rinciples of the rights of coinage in antiquity. These cannot be here set forth in detail (see esp. Lenormant’s classical work, La monnaie dans Vantiquité, ii. § 1, ‘ Le droit de monnayage,’ ete.) ; it must suffice to emphasize the fact that the right to coin money of the standard metal, whether gold or silver, was the exclusive prerogative of the sovereign power. Just as the Persian kings, for example, guarded most jealously their exclusive right to coin gold, which was their standard, so the Seleucid sovereigns, coining on the silver standard, permitted certain privileged cities to strike bronze coins only (see previous section, and ef. Babelon, Rois de Syrie, exi, exliv). The re- sumption of a silver coinage with a special era by the cities of Pheenicia, at a slightly later period,
was tantamount to the assertion of their complete
COINS CURRENT IN PALESTINE ec. B.c. 500-A.D, 135
ὦ ς 2
1. Persian gold daric, § 3. 6. Small bronze of John Hyrcanus, § 5.
2. Double shekel or octadrachm of Sidon, § 3. | 7. Small bronze of Alexander Jannzwus, ὃ 5. 3. Shekel or tetradrachm of Tyre, § 3. | 8. Shekel or tetradrachm of Tyre, § 5.
4. Tetradrachm of Ptolemy L, ὃ 4. Ϊ 9. Bronze coin of Herod the Great, § 6.
5. Tetradrachm of Antiochus Epiphanes, § 4. 10. Bronze coin of Herod Antipas, § 6.
11. Bronze coin of Agrippa, ὃ 6.
COINS CURRENT IN PALESTINE ec. 8B.c. δ00-Δ.Ὁ. 135
IS 19
20 21 12, Small bronze (quadrans’) of Pontius Pilate, § 7. 17. Drachm of Cwsarea Cappadocim, re-struck, § 10. 13, Denarius of Tiberius, δ 8. 15, Denarius of Trajan, re-struck, § 10 14. Shekel of year 5 (a,b. 70), § 9. 19. The original of No. 18, § 10. 15, Half-shekel of year 1 (A.D. 66-07), § Ὁ. 20. Tetradrachm of Antioch, re-struck as Jewish shekel, § 10
16. Aureus of Titus, § Ὁ, | 21. Bronze coin of second revolt, § 10
independence. The admitted fact that the only other silver coins of the Jews date from a time of asserted independence, at least suggests a similar date for the shekels in question. (2) The shekels of years 1 to 5 cannot be fitted into the chronology of this period. Since Simon died in the year B.C. 135, five years backwards Demetrius I. was still on the throne. Accordingly supporters of the Maccabean theory are compelled to assume that Antiochus Sidetes was merely confirming a right that had already been usurped by Simon. On the other hand, if the dates run from B.C. 142 (see 1 Mac 13"), two years are left without any coins. Whereas on the theory advocated in this article (see, further, § 9), that these coins belong to the first revolt, A.D. 66-70, we understand both why there should be only shekels of five years, and why those of the fifth year should be so rare. (3) The silver coinage ceases, ex hypothesi, with Simon. No reason for this can be given on the hypothesis we are combating. Subsequent Hasmonzan_ princes, such as John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannzeus, were men of greater wealth and power than Simon : why should they have been content to issue only bronze coins, if Simon had already struck in silver? (4) There is, further, the more technical argument from the size, ἘΠ ΡΣ: and style of the coins in dispute. They do not resemble the con- temporary silver coins of the Selencide nearly so much as they do the imperial coins of the Ist cent. A.D. (see § 9, below), nor do they show any points of contact with the types or legends of the bronze coins of Simon’s successors. The palzo-
aphie argument from the forms of the old Batre characters is of little weight either way ; it is almost impossible to distinguish between the genuinely archaic and the intentionally archaistic in Semitic epigraphy. We believe, then, that if Simon availed himself of the right, which was soon withdrawn (1 Mac 15”), of issuing coins, these can only have been of bronze. No such coins, however, can with certainty be ascribed to Simon.
The first native Jewish coinage dates from the reign of Simon’s son and successor, John Hyrcanus. The earliest coins, however, that can with any confidence be said to have been struck at Jerusalem are some small bronzes—hemichalki,* according to M. Babelon—of Antiochus ΚΠ. of dates B.c. 132 and 131 (see Madden, Coins of the Jews, 76; Babelon, op. cit. Nos. 1166-7, pl. xxii. 1; Gardner, op. cit. 75, pl. xx. 14). The coins of Hyrcanus are of small size, three specimens in the British Museum averaging 28 grs., and undated. In place of a type the field of the obverse is occupied by an in- soripon in the old Hebrew character, see plate
ο. 6.
Ob». oman jam Syn naa pms A (John, the high priest and (with) the commonwealth (2) of the Jews) within a wreath of olive leaves.
Rev. A double cornucopie with a poppy head in the centre. ᾿
The initial A of the obverse is probably the first letter of the name of his suzerain Alexander I. Zebina (B.C. 128-123), who introduced the double cornucopi as his monetary badge, and from whose coins it was borrowed by Hyrcanus. The earlier coins of Hyrcanus were issued, as the above example shows, in his own name and that of the heber (730) of the Jews; his later issues, however, read: John the high priest, head of the heber of the Jews (ona 73m er). The word 73n, now generally pronounced as above, has been a fruitful subject of speculation among historians and numis- matists, since its precise significance is unknown. A summary of the more important of the interpre-