Ariel D.T. The Coins of Herod the Great in the Context of the Augustan Empire. In D.M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos eds. Herod and Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st–23rd June 2005 (IJS Studies in Judaica 6). Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2009. Pp. 113–126 (illus. pp. 425–427)

IJS STUDIES IN JUDAICA Conference Proceedings of the Institute of Jewish Studies, University College London Series Editors Markham J. Geller Ada Rapoport-Albert John Klier VOLUME 6 THE COINS OF HEROD THE GREAT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AUGUSTAN EMPIRE Donald T. Ariel Abstract Two of Herod’s bronze coin series are thought to relate to historical milestones in Herod’s relationship to Augustus. This paper concentrates on Herod’s large diadem/ table type, minted in Jerusalem, and his year-three coins, thought by many to have been minted in Samaria. Most of Herod’s coinage was struck for purely economic reasons, to make fractional currency available both for Herod’s standing army and for the labourers employed in his extensive building activities. I consider another function—perhaps new for Judea—for the minting of the abovementioned coins of Herod, as celebratory handouts, in the spirit of the Roman institutions of congiaria and donativa. Octavian himself embraced these practices, setting a pattern of munificence which was imitated by his successors, and in my opinion, by Herod as well. Herod’s large diadem/table coin, minted in 30 BCE (or soon thereafter) may have been a congiarium celebrating Octavian’s reconfirmation of Herod’s rule at Rhodes in the spring of that year, as well as a commemorative coin, celebrating his decennalia. Herod’s year-three coins may also have been minted for a congiarium. If they dated, as is generally accepted, to around 37 BCE, they celebrated Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem. However, some of the iconography on Herod’s year-three coins suggests Augustan connections, raising some doubt regarding the 37 BCE date for these coins. One hypothetical solution to this conundrum is considered. Calculated by a possible, otherwise undocumented, era fixed by Octavian’s 30 BCE reconfirmation of Herod’s rule, the Samaria-minted year-three coins may have been struck in order to celebrate Samaria’s refoundation as Sebaste, in spring/summer of 27 BCE. In spite of Josephus’ detailed coverage of Herod’s reign, historical assessments of Herod vary in their judgments, suggesting that Herod was a complex figure, arousing opprobrium, respect and even sympathy. Herod’s coins are a valuable way to check one’s historical interpretation of his reign, and even to place that reign in the framework of the great developments occurring at the same time in the Roman sphere. In contrast to the larger-than-life person that Herod was, his coinage is quite unimpressive, continuing the earlier Hasmonean tradition of refraining from the otherwise common use of human depictions. The legends are monotonic, with only Herod’s name and title (ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΗΡΩ∆ΟΥ) appearing. Herod’s lacunose coins also uniquely counterbalance the impressive architectural remains from that time, and could 114 donald t. ariel restore a sense of rationality to a historical analysis of the period, and contribute to a retreat from the notion of the special and unique quality of the small region called Judaea. The basic division within Herod’s bronze coins is between the dated and undated coins. The dated coins—issued in four denominations—were all minted in the same year: year-three (Meshorer 2001, 61–65). Although this year three is generally placed in 38/37 BCE, there is still a lack of consensus on this date. The intense interest in the dated group has brought in its wake many suggestions to locate its mint in places other than Herod’s capital. Today, besides Jerusalem, Samaria is considered the only other serious candidate for the mint place for these coins. As noted, the dated group was struck in four denominations. The depictions on either side of these well-made coins include a tripod and helmet (Meshorer 2001, 221, No. 44; see Fig. 1), another type of helmet and a shield (Meshorer 2001, 221, No. 45; see Fig. 2), winged caduceus and poppy pod or pomegranate (Meshorer 2001, 221, No. 46; see Fig. 3), and aphlaston and palm branch (Meshorer 2001, 221, No. 47; see Fig. 4). Their possible association with a Samaria mint derives primarily from their disproportionate appearance at excavations there (Meshorer 2001, 62–63), and because the abovementioned types have often been associated with pagan symbolism ( Jacobson 1986; Kokkinos 1998, 122; Meshorer 2001, 63–65). The location of the mint of the undated group of bronze coins is universally ascribed to Jerusalem. Many of the coins are crudely designed and executed. The largest coin depicts a diadem with cross and three-legged table (Meshorer 2001, 221–222, Nos. 48–51; see Fig. 5). This type was apparently later copied in a number of smaller, degenerative variations: a type with the cross outside of the diadem (Meshorer 2001, 222, No. 52), with the cross missing (Meshorer 2001, 222, Nos. 53a–54), and with the diadem missing and letters scattered (Meshorer 2001, 222, No. 54b). Other rare small types replace the tripod with two crossed palmbranches, one palm-branch (Meshorer 2001, 222, No. 56) or what may be a vine branch (Meshorer 2001, 222, Nos. 55–58). Other types depict an anchor. The more common one bears the inscription on the obverse (Meshorer 2001, 223, Nos. 60–64), and a rarer one depicts a galley instead (Meshorer 2001, 223, No. 65). But by far the most common type of Herod coin depicts anchor and two cornucopias (Meshorer the coins of herod the great 115 2001, 222–223, No. 59). In between the cornucopias is a caduceus. A final coin type of Herod depicts an eagle on the obverse and one cornucopia on the reverse (Meshorer 2001, 224, No. 66). In this paper my focus is on what intersections one may find between Herod’s coins and events relating to Augustus, or Augustan policy and iconography. Before presenting those intersections I believe to have validity, it is important to remember that earlier associations between Herod’s coins and Augustus have proven to be illusory. In part because of the close relationship between Herod and Rome, and presumably also Augustus, a few numismatic fantasies have developed over the years. The first was in 1923, when Harold Mattingly guessed that a certain rare imperial coin type with ‘candelabrum’ type (Mattingly 1923, 110–111, Nos. 683–685 = Sutherland 1984, 85, Nos. 539–540), struck in gold and silver, might have been minted in 20 BCE in Syria or Judaea. The coins, he explained, “had never been satisfactorily dated, attributed, or explained” (Mattingly 1923, cxxvi). While the suggestion was made with appropriate caution, no findspots were known from the East (Mattingly 1923, cxxvi–cxxvii) and no connection was implied between this onebranched ‘candelabrum’ and the seven-branched menorah, Mattingly found “something suggestive of Eastern workmanship”, and ascribed it to an uncertain mint in the East. Later, Sutherland rejected Mattingly’s suggestion, viewing the western find-spots as paramount in the coins’ ultimate mint attribution (Sutherland 1984, 38). A second fantasy was Meshorer’s proposal that after Augustus had penalised Tyre for civil disturbances in 20 BCE (Cassius Dio, 54.7.6), the emperor sanctioned the removal of the important Tyrian mint to Jerusalem, allowing Herod to mint his own silver coins imitating the autonomous series known as Tyrian sheqels (Meshorer 1984). While this proposal has since been rejected (Levy 1993; 1995), it haunts modern scholarship. Herod was a Roman client king, and minting gold and silver was certainly not part of his mandate. Today Herod is only credited with the minting of bronze coins. A third fantasy is Jodi Magness’s recent dating of the year-three coins to 20 BCE, based upon a reading of the tau-rho mintmark on these Greek-inscribed coins as the Latin letters T and P, which she claimed stood for the tribuncia potestas of Augustus in 23 BCE, or less likely, that of Marcus Agrippa in 18 BCE (Magness 2001, 168–169). In spite of the abovementioned numismatic fantasies, I am proposing here suggestions for two further intersections. The first may be found 116 donald t. ariel with one undated coin, the large diadem/table type (Fig. 5; Meshorer 2001, 221–222, Nos. 48–49), and the second with the year-three coins (Fig. 1–4; Meshorer 2001, 221–222, Nos. 44–47). The Large Diadem/Table Coin Type and Augustus I believe a historical intersection between Herod’s coins and Augustus does exist in one of the undated coins, the large diadem/table type (Meshorer 2001, 221–222, Nos. 48–51). One of the main goals of my earlier research into Herod’s coins has been to establish the undated coins’ internal chronology, “one of the most intractable subjects of Jewish numismatics” (Avi-Yonah 1968, 10). This chronology was needed not only as a tool for analysing Herod’s coins as archaeological finds, but also for a satisfactory interpretation of the coin types. I have developed a basic chronology for the undated coins (Ariel 2000–2002), but most aspects of the chronology less directly relate to Augustus. The large diadem/table type is, in our opinion, the earliest of the undated coins. Because of Herod’s meeting with Augustus in Rhodes in the spring of 30 BCE, and Herod’s improved status after that event, I believe that coin was minted upon Herod’s return from that meeting. This would date the beginning of the minting of Herod’s undated coins to ten years after his coronation. This is possible if we recall some of the operating principles relating to the coinage in the first century BCE. 1. Sporadic minting: In Herod’s day most mints operated on a sporadic (or occasional) basis. This is even true of the great mint of Rome, where there were frequent intervals of quite considerable length, in which no official bronze coinage seems to have been struck at all (Sutherland 1951, 189; Duncan-Jones 1994, 141; Wolters 2000–2001, 583–584). 2. The fallacy of concern for the prevention of coin scarcities: A corollary of the above is the fact that there is no firm evidence that contemporary rulers were disturbed by periodic shortages of small change for transactions in the local markets (Reece 1978, 645; Butcher 2004, 141). No coins were minted in Jerusalem for decades, and nevertheless one need not expect that as a consequence Herod would mint coins soon after gaining power. 3. The economic component to the minting of bronze coinage: In the first century BCE, as at many other times, having enough bronze coins on hand saved an administration from overpaying in its purchases. If Herod could produce his own fiduciary bronze coins he would be able to have as much fractional currency on hand as he needed (Harl 1997, 224). the coins of herod the great 117 Two of the reasons why Herod would have minted coins were: having fractional currency available for Herod’s army, and for the labourers employed in his extensive building activities. A third function for Herod’s minting of bronze coinage would have been in the context of the Roman institutions of congiaria and donativa. Augustus set the pattern in the Roman Empire for open-handedness and munificence (liberalitas Augusti). Herod’s overall magnanimity may have been an imitation of Augustus’ own policy of open-handedness. The difference in scale is not merely in the quantity of the coins minted but, significantly, in the metal minted. According to this idea, Herod did not distribute gold or silver coins—the metal of the imperial congiaria—but rather imitated his Roman mentors with bronze coin handouts of significantly less value, on special occasions. There is evidence that donativa—in-service troop bonuses (Harl 1996, 220; Wolters 2000–2001, 580)—were given on the same occasions as the congiaria (Duncan-Jones 1994, 84) Herod once participated in one of Augustus’ handouts, perhaps even in person. In Rome in 12 BCE, after Herod’s reconciliation with his sons through the agency of Augustus, Herod and Augustus exchanged gifts. Herod gave 300 talents of silver to Augustus who, in Josephus’ words, “was providing spectacles and doles for the people of Rome . . .” ( Jos., Ant. 16.128). This was the congiarium which took place after the death of Augustus’ would-be successor (and Herod’s good friend) Marcus Agrippa (van Berchem 1939, 144). A variant reading of the verb used ( poioumenon) would have Herod himself participating in the distribution of the money and poor relief at the spectacles. At the least, Herod’s money helped finance the handout. One need not look further for a connection between Herod and the institution of congiaria. Because of the relatively large modules of the two groups of coins I am focusing on in this paper, I believe their rationale was this third function for Herod’s minting, for distribution as congiaria and donativa. I propose one of these congiaria/donativa dated to just after Herod’s realignment with Octavian, and associate with it Herod’s large diadem/ table coin. The diadem (or crown) was a symbol of kingship and in an associative way symbolic of Herod’s claim to legitimacy (Meshorer 2001, 65–66). During Herod’s all-important visit to Octavian on the island of Rhodes in the spring of 30 BCE (after the latter’s victory in the Battle of Actium), Herod boldly removed his own diadem out of deference to the conqueror with whom he now wished to align himself ( Jos., BJ 1.387; Jos., Ant. 15.187). Octavian returned the diadem to Herod’s head ( Jos., BJ 1.393) and reconfirmed Herod’s rule. That anecdote and the 118 donald t. ariel appearance of the diadem on an early type of Herod’s coins, suggests 30 BCE (or soon thereafter) as the beginning of the minting of the table/diadem type, the first of Herod’s undated coins. However, a note of caution must be sounded with regard to this suggestion. The value of this modest bronze piece was far inferior to that of the aurei and denarii handed out by Augustus on the occasions of his congiaria and donativa. Such parsimony by Herod would seem to be at variance with his reputation for generosity, including his contribution of 300 talents to Augustus’ congiarium in 12 BCE, mentioned above. It may also be that this diadem type was minted as a commemorative coin, celebrating the tenth anniversary of Herod’s accession (his decennalia), which also fell in 30 BCE, or even to mark Octavian’s passing by Herod’s kingdom in that same year ( Jos., BJ 1.396–397; Jos., Ant. 15.216–217). A possible, if far-fetched, indication that the diadem series was minted to commemorate Herod’s decennalia is the symbol × on that coin, which may (only possibly) be an esoteric reference to the Roman numeral for ten. I believe these coins were minted for a short time, and that the striking was discontinued by the time Herod suffered his nervous breakdown after Mariamme’s execution in late 30 or 29 BCE (Richardson 1996, 216–220). The famine and plague in Judea in 28 BCE, followed by the poor crop yield in 27/26 BCE ( Jos., Ant. 15.300), reduce further the likelihood that the minting of these coins was resumed. The Year-Three Coins and Augustus When and where did Herod mint the year-three coins? As noted, no consensus on these questions exists. Regarding the mint location, Meshorer’s view that the coins were minted in Samaria has often been accepted (Hoover 1995), or at least considered the most likely (KushnirStein 2007, 55). Regarding the date, Meshorer’s view that year three should be reckoned by Herod’s tetrarchy, yielding a date for the coin of 40 BCE (Meshorer 2001, 62), or, as a type immobilisé, from 40/39 BCE until the summer of 37 BCE (Meshorer 1982, 12), cannot be accepted (Richardson 1996, 212). The 40 BCE regnal era, or 38/37 BCE for year three, is the most commonly accepted alternative today. I will begin my consideration of these issues with a look at the iconography of these coins. This, too, is a subject that has been often discussed. Jacobson (1986) and Kokkinos (1998, 122) both considered the coins’ symbolism predominantly pagan in character. Meshorer the coins of herod the great 119 went further, and maintained they imitated Roman coin prototypes. “By copying symbols appearing on Roman coins, [Herod] was able to express his gratitude to his Roman masters and perhaps even to flatter them for granting him his title and dominion” (Meshorer 2001, 63). Meshorer, however, sought to identify only Roman republican coin prototypes, in an effort to buttress his date for the dated coins between 40 and 37 BCE (Meshorer 2001, 63–65). A strong argument can be made for the identification of Roman symbols on Herod’s dated coins. Some of the symbols, however, are more closely aligned to Augustan imagery than Roman republican iconography. I will focus on the star upon the helmet of the largest dated coin, the tripod, shield, caduceus, and aphlaston. Stars appear often in Augustan iconography. Augustus legitimised his position, in the beginning vis-à-vis Antony, by stressing his relationship with Julius Caesar (as adopted son). In July 44, soon after Caesar’s assassination, Octavian staged the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris. A comet appeared just then, and was visible throughout Italy. This was viewed as a sign of Caesar’s apotheosis, and is called the sidus Iulium. On his coins Augustus depicts himself putting the sidus Iulium on Caesar’s head (Sutherland 1984, 74, No. 415). There may be a connection here to the star on Herod’s large helmet coin type. The tripod on Herod’s largest coin may also have an Augustan connection, as Augustus embraced Apollan cultic symbolism. As Zanker wrote, while Antony likened himself to Dionysus, Octavian “put all his faith in Apollo” (Zanker 1988, 49). In the Settlement of 27 BCE the Senate presented Augustus with an honorific golden shield, the clipeus virtutis, which was set up in the Curia Julia and which commemorated his “virtue, clemency, justice and piety.” While, in general, military symbolism was not stressed on Roman coinage during Augustus’ reign, it is even rarer on late republican coins (Evans 1992, 34, Table 1). The clipeus virtutis does not look similar to the Macedonian shield on one of Herod’s dated coin types. Nevertheless, there may be a conceptual connection between the two shields, as if Herod were saying, “your shield comes from the Senate; my shield derives from Alexander the Great”.1 1 A prototype was noted by Jacobson (1986, 160 note 56) for the helmet/shield coin (Meshorer 2001, 221, No. 45)—a Macedonian coin-type minted no less than one hundred and forty years earlier. Jacobson has explained to me that even though the prototype was no longer in circulation, it quite possibly was known to Herod ( Jacobson, pers. comm.). Macedonian bronzes had an extremely wide circulation and 120 donald t. ariel The caduceus, too, may have an Augustan connection. Jacobson has suggested the use of the caduceus symbol by Herod “may possibly be linked to the promotion of the cult of Mercury at Rome and the campaign to project the emperor Augustus as the living embodiment of the messenger god” ( Jacobson 1986, 161). Finally, the aphlaston. The aphlaston which appears on one of the year-three coins was known in the contemporaneous coins in the Levant (e.g., Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992, 67, No. 4877). It, too, may also actually have had a Roman connection. Meshorer’s prototype for the aphlaston was an aureus struck in 43–42 in a travelling mint moving with Cassius and Brutus (Crawford 1974, 516, No. 505/1; Meshorer 1982, 20). But, according to Paul Zanker, after 31 BCE the aphlaston, which had already been a general emblem of naval victory, became a common symbol for Octavian’s naval victory at Actium over Antony and Cleopatra (Zanker 1988, 39). A similar argument—that otherwise unidentified client kings employed “clear, unambiguous classical imagery” on their coins, directly influenced by their contact with Augustus—was recently proposed by Creighton for the westernmost fringe of the empire, Britain (2000, 80). According to Creighton, not all Roman coin types (or iconography found elsewhere) were utilised, but rather specific images relating to Rome, and symbolism reflecting Augustus’ ascension and power (Creighton 2000, 87), were selected. While Augustan imagery may not easily be identified on all of Herod’s dated coin types, there are many points of contact. This is even clearer when we recognise that Herod was further restricted by a desire to avoid offending Jewish sensitivities, and thus depicted no human or mythological images. Being so restricted it could be argued that most of those Augustan images which Herod could adopt, he did adopt. may even have continued to enjoy value as currency (Price 1991, I, 66). Moreover, from coin hoards Jacobson noted that pieces struck by Alexander were still in use two centuries later (Thompson, Mørkholm and Kraay 1973, passim). We accept that the shield on Herod’s coin would likely have retained its connection to the Macedonian military legacy. Herod may in fact have felt some affinity with Alexander the Great. He named his eldest son by his beloved Mariamme I, Alexander, and another he named Philip. In the light of the possibility that Herod’s dated coins bear Augustan symbols, one may also remark that Cicero compared Octavian to Alexander the Great (Philippics 5.xvii.48). the coins of herod the great 121 For Britain, Creighton asked who would have understood this imagery. His answer was: “probably very few people” (Creighton 2000, 124). Creighton was not perturbed by this, relying instead on Zanker’s opinion (1988, 11) that at that time coin imagery was often ambiguous and obscure, and the common man need not have comprehended it on the same level as the elite. All of the abovementioned Augustan iconographic connections create a conundrum: why was Herod minting coins around 37 BCE which appear to have Augustan symbolism, when at that time he was uniquely aligned with Mark Antony, Octavian’s rival for most of the period? For example, it is difficult to imagine that in 37 BCE the depiction of a tripod on Herod’s coin would not have been—for Antony—symbolic of his antagonist Octavian, who in that same year placed a tripod on his Roman coins for the first time (Crawford 1974, 744). In 1989 Gary Gilbert claimed that as early as 37 BCE—through his coins—Herod was signalling some recognition of Octavian, even though his patron at the time was Antony (lecture to the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, 1989). Gilbert’s innovative but unlikely solution is exemplary of the fact that there is a problem in explaining the apparent existence of Octavianic iconography on Herod’s coins, if they are of such an early date. I do not have a definitive solution to this enigma, but I would like to share one intriguing idea that could point to such a solution. As noted, a Samaria mint location has been proffered for the year-three coin series. It may be that the new mint location for the coins is not the problem but the 38/37 BCE date is. Consequently my intriguing idea still locates the mint of the dated coins in Samaria, but reckons their date according to an era established by the reconfirmation of Herod’s reign by Octavian in 30. Methodologically, to make such a claim, one would require compelling evidence that the year-three coins could not have been minted according to Herod’s 40 BCE regnal era. That is not the case: a date for the year-three coins in 37 is plausible. However, sometimes the historical truth does not follow good methodology. Consequently, the idea of the 30 BCE era for the year-three coins minted in Samaria is raised here. Calculated by an Octavianic era of 30 BCE year-three would correspond to 28/27 BCE, the year of the refoundation of Samaria as Sebaste. The Acts of Settlement were passed by the Senate in January 27, proclaiming Octavian imperator caesar augustus. Soon thereafter, apparently in the spring/summer of that year (Stein 1990, 127), Herod 122 donald t. ariel founded Sebaste, the first city named in honour of Octavian, using the Greek word for his new status as Augustus. It may also be remembered that in January 27, Syria, the province adjoining Herod’s kingdom, became a “province of Caesar” under (somewhat) more direct control of the Princeps (Millar 1993, 31). This would have been another reason for Herod to stress his 30 BCE reconfirmation. It could even be argued that Herod chose to refer to the 30 BCE date as the era on these coins because the city in which the coins were minted was named after Augustus. Octavian took pains to have Herod’s reconfirmation approved by the Roman Senate ( Jos., Ant. 15.196). So, from Octavian’s perspective as well, it would appear that the reconfirmation of Herod’s royal status on the island of Rhodes was viewed to be as important as Herod’s original coronation in 40 BCE in Rome. Josephus was aware of two systems for reckoning Herod’s reign: the obvious 40 BCE coronation, and also a dating system which began with Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem ( Jos., BJ 1.665; Jos., Ant. 17.191). But Josephus gave no hint of a 30 BCE era. It may be noted in this context that for Herod’s rival, Cleopatra, two dating systems are also known, one for her reign in Egypt, and a second for her ‘Syrian era’ (Schürer 1973, 288, n. 5; Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992, 583, 648), and that the second of these systems also appears on her coins. Therefore, there may even be some historical cogency to the idea that Herod employed an Octavianic era on some of his coins, especially if one accepts that they were minted in Sebaste. No doubt there should be a special reason for a ruler to institute a new era. For Cleopatra it was the acquisition of the Syrian territory. In Herod’s case, while it is not clear when the Samaritis region formally became his, no doubt a great deal of new territory came under his control in 30 BCE. Dan Barag has described Herod’s intensive reconstruction in Sebaste, and has dated the beginning of the construction work to soon after the 27 BCE founding (Barag 1993:16, n. 7). These year-three coins could have been a congiaria (and/or donativa) related to the refounding of the city. The large modules of the coins would support this alternative, over another possibility which would relate the issues to the small change needed for the efficient payment of the labourers employed in the reconstruction work. It may be that, in spite of the modern methodological problem, the philo-Roman Herod viewed his realignment with Octavian in 30 BCE as an important enough date to place it on his coins. From the the coins of herod the great 123 historical data, there seems little doubt that the two periods of Herod’s reign—before 30, under Antony, and after 30, under Octavian—were as different in character as the two triumvirs themselves. The idea to locate the mint of the dated coins in Samaria, and date them according to an ‘Actian’ era was arrived at independently by Adam K. Marshak (2006). While each component was proposed separately, this combined idea has not been previously proposed in publication. Meshorer suggested identifying the mint in Samaria, and Reifenberg and Narkiss earlier proposed to date the year-three coins according to an era beginning in 30 BCE (Narkiss 1934, 10 and Reifenberg 1947, 18). It must be admitted that there is no other evidence of such an era, neither in literary, inscriptional or later numismatic evidence. The year-three coins of Herod would be the only evidence for this era. A significant issue militating against an ‘Actian’ era for the year-three coins is the exact calculation of the era itself. Were this intriguing idea for the coins’ date to be accepted, it would be necessary to determine whether the era was fixed by the battle of Actium (September 2, 31 BCE), by Octavian’s subjugation of Antony later in the autumn of 31 BCE, or by Herod’s realignment with Octavian, in the spring of 30 BCE. Considering the idea that the minting corresponded with the founding of Sebaste in the spring/summer of 27 BCE, an era of spring 30 BCE—with year four beginning in spring 27 BCE—is certainly to be preferred. This assumes a spring beginning for the calendar. An autumn calendar would place the spring/summer of 27 BCE well into year four. When Kushnir-Stein presented the case for Herod’s death in the winter of 4/3 BCE (Kushnir-Stein 1995:83–86), the matter of which calendar was used was opened. Both spring and autumn calendars are now considered as possible for Herodian chronology. The era of spring 30 BCE, therefore, while possible, is quite tight. Although the minting of a coin bearing a date could have extended beyond the year in question (Sutherland 1951, 182), it would be best if a new theory for the dating of Herod’s year-three coin series would not be hampered by such a complication. One is hard-pressed to explain why year three, and not year four, is found on such coins. Consequently, it must be recognised that the entire issue still awaits a more persuasive resolution. The two groups of coins discussed here do not exhibit continuity with Hasmonean coin iconography. Later, after the death of Mariamme I, Herod redoubled his efforts to legitimise his reign as the continuation 124 donald t. ariel of the Hasmonean dynasty. Just as Augustus who after Actium downplayed the fact that his rule was born of civil war, and strove to present his regime as a continuation of the Roman republic, Herod later returned—for the most part—to more conventional Hasmonean symbolism on his coins. From the long-term Roman perspective, Herod’s reign after Actium was an interlude. The ultimate goal was to incorporate Judea directly into the Roman world, closing the gap in the circuit of provinces along the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and this was achieved when Augustus disallowed Herod’s descendents to succeed him as king. Upon Herod’s death, the historical as well as numismatic evidence reflects the beginning of the completion of Judean amalgamation with Rome. Bibliography Ariel, D. T., 2000–2002. “The Jerusalem Mint of Herod the Great: A Relative Chronology”, Israel Numismatic Journal 14, 99–124. Avi-Yonah, M., 1968. “Foreward”, in J. Meyshan: Essays in Jewish Numismatics, (Numismatic Studies and Researches 6) (Tel Aviv: Israel Numismatic Society), 9–10. Barag, D., 1993. “King Herod’s Royal Castle at Samaria-Sebaste”, PEQ 125, 3–18. Burnett, A., Amandry, M. & Ripollès, P., 1992. Roman Provincial Coinage. Volume I. From the Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC–AD 69) (London-Paris: The British Museum Press). Butcher, K., 2004. Coinage in Roman Syria. Northern Syria, 64 BC–AD 253 (Royal Numismatic Society Special Publications 34) (London: Royal Numismatic Society). Creighton, J., 2000. Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Crawford, M. H., 1974. Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Dio’s Roman History, VI (Loeb Classical Library). Transl. E. Cary. (London-New York: Harvard University Press). Duncan-Jones, R., 1994. Money and Government in the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Evans, J. D., 1992. The Art of Persuasion. Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Harl, K. W., 1996. Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 BC to AD 700 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University). ——, 1997. “Greek Imperial Coins in the Economic Life of the Roman East”, in J. Nollé, B. Overbeck & P. Weiss (eds) Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Muenzpraegung Kleinasiens (1994: Munich, Germany). Internationales Kolloquium (Milan: Edizioni ennerre), 223–229. Hoover, O. D., 1995. “Preemptive Strike: The Image of Authority on the Dated Coins of Herod the Great”, The Picus 4, 8–29. Jacobson, D. M., 1986. “A New Interpretation of the Reverse of Herod’s Largest Coins”, American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 31, 145–165. the coins of herod the great 125 Jos., Ant.: Josephus Jewish Antiquities (Loeb Classical Library 242, 326, 365, 410, 433, 489 and 490). Transl. H. St. J. Thackeray (Books I–III), H. St. J. Thackeray & R. Marcus (Books IV–VI), H. St. J. Thackeray & R. Marcus (Books V–VIII), R. Marcus (Books IX–XIII), R. Marcus & A. Wikgren (Books XIV–XVII) and L. H. Feldman (Books XVIII–XX) (London-New York: Harvard University Press) 1930–1965; B. Niese Flavii Josephi Opera. Antiquitatum Iudaicarum, vols. 1–4 (Berlin: Weidmann) 1887–1892. Jos., BJ: Josephus The Jewish War (Loeb Classical Library 203, 303 and 487). Transl. H. St. J. Thackeray. London-New York: Harvard University Press 1927–1928 (bound in three volumes in 1997); B. Niese Flavii Josephi Opera. Bellum Judaicum, vol. 6 (Berlin: Weidmann) 1894. Kokkinos, N., 1998. The Herodian Dynasty. Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse ( Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series 30) (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). (Kushnir-) Stein, A., 1990. Studies in Greek and Latin Inscriptions on the Palestinian Coinage under the Principate, unpublished doctoral thesis, Tel Aviv University. Kushnir-Stein, A., 1995. “Another Look at Josephus‚ Evidence for the Date of Herod’s Death”, Scripta Classica Israelica 14:73–86. ——, 2007. “Coins of the Herodian Dynasty: The State of Research”, in N. Kokkinos (ed), The World of the Herods I. International Conference. The World of the Herods and Nabataeans Held at the British Museum, 17–19 April 2001 (Oriens et Occidens 14). (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner), 55–60. Levy, B., 1993. “Tyrian Shekels and the First Jewish War”, in T. Hackens & G. Moucharte (eds), Proceedings of the XIth International Numismatic Congress: organized for the 150th anniversary of the Société royale de numismatique de Belgique: Brussels, September 8th–13th (1991) (Louvain-la-Neuve: Association Professeur Marcel Hoc), 267–274. ——, 1995. “Tyrian Shekels: The Myth of the Jerusalem Mint”, SAN. Journal of the Society for Ancient Numismatics 19/2, 33–35. Magness, J., 2001. “The Cults of Isis and Kore at Samaria-Sebaste in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods”, HThR 94, 159–175. Marshak, A. K., 2006. “The Dated Coins of Herod the Great: Towards a New Chronology”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 37, 212–240. Mattingly, H., 1923. The Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum I: Augustus to Vitellius (London: British Museum). Meshorer, Y., 1982. Ancient Jewish Coinage, 2. Herod the Great through Bar Cochba (Dix Hills, N.Y.: Amphora). ——, 1984. “One Hundred Ninety Years of Tyrian Shekels”, in A. Houghton, S. Hurter, P. E. Mottahedeh & H. A. Scott (eds), Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg: Numismatics, Art History and Archaeology (Wetteren: Cultura Press), 171–179. ——, 2001. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba ( JerusalemNyack: Yad Ben-Zvi—Amphora). Millar, F. G. B., 1993. The Roman Near East. 31 BC–AD 337 (London-Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press). Narkiss, M., 1934. “Notes on the Coins of the Herodian Dynasty”, Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 1/4, 8–14 (Hebrew). Price, M. J., 1991. The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus, 2 vols. (Zurich: Swiss Numismatic Society/London: British Museum). Reece, R., 1978. “Coins and Frontiers—Or Supply and Demand”, in J. Fitz (ed) International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (11th: 1976: Székesfehérvár, Hungary). Limes: Akten des XI. Internationalen Limeskongresses (Székesfehérvár, 30/8–6/9/1976) (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó), 643–646. Reifenberg, A., 1947. Ancient Jewish Coins ( Jerusalem: Rubin Mass). Richardson, P., 1996. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press). 126 donald t. ariel Schürer, E., 1973. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–135 A.D.), I, revised and edited by G. Vermes & F. Millar (Edinburgh: Clark). Sutherland, C. H. V., 1984. The Roman Imperial Coinage I. From 31 BC to AD 69 (London: British Museum). ——, 1951. Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy 31 BC–AD 68 (London: Methuen) Thompson, M., Mørkholm, O., and Kraay, C. M., (eds) 1973. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards (New York: ANS). van Berchem, D., 1939. Les distributions de blé et d’argent à la plèbe romaine sous l’Empire (Geneva: Georg Editeur). Wolters, R., 2000–2001. “Bronze, Silver or Gold? Coin Finds and the Stipendium of the Roman Army”, Zephyrus. Revista des Prehistorica y Arquelogía 53/54, 579–588. Zanker, P., 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus ( Jerome Lectures, sixteenth series), trans. A. Shapiro (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). the coins of herod the great 425 Obverse: Tripod with lebes, standing on a podium, with date on the left (LΓ = year 3), monogram on the right and surrounding inscription: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΗΡΩ∆ΟΥ. Reverse: Helmet with straps, surmounted by a star on a flat base, flanked by two palm branches. Figure 1. Bronze coin of Herod; average weight 7 g. Obverse: Crested helmet with two cheek pieces, with date on the left (LΓ = year 3), monogram on the right and surrounding inscription: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΗΡΩ∆ΟΥ. Reverse: Decorated Macedonian shield. Figure 2. Bronze coin of Herod; average weight 5 g. 426 donald t. ariel Obverse: Winged caduceus, with date on the left (LΓ = year 3), monogram on the right and surrounding inscription: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΗΡΩ∆ΟΥ. Reverse: Poppy pod or pomegranate on stem with leaves, and fillets on either side. Figure 3. Bronze coin of Herod; average weight 3.5–4 g. Obverse: Aphlaston, with date on the left (LΓ = year 3), monogram on the right and surrounding inscription: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΗΡΩ∆ΟΥ. Reverse: Palm branch with fillet. Figure 4. Bronze coin of Herod; average weight 1.5–2.8 g. the coins of herod the great 427 Obverse: An open diadem inscribing an “X” and surrounding inscription: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩC ΗΡΩ∆ΟΥ. Reverse: Tripod table, with curved legs, and flanked by palm branches. Figure 5. Bronze coin of Herod; average weight 2.5–4 g.