and Syria. London. BMC Macedonia B.V. Head 1879. British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins: Macedonia. London. BMC Palestine G.F. Hill 1914. British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins: Palestine. London. BMC Phoen. G.F. Hill 1910. British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins: Phoenicia. London. BMC Ptolemies R.S. Poole 1882. British Museum catalogue of Greek Coins: Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt. London. BT CH CSE Babylonian Talmud Coin Hoards A. Houghton 1983. Coins of The Seleucid Empire from the Collection of Arthur Houghton (Ancient Coins in North American Collections 4). New York. Eretz Israel EI 271 ESI HA IAA Excavations and Surveys in Israel Hadashot Arkheologiyot (In Hebrew) Israel Antiquities Authority IAAcoll. Israel Antiquities Authority State Collections IAPN International Association of Professional Numismatists IGCH M. Thompson et al.1973. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New York. IEJ INJ JRA JT LA LRBC2 R.A.G. Carson and J.P.C. Kent 1965. Bronze Roman Imperial Coinage of the Later Empire, A.D. 346–498. Part 2 of Late Roman Bronze Coinage (A.D. 324–498). London. Pp. 41–114. Meshorer Addendum Y. Meshorer 1990–1. Ancient Jewish Coinage — Addendum I. INJ 11:104– 132; Pls.17–32 NEAEHL New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy-Land. Jerusalem, 1993 NT New Testament Israel Exploration Journal Israel Numismatic Journal Journal of Roman Archaeology Jerusalem Talmud Liber Annuus QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine RN Revue Numismatique RPC 1 A. Burnett, M. Amandry, P. Ripollès 1992. Roman Provincial Coinage. Volume 1: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius. London–Paris. 272 RPC Supp1. A. Burnett, M. Amandry, P. Ripollès 1998. Roman Provincial Coinage. Supplement1: From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius. London– Paris. RPC 2 A. Burnett, M. Amandry, P. Ripollès 1999. Roman Provincial Coinage II. From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69–96). London / Paris. SC 1 A. Houghton and C. Lorber. 2002. Seleucid Coins 1. New York /Lancaster/London. SC 2 A. Houghton and C. Lorber. Seleucid Coins 2. Forthcoming. Script. Num. H. Seyrig 1986. Scripta Numismatica (Bibliothéque Archéologique et Historique CXXVI). Paris. Select Papyri Hunt, Arthur S. ed. 1956. Select Papyri. II: Non-Literary Papyri, Public Documents (Loeb Classical Library). London. SNG Cop. A. Kromann and O. Mørkholm 1977. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Denmark. Egypt: The Ptolemies. Copenhagen. SNG Spaer A. Houghton and A. Spaer 1998. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Israel 1: The Arnold Spaer Collection of Seleucid Coins. Jerusalem. TIR TJC Tos. Y. Tsafrir, L. Di Segni, J. Green 1994. Tabula Imperii Romani: JudaeaPalaestina. Jerusalem. Y. Meshorer 2001. A Treasury of Jewish Coins. Jerusalem. Tosefta 273 References Abu ‘Uqsa H. 1997 A Burial Cave from the Roman Period East of Giv‘at Yasaf. 'Atiqot 33:43–45 (Hebrew, English summary on p.10*–11*). Abu ‘Uqsa H. and Katsnelson N. 1999 Tombs of the Roman Period at Tell Shubeib. ‘Atiqot 37:175–179 (Hebrew, English summary on p.179*). Adan-Bayewitz D. 1993 Common Pottery in Roman Galilee: A Study of Local Trade Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture. Ramat Gan. 2003 On the Chronology of the Common Pottery of Northern Roman Judaea/Palestine. In G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni, L.D. Chrupcała eds. One Land, Many Cultures. Jerusalem. Pp.5–32. Adan-Bayewitz D., Avi'am M. 1997 Iotapata, Josephus and the Siege of 67: Preliminary Report on the 1992–1994 Seasons. Journal of Roman Archaeology 10:131–165. Ahipaz N. Forthcoming The Coins from Bab el-Hawa Amit Y. 1999 The book of Judges: The Art of Editing (Biblical Interpretation Series 38). Leiden. Applebaum Sh. 1989 The Roman Colony of Ptolemais-‘Ake and its Territory. In S. Applebaum Judaea in Hellenistic and Roman Times. Leiden. Pp.70– 96. Arav R. and Freund R.A 1995 Betsaida, A City by the North Shore of the Sea Galilee I. Kirksville, Missouri. 1999 Ariel D.T. 1980 1982 1993 Betsaida, A City by the North Shore of the Sea Galilee II. Kirksville, Missouri. Coins from the Synagogue at Horvat Kanef. INJ 4:59–62. A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem. LA 32:273–326. Coins from the Excavations at Tel Nahariya, 1982. ‘Atiqot 22:125–132 274 1990 1994 1997 Coins, Flans and Flan Moulds. In D.T. Ariel ed. Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985 (Qedem 30). Jerusalem. Pp.99–118. Coins from Excavations at Gesher Haziv. ‘Atiqot 25:94–96. Appendix: Coins from Caves A and B at Hurfeish. In M. Aviam and Y. Gorin-Rosen. Three Burial Caves from the Roman Period at Hurfeish. 'Atiqot 33:35–36. 1998a The Coins. In H. Smithline. Three Burial Caves from the Roman Period at Asherat. 'Atiqot 33:47–59 (Hebrew) 1998b Hasmonean Coins Found in the Cave of the Warrior. In T. Schick et al. The Cave of the Warrior (IAA Reports 5). Jerusalem. Pp.131–137 2000a Coins. In N. Getzov. An Excavation at Horbat Bet Zeneta. 'Atiqot 39:102* (Hebrew). 2000b Coins from the Synagogue at Korazim. In Z. Yeivin, The Synagogue at Korazim (IAA Reports 10). Jerusalem. Pp.33*–49*. 2002. The Coins from Khirbet Zemel. In Z. Gal eds. Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp.119*–122*. 2003. Coins from Excavations at Qalandia. In Y. Magen ed. Excavations at Kh. Bad-Issah and Qalandia (Judaea and Samaria Studies 3). In press. Forthcoming 1. Hellenistic Coins and Stamped Amphora Handles from Horvat Kanef. Forthcoming 2. Stamped Amphora handles from Gamla. Forthcoming 4. The Jerusalem Mint of Herod the Great: A Relative Chronology. INJ 14. Augé C. 1987 La reutilisation des Monnaies de Bronze à l'époque Impériale: Quelques Exemples Proche-Orientaux. In G. Depeyrot et al. eds. Rythmes de la production monétaire de l'antiquité a nos jours. Louvaila-Neuve. Pp. 227–235. Fortresses from the Hellenistic Period in the hinterland of ‘AkkoPtolemais. In Y. Ben-Artzi, A. Segal and B. Kipnis eds. The 4th Conference on Galilee Studies. Haifa. Pp.34–40 (Hebrew). The Beginning of Large-Scale Production of Olive oil in Galilee. Cathedra 73:26–35 (Hebrew with English abstract). Aviam M. 1989 1994 275 1996 1997 The House of Hasmonaeus in Galilee. In The days of the Hasmoneans (Idan 19). Jerusalem. Pp.251–260 (Hebrew). A Second-First Century BCE Fortress and Siege Complex in Eastern Upper Galilee. In Edwards and McCollough 1997. Pp.97–105. Forthcoming 1. First Century Jewish Galilee—an Archaeological Perspective. In D. Edwards ed. Eric Meyers festschrift. Forthcoming 2. Regionalism of Tombs and Burial Customs in Galilee During the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. Aviam M. and Amitai A. 2002 Excavations at Khirbet esh-Shuhara. In Z. Gal eds. Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp.119-133 (Hebrew). Aviam M. and Syon D. 2002 Jewish ossilegium in Galilee. In: L. V. Rutgers (ed.). What Athens Has to Do with Jerusalem. Essays on Classical, Jewish and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor of Gideon Foerster. Leuven. Pp.151– 185. Avshalom-Gorni D. and Getzov N. 2002 Phoenicians and Jews. A Ceramic Case-study. In A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman eds. The First Jewish Revolt. Archaeology, History and Ideology. London and New York. Pp.74–83. Avshalom-Gorni D., Tatcher A., Syon D. 2002 Excavations at Khirbet el-Shubeika. In Z. Gal eds. Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp.219–349 (Hebrew). Avshalom-Gorni D. and Shaked I. Forthcoming The Northern Border of the Jewish Settlement in the Southeastern Hula Valley in the first c. CE, and the Identification of ‘Thella on the Jordan’. Babelon E. 1890 1893 1963 Bagatti P.B. 1964–5 Les Rois de Syrie, D'Arménie et de Commagène. Paris. Les Perses Achéménides. Paris. Monnaies de la Republique Romaine. Bologna (reprint). Le Antichità di Kh. Qana e di Kefr Kenna in Galilea. LA 15:251–292. 276 Bar-Kochva B. 1977 Manpower, Economics and Internal Strife in the Hasmonean State. Colloques Nationaux Du CNRS No. 936 : Armées et Fiscalité dans le Monde Antique. Pp. 167–196. Barag D. 1978 Hanita, Tomb XV: A Tomb of the Third and Early Fourth Century CE. (‘Atiqot (ES) 13). 1982–3 Tyrian Currency in Galilee. INJ 6–7:7–13. 1986 1992–3 2002 The cemeteries from the Roman period at Nahariya. In M. Yeda‘ya ed. Western Galilee Antiquities. Tel Aviv. Pp.397–405 (Hebrew). New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus I. INJ12:1–12. The Mint of Antiochus IV in Jerusalem, Numismatic Evidence on the Prelude to the Maccabean Revolt. INJ 14:59–77. Barag D., Qedar S. 1980 The Beginning of Hasmonean Coinage. INJ 4:8–21, Pls. 3–9 1982 When Did the Hasmoneans Begin Minting Coins? Qadmoniot 15:29–32. (Hebrew) Barkay R. 1997 1999 Roman and Byzantine coins. In Y. Hirschfeld. The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader: Final Report. Jerusalem. Pp. 279–300. Coins of Roman Governors Issued by Nysa-Scythopolis in the Late Republican Period. INJ 13(1994–1999):54–62; Pl.7 2000a Coins. In Hirschfeld et al. 2000. Pp.88–90. 2000b The Coins from Horvat ‘Eleq. In Hirschfeld et al. 2000. Pp.377–419. Baur P.V.C, Rostovzeff M. (eds.) 1931 The Excavations at Dura Europos. Preliminary Reports on the Second Season: October 1928–April 1929. New Haven, Conn. Bellinger A. 1949 The Excavations at Dura-Europos Final Report VI: The Coins. New Haven. Ben-David H. 1995 The Golan—Transjordan or Galilee? Sinai 115:285–287. Ben-Tor A. 1966 Excavations at Horvat ‘Uza. ‘Atiqot 3(HS):1–24 (Hebrew). 277 Bengtson H. 1964 Berlin A. 1997 Die Strategie in der hellenistischen zeit2. München. From Monarchy to Markets: The Phoenicians in Hellenistic Palestine. BASOR 306:75–88. 2002 Romanization and anti-Romanization in pre-Revolt Galilee. In A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman eds. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology. London, New York. Pp.57–73. Forthcoming The Pottery from Gamla. Berman A. 1962 1992 Numismatic Survey at Yodefat. Yediot Numismatiot 2:42–43 (Hebrew). Bet She’an — The Numismatic Material from the 1991 Season. ESI 11:52. Berman A. and Ariel D.T. 1999 Coins from Excavations at Giv‘at Yasaf (Tel Er-Ras). ‘Atiqot 37:23*–24* Bijovsky G. 1997 The Coins. In H. Abu ‘Uqsa. A Burial Cave from the Roman Period East of Giv‘at Yasaf. 'Atiqot 33:43–45 (Hebrew). 1998 1994–9 The Gush Halav Hoard Reconsidered. ‘Atiqot 35:77–106. A Coin of Demetrius I from ‘Akko-Ptolemais. INJ 13:39–45; Pl.7:1–2 2000a A Roman Coin. In Sh. Weksler-Bdolah Excavations at Tel Nov. ‘Atiqot 39:24*. 2000b The Coins from Khirbet Tabaliya (Giv‘at Hamatos). ‘Atiqot 40:97*– 100* (Hebrew, English summary on pp.166–167). Briend J. and Humbert J.-B. 1980 Tell Keisan (1971–1976): une cité phénicienne en Galilée. Paris. Briquel-Chatonnet Fr. 1995 Syro-Palestine et Jordanie. In Krings 1995, pp.583–596. Bunnell C. 1937 Catalogue of the Coins. In L. Waterman, Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan Excavations at Sepphoris, Palestine, in 1931. Ann Arbor. Pp.35–52. 278 Burnett A. 1987a Coinage of King Agrippa of Judaea and a New Coin of King Herod of Chalcis. In H. Huvelin, M. Christol, G. Gautier, (eds.), Mélanges de Numismatique offerts a Pierre Bastien. Wetteren. Pp.25–38 1987b Coinage in the Roman World. London. 2002 The Imperial Coinage of Egypt in the First Century AD. In L’exception Égyptienne ? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellenistique et romaine. Colloque d’Alexandrie 13–15 avril 2002. Pp.143–152. Butcher K. 1988 1996 Roman Provincial Coins. An Introduction to the ‘Greek Imperials’. London. Coinage and Currency in Syria and Palestine to the Reign of Gallienus. In C.E. King and D.G. Wigg eds. Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World. The thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History 1993. Berlin. Pp.101–112. Small Change in Ancient Beirut: The Coins from BEY 006 and BEY 045. Berytus 45 (in press). 2002 Carradice I. and Cowell M. 1987 The Minting of Roman Imperial Bronze Coins for Circulation in the East: Vespasian to Trajan. NC 147:26–50. Carson R.A.G. 1967 The Inflation of the Third Century and its Monetary influence in the Near East. In A. Kindler ed. The Patterns of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity. Jerusalem. Pp.231–250. Casey J. and Reece R. 19882 Coins and The Archaeologist. London. Casson L. and Steffy J.R. 1991 The Athlit Ram. College Station, Texas. Corbo V. 1976 Dan Y. 1990 Dar Sh. 1993 Internal and External Trade in the Second Temple Period. In In B.Z. Kedar et al. 1990. Pp.91–107 (Hebrew). Settlements and Cult Sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (BAR Int. Series 589). Oxford. La Città Romana di Magdala. Studia Hyerosolimitana 1. Pp.355–378. 279 1999 De Vaux R. 1961 Sumaqa, A Roman Byzantine Jewish Village on Mt. Carmel, Israel. Bar International Series 815. Textes Grecs et Latins: Papyrus Grecs. In P. Benoit, J.T. Milik, R. De Vaux (ed.) Discoveries in the Judaean Desert II. Les Grottes de Murabba‘ât. Oxford. Pp.209–280. Taxes on External and Internal Trade in Palestine in the Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods. In Kedar et al. 1990. Pp.140–158. Greek Inscriptions in Western Galilee and the Question of the Border Between Phoenicia and Palaestina. In Y. Ben-Artzi, A. Segal and B. Kipnis eds. The 4th Conference on Galilee Studies. Haifa. Pp.4–10 (Hebrew). Coins from Hurvat. Arbel. In Z. Ilan and A. Izdarechet. Arbel— An Ancient Jewish Village in Eastern Lower Galilee. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Dinur Y. 1990 Di Segni L. 1989 Dolev M. 1988 Dunand M. and Duru R. 1962 Oumm el 'Amed, Une Ville de L’époque Hellénistique aux échelles de Tyr. Paris. Duncan-Jones R. 1999 The Monetization of the Roman Empire: Regional Variations in the Supply of Coin Types. In G.M. Paul and M. Ierardi eds. Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers II. Ann Arbor. Pp.61–82. Edwards D. R. 2002 Khirbet Qana: from Jewish Village to Christian Pilgrim Site. In J. Humphrey eds. The Roman and Byzantine Near East 3 (JRA Supplement 49). Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Pp.101–128. Edwards D.R. and McCollough C.T. (eds.) 1997 Archaeology and Galilee. Atlanta, Georgia. Ehling K. 1998 Seleukidische Geschichte Zwischen 130 und 121 V.Chr. Historia 47/2:141–151. Eidlin D. 1981 The Coins. In S. Gutmann, Gamla - the first three seasons. Tel Aviv. Pp.86–95 (Hebrew). 280 1985 1994 Elayi J. 1990 The Coins. In S. Gutmann, Gamla - the first eight seasons. Tel Aviv. Pp.138–147 (Hebrew). Lege’ulat Yerushalayim Haqedosha. In S. Gutmann, Gamla— A City in Rebellion. Tel Aviv. Pp.146–149 (Hebrew). Economie des cités Phéniciennes sous l'empire Perse. In: Annali dell’Instituto Universitario Orientale Napoli, suppl. 62 to vol.50. Napoli. Trésors de Monnaies Phéniciennes et Circulation Monetaire (Ve–IVe siècles avant J.C.). (supplement no. 1 of Transeuphratène) Paris. Elayi J. and Elayi A.G. 1993 Elgavish Y. 1974 Shiqmona II — The Hellenistic Stratum. Haifa (Hebrew). Fitzgerald G.M. 1931 Bet Shan Excavations 1921–1923 — The Arab and Byzantine Levels. Philadelphia. Pp.52–60 Frankel R. 1988–89 An Oil Press at Tel Safsafot. Tel Aviv 15–16:77–91. 1998 The Matriarchal Groupings of the Tribal Eponyms: a Reappraisal. In P. Davies and D. Clines ed. The World of Genesis. Persons, Places, Perspectives (JSOT Supplement Series 257).Pp. 121–124. Frankel R., Getzov N. And Degani A. 2001 Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee. IAA Reports 14. Jerusalem. Freyne S. 1980 Galilee From Alexander the Great to Hadrian. Wilmington, Delaware. 1987 1999 2000 Galilee-Jerusalem Relations According to Josephus’ Life. New Testament Studies 33:600–609. Behind the Names: Galileans, Samaritans, Ioudaioi. In Meyers 1999. Pp.39–55. Herodian Economics in Galilee. In S. Freyne Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays. Tübingen. Pp.86–113. 2001 The Geography of Restoration: Galilee-Jerusalem Relations in Early Jewish and Christian Experience. New Testament Studies 47:289–311. 281 Fritz W. 1983 Fulco W.J. 1980 Fuks G. 1981 The Jewish Settlement in Galilee from the Assyrian Conquest to the Annexation of Galilee to the Hasmonean State. Bet Miqra 26:90–97 (Hebrew). Scythopolis — a Greek City in Eretz-Israel. Jerusalem (Hebrew). A Stone Vessel Manufacturing Site in Lower Galilee. ‘Atiqot 20:25*– 26* (Hebrew). English summary on pp. 179–180. Tel Kinrot. ESI 2:62–63 Catalogue des Monnaies. Briend and Humbert 1980. Pp.235–241. 1983 Gal Z. 1991 Gal Z. and Alexandre Y. 2000 Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and Village. IAA Reports 8. Jerusalem. Gal Z. and Hanna B. 2000 Kafr Kanna. HA/ESI 111:19*. Galili E., Syon D. and Finkielsztejn G. Forthcoming. A Hoard of Late Ptolemaic Bronze coins from the Sea Near ‘Atlit. Getzov N. 2000 Gibson Sh. 2003 An Excavation at Horbat Bet Zeneta. ‘Atiqot 39:75*–106* (Hebrew, English summary on p.202–204). Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem and Palestine. A Reassessment. In G. Bottini, L. Di Segni et al. ed. One Land, Many Cultures. Jerusalem. Pp. 287–308. Forthcoming. The limestone vessels from Gamla. Gibson Sh. and Urman D. 1990 Three Coins of Alexander Jannaeus from El ‘Al in the Golan Heights. BAIAS 10:67–72. Giovannini A. 1978 Rome et la Circulation Monétaire en Grèce au IIe Siècle Avant JésusChrist (Schweizerishche Beiträge Zur Altertumwissenschaft Heft 15). Basel. 282 Gitler H. 1990 1996 The Coins. In S. Wachsman, The Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee (Lake Kinneret). ‘Atiqot (ES) 19. Pp.101–106. A Comparative Study of the Numismatic Evidence from Excavations in Jerusalem. LA 46:317–362. Gitler H. and Kushnir-Stein A. 1994–9 The Chronology of a Late Ptolemaic Bronze Coin-Type from Cyprus. INJ 13:46–53; Pls.5–6 Goodman M. 1983 State and Society in Roman Galilee, A.D.132–212. New Jersey. 1999 Galilean Judaism and Judaean Judaism. In W. Horbury, W.D. Davies, J. Sturdy (eds.) The Cambridge History of Judaism vol 3: The Early Roman Period. Cambridge. Pp.596–617. The Urban Character of Gamla in the First Centuries BCE and CE. MA thesis. Bar Ilan University. Goren D. 1994 Gunneweg J. and Perlman I. 1985 The Origin of the Herodian Lamp. BAIAS. Pp. 23–27. Gutmann S. 1994 Gamla — A City in Rebellion. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew). Gutmann S. and Wagner D. 1986 Gamla— 1984/1985/1986. ESI 5:38–40. Gutmann S., Segal A., Patrich Y., Wagner D. and Yavor Z. 1990 Gamla—1987–1988. ESI 9:9–12 Hackens T. 1968 A propos de la Circulation Monétaire dans le Péloponnèse au IIIe s. av. J.-C. In W. Cerfaux et al. eds. Antidorum W. Peremans Sexagenario Ab Alumnis Oblatum. Louvain. Pp.68–95. Hamburger H. 1959 A Hoard of Syrian Tetradrachms from Tiberias. ‘Atiqot (ES) 2:133–145. Hanson R.S. 1980 Tyrian Influence in Upper Galilee (Meiron Excavation Project 2). Cambridge, Mass. 283 Hanson R.S. and Bates M. L. 1976 The Coins. In E. Meyers et al. Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shema‘, Upper Galilee, Israel, 1970–1972. Durham. Pp.146– 169 Harl K.W. 1997 Greek Imperial Coins in the Economic Life of the Roman East. In J. Nollé et al. eds. Nomismata. International Colloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens (1994). Pp.223–229. Milano. Hartal M. 1987 2003 The Golan in the Second Temple Period. Ariel 50–51. Pp.69–76. (Hebrew) The Material Culture of Northern Golan in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. PhD. Diss. Hebrew University, Jerusalem. (Hebrew, English abstract on pp. 1*–8*) Heidemann S. and Noeske H.-C. 2001 From Gadara to Tall Knedij (Mesopotamia). Occident & Orient:26–27. Hendin D. 1996 Guide to Biblical Coins3. Nyack. Herbert S.C. 1995 Tel Anafa I: Final Report on Ten Years of Excavations at a Hellenistic and Roman Settlement in Northern Israel. Ann Arbor. Herbert S. and Berlin A. 2000 Tel Kedesh, 1997–1999. IEJ 50:118–123. Herbert S. and Berlin A. 2003 A New Administrative Center for Persian and Hellenistic Galilee: Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan / University of Minnesota Excavations at Kedesh. BASOR 329:13–59. Herman D. 2002 Certain Iturean Coins and the Origin of the Heliopolitan Cult. INJ 14:84–98. Hill G.F. 1914 Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Palestine. London. Hirschfeld Y. et al. 1997 The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader: Final Report. Jerusalem. 284 2000 Ramat Hanadiv Excavations. Jerusalem. Horsley R.A. 1995 Archaeology and the Villages of Upper Galilee: A Dialogue with Archaeologists. BASOR 297:5–28. 2002 Power Vacuum and Power Struggle in 66–7 CE. In A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman eds. The First Jewish Revolt. Archaeology, History and Ideology. London and New York. Pp.87–109. Howgego C.J. 1984–85 The Relationship of the Issar to the Denar in Rabbinic Literature. INJ 8:59–64. 1985 Greek Imperial Countermarks. London. 1990 Why did Ancient States strike Coins? Numismatic Chronicle 150:1–25. Houghton A. and Lorber C. 2000–2 Antiochus III in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. INJ 14:44–58. Ilan Z. 1989–90 Arbel, survey of Caves. ESI 9:17–18. Ilan Z. and Damati E. 1987 Merot, The Ancient Jewish Village. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Pp.127–130. Isaac B. 1991 A Seleucid Inscription from Jamnia-on-the-Sea: Antiochus V Eupator and the Sidonians. IEJ 41:132–144. Jacobson D.M. 1986 A New Interpretation of the Reverse of Herod’s Largest Coin. ANSMN 31:145–165. Jenkins G.K. 1967 The Monetary Systems in the Early Hellenistic Time With Special Regard to the Economic Policy of the Ptolemaic Kings. In A. Kindler ed. The Patterns of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity. Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem 1963 Jerusalem. Pp.53–74. Johnston A. 1985 The So-Called 'Pseudo-Autonomous’ Greek Imperials. ANSMN 30:89– 112. Jones A.H.M. 1931 The Urbanization of the Ituraean Principality. Journal of Roman Studies 21:265–275. 285 1971 Kadman L. 1961 1965 The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces2. Oxford. The coins of ‘Akko-Ptolemais (Corpus Nummorum Palestinensium IV). Jerusalem. Temple Dues and Currency in Ancient Palestine in the Light of Recent Discovered Coin-Hoards. Congresso Internazionale di Numismatica, Roma, 1961. Vol II. Rome. Pp.69–76. 'Akko-Ptolemais: A Maritime Metropolis in Hellenistic and Early Roman Times, 332 BCE–70 CE, as Seen Through the Literary Sources. In I. Malkin and R.L. Hohlfelder eds. Mediterranean Cities: Historical Perspectives. London. Pp.37–53. Kashtan N. 1989 Kedar B.Z., Dotan T. and Safrai S. eds. 1990 Commerce in Palestine Throughout the Ages. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kelly M. 2001 Division of Labour in the Long Run: Evidence from Small Change. http//:www.ucd.i.e/~economic/staff/mKelly/papers/copper.pdf (28.8.2002) The Mint of Tyre, the Main Source of Silver Coins in Eretz-Israel in Antiquity. Eretz-Israel 8 (Sukenik volume):318–324. (Hebrew) Addendum to the Dated Coins of Alexander Jannaeus. IEJ 18:188– 191, Pl.20. The Status of The Syro-Palestinian Area As Reflected by their Coins. INJ 6–7:79–87. The Status and Relations of the Herodian Kings Agrippa I and II to the Roman Imperial Court as Reflected by their Coin Issues. Ha’arez Museum Yearbook. Pp.67–84. (in Hebrew, with English summary). Kindler A. 1967 1968 1982–3 1983–4 1986a The Synagogue Treasure of Meroth, Eastern Upper Galilee, Israel. In I.A. Carradice ed. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Numismatics. London. Pp.315–320. 1986b Bronze Coin Circulation on the Golan Heights in the First Century CE.In M. Yedaya ed. Western Galilee Antiquities. N.P. Pp.532–537 (Hebrew). 286 1991 1993 1996 Hasmonean Coinage: Two Problems. Cathedra 59:12–18. (Hebrew, English summary on p.199) On the Coins of the Itureans. Proceedings of the XIth International Numismatic Congress, Brussels 1991. Louvain. Pp. 283–288. The Ptolemaic Coinages of the Coastal Cities of Palestine and Phoenicia. In Y. Eshel ed. Judaea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting 1995. Pp.109–119. 1999a The Coin Finds at the Excavations of Betsaida. In R. Arav and R.A. Freund (eds.) Betsaida, A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee v.2. Kirksville, Missouri. Pp.250–268. 1999b Summary of 12 Years Numismatic Finds. In S. Dar, Sumaqa, A Roman Byzantine Jewish Village on Mt. Carmel, Israel. Bar International Series 815. Pp.347–361. Kirkman J.S. 1957 The Evidence of the coins. In J.W. Crowfoot et al. The Objects from Samaria, (Samaria-Sebaste, v.III). London. Pp.43–70. Klein S. 1935 The Cities of the Priests and Levites and Cities of Refuge. In N. Sluschetz ed. Kovez of the Hebrew Society for the Exploration of EretzIsrael and its Antiquities. Jerusalem. Pp.81–107 (Hebrew). 1967 The Land of Galilee2. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Kogan-Zehavi E. 2000 Settlement Remains and Tombs at Khirbet Tabaliya (Giv‘at Hamatos). ‘Atiqot 40:53*–79* (English summary on pp.162–165). Kontorini V. 1979 L'Autonomie de Ptolemaïs-Akko de Phénicie. RN (6e serie) 21:30–41. Kraft K. 1972 Krings V. 1995 Das System der Kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung in Kleinasien. Berlin. La Civilisation Phénicienne et Punique - Manuel de Recherche. Leiden. Kushnir-Stein A. 2001 Was Late Hellenistic Silver Coinage Minted for Propaganda Purposes? Numismatic Chronicle 161:41–52. 2000–2 Some Observations on Palestinian Coins with a Bevelled Edge. INJ 14:78–83. 287 Kushnir-Stein A. and Gitler H. 1992–3 Numismatic Evidence from Tel Beer-Sheva and the Beginning of Nabatean Coinage. INJ 12:13–20. Landau Y.H. 1966 Lapin H. 2001 Lemaire A. 1995 A Greek Inscription Found Near Hefzibah. IEJ 16:54–70. Economy, Geography, and Provincial History in Later Roman Palestine (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 85). Tübingen. La Circulation Monetaire Phénicienne en Palestine a l'èpoque Perse. In M.H. Fantar and M. Ghaki eds. ACFP 3; Actes du IIIe Congres International des etudes Pheniciennes et Puniques. Tunis. Pp.192-202. Le Rider G. 1961 Les Ateliers Monétaires de la Côte Syrienne, Phénicienne, Palestinienne, Egyptienne et Cyrénéenne. In Proceedings of the International Numismatic Congress in Rome— 11–16 September 1961. Rome. Pp.67–109. 1994 1995 Antiochos IV (175–164) et le Monnayage de Bronze Séleucide. Bulletin de Correspondance Héllenique 118.1:17–34 La Politique Monétaire Des Séleucides en Coelé Syrie et en Phénicie après 200. Bulletin de Correspondance Héllenique 119:391–404 Levy B. E. 1993 Tyrian Shekels and the First Jewish War. In T. Hackens and G. Moucharte ed. Proceedings of the XIth International Numismatic Congress. Louvain-la-Neuve. Pp.267–274. 1995 Tyrian Shekels: the Myth of the Jerusalem Mint. SAN 19:33–35 2000 The Autonomous Silver of Sidon (107/106 BC–AD 43/44). In B. Kluge and B Weisser eds. XII. Internationaler Numismatische Kongress Berlin 1997. Berlin. Pp.324–332. The Half-Shekel Offering in Biblical and Post-Biblical Literature. Harvard Theological Review 56(3):173–198. Liver J. 1963 Lönnqvist K. 1997 A Re-Attribution of the King Herod Agrippa I “Year 6”-Issue. LA 47:429–440. 288 Magen Y. 2000a Mt. Gerizim — A Temple City. Qadmoniot 33/2 (120):74–118 (Hebrew). 2000b Jerusalem as a center of the Stone Vessel Industry during the Second Temple Period. In H. Geva ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (Expanded Edition). Jerusalem. Pp. 244–256. Makhouly N. and Avi-Yonah M. 1934 The Byzantine Church at Suhmata. QDAP 3:92–105. Maltiel-Gerstenfeld J. 1987 New Catalogue of Ancient Jewish Coins. Tel-Aviv. Ma‘oz Z.U. 1986 The Golan Heights in Antiquity. M.A. Thesis. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (Hebrew). Marcellesi M.-C. 2000 Commerce, monnaies locales et monnaies communes dans les Etats Hellénistiques. Revue des Etudes Grecques 113 :326–358. 2002 Monnaies Grecques non-Lagides trouveé dans les fouilles du CEA et les échanges à Alexandrie. In L’exception Égyptienne ? Production et échanges monétaires en Égypte hellenistique et romaine. Colloque d’Alexandrie 13–15 avril 2002. Pp.27–29. McDowell R. H. 1935 Coins From Seleucia on the Tigris. Ann Arbor, Michigan. McNicoll A. 1992 A preliminary List of Coins Found At Pella During the Sydney Sessions 1978/9–1984/5. In A. McNicoll et al. eds. Pella in Jordan 2. Sydney. Pp.267–273. Merker G.S 1988 The Coins. In Weinberg 1988. Pp.103–105 Meshorer Y. 1973 Coins from the Excavations at Khorazim. EI 11:158–162 (Hebrew, English summary on pp.27*–28*) 1975 1976 1984 Nabatean Coins. (Qedem 3). Jerusalem. A Hoard of Coins from Migdal. ‘Atiqot (ES) 11:54–71. One Hundred and Ninety Years of Tyrian Shekels. In A. Houghton ed. Studies in Honor of L. Mildenberg. Wetteren. Pp. 171–179. 289 1985a City Coins of Eretz Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period. Jerusalem. 1985b A Hoard of Coins from the Time of the Jewish War Against Rome. Michmanim 2:43–45 1986 Siege Coins of Judaea. In I. Carradice ed. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Numismatics, London, Sept. 1986. (IAPN Publication No.11). Pp.223–229, Pl. 28. 1987. The Coins. In A. Ben-Tor and Y. Portugali eds. Tel Qiri. A Village in the Jezreel Valley, Report of the Archaeological Excavations 1975– 1977. Jerusalem. P.51. 1995 Coins 1968–1986. In Herbert 1995. Pp. 241–260. 1996a The Coins. In A. Ben-Tor et al. Yoqne’am I. The Late Periods. Jerusalem. Pp.240–241. 1996b Coins from Areas A and C. In E. Stern ed. Excavations at Dor, Final Report, IB. (Qedem Reports 1). Jerusalem. Pp. 461–472. 1999 A treasury of Jewish Coins. Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Meyers E.M. 1976 Galilean Regionalism as a Factor In Historical Reconstruction. BASOR 221:93–101. 1985 1997 1999 Millar F. 1983 Galilean Regionalism - a Reappraisal. In W.S. Gren ed. Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Atlanta, Georgia. Pp.115–131. Jesus and His Galilean Context. In D.R. Edwards and C.T. McCollough eds.1997. Pp.57–66. (ed.) Galilee Through the Centuries - Confluence of Cultures. Winona Lake. The Phoenician Cities: A Case-Study of Hellenisation. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 209:55–71. Mørkholm O. 1966 Studies in the Coinage of Antiochus IV of Syria. Copenhagen. 1984 The Monetary System in the Seleucid Empire After 187 BC. In W. Heckel and R. Sullivan eds. Ancient Coins of the Graeco-Roman World — The Nickle Numismatic Papers. Calgary. Pp.93–113. 290 Newell E.T. 1939 The Coins. In R.S. Lamm and G.M. Shipton, Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34. Strata I–V. Chicago. Pp.196–212. Nicolaou I. 1990 Paphos vol. 2: The Coins from the House of Dionysos. Nicosia. Oppenheimer A. 1983 Babylonia Judaica in the Talmudic Period (Beiheft Zum Tübinger Atlas Des Vorderen Orients 19, Reihe B). Wiesbaden. 1990 Tyre and Eretz-Israel in the Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Jewish Studies Division B vol. 1. Jerusalem. Pp.15–22 (Hebrew). Excavations at Horvat ‘Ofrat (Khirbet et-Taiyiba). ‘Atiqot 10:91–99. (Hebrew; English summary on p.19*) Peleg M. 1990 Ponting M. Forthcoming The Chemical analysis of a selection of the Gamla Metalwork. Porat L. and Gal Z. 1999 Nahariya. ESI 19:7*–8*. Pritchard, J.B. 1962 Gibeon — Where the Sun Stood Still. Princeton. 1964 Winery, Defenses and Soundings at Gibeon. Philadelphia. Rajak T. 2002 Jewish Millenarian Expectations. In A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman eds. The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology. London, New York. Pp.164-188. Rappaport U. 1967 The Hellenistic Cities and the Jewish character of Eretz-Israel Under the Hasmoneans. In S. Perlman, B. Shimron eds. Doron, 18 Studies for Prof. B.Z. Katz. Tel Aviv. Pp.219–230 (Hebrew). 1976 1984 1988 The Emergence of Hasmonean Coinage. AJS Review 1:171–186. Numismatics. In W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein eds. The Cambridge History of Judaism I. Cambridge. Pp.25–59. 'Akko-Ptolemais and the Jews in the Hellenistic Period. Cathedra 50:31–48 (Hebrew). 1992a How Anti-Roman was Galilee? In L.I. Levine (ed.) Galilee in Late Antiquity. New York and Jerusalem. Pp.95–102. 291 1992b Phoenicia and Galilee: Economy, Territory and Political Relations. In T. Hackens and G. Moucharte eds. Studia Phoenicia IX: Numismatique et histoire économique phéniciennes et puniques. Louvain-La-Neuve. Pp. 261–268. 1993 Galilee Between the Hasmonean Revolt and the Roman Conquest. In A. Oppenheimer et al. eds. Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods— Studies in Honor of S. Safrai. Jerusalem. Pp. 16–30 (Hebrew). Rahmani L.Y. and Sharabani M. 1983. Catalogue of Coins. In M. Dothan, Hammath Tiberias — Early Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman Remains. Jerusalem. Pp. 18–19. Raynor J. 1981 1990 Numismatic Report of Nabratein 1980. BASOR 224:15–21. Numismatics. In E. Meyers et al. Excavations at the Ancient Synagogue of Gush Halav. Winona Lake. Pp.230–245. Raynor J. and Meshorer Y. 1988 The Coins of Ancient Meiron. Winona Lake. Reed J.L. 1999 Galileans, “Israelite Village Communities”, and the Sayings Gospel Q. In Meyers ed. 1999. Pp.87–108. Reisner G.A. 1924 Coins at Samaria. In G.A. Reisner, C.S. Fisher and D.G. Lyon Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910. Cambridge. Pp.252–273. Rochman-Halperin A. et al. 1999 Excavations at Giv‘at Yasaf (Tell er-Ras). ‘Atiqot 37:83–163 (Hebrew, English summaries on pp.172*–178*). Rogers E. 1927 The Second and Third Seleucid Coinage of Tyre. (ANS NNM 34). New York. Rostovzeff M. (ed.) 1936 The Excavations at Dura Europos. Preliminary Reports on the Sixth Season: October 1932–March 1933. New Haven, Conn. Salles J-Fr. 1995 Phénicie. In Krings 1995, pp.553–582. 292 Safrai S. 1994 Safrai Z. 1990 1994 Sartre M. 1989 Schlösser E. 1984 In the Days of the Temple and the Mishna. Studies in the History of Israel. Jerusalem. Trade in Palestine in the Roman Period. In B.Z. Kedar et al. 1990. Pp.108–139 (Hebrew). The Economy of Roman Palestine. London and New York. Organisation du territoire et pouvoirs locaux dans la Syrie Hellénistique et Romaine. Transeuphratène 1:119–28. Denominations and Weights of Bronze Coins of Antiochus IV of Syria and Their Relation to the Silver Coinage. Schweizer Münzblätter 35 No.138:33–36. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Vermes, Millar, Black eds.). Edinburgh. Megiddo Junction. HA 109:35*–36*. The Citadel of Bet Zur. Philadelphia. Schürer E. 1973 Segal A. 1999 Sellers O.R. 1933 Sellers O.R. et al. 1968 The 1957 Excavation at Bet Zur (AASOR 38). Cambridge, Mass. Seyrig H. 1951 1955 1958 1959 Antiquités de Beth-Maré. Syria 28 :107–110. Trésor monetaire de Nisibe. RN (5e serie)17:85–128. Monnaies Grecques des fouilles de Doura et d’Antioche. RN (6e serie) 1:171–181. Antiquités Syriennes. Syria 36:71–75. 1962a Le Monnayage de Ptolémaïs en Phénicie. RN (6e serie) 4:25–50. 1962b Les Monnaies. In Dunand et Duru 1962. Pp. 227–231. Shachar I. 2002 The Later Coinage of Alexander Jannaeus and its Historical Implications. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Tel-Aviv. 293 Shalem D. 1996 Migdal Ha-‘Emeq. ESI 15:36–41. Sharabani M. 1983 The Coins. In V. Tzaferis, Excavations at Kursi. 'Atiqot (ES)16. Pp.39– 40. Shatzman I. 2003 Relationships between Jews and Gentiles in the Early Hasmonean Period According to Contemporary Jewish Sources. In A. Oppenheimer, M. Mor, J. Pastor and D. Schwartz eds. Jews and Gentiles in Eretz-Israel in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud. Jerusalem. Pp.142–158 (Hebrew). Sheedy K., Carson R. and Walmsley A. 2001 Pella in Jordan 1979–1990, the Coins (ed. K. da Costa). Adapa Monograph Series 1. Sydney. Sievers 1990 Smith M. 1971 Smith R.H. 1990 The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters. Atlanta. Zealots and Sicarii. Their Origins and Relations. Harvard Theological Review 64:1–19. The Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period. Levant 22:123–130 Smithline H. 1997 Sasa (West). ESI 16:20–22. 1998 Sperber D. 1998 Three Burial Caves from the Roman Period at Asherat. 'Atiqot 33:47– 59 (Hebrew). The City in Roman Palestine. New York-Oxford. Spijkerman A. 1961 Trésor de sicles juifs trouvé au Mont des Oliviers à Jerusalem. Schweizer Münzblätter 42:25–32. 1975 1978 Stein A. 1990 Cafarnao III. Le Monete della Città. Jerusalem. Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia. Jerusalem. Studies in Greek and Latin Inscriptions on the Palestinian Coinage Under the Principate. Ph.D. Diss., Tel Aviv University. 294 Stern E. 1971 1996 Phoenician Antrophoid Coffins from Palestine. Qadmoniot 4:27–28 (Hebrew). Excavations at Dor, Final Report (Qedem Reports 1). Jerusalem. Stern E.J. and Getzov N. Forthcoming. Aspects of Phoenician Burial Customs in the Roman period, in light of an excavation of Burials near el-Kabri (Kabri). ‘Atiqot. Stern M. 1981 1995 Strange J.F. 1997 Judaea and her Neighbors in the Days of Alexander Jannaeus. In L.I. Levine ed. The Jerusalem Cathedra 1. Jerusalem. Pp.22–46. Hasmonean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History. Jerusalem (Hebrew). First Century Galilee from Archaeology and from the Texts. In Edwards and McCollough 1997. Pp.39–48. Strange, J., D. Groh, and T. Longstaff 1994 Excavation at Sepphoris: The Location and Identification of Shikhin. Part I. IEJ 44:216–227. 1995 Excavation at Sepphoris: The Location and Identification of Shikhin. Part II. IEJ 45:171–187. Sutherland C.H.V. 1967 The Pattern of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine During the Early Empire. In A. Kindler ed. The Patterns of Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity. Proceedings of the International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem 1963. Jerusalem. Pp.88–100. Syon D. 1992 1992–3 1995 1998 Gamla — Portrait of a Rebellion. BAR 18/1:20–37. The Coins from Gamala — Interim Report. INJ 12:34–55, Pls.8–13 The Identification of Gamla — Through the Sources and by the Results of the Excavations. Cathedra 78:3–24. (Hebrew). Migdal Ha’Emeq. ESI 18:33–34. 2000a The Coins. In A. Tatcher, Two Trial Excavations in ‘Akko. ‘Atiqot 49:27*–41* (Hebrew, English summary on p.196–197). 295 2000b Khisas. HA/ESI 112:2*–7* 2001 Zippori. HA/ESI 113:23*–25*, 25–28. 2002a Gamla — City of Refuge. In A.M. Berlin and J.A. Overman eds. The First Jewish Revolt. Archaeology, History and Ideology. London and New York. Pp.134–153. 2002b The Coins from Migdal. ‘Atiqot 42:33*–36*. 2002c Coins from Burial Caves D and E at Hurfeish. In Z. Gal ed. ErezZafon. Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp.166*–175*. 2002d Coins from the Excavations at Khirbet esh-Shuhara. In Z. Gal eds. Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp.122*– 134*. 2002e Excavations at Khirbet el-Shubeika- The Coins. In Z. Gal eds. Eretz Zafon: Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp.332–339 (Hebrew). 2002f Nahariya— The Coins. Atiqot (in press, Hebrew). 2002g Appendix: The Coins. After D. Edwards, Khirbet Qana, From Jewish Village to Christian Pilgrim Site. In J.H. Humphrey ed. The Roman and Byzantine Near East 3(JRA Supplement No. 49). Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Pp.129–132. Forthcoming 1 ‘Akko Courthouse Excavations — The Coins from Areas TB, TC. ‘Atiqot. Forthcoming 2 The Coins. In J.A. Overman, Excavations at Omrit. Forthcoming 3 Coins from the Excavations at Bar‘am. Forthcoming 4 Kabri — The Coins. ‘Atiqot. Syon D. and Yavor Z. 2001 Gamla—Old and New. Qadmoniot 34.1(121):2–33 (Hebrew) Forthcoming. Gamla 1997–2000. ‘Atiqot. 296 Tadmor H. 1968 The Conquest of Galilee by Tiglath Pileser III, King of Assyria. In H.Z. Hirschberg ed. All the Land of Naphtali. The Twenty-Fourth Archaeological Convention October 1966. Jerusalem. Pp.62–67 (Hebrew). Tombs in Western Galilee. ‘Atiqot (HS) 5:72–79. (Hebrew, English summary on p. 9*) The Desert Fortresses of Judaea in the Second Temple Period. The Jerusalem Cathedra 2:120–145. Tzaferis V. 1969 Tsafrir Y. 1982 Van ‘t Dack et al. 1989 E. Van ‘t Dack, W. Clarysse, G. Cohen, J. Quaegebeur and J.K. Winnicki. The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103–101 B.C. A War of Sceptres. Brussels. Voulgaridis G. 2000 Les ateliers monétaires de Ptolémaïs-’Akko et d’Ascalon sous la domination séleucide. Ph.D. diss. Université Marc Bloch-Starsbourg. Wachsmann S. 1990 The Excavations of an Ancient Boat in the Sea of Galilee (‘Atiqot ES 19). Jerusalem. Wagner D. 1987 Oil Production at Gamla. In M. Heltzer and D. Eitam eds. Olive Oil in Antiquity. Pp.187–191. Weinberg G.D. 1973 Notes on Glass from Upper Galilee. Journal of Glass Studies 15:35–51. 1988 Excavations at Jalame. Columbia. Weiser W. and Cotton H. 1996 Gebt dem Kaiser was Des Kaisers ist… Die Geldwährungen der Griechen, Juden, Nabatäer und Römer im syrisch-nabatäischen Raum unter besonderen Berücksichtigung des Kurses von Sela‘/Melaina und Lepton nach der Annexion des Königreiches der Nabatäer durch Rom. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 114:237–287. 2002 Neues zum "Tyrischen Silbergeld" Herodianischer und Romischer Zeit. Zeitschrift Fur Papyrologie und Epigraphic 139:235–250. 297 Weksler-Bdolah Sh. 2000 Excavations at Tel Nov. Atiqot 39:13*–26* Hebrew, English summary on pp.194–196). Welles C.B. 1938 The Inscriptions. In C.H. Kraeling Gerasa, city of the Decapolis. New Haven. Pp.355–494. Westerman W.L. and Hasenoehrl E.S. 1936 Columbia Papyri: Zenon Papyri I. New York. Yadin Y. 1965 “And Dan, Why Did He Abide with the Ships?”. In Western Galilee and the Coast of Galilee. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Pp.42–55. Yadin Y., Greenfield J.C. and Yardeni A. 1994 Babatha’s Ketubba. IEJ 44:75–101. Yadin Y. et al. 2002 Judean Desert Studies: The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of the Letters: Hebrew, Aramaic and Nabatean-Aramaic Papyrii. Jerusalem. Yeivin Z. 2000 Yellin J. 1994 The Synagogue at Korazim (IAA Reports 10). Jerusalem. Origin of the Lamps from Masada. In J. Aviram ed. Masada IV. The Yigal Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports. Jerusalem. Pp.107–120. An Archaeological Survey of the Bet She’an Valley. In The Bet She’an Valley — The 17th Archaeological Convention. Jerusalem. Pp.135–198 (Hebrew). The Land of Issachar: An Archaeological Survey. Jerusalem. Zori N. 1962 1977 298 300 Tyre 290 Sidon 35 Km 1 27 280 9 10 12 13 3 11 14 2 5 Paneas 15 4 6 7 16 21 18 20 22 17 23 19 24 26 25 8 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 56 38 5758 62 43 28 36 39 44 46 63 55 52 59 45 33 34 40 52a 47 29 Golan 37 42 41 32 60 51 48 49 53 31 61 30 50 64 54 75 74 79 68 76 80 84 Nahariya 65 67 77 92 86 93 87 66 81 85 94 69 72 Upper Galilee 82 88 70 90 Zefat 71 73 89 78 83 91 96 104 ‘Akko-Ptolemais 97 105 99 109 98 101 111 112 Gamla 110 106 108 103 113 100 114 Haifa 115 102 107 129 123 116 119 121 133a 128 131 117 124 130 122 132 135 118 Lower Galilee 120 Tiberias 133 125 126 134 127 133b Sepphoris 137 144 152 140 142 148 143 138 149 153 139 150 Mt Carmel 141 147 Mt. Carmel 151 146 153a 145 136 155 162 163 154 Jezreel Valley 164 165 156 157 166 158 161 167 159 160 169 170 168 181 171 172 175 177 179 173 174 178 Nysa-Scythopolis 180 35 182 95 200 1 H. Nuha 2 Kefar Gil‘adi 3 Hagoshrim Avocado 4 Tel Barom 5 Kh. Khisas 6 Hagoshrim 7 Giv‘at Shhumit 8 Qal‘at Bustra 9 H. Snaim 10 Mazraat Jebel Siri (Hermon) 11 Dan-Dafna 12 Snir. 13 Paneas 14 H. Sa‘ar 15 Omrit 16 Tel Turmus 17 Tel Na‘ama 18 Tel Sheikh Yusuf 19 Dawwara 20 Tel Anafa 21 H. Zemel 22 Wadi Haliweh 23 Kh. el-Beda 24 Tel Yardinon 25 Khiyam el-Walid 26 Bab el-Hawa 27 Oumm el ‘Amed 28 Rosh Haniqra 29 Akhziv 30 el-Tuweiri 31 H. Shaqof 32 Kh. Hamsin 33 Mazzuva 34 H. ‘En Koveshim 35 Hanita 36 H. Idmith 37 H. Seraf 38 Jurdeikh 39 H. ‘Erav 40 H. Karkara 41 Eilon (Gadna Hill) 42 H. Galil 43 Birket Risha 44 H. Ma‘ar 45 Iqrit 46 H. Bazir 47 H. ‘Aqrav (hoard) 48 Tel Rosh 49 Sasa 50 Sasa West 51 Kefar Bar‘am 52 Kh. el-Shuhara 52a Kh. el-Shuhara (hoard) 53 H. ‘Alwa 54 Gush Halav 55 Aviv Caves 56 Tel Qedesh 57 Qedesh (Temple area) 58 Qeren Naftali 59 Kh. Khureiba 60 H. Qazyon 61 Merot 62 Kh. Mallaha 63 Darbashiya 64 Makbarat Banat Yakub 65 H. ‘Eitayim 66 Nahariya 67 Kabri 68 Kh. el-Shubeika 69 Kh. Muslih 70 Tell el-Sumeiriya 71 Kuweikat 72 Asherat 73 Tel ‘Emek 74 H. Beth Zeneta 75 Mi‘ilya 76 Kh. ‘Alya 77 Suhmata 78 H. Tefen 79 Hurfeish 80 Ghabbatiya 81 H. ‘Ofaim 82 H. Zeved 83 Rama 84 H. Qiyyuma 85 ‘Ein el-Zeitun 86 Nabratein 87 Meron 88 H. Shema‘ 89 Sammu‘iya 90 Zefat 91 Akhbara 92 ‘Ateret 93 Qasrin 94 Qusbiyye 95 ’Ashe (Golan) 96 Yahudiya 97 ‘Akko 98 ‘En Hamifraz 99 H. ‘Uza 100 Tel Keisan 101 H. Kab 102 H. Mistah 103 H. Zalmon 104 H. Beer Sheva 105 Kefar Hananya 106 Huqoq 107 H. Ravid 108 Tel Kinrot 109 Korazim 110 Capernaum 111 Bethsaida 112 Gamla 113 H. Kanaf 114 Deir ‘Aziz 115 Hispin 116 No name 1 (Golan) 117 Kursi 118 Haifa (hoard) 119 Shiqmona 120 Rushmiya 121 ’Ibillin 122 Tel Mador 123 Yodefat, Shifat 124 H. Qana 125 H. ‘Ofrat 126 Hanaton 127 Shihin 128 H. Es‘ad 129 Ginnosar boat site 130 Arbel Caves 131 Migdal 132 Arbel 133 Tiberias 133a Kinneret (hoard) 133b Bet Ma’on 134 Hippos 135 El-Al 136 Sumaqa 137 Kefar Hasidim 138 Jalame 139 Sha‘ar Ha-‘Amaqim 140 Betlehem of Galilee 141 Bet Shearim 142 Kh. Umm Ahmad 143 H. Shimshit 144 Sepphoris 145 Migdal Ha-‘Emeq 146 Yafia‘ 147 Kh. el-Tirya 148 Kafr Kanna 149 Tel Govel 150 Kafr Kama 151 H. Mesah 152 ‘En Betah 152a Golan (hoards) 153 No name 2 (Golan) 153a Sha‘ar Hagolan area 154 Umm el-Zinat 155 Yoqne‘am 156 Tel Qiri 157 Mishmar Ha-‘Emeq 158 Midrakh ‘Oz 159 Meggido 160 Legio 161 Merhavya 162 El Kader 163 H. Qamal 164 H. Zafzafot 165 Tamra 166 Na‘ura 167 Giv‘at Boleq 168 Tel Yizre’el 169 Giv‘at Qumi 170 Shatta 171 Tel Slawim 172 H. Shamot 173 Beth Alfa 174 Tel Basul 175 Sede Nahum 176 Hanot Beth-She’an 177 Bet Shean 178 H. Haman 179 Hamadia 180 Tel Eshtori 181 H. Yahmi 182 H. Parwa