Yet Again on the Bronze Coins Minted at Gamla more

Yet Again on the Bronze Coins Minted at Gamla DANNY SYON Israel Antiquities Authority dsyon@israntique.org.il Abstract After a recent suggestion to the contrary, the author reasserts his belief that only one obverse and two reverse dies are known for the ‘Gamla’ coins. This is accomplished by superimposing coin images in a computer application, as well as by discussing several aspects of the coins’ production, use and chronology. This article is a response to Yoav Farhi’s article in INJ 15 (2006), with whom I have an amicable difference of opinion regarding the rather unattractive, but important so-called ‘Gamla’ coins. Farhi addressed two main issues: that of the dies and that of the inscription. Not being trained in paleography, I am happy to accept his new reading for the obverse, though those who accepted the ‘old’ legend “for the redemption of holy Jerusalem” will be somewhat confused by this new development. Eidlin (1981) used Meshorer’s reading (AJC 2:129–131), and when I described these coins in my doctoral dissertation (Syon 2004:54–58), I too relied on Meshorer’s reading, modifying it slightly only on the strength of the new reverse type that Meshorer had not seen. While still in the excavation camp at Gamla with Shmarya Gutmann in the 1980s, we recognized and dearly wanted the obverse to be read àìîâá (bgml’), and often expressed our frustration at Meshorer’s reading of it as úìàâì (lg’lt), with similar gimel and (second) lamed. However, we did not question Meshorer’s reading, assuming that he had consulted a paleographer. Unfortunately it never occurred to me to ask Meshorer before he passed away, and it is not known whom he consulted or indeed if he consulted anyone at all. By a curious coincidence, another article (Pfann 2006) appeared practically at the same time as that of Farhi, suggesting a closely related reading of the obverse as àìîâî (mgml’). This is analogous to the ethnic in genitive case appearing on contemporaneous city coins with Greek legends (2006:109). Hence, Pfann concluded that this coin was the first Jewish city coin.1 I believe that were this the case, the legend would be in fact àìîâì (lgml’), the possessive form, similar to e.g., the êìîì (lmlk) stamps on jar handles of Iron-Age Judea. Regarding Farhi’s new conclusions on the number of dies of these coins, however, I (almost) maintain my original position (Syon 2004:55) that there is a 1 Pfann’s article is full of typographical and other technical errors, and some of the points he makes are difficult to follow. INR 2 (2007): 117–122 117 118 DANNY SYON single obverse die and probably only two reverse dies. Farhi’s article in fact supports my reasoning against his own. We both agree that the coins are extremely crude, and part of the problem of die-identification stems from the fact that there is not a single exemplar on which all the letters are visible. We also agree that his coins 7–9 share the same reverse die: his die B and my reverse 2 (Syon 2004:56, Fig. 26) Farhi stated (2006:71) that the three obverse dies he proposed were variants, that differ in the thickness of the letters and the shape of the chalice. The reverses, according to him, differ in the form and the orientation of the letters. Implicit in this statement is that on the obverse the letter forms and their relative position are close to identical. Yet in n. 8 (p. 72) Farhi suggested that the dies were made by the rather rough method of hammering the die surface with a chisel, a proposition I easily accept. If the best die-cutters in antiquity could not engrave two identical dies, are we to believe that by crude hammering techniques such near-identity was possible? Considering the ephemeral nature of this issue and the crudity of its production, I admit that I am quite surprised that two reverse dies exist at all, but I cannot agree to three “variant” obverses and three reverses, two of which are “variants.” The logic of having two reverses for such a small issue might be the normal practice of any mint in antiquity, where reverse dies wore out at a higher frequency than obverse dies, so more reverse dies were produced to begin with. Thus, while the Gamla mint worker(s) was/were not very competent in die preparation, the person in charge knew enough of mint practices to produce two (or more) reverse dies right at the start. He may well have expected to use them for an extended period.2 Considering the siege conditions at Gamla at the time, the dies may have been made of softer metal than that which was usual for dies. I also believe that the issue of these ‘Gamla’ coins was brief and small. So it is with some reservations that I suggest that what Farhi saw as “variants” and different letter-thicknesses are, in fact, the results of rapid wear of the dies and possibly their recutting for extended use. Thus, the coins with “thin” letters would be from the original die and those with the “thick” letters from the die after recutting. The shape of the chalice, considered by Farhi to have been intentionally altered so as not to be an exact replica of the Temple utensil (2006:72) seems to me yet another example of crude workmanship. If the Jerusalem sheqels could depict the chalice with a horizontal rim, so could the coins from Gamla. In what follows, I propose to show that Farhi’s obverses I and II are identical and reverses A and A1 are identical (with one exception, below). As noted above, 2 I am indebted to J.-P. Fontanille (http://www.menorahcoinproject.org), who suggested this, based on his extensive die studies on Jewish coinage. YET AGAIN ON THE BRONZE COINS MINTED AT GAMLA 119 there is not a single coin with a completely preserved legend; only parts of the dies can be compared. Still, in a world of manual die-cutting, and especially with the crude hammering technique, identity in part of the die should be sufficient to demonstrate full identity. Photographs of the “variants” were superimposed in a computer application, so that the top image is semi-transparent, and the two images were moved slightly (roughly 2–3 mm) in relation to one another. In this way the identical shape, position and orientation of the elements on both coins can be demonstrated. Indicator arrows have been added in most figures to highlight the superimposed elements. The numbers correspond to those in Farhi 2006:70–71, Figs. 1–2. The only exception is the reverse of coin No. 3. This coin has a deep crack on both sides, and while the obverse can be easily matched with Type I (Fig. 1), the reverse is very badly preserved and I admit that it cannot be matched with either reverse A or B, contrary to my previous identification as reverse type 1 (Syon 2004:56, Fig. 26). J.-P. Fontanille suggested (pers. comm.) that it is a third reverse die, but another possibility is that No. 3 resulted from a striking error. Either an oblique blow, which smeared the design in an unrecognizable way (only one edge of the flan bears characters), a double strike, which confused the characters, or both. Future discoveries might solve the identity of this die. Finally, Farhi raised the interesting question of when exactly these coins were minted during the revolt (2006:74). He suggested the seven months of siege by Agrippa II, as opposed to the period Vespasian besieged the town, suggested by Meshorer (TJC:131).3 He bases his opinion on the worn state of some of the coins. Admittedly, some of the coins do look worn, but I do not think that seven to eight months of use at most are sufficient to wear solid bronze coins to such a degree. Here again I see the crudity of striking, and the similar hardness of the dies and the flans as the reason for this. Inspection shows that most coins show filing marks — some heavy — around the edges. This might 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 (e.g., TJC:227, No. 83) and the “year 13” coins of the Roman administration struck in 53 CE (TJC:261, No. 347). A metallurgical analysis (Ponting 2004) carried out on one ‘Gamla’ coin (Farhi’s No. 3 [IAA19346]) and two coins of Antipas (Syon 2004:328, No. 894 and p. 329, No. 911) showed some similarity in that all 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. The 3 In his 1982 publicaton, Meshorer (AJC 2:130) stated only that the coin was minted in the “early stages of the war”. 120 DANNY SYON Fig. 1. Obverse: 1 over 3 (Type I over Ia) Fig. 2. Obverse: 1 over 4 (Type I over II) Fig. 3. Obverse: 5 over 2 (Type II over I) Fig. 4. Obverse: 7 over 2 (Type II over I) YET AGAIN ON THE BRONZE COINS MINTED AT GAMLA 121 Fig. 5. Reverse: 2 over 4 (Type A over A1) Fig. 6. Reverse: 2 over 5 (Type A over A1) Fig. 7. Reverse: 5 over 1 (Type A1 over A) fabric of the coins also appears to be different: the Antipas coins are usually smooth and shiny, and are prone to bronze disease, while the ‘Gamla’ coins have a grittier feel, and are very stable. A metallurgical survey of selected finds from Gamla, carried out by Matthew Ponting (forthcoming), clearly points to a metal-casting workshop operating at Gamla in the first century CE, so until more conclusive analytical tests are conducted, I prefer to see these as locally cast flans, the filing marks showing a ‘finishing’ process applied before striking. The chronology of the coins certainly deserves a fresh look, and besides Farhi’s worthwhile contribution, a fuller treatment of the same issue is given by Arbel (forthcoming; an enlarged, popular version of this idea is found in Arbel 2007), who also believes that the most likely time for the minting of the coins from Gamla was the period roughly from February to August 67 CE, during the blockade of Agrippa II. Rather than discussing the physical factors of the coins 122 DANNY SYON themselves, Arbel believes that the coins would have been useless during Vespasian’s siege, but “could have served as a valuable publicity asset while the domestic dispute between the war and peace factions remained unsettled.” They are more likely to have been minted on behalf of the ‘authorities’ as part of a strategic and economic plan, than as a desperate act of propaganda during the harsh siege of Vespasian. REFERENCES Arbel Y. 2007. The Gamla Coin: A New Perspective on the Circumstances and Date of Their Minting. In D. Miano and S. Malena eds. Milk and Honey. Essays on Ancient Israel and The Bible. Winona Lake, Ind. Pp. 257–275 Arbel Y. Forthcoming. The Coins Minted at Gamla: A New Perspective on the Circumstances and Date of their Minting. In D. Syon ed. Gamla III. The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989. Finds and Studies (IAA Reports). Eidlin D. 1981. The Coins. In S. Gutmann, Gamla — The First Three Seasons. Tel Aviv. Pp. 86–95 (Hebrew). Farhi Y. 2006. The Bronze Coins Minted at Gamla Reconsidered. INJ 15:69–76. Pfann S. 2006. Dated Bronze Coinage of the Sabbatical Years of Release and the First Jewish City Coin. Bulletin of the Anglo-Israeli Archaeological Society 24:101–113. Ponting M. 2004. Metallurgical Analysis of the Gamla Jewish War Coin. In D. Syon. Tyre and Gamla. A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Pp. 267–269. Ponting M. Forthcoming. The Chemical Composition and Technology of the Non-Ferrous Metalwork from Gamla. In D. Syon ed. Gamla III. The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989. Finds and Studies (IAA Reports). Syon D. 2004. Tyre and Gamla. A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University. Jerusalem.