Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities, in: M. Huth and P. van Alfen (eds), Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms. Studies in the Monetization of Ancient Arabia, ANS NS 25 (New York 2010), pp. 133-196. more

Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms Studies in Ancient Arabian Monetization edited by Martin Huth and Peter G. van Alfen NUMISMATIC STUDIES 25 THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY NEW YORK 2010 00Frontmatter.indd 3 12/28/10 9:30 PM © 2010 The American Numismatic Society ISSN 051-7404-x ISBN 978–0–89722–312–6 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Coinage of the caravan kingdoms : studies in ancient Arabian monetization / edited by Martin Huth and Peter G. van Alfen. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-89722-312-6 (alk. paper) 1. Coins, Ancient--Arabian Peninsula. 2. Coins, Arab--Arabian Peninsula--History--To 1500. 3. Arabian Peninsula--Antiquities. 4. Arabian Peninsula--Economic conditions. 5. Coinage--Arabian Peninsula-History--To 1500. 6. Monetary policy--Arabian Peninsula--History--To 1500. 7. Arabian Peninsula-Economic policy. I. Huth, Martin. II. Van Alfen, Peter G. CJ1397.C65 2010 737.4995302--dc22 2010036135 Printed in China 00Frontmatter.indd 4 12/28/10 9:30 PM Contents Preface I. Martin Huth and Peter G. van Alfen. Introduction vi 1 Arabian Coinage: Background and Common Aspects II. D. T. Potts. The Arabian Peninsula, 600 BCE to 600 CE III. D. T. Potts. The Circulation of Foreign Coins within Arabia and of Arabian Coins outside the Peninsula in the Pre-Islamic Era IV. Martin Huth. Monetary Circulation in South West Arabia between the Fourth and Second Centuries BCE: The al-Jawf Hoards of 2001 and 2002 V. Martin Huth. Gods and Kings: On the Imagery of Arabian Coinage VI. Martin Huth. The Gold Coins 27 65 83 107 125 The Levantine coast and Northern Arabia VII. Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities VIII. Oliver Hoover and Rachel Barkay. Important Additions to the Corpus of Nabataean Coins since 1990 IX. Martin Huth. Some Nabataean Questions Reconsidered 133 197 213 Western and Southern Arabia X. Martin Huth. Athenian Imitations from Arabia XI. Peter G. van Alfen. Die Studies of the Earliest Qatabanian and Sabaean Coinages XII. Peter Stein. The Monetary Terminology of Ancient South Arabia in Light of New Epigraphic Evidence XIII. Martin Huth and Peter Stein. The So-Called Cursive Legend Reconsidered XIV. Christian Robin. Ḥimyarite Kings on Coinage 227 257 303 345 357 Eastern Arabia XV. Olivier Callot. A New Chronology for the Arabian Alexanders XVI. Michael C. A. Macdonald. The ‘Abiel’ Coins of Eastern Arabia: A Study of the Aramaic Legends XVII. Peter G. van Alfen. A Die Study of the ‘Abiel’ Coinage of Eastern Arabia Indices Plates 383 403 549 595 Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms, pp. 133–196 © 2010 The American Numismatic Society VII Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities in memoriam Leo Mildenberg Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert 1. The pseudo-Athenian coinages of the Levant* The main caravan route leading from Southern Arabia to the Mediterranean ran to the ports of the Philistian peoples: Ashkelon, Ashdod-Jam, and Gaza. These are the places where the Arabian incense merchants are likely to have made their first acquaintance with coined money. Down to the mid-fifth century BCE the principal currency in the Levant was Hacksilber, randomly shaped silver pieces weighed out as required.1 Even the imported Greek silver coins were often cut to pieces.2 Only from c. 450 onwards did the Phoenician cities start to mint their own coinages in succession.3 We learn from early and mid-fifth century hoards that the markets of southern Asia Minor, the Levant, and Egypt were well-furnished with silver money imported from the Aegean, Athenian ‘owls’ certainly making up the lion’s share, closely followed by some North Aegean issues (those of the Macedonian tribes of the Pangaeon mountains in particular), Aeginetan, and Corinthian. Although the coins were often tested by deep cuts, or just cut up and were likely to have been used without concern for the denominations, their types became familiar throughout the Levant, and preferences for the more reliable currencies gradually developed. * I am most grateful to the editors, Martin Huth and Peter van Alfen, for the opportunity to be a part of this project, and for their great patience when the manuscript appeared never to arrive. My sincere thanks for help, encouragement and intelligence go to Harlan Berk, Amelia Dowler, Frédérique Duyrat, Kay Ehling, Victor England, Haim Gitler, Thomas Heese, David Hendin, Mary Hinton, Arthur Houghton, Silvia Hurter (†), Roberto Russo, Kenneth Sheedy, Arnold Spaer, Heiner Stotz, Alan Walker, Bernhard Weisser, and Richard Witschonke. 1. The main reference is now Balmuth (2001). More recent discussions are Thompson (2003); Kletter (2003 and 2004); Gitin and Golani (2004). 2. See, most recently van Alfen (2004–05a); Gitler and Tal (2006: 9ff.); Gitler (2006). The Jordan and Asyut Hoards (IGCH 1482, 1644) are famous examples. 3. Byblos was the first Phoenician city to coin, probably shortly before 450 BCE. Tyre followed c. 450, Sidon did so during the third quarter of the fifth century, and Arwad (Arados) joined them c. 425 BCE: Elayi and Elayi (2009: 328 ff.) 133 07Wolfgang.indd 133 12/28/10 9:36 PM 134 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert About the time when the Phoenician cities started minting, i.e., during the third quarter of the fifth century, the mixture of the influx of Greek coins to the Levant was to change. Owing to the preliminaries of the Peloponnesian War, the Aeginetan coinage came to a sudden stop in 431 BCE. Some years earlier, Corinthian money seems to have been kept off the Aegean markets due to Athenian pressure. Minting at Corinth was eventually interrupted by the outbreak of the war in 431, and was to be resumed not earlier than the peace of Nikias, 415. The output of the Macedonian tribes had already ceased c. 460 when Alexander I of Macedon conquered the Pangaeon district.4 Whatever the impact of the first Athenian coinage decree (IG I3 1453), the coinages of the Athenian allies in the Aegean never became a match for Athenian currency (the constant output of the Cyzicene mint being a special case that must not blur the overall picture).5 As to the Persian Empire, the Great King’s money, darics and sigloi, was produced by the satrapies of Western Asia Minor mainly for political purposes, and did not enter eastern markets in great quantities.6 Thus the Athenian coinage that was both prolific and in great demand for the renowned purity of its silver, was the main currency flooding into, and being readily accepted by, the markets of the eastern Mediterranean during the second half of the fifth century. The locals’ reaction to this predominance was twofold: as mentioned, the Phoenician harbor cities started to coin their own money from c. 450 BCE onwards, and the same could go for the Philistian cities on the northern tip of the incense road (for the details of chronology, see below). At about the same time, the minting of imitations of Athenian coinage appears to have begun, the real size of its output becoming only gradually clear through research and the emergence of new hoards.7 The earliest, but quite sporadic, pseudo-Athenian coins might have already been produced in Western Asia Minor during the pentekontaetia.8 Some time during the Peloponnesian War the production became more steady, although the time and place of this production are controversial.9 What cannot be missed is the fact that the center of production soon shifted to the southeast, i.e., to the northern Levant and Egypt. The majority of these ‘Eastern owls’ do not bear local marks or ethnics; they have to be distinguished laboriously from the bona fide products of the Athenian mint by style, die-links, and findspot patterns. Those Eastern owls bearing additional symbols, secondary marks, or local legends are much easier to recognize, but even here attributions remain controversial in many cases. Such delicate problems notwithstanding, it can be said 4. Aegina: Holloway (1971: 20); Kraay (1976: 47). Corinth: Kraay (1976: 83f.); furthermore, see Kraay (1979); most recently Warren (2009: 11). Bisalti and Alexander I: Kagan (1987: 24f.); Liampi (2005: 76); Picard (2006); Heinrichs and Müller (2008: 298f.). 5. See Mildenberg (1993–94). 6. See Schwabacher (1950: 144); Mildenberg (1991: 102 [= 1998a: 54], and 1993: 56f.). Generally, see Bivar (1985). 7. In general, Nicolet-Pierre (2000a). Most recently, see Buxton (2009); Gitler, Ponting, and Tal (2009); Anderson and van Alfen (2008); Flament (2005 and 2007a); van Alfen (2004–05a). 8.1) Gemini 5, 6 Jan. 2009, 104 “before 490 BC”. 2) Current disposition unknown, ex Asyut Hoard (IGCH 1644), cf. Price and Waggoner (1975: 61 no. 422) “c. 480 BC”. 3) Current disposition unknown, ex Asyut Hoard (IGCH 1644), cf. Price and Waggoner (1975: 61 no. 423) “c. 480 BC”. 4) SNG Kayhan 46 “480–460 BC”. 5) a. Leu 83, 6 May 2002, 243 “Imitation from Southern Asia Minor or the Northern Levant, c. 480–440” = Gorny 97, 11 Oct. 1999, 258 “Athen, um 520” = Numismatica Ars Classica 11, 29 Apr. 1998, 63 “Western imitation, about 520”, allegedly from the 2nd Decadrachm Hoard (cf. Fischer-Bossert [2008a: 26]); b. Gorny & Mosch 130, 8 March 2004, 1193 “Münzstätte im südlichen Kleinasien oder in Syrien, ca. 480–440”; c. Stack’s 22 Apr. 2009, 1087 = Stack’s 12 Jan. 2009, 2174 = Stack’s 10 Sept. 2008, 588 = Stack’s 24 Apr. 2008, 2099 = Stack’s 14 Jan. 2008, 2205 “Southern Asia Minor, 480–440”. 6) Berlin, inv. 1902/704, ex Zagazig Hoard (IGCH 1645), cf. Seltman (1924; 217 pl. XXIII, 14); Regling and Dressel (1927: 121 no. 205 pl. v. 7) SNG Cop. Attica 155, cf. Seltman (1924, pl. XXIII, 15); Schwabacher (1950: 145 n. 4) “östlicher, wenn nicht ägyptischer Ursprung”. 9. See Weiser (1989). Pars pro toto, the notorious ‘Tissaphernes tetradrachm’: Robinson (1948) “412/11”; Weiser (1989: 283–86, pl. XIX, 27), “401–395”; Harrison (2002: 303), “the head shows signs of inspiration from a 4th century Attic tetradrachm.” 07Wolfgang.indd 134 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 135 that the production of the Eastern owls was not a short-lived phenomenon but lasted for many decades. Fortunately, the peoples of the Levant seem to have kept an eye on the typological trends of the Athenian coinage even after the output of the Attic mint became weaker; following the trends of the prototype, many imitations can be dated with sufficient certainty. The shift from the frontal eye on Athena to the profile eye c. 390/80, and the occurrence of a special type of helmet-ornament (the so-called pi-style palmette) starting in the late 350s are the keystones here.10 As a result, the production of pseudo-Athenian coinage in the Levant and Egypt can be observed down to the fall of the Persian Empire, a few of the latest issues being signed by a Great King and two satraps.11 In any event, without the approval of the Persian authorities the ‘Eastern owls’ hardly would exist; considering their standardized fabric, they were issued by experienced mints. Research on the pseudo-Athenian coinages is not yet sufficiently advanced so as to allow us to establish the breaks and waves of production, or to estimate the output of the various centers. However, it is fairly clear that pseudo-Athenian coins were a widely accepted currency in the eastern Mediterranean down to the fall of the Persian Empire. With the emergence of the Alexander coinage the Eastern owls soon disappeared, except in remote areas such as Bactria and southern Arabia. Turning to the Philistian terminals of the incense road, it should now be quite comprehensible that the Arabian merchants quickly became familiar with Athenian coins and their imitations, and hence soon adopted the idea of creating a coinage based on the Athenian types. When considering these Philistian series closer, things become more difficult and less definite. It is true that Athenian coins might have played a major—if not the predominant—role in the markets of Gaza and the neighboring ports, even before the Philistian people decided to create a coinage of their own. On the other hand, the Philistian coinage is far from being a supplement or surrogate of the bona fide Athenian coins. In fact, more than half of the types of Philistian coinage recorded up to the present day do not look ‘Athenian’ at all. Moreover, even those pseudo-Athenian coins issued within the Philistian area are often ‘bastard coins’: one side bearing the respective Athenian type—Athena’s head or the owl—the other bearing a local type or a fancifully transmogrified version of the Athenian model. In order to answer the question of whether the coinages from further south along the incense road could have been influenced by Philistian coinage, and if so, in which respects, we need to take a closer look at the Philistian coins. 2. The Philistian coinages: state of research For a long time, the coinage of the Philistians has remained somewhat of an uncharted region on the historical map, though studied intensively by scholars like Sir George Francis Hill, Jan Pieter Six, Ernest Babelon, and, more recently, the late Leo Mildenberg.12 The BMC Palestine registered just 38 “Philisto-Arabian” and “Egypto-Arabian” coins in 1914. The unsatisfactory situation was partly due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the specimens—and types—became known only since the 1970s. Even then, archaeological excavations were less helpful than the increasing population in both the Gaza strip and the Negev, and the collateral building activity. Despite the Sinai and Gaza conflicts, the stream of Philistian coins reaching the Jerusalem market 10. Dating the earliest Athenian ‘profile eye’ coins depends on some hoards from Sicily (see Kroll [1993: 8, n. 25] and ‘profile Nicolet-Pierre [2000b: 168f.]) that must be dated to c. 380 BCE (pace Kroll [2006: 61]). The ‘Samian owl’ (Svoronos, 1926, pl. 17, 1) is too problematic to be of critical importance. The pi-style coinage is dated to c. 350–294 by Kroll (2006: 58); cf. Flament (2007b: 128f.); Anderson and van Alfen (2008: 169). 11. Artaxerxes III: M�rkholm (1974); Price (1991a: 67); Anderson and van Alfen (2008: 163f.). Satraps Sabaces and Mazaces: Nicolet-Pierre (1979); van Alfen (2002a: 27–32). 12. The history of research is related by Gitler and Tal (2006: 31–36). The 07Wolfgang.indd 135 12/28/10 9:36 PM 136 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert grew steadily. Another reason for the trouble Philistian coins made is that the majority of them do not bear any legend, and even when they do, the Aramaic letters are hard to interpret and in many cases do not read as complete ethnics. The same problem goes for another group of the Levantine local market coinages, the coinage of Samaria. Without any reliable findspots, such coins have to be classified as incerta. Because, beginning in the fourth century, small change coinages of Cilicia, Phoenicia, Samaria, and of the Philistians shared many features of iconography and design, they have caused at times considerable difficulties in the attribution of various types, at least until findspot stories solved the problem.13 Leo Mildenberg was the first to describe the historical conditions and numismatic features of the Philistian mints, but passed away before he finished the die-study he was working on.14 In 2006, Haim Gitler and Oren Tal published the first comprehensive survey of the Philistian coins.15 They did the job quite well, but important questions remain open. Because there is a plethora of coins that do not form any chains of interlinked dies, and because there is no dense sequence of hoards that could give clues as to the relative chronology, Gitler and Tal were satisfied with presenting a conclusive typology of the issues known so far,16 and with gathering the historical, numismatic, and iconographic facts. They separated the types that can be attributed to the cities of Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Gaza by their legends from those types that may be attributed to the (greater) Philistian area by either their findspot, fabric, iconography, or Aramaic legends. All in all, there are more than 400 types, less than a third of which bearing an ethnic (or another kind of a city’s letter mark).17 The rest was divided by Gitler and Tal into two main groups: the “Athenian-styled” (i.e., pseudo-Athenian) types and the “Philistian-styled” group (coins with a non-Athenian, local iconography), both groups covering more than a third of the whole range of types. As mentioned above, there are a great many ‘bastard coins’ bridging both groups, but in general Gitler and Tal’s typology is easy to handle. One must add that such a directory always runs the risk of blurring the structures rather than revealing them. In what follows, I discuss what are, from my point of view, the main problems that still remain. 3. The relative chronology of the issues As mentioned, there are only very few die-links connecting one type with another. Even die-links among the coins of one type are exceptions; although various die-combinations are known by several specimens, dies representing the same type are rarely interlinked. As a result, a single type can often be dated by hoard evidence only (with the burial date of the hoard providing a terminus ante quem). Unfortunately, the eighteen known hoards containing Philistian coins (see Appendix 13. For instance, the type Babelon (1901–1932: II 2, col. 663 f. no. 1072 pl. CXXIV, 21–22), and BMC Palestine, p. 182 nos. 1–3 pl. XX, 1–3 was attributed to the ‘Philisto-Arabians’ until E. Levante pointed out that such coins were repeatedly found in Eastern Cilicia: SNG Levante 233; Mildenberg (1998a: 97 pl. XVIII, 2l; XXXI, 14–15). Furthermore, the types Gitler and Tal (2006) XI.2O and XIII.10F had earlier been attributed to Samaria, cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999), nos. 208 and 151. Another controversial coin is Gitler and Tal XVI.25D (here fig. 3d), see most recently Shenkar (2007–08). 14. His collected articles on that topic can be found in Mildenberg (1998a: 1–97). Furthermore, see Mildenberg (1998b, 1994–1999, 2000). 15. Gitler and Tal (2006). Reviews: F. de Callata�, Israel Numismatic Research 1 (2006), pp. 167–169; W. FischerBossert, ANS Magazine 6, 2 (2007), pp. 73–76; O. Hoover, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 86 (2007), pp. 190–196; J. Boardman, Israel Exploration Journal 57 (2007), p. 117f.; J.W. Betlyon, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 349 (2008), pp. 92–94; M. Sartre, Revue Numismatique 165 (2009), pp. 446–448. 16. Additions: Gitler, Tal, and van Alfen (2007). 17. Coins bearing the letter mem are mostly attributed to Gaza, for the letter has been interpreted as an abbreviation of the name Marnas (one of the deities worshipped at Gaza); see Mildenberg (1998a: 23, 57); Gitler and Tal (2006: 124) (note as to V.15D; the type Gitler and Tal XI.4O could be interpreted the same way). Hellenistic coins of Gaza also bear the letter mem in the field, see Kushnir-Stein (2000: 23 nos. 1–3); Houghton, Lorber, and Hoover (2008: 306). 07Wolfgang.indd 136 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 137 Athenian coins and their Philistian copies Figure 1a: Athens, decadrachm Figure 1b: Ashkelon, drachm (III.3D) Figure 1c: Athens, tetradrachm Figure 1d: Ashdod, drachm (I.1Da) Bastard coin Figure 2:Philistian drachm (XIV.28D) Philistian-styled coins Figure 3a: Gaza, drachm (VI.1D) Figure 3b: Philistian drachm (XIII.22D) Figure 3c: Philistian drachm (XVI.11D) Figure 3d: Philistian drachm (XVI.25Da) Figure 3e: Philistian drachm (XXV.5Db) Figure 3f: Philistian obol (XXVIII.5O) 07Wolfgang.indd 137 12/28/10 9:36 PM 138 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert 2) are quite disproportionally dispersed. There are just two hoards that can be dated to the second half of the fifth century. The situation for the first half of the fourth century is even more difficult, for the hoards in question are barely or not at all documented. Apparently much better represented are the two last decades of the Persian Empire, since the relevant hoards concentrate within the very last years (exactly the same is true for the coinage of Samaria) as Alexander’s approach frightened people. The battle at Issos, the sieges of Tyre and Gaza and the deployment at Egypt’s gates made many Levantine locals conceal their cash—and we only know of hoards the owners of which were not able to retrieve.18 In short, due to these uncertainties the relative chronology of the Philistian issues remains more or less a matter of speculation. Since the Philistian coinages are influenced by the Athenian currency in many ways—both in terms of iconography and the denominational system—the dichotomy of “Athenian-styled” and “Philistian-styled” coins poses serious questions that cannot be answered without a minimum of chronology. Up to now, we do not know at which point the Philistians decided to issue pseudo-Athenian coins, and thus we cannot judge the reasons for the decision either. There is an old common opinion that the peoples of the Levant started minting the Eastern owls only when Athenian output faded away during the final stage of the Peloponnesian War.19 Although it is undeniable that there are already some pseudo-Athenian coins from the first half of the fifth century,20 and a great many of the later ones imitating the standardized coinage issued by Athens between c. 454 and 412/04 BCE, the traditional view has held continued sway.21 So it is not surprising that this view was also applied to the pseudo-Athenian coins of the Philistian cities.22 However, is such a ‘low chronology’ really valid? Gitler and Tal were the first to try to establish an earlier date for the first Philistian coin: relying upon the evidence of the Jordan Hoard (IGCH 1482), they dated a “Philistian-styled” drachm to the years around 450 BCE when the Phoenician cities were on the point to start their own coinages.23 From that point of view, the pseudo-Athenian issues of the Philistians appear as a secondary phenomenon that does not tell the reasons for the decision to coin. On the other hand, the evidence of the Jordan Hoard is fragile at best. Colin Kraay, who published this hoard, was indecisive about whether the Philistian drachm in question really belonged to it; Leo Mildenberg was also sceptical.24 In any event, the back and forth between the “Athenian-styled” and “Philistian-styled” coins is confusing, underscoring the fact that the Philistian coinage lacks a consistent outward appearance. Unlike the Samarians, the Philistians as a rule were disdainful of Phoenician and Persian iconography; there are just a handful of imitations of Cyrenaican and Cypriot coin types.25 Athenian coinage was by 18. Shortly after Alexander’s conquest Samaria suffered heavily by a punitive expedition after the inhabitants had after suffered after killed the Macedonian governor; see Berve (1926: 38f. no. 76); Donner (1987: 441f.). 19. Robinson (1947: 117): “The finds from Al-Mina and later fourth-century finds from Egypt show that at the end “The finds finds of the fifth century and the beginning of the fourth when the Deceleian War had dried up the flow of Athenian silver southwards and eastwards, there was an outbreak of imitation Athenian tetradrachms in the Levant which passed into circulation in considerable numbers.” 20. See above, n. 8. 21. Robinson’s view is held by Figueira (1998: 529). 22. Much earlier than Robinson’s analysis of the coin finds from Al-Mina, J.P. Six (1877: 235) proposed the Philistians finds had tried to replace the missing Athenian money. This view was held by Milne (1937: 58); Robinson (1937a: 189); Schwabacher (1950: 142); Mildenberg (1996: 122, n. 20). More cautious, but not exceedingly clear is Price (1975: 10) “some time before 400 B.C.”. 23. Gitler and Tal (2006: 63, fig. 3.22). fig. 24. Kraay and Moorey (1968: 191f., no. 89): “Although this coin was received as part of the hoard, it may be intrusive.” Mildenberg (1998a: 84, n. 24): “The coin is worn and cannot, therefore, have been buried before 400 BC, whereas the burial of the hoard has to be dated c. 445.” Mildenberg (2000: 95) persisted in his opinion: “The exact date of the beginning of the fractions cannot be established. About 390–380 seems likely.” 25. Gitler and Tal XIII.2D is reminiscent of some Cyrenaican coins (O. Hoover, Review, Schweizerische Numismatische 07Wolfgang.indd 138 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 139 far the preponderant model. However, how then can the coexistence of the ‘Philistian-styled’ and the pseudo-Athenian series be explained? Was this coexistence in circulation due to simultaneous or alternating production sequences? Both options would lead to more questions. If the one series was issued more or less along with the other, were they issued by the same authority?26 Were they thought to appeal to different audiences? If the series followed more or less one after another, which one was the first, and what was the reason to switch to the other? It is striking that among those “Athenian-styled” issues of Ashdod and Ashkelon bearing an ethnic, none can be dated to the fourth century for typological reasons: Athena exclusively has the frontal eye.27 At first sight, Gaza seems to be different: the coins traditionally attributed to this city comprise numerous “Athenian-styled” types imitating pre-404 Athenian coins as well as a considerable number of “Athenian-styled” types imitating fourth century Athenian coins. But a closer look reveals that all of the latter coins, rather than bearing the ethnic of Gaza (i.e., the letters ayin-zayin-he or a reduced form of the radix),28 carry the letter mem.29 Admittedly, this letter has often been interpreted as an abbreviation of the name of god Marnas, an important deity in Gaza’s pantheon.30 The attribution is, however, far from being proven, particularly when it comes to the larger denominations (some of which bear the letter twice), and should be reconsidered at the very least.31 Thus the coin material that may be attributed without any doubt to the cities of Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Gaza seems to indicate that the “Athenian-styled” coins belong to an earlier and first period of minting. Yet we must not jump to conclusions. Certainly the majority of the “Philistian-styled” coins might cover a later period than the pseudo-Athenian coins of the Philistian cities.32 The boundaries of the two main groups—“Athenian-styled” and “Philistian-styled”—are nevertheless blurred. The numerous ‘bastard types’ show there are transitions—not necessarily periods of transition but smaller stages where earlier types could find a revival. In all, the overall picture is intriguing and illustrates how desperately we need hard evidence. 4. An overstrike and two new hoards New evidence has recently come forward; in an auction sale an important overstrike has appeared. Furthermore, two coin hoards have became (better) known, one old and one new, the latter one published here the first time. The evidence of the overstrike is, however, ambiguous: Rundschau 86, (2007), p. 194, points to BMC Cyrenaica, p. 10 no. 42 pl. V, 16; I prefer BMC Cyrenaica, p. 12 no. 48 pl. VI, 7), but it is also possible that coins of the Lycian ruler Kuprlli were the model (cf. M�rkholm and Zahle [1972: 66 no. 141], ex Lycian Hoard CH 2.27). The types XVI.10D (according to Hoover imitating BMC Cyrenaica, p. 11 no. 45 pl. VI, 1) and XIV.27HO look more alienated, although the Cyrenaican model is not in doubt. The reclining ram on type XX.10D is adopted from the coins of Cypriot Salamis. 26. Cf. another case of competing officinae: Fischer-Bossert (1999: 414–416). 27. Gitler and Tal (2006: pls. A-C). 28. Cf. Gitler and Tal (2006: p. 144 tab. 4.5). 29. Gitler and Tal V.17T, V.18T, and V.19T (including the variant) do imitate the Athenian pi-style coinage. Gitler and Tal V.20O-V.25D are likely to reflect earlier fourth-century Athenian issues. 30. See above, n. 17. 31. See van Alfen (2004–05a: 56f.). The doubling of the letter mem on Gitler and Tal V.18T has to be explained anyway. The The coins of the Libyan revolt bear the Phoenician letter mem (SNG Cop. North Africa, 236–245). None of the suggestions given so far is conclusive, cf. Zimmermann (2001: 241–243); Loreto (1995: 110–112). A single letter mem occurs among the Siculo-Punic coin legends as well: Jenkins (1977: 22, 36, nos. 230–267); cf. Mildenberg (1998a: 155): “Bis heute gibt es jedenfalls noch keine plausible Erklärung für das eine m”. Remarkably, the doubling of the letter mem recurs there: Jenkins (1977: 9, 36, nos. 207–227); cf. Mildenberg (1998a: 155) “Ein Name, der mit mm beginnt, ist kaum vorstellbar.” 32. Beside the Samarian analogy, the evidence of two hoards looks suggestive: Beni �asan (IGCH 1651) has 1 obol as ( Gitler and Tal VI.1O. Qasr Naba (IGCH 1493) has 1 drachm as Gitler and Tal VI.14D. Both hoards were buried c. 340 BCE. A new hoard from about the same period (see Appendix 2, no. 10) contained two “Athenian-styled” drachms with the letter mem as Gitler and Tal V.25D. 07Wolfgang.indd 139 12/28/10 9:36 PM 140 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert Figure 4: Overstrike (enlarged) The coin in question (Fig. 4) was described by the coin dealer as a Samarian drachm overstriking a Philistian coin.33 In fact, just the opposite is true: it is the Samarian coin that was overstruck. The features of all four dies are blurred in varying ways, but they are all well discernable: on the obverse (left) the face of a bearded head facing to right can be seen. A comparison with the according type in Gitler and Tal’s book34 suggests that the silhouette of the back of the head, including the tie holding the hair, is also visible. It will be argued below that this impression is partly wrong. Turning to the other side (right), the Philistian reverse type is turned counter-clockwise at c. 90o. The outline of an oval head with four ears, framed by a dotted border, can be detected from the chaos of the undertype and the overstriking type, but it is not so easy to say what the undertype is here. At any rate, the head with four ears on the reverse belongs to the bearded head on the obverse; it is the “dual depiction of a monster-like figure facing (Bes?) with shared mouth” such as described by Gitler and Tal. The direction of the symmetrical double-head is given by the remnants of the letter shin that can be seen at the left side of the head—here at the bottom just where the neck of the (overstruck) Samarian figure would have been.35 So much for the overstriking Philistian coin. The Samarian undertype is less easy to recognize. On the obverse (left—both undertype and overstriking type share the same sides for obverse and reverse) the hair of the Philistian head is blurred by a stuffed dotted line beginning above the eye and turning downwards to the back of the neck. Above this dotted line further patterns can be seen, among them a small lion head looking to left. This is obviously the headdress of a head facing to left; the eye of the head in question turns out to be the blurred structure at the left side of the eye of the bearded Philistian head. The line crossing the cheek of the Philistian head is the nose of the Samarian head. Now a third sight reveals the Samarian eye has a counterpart: there is another eye on the neck of the Philistian head. Those two Samarian eyes do, of course, not form a pair but belong to two different, confronted heads. Above the left Samarian eye, at the point where the hair of the Philistian head seems to be tied, the remnants of another headdress appear (in fact, what appears to be the tie of the Philistian head is actually the headdress of the left Samarian head). In short, this is the obverse of a well-known Samarian drachm.36 The respective reverse type—a bearded head facing to right, wearing a lion forepart headdress similar to those described above—can be recognized within the limits of the Philistian double-head, naturally blurred by some features of the latter, the mouth in particular. Even the remnants of the letter shin can be found in the lower left corner of the Samarian reverse. 33. CNG 84, 2010, 708 (3.32 g; on the die-axes, see below n. 35). 34. Gitler and Tal (2006: 238, no. XVIII.3Da). 35. The die axis of the Philistian die-pair is 12 h, the axis of the Samarian die-pair is 11 h. The 36. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 89, no. 34). 07Wolfgang.indd 140 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 141 It is claimed here the Samarian drachm is the undertype, overstruck by the Philistian drachm. This can be established by the fact that on both sides the borders of the Philistian drachm are extant, while those of the Samarian type are almost completely obliterated. The chaos of the remnants of the Samarian and Philistian types are confined to the figures themselves; in other words, the undertype can be seen at those places where the relief of the overstriking type was higher, thus leaving room for the so-called minting-gaps. These gaps are responsible for the conservation of the Samarian reverse head within the limits of the Philistian double-head, whereas outside of those limits the Samarian head was obliterated. Again, the Samarian drachm is the undertype, thus providing a small scrap of relative chronology. Unfortunately, the evidence does not take us much further, since neither drachm type is attested in a hoard or any other context. As far as I know, the new coin is just the second known of the Philistian type, and the Samarian type is just as rare.37 At this point I cannot help but raise the question of whether this is an overstrike that provides a tie between the two coinages, Samarian and Philistian. It is true, the two drachm types have been attributed to Samaria and the Philistian area respectively. However, the two drachm types share not only the same coin standard (it will be argued below that Samaria and the Philistian cities are not likely to have shared the same standard at any time, if at all) but the legend as well: the letter shin that is usually interpreted as an abbreviation of the ethnic ŠMRYN/Samaria.38 On the other hand, the style of the ‘Samarian’ drachm type looks much more Philistian than Samarian, and the fanciful headdresses are reminiscent of the figures on two unquestionably Philistian coin types.39 Whatever solution is preferable, the new coin might have been overstruck by the very same mint that had issued the undertype. If so, the overstrike gives us a valuable insight into the practice of the relevant mint, but at the time being it does not give us a clue as to the date of any of the types.40 The two hoards, however, offer more conclusive evidence. Philistian coins from the Ismailiya Hoard Figure 5a: Ashkelon, tetradrachm (III.1Ta) Figure 5b: Philistian tetradrachm (XV.1Ta) Figure 5c: Philistian drachm (VII.1Db) [10] 37. Cf. Leu 72, 1998, 1319 (3.51 g, 11 h); Triton 1, 1997, 579 (3.50 g). 38. See Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 19f.). The letter shin occurs with coins of Ashdod as well, see Gitler and Tal (2006: The 311). 39. See Gitler and Tal (2006: 206, no. XIV.35D, and p. 242, no. XVIII.8D). 40. Reminting old coins was a common practice, usually without any political undertones; see Woodward (1951); May (1939: 36, n. 1). Since melting would cause c. 3% loss of material, overstriking was often the better choice. 07Wolfgang.indd 141 12/28/10 9:36 PM 142 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert Although mentioned several times by Gitler and Tal, the Ismailiya 1983 hoard became known in its entirety only quite recently.41 As known so far, the hoard consisted of fourteen coins: eight Athenian tetradrachms of the standardized issues, one stater of Aegina, one stater of Tyre, a tetradrachm of Ashkelon (III.1Ta), another Philistian tetradrachm (XV.1Ta), one Philistian drachm (VII.1Db), and a hemidrachm of Cyrene. According to various sources, the hoard was found near Ismailiya, a city in the Eastern part of the Delta of the Nile, situated on the West bank of the Suez Canal. Nearby is the ancient site of Tall al-Maskhūta where in late 1947 a massive coin hoard was found (IGCH 1649). After close examination of the sources and contents of both the hoards, it can be said that the Ismailiya hoard is not likely to be part of the Tall al-Maskhūta hoard.42 As it is often the case, however, it cannot be established that all components of the hoard are known (the hemidrachm of Cyrene may well be an intrusion), but granting this to be so, the hoard’s burial can be dated to c. 410 BCE at the latest. This is very important for the date of the earliest Philistian issues. As mentioned above, it is not beyond any shadow of a doubt that the drachm attributed to the Jordan hoard (IGCH 1482) is not intrusive.43 Gitler and Tal’s high date of the starting point of the Philistian coinage—c. 450 BCE—needs to be confirmed by additional evidence. The Ismailiya hoard corroborates indeed that the Philistian peoples had begun to mint their own coins well before the end of the fifth century. On the other hand, the evidence of the Ismailiya hoard cannot be used for proving the drachm from the Jordan hoard was in fact not intrusive. I am afraid rather the opposite is true. The specimen from the Jordan hoard is a “Philistian-styled” drachm of a type (VI.1D) that has been dated at times to the early fourth century; another specimen was found in the Beni �asan hoard (IGCH 1651) that was buried c. 340 BCE.44 The three Philistian coins in the Ismailiya hoard are “Athenian-styled,” however. So it is now at least clear that the pseudoAthenian coinage of the Philistians came to life even before the output of the Athenian mint was weakened, or even interrupted, during the course of the Deceleian War. This is a conclusion that will be important for any future research on the Eastern owls. At the same time it must be said that the inconsistent evidence of the Jordan and Beni �asan hoards as to the same drachm type now hanging in the balance, the Ismailiya hoard suggests that no “Philistian-styled” issues were in existence earlier than those early Philistian owls.45 If this proves to be correct, the first step for an overall chronology of the Philistian issues has been made. While the Ismailiya hoard shows that Arabian merchantmen, when passing through their Mediterranean terminals, might have noticed the need for, and the existence of, one of the earliest Eastern owl coinages as early as c. 410 BCE, the second new hoard that I deal with here shows that Philistian coins appear to have circulated alongside coins minted in the Arabian peninsula itself. Unfortunately, the findspot is not known. The hoard consisted of about twenty pseudo-Athenian drachms, four of which eventually became known to me.46 Two of them have the letter mem on Athena’s cheek, but just one of them joins a type attributed to Gaza by Gitler and Tal (V.25D). The other one bears the Aramaic legend LBLT (“[issued] for Balat”) and has been attributed to a still unlocated mint on the east bank of the Red Sea (what is called the �idjâz today).47 The third 41. Fischer-Bossert and Gitler (forthcoming); cf. Appendix 2, no. 2. 42. On the Tall al-Maskhūta hoard, see Appendix 2, no. 11. 43. See above, n. 24. 44. On the Beni �asan hoard, see Appendix 2, no. 6. 45. One could argue that the “Philistian-styled” didrachm (XXV.1DDa) found in the Delta hoard (IGCH 1650) tells ( the opposite, since that hoard is likely to have been buried c. 420/10 BCE. Regarding style and iconography of the didrachm, however, I do not think it is the product of a regular Philistian mint. 46. See Appendix 2, no. 10. 47. Cf. [33]. [ 07Wolfgang.indd 142 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 143 drachm does not bear any Aramaic letter but joins the alleged Gaza drachm by a die-link. The fourth one has the Aramaic legend ’SDH that is, to my knowledge, unrecorded so far. The coin may be classified like the second one, that is to say, it is likely to be the product of a Northwest Arabian mint. All four coins are imitations of the pi-style groups of the Athenians. Thus they cannot have been minted earlier than c. 350 BCE. Regarding the utterly non-barbarous features of both Athena and the owl, they are not likely to have been minted a long time after the model disappeared from the markets. The Athenian pi-style coinage came to its end in the early third century.48 A much earlier date for the hoard would be valid, however, if it holds true that two drachms of the hoard, one with and one without mem, may be attributed to the Gaza mint. If so, Alexander’s conquest of Gaza in 332 would be the terminus post quem non for the two coins that cannot have been circulating for much more than, say, a decade. The question of the attribution cannot be solved here; for the time being one cannot exclude the slight possibility that all those coins bearing the letter mem on the cheek of the obverse head were minted elsewhere. 5. The great variety of types The images of the “Philistian-styled” types are strongly diversified. There is a wide range of oriental heads (among them the Persian Great King, but no Persian dignitaries and soldiers as on Samarian coins),49 there are a few scenes from daily life (hunting scenes, camel-riders), animals of all kinds, mythic monsters, the Egyptian god Bes,50 many composite figures (the so-called grylloi), some of them known from the Persian sphere (from scarabs and architectural designs),51 even some picture puzzles.52 Considering this abundance of images, one might wonder how merchants dropping by at the Philistian markets did not lose track of what was local, and valid, currency, and what was not. It is hardly comprehensible that nobody cared about this, and accepted Samarian and other small change as well as local coins. This concerned not only foreigners who were not familiar with Philistian currency. A currency that is not distinctive enough runs the risk of being refuted. Although operating the main terminal for the incense trade, the Philistians were not likely to have had the power to dictate conditions such as the currency in which transactions had to be made. We know that the circulation areas of the Philistian and Samarian coins overlapped with one another,53 and two hoards tell us now that Philistian coins also interacted with coins from the south.54 As we have seen earlier, Athenian and pseudo-Athenian coins must have met with general acceptance in the Levantine markets. However, it is unlikely that each currency, the standard 48. On the end of the pi-style coinage, see Bingen (1973: 16–21). Slight modifications of Bingen’s view can be found with Kroll (1993: 10); Flament (2007b: 128–130); Anderson and van Alfen (2008: 169). 49. Gitler and Tal XXIII.1O. The Great King can be recognized by his crown, see Mildenberg (1994–99; 1998a: 5). The Samaria: Meshorer and Qedar (1999: nos. 4–7, 13–16, 20–23, 35, 40, 45, 47, 49–52, 55, 74–76, 86, 96–98, 100–101, 106, 123, 130–133, 137, 146–147, 193, 197, 199–205); but the man stabbing a lion or griffin respectively is the mythic ‘hero’ rather than the Great King, and the same is true for the potnios therôn holding two lions. The two men fighting each other on Meshorer and Qedar (1999: no. 195) are by no means “two Persian kings.” 50. On Bes on Philistian coins, see Mildenberg (1998a: 95–97). The ‘JHWH drachm’ Gitler and Tal XVI.25D is still The controversial, see W. Fischer-Bossert, Review, ANS Magazine 6, 2 (2007), p. 76; Shenkar (2007–08); Gitler (2009). 51. Gitler (2000), dealing with grylloi, too. 52. On elusive motifs, see Gitler and Tal (2006: 299–301). The Samarian triple head (p. 301 fig. 5.5; Meshorer and The fig. Qedar [1999], no. 139) is stimulated by a Cilician model (SNG Levante 201–202, attributed to Tenedos in earlier times, cf. Jameson (1924: no. 1458a). For a broader view, see Franken (2007), who does not take notice of the numismatic material. 53. Nablus hoard (IGCH 1504), Abu Shusheh hoard (IGCH 1507). ( 54. ‘Med�in ��li�’ Hoard (IGCH 1755), hoard from unknown findspot, 2009 (see Appendix 2, no. 10). ( 07Wolfgang.indd 143 12/28/10 9:36 PM 144 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert of which was in some ways derived from the Attic system, was accepted without commission. In consequence the merchants had to be familiar with all types of money circulating in the Gaza market—certainly not an easy task. One cannot help making comparisons with other coinages that are notable for their constantly changing types.55 The electrum coinages of Cyzicus, Mytilene, and Phocaea had regularly changing types, Cyzicus changed types probably more than once a year.56 These coinages were easy to recognize by their metal, reverse punches, and permanent symbols.57 Being widely known in both the Aegean and the Black Sea, the coinage of Cyzicus had a special status anyway. Mutatis mutandis the same goes for the Roman Republican denarii that saw changing types annually from the late second century BCE onwards, i.e., when the Roman currency had achieved a paramount position in the Mediterranean.58 It is a different matter with the Wappenmünzen of Athens; being a coinage of limited circulation, they would hardly be mingled with foreign coins.59 Equally, the later coins of the island of Melos were not thought to travel far; and here anyway it is just one side of the coin that kept changing the images.60 The same variety of combining a fixed obverse type with changing reverse images can be found at Abdera.61 The circulation zone of the Abderite coinage was much more extended than that ones of the Athenian Wappenmünzen and the Melian coins. Yet the griffin on the obverse alone made a coin from Abdera distinctive enough. Briefly, the Wappenmünzen of Athens appear to be the only currency that shares both peculiarities with the Philistian and Samarian coinages: a) a limited area of circulation that guaranteed the people dealing with such coins were familiar with them, and b) the changing images. However, there is one difference: in the sixth century when the Wappenmünzen were minted, overseas trade was still working without coined money. Accordingly, archaic coins did not circulate beyond the borders of the issuing state but were exported for their intrinsic value; that is to say, only foreigners who were in need of silver would buy Greek coins. Others, for examples, the Sicilian and Black Sea grain suppliers, would not.62 From that point of view, the role of the Philistian coinages becomes clearer. Considering the modest output and the small supply of large denominations, the Philistian coinages were not meant to be used in larger transactions. Therefore the South Arabian incense traders are not likely to have had much trouble with the perplexing diversity of Philistian coin images apart from daily expenses. For such jobs they might have had their local agents anyway. The comparison with the Attic Wappenmünzen is suitable for demonstrating another point. As a rule, the Wappenmünzen issues are well-organized, minor denominations sometimes bearing just the half or a reduced version of the image that is displayed on the stater. There are still gaps as to the presence of the minor denominations of some issues, but these might be due to 55. In general, see Furtwängler (1982). 56. On Mytilene, see Furtwängler (1982: 21). On Cyzicus, see v. Fritze (1912: 33f.); Mildenberg (1993–94: 8). Furthermore, see Kraay (1976: pl. 56, 953–967 [Cyzicus]. 968–973 [Phocaea]. 974–982 [Mytilene]). 57. All coins of Cyzicus have a tunny fish as an assistant symbol. Phocaean coins have a tiny seal as a canting badge. fish The coins of Mytilene do not bear special symbols, but unlike the former ones, they have a reverse image. Anyway the coinages of Phocaea and Mytilene consisted of just one denomination and are therefore easy to recognize. 58. Cf. Crawford (1974: 726). On the growth of Roman money supply during the second half of the second century, see Crawford (1985: 176f.). 59. See Kroll (1981). Out of 165 Athenian coins recorded in the Asyut Hoard only two were Wappenmünzen: Price and Waggoner (1975: 56, nos. 259–260). 60. Kraay (1964; 1976: pl. 7, 128–136) (c. 20 reverse images, many of them recurring several times). On the dating of, ( and the time-span covered by, the late group see now Sheedy (2006: 65f.). 61. See Furtwängler (1982: 16–21); Kraay (1976: pl. 30, 528–542). 62. Cf. Salmon (1993: 3–5). In archaic trade, coins were primarily used for maritime loans at home: Salmon (1984: 150f.). 07Wolfgang.indd 144 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 145 accidents of preservation rather than to incomplete supply.63 By comparison, the Philistian supply looks more erratic. Gitler and Tal reconstructed numerous issues consisting of drachms, obols, hemiobols, and even minor fractions.64 Yet there are still many isolated types, but perhaps this is an accident of preservation, too. Considering the feature of the changing images and the uneveness of style and fabric one wonders whether municipal mints were responsible at any time. For Athens, it is now clear that Peisistratus’ administration alone arranged the civic coinage; there is no tie between the changing coin images and alleged ‘badges’ of the grand old families of Attica.65 For the Philistians there exists some evidence that points in the same direction. Gitler and Tal have recently argued that a “collective mint” situated at Gaza was responsible for the whole, or at least the majority of the Philistian coinages.66 For them, the dielink connecting Ashdod and Gaza is crucial in this regard.67 However, the other die-links are less conclusive, though Leo Mildenberg had interpreted a die-link between Ashdod and some non-epigraphic issues the same way.68 Gitler and Tal asserted that the Philistians issued an “inter-city coinage” based on arrangements as to scope and standard.69 If so, the regulations may have been similarly detailed as with the famous agreement between Phocaea and Mytilene (IG XII 2, 1).70 At any rate the standards of the three cities must be examined to see if they are really consistent. A lesser problem also remains: which issues should be singled out as irregular.71 6. Metrology It is a matter of experience that the consistency of coin standards gets blurred by the increase of the number of mints compared. Terms like ‘reduced Attic standard,’ ‘light Samian standard,’ or ‘heavy Lycian standard’ show inconsistencies that are at times not owing to historical descent but to local origin. Various alleged transfers of coin standards, or standardizations within a greater region would not stand to close scrutiny. For instance, the ‘Thraco-Macedonian standard’ has become a traditional header of very diverging local standards.72 Therefore we have to limit our 63. Additions to Seltman’s outdated corpus can be found in Hopper (1968). 64. Perhaps II.3D and II.12O belong to each other. V.21O and XI.4O could be merged. VI.1D and VI.7O/VI.8O could form an issue as well. VI.15O is supplemented by an unpublished drachm (mentioned by Gitler and Tal [2006: 142]). 65. See Hitzl (1996: 111f.); Kroll (1981). The theory still appeals to some non-numismatists: Tiverios (1990: 39); The Giuman (2000). 66. Gitler and Tal (2009). 67. Die-sharing between cities is, however, a common practice and does not always point to a joint mint; cf. the following cases: Syrakus/Leontinoi: Boehringer (1929: 22, 79). Segesta/Panormus/Motya:. Hurter (2005: 9). Lycia: M�rkholm and Zahle (1972: 76). Kolophon/Smyrna: Leu 13, 1975, 233 with commentary. At least eight cities and tribes in Central Italy: Rutter (1979: 102). Thurii/Fenserni: Rutter (2002: 177). Pelagia/Damastion: May (1939: 149). Hierapytna/Eleutherna: Seltman (1955: 171). Gortyn/Phaestos: Le Rider (1966: 52). King Patraos/Damastion: May (1939: 6). Alexander Coinage: Price (1991b: 103f., 347f.) Lysimachus Coinage: Fischer-Bossert (2005: 49f.); Marinescu (2004: 133, n. 13). Hellenistic Peloponnese: Warren (2007: 171). In general, see May (1939: 151–156); M�rkholm (1991: 18f.); Mackil and van Alfen (2006: 227, n. 78). 68. Mildenberg (2000: 95) “I could establish a die chain linking inscribed and not inscribed Ashdod coins”, refers to II.10D-XIV.16D-XVII.2D-XVII.3D-XVI.22D, cf. Gitler and Tal (2009: 23f. nos. 2a–2e). The link XVI.1D-XIX.10D must not be forgotten here. Mildenberg’s theory about a Lohnmünzstätte working along with Gaza’s civic mint in charge of neighboring cities, local dynasts and regional sheikhs did not meet with approval: Mildenberg (1998a: 78, 84f.); Gitler and Tal (2006: 70). 69. Gitler and Tal (2006: 71). 70. IG XII 2, 1; SEG XXXIV 849. See Bodenstedt (1981: 29–31); Heisserer (1984); Engelmann (1985). Most recently, see Mackil and van Alfen (2006: 210–219). 71. Beside the mem problem (see n. 31 above), VI.1O, XXV.1DD, XXVII.5D, XXIX.1O-XXIX.3O are candidates (cf. n. 45 above). V.10Db-c, VI.1Db-c, and XIII.16Da-b are contemporary forgeries. 72. The literature is vast. Most recently, see Lorber (2008); van Driessche (2007: 17–20); Psom� (2007: 17f.); Liampi The 07Wolfgang.indd 145 12/28/10 9:36 PM 146 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert expectations when comparing the small change coinages of the Southern Levant. The impact of the Athenian currency can be felt throughout the region. Thus it is not astonishing that the weight standard of such coinages looks more or less the same. The differences are hard to define, because the basis of the research has still to be assembled (typological studies like those on the coinages of Samaria and of the Philistians do not provide all of the material), and because the chronological framework is lacking. Any comparison between an issue of Ashkelon from the 330s and a late fifth-century issue of Gaza will be misleading, since for obvious reasons weight standards were always tending to get lighter. Another, and often neglected, problem is the comparison of pure small change coinages like the Samarian with more developed coinages like the Philistian ones, i.e., coinages offering the whole range of denominations from staters (tetradrachms) down to tiny fractions. As a rule, small denominations tend to be underweight, even more so the smaller the coin is. This is due to elementary fiscal measures; also now some 2,000 years later this tendency is intensified by corrosion and other chemical conditions (see below). Although the ancients had no idea of the mathematics of modern economies, they must have felt that the costs of minting a coin were always more or less the same, no matter if it was a stater or a hemidrachm. As a result, costs are dependent upon the denomination no matter the initial amount of metal used; a talent could be converted to either 1,500 coins by minting tetradrachms, or 12,000 coins by minting hemidrachms.73 In order to compensate for the rising costs, the small denominations are kept underweight.74 This, however, cannot be proven by testing just one, two, or three specimens, since the minting of such tiny values was done al marco, that is to say, the number of specimens produced had to be correct, but not the weight of individual specimens.75 The variance of weights among small denominations is usually high. At times the attribution of a type to a certain denomination is guesswork rather than deduction.76 More important is the conclusion that small change coinages might tend to be underweight as a whole when compared with more complete coinages, since there is no balance between the large denominations and the small. A closer look at issues consisting of many denominations shows that large denominations make up the loss caused by the small ones. In other words, the small denominations will be less underweight as soon as large denominations are issued along with them.77 As a result, coin standards have breathing room according to the changing range of denominations issued. Furthermore, there are not only fiscal but also economic factors that would push the effective weights below the norm. Coinages intended for domestic circulation are usually overvalued, and if this could not be achieved by harsh conversion rates it was easy to do so by issuing underweight coins.78 Considering the limited circulation and the modest output (2005: 239–241) and W. Fischer-Bossert, Review of Liampi, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 86 (2007), pp. 184–187, p. 187 f.; Cuvigny (2004); Schell (2000); Hardwick (1998: 123); Peter (1997: 68, 73, 98, 102, 106). 73. One has to keep in mind here that all norm weights like talent, mina, drachm, etc. did exist in two versions: market weight and respective coin weight. The latter is reduced by the Schlagschatz, i.e., a mixture of minting costs and a modest profit. The Attic market mina (μνᾶ ἐμπορική IG II/III2 1013, l. 29) has 105 drachms, whereas the ‘usual’ mina has 100; cf. Lang and Crosby (1964: 2, n. 1; 15); Hitzl (1996: 48ff.). The talent as mentioned here is of course the coin weight consisting of 6,000 drachms. 74. As pointed out by Jongkees (1945: 96). In general, see now Sargent and Velde (2002). 75. Boehringer (1999: 51, n. 10) argues that in the fifth century obols were weighed in most cases. If so, there must have fifth been considerable tolerances. Minting al pezzo as it can be observed with small gold coins looks different. 76. The ‘hemidrachm’ XVI.17Da (2.00 g) and the ‘drachm’ XX.6Da (2.10 g) share the same obverse die. At times, die-links The between different denominations occur, for instance see Gitler and Tal (2006: 96–99, nos. III.2DD and III.2D); Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 119, no. 199). Furthermore, see Peter (1997: 87, n. 409); Buttrey (1997: 11, n. 11); Hurter (2008: 135). 77. I have stressed this point earlier in my “Review of Liampi” (see note 72 for full reference) and (2008b: 14–17). 78. Cf. Kagan (2004: 80): “Keeping it underweight kept it at home.” For a broader view, see Le Rider (1989). 07Wolfgang.indd 146 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 147 of the Philistian coins, the coinages of Ashdod, Ashkelon and Gaza were certainly intended for domestic circulation only. It may be a matter of discretion whether we believe the Philistians were capable of such an economic measure, but it must not be omitted. Last but not least, any metrological research is problematized by the chemical process of corrosion.79 Small coins are more affected by corrosion than large ones; in other words, the weight-loss among small denominations is greater, thus increasing the deviation from the norm that is suggested by the large denominations. Weight-loss by wear can be disregarded here, for wear is much easier to recognize than corrosion. It is true, an average weight-loss by wear lowering the overall figures below the theoretical norm must be kept in mind.80 However, heavily corroded specimens do not affect the results of a frequency table (see below). To conclude, there are various elements making coins lighter than one would expect them to be. Thus, mints sharing the same standard can at times appear not to do so, while at times mints adhering to different local standards may appear to share a joint one. At any rate, a sound comparison of coin standards needs large samples of specimens (arranged by die-studies at best), a reliable chronological framework, and advanced methods. Oren Tal has recently argued that the weight standard and the denominational system used by the Philistian cities was not derived from a foreign model but was based on the sheqel weight.81 In fact, the papyrological evidence Tal has compiled suggests that in Egypt and the Southern Levant the local coins were not called by Greek names but by Oriental ones, among them the term sheqel. With the exception of one contradictory source, the term sheqel appears to have been applied to what is called a tetradrachm here.82 The terms for two fractions of the sheqel are also recorded in the papyri, though only by their abbreviations; there seem to be quarters (rebah) and sixths of the quarter (ma‘eh).83 Thus the quarter would be the equivalent of the drachm, and the sixth of the quarter would refer to what is called obol here. Evidence from Phoenicia, however, suggests that a fifth-century sheqel had been somewhat similar to the Attic didrachm rather than to the tetradrachm.84 On the other hand, there are only a few Philistian hemidrachms that could be the quarters of the sheqel; hemiobols that could be the sixths of the quarters are clearly less frequent than the obols.85 Furthermore, there are just two Philistian didrachms extant.86 If the data of the Elephantine papyri can be applied to the Philistian region, how is it comprehensible, then, that both the most frequent Philistian denominations—drachm and obol—did not play any role? It is clear anyway that sheqel was the joint name of a unit that was in each case locally fixed; the sheqel of Tyre was different from Sidon’s, and the same might be true within the southern Levant, and in Egypt.87 The common term does not reveal any kind of standardization of weights and mea79. Burrer (2009: 19f.) estimates the average weight-loss by corrosion at 1.0–1.5 % (for tetradrachms). 80. As to long periods, the weight-loss can even be used as a chronological hint, but with caution: de Callata� (1983); Davesne and Le Rider (1989: 244f., 248–255); Brousseau (2007: 53–55). 81. Tal (2007). 82. A late fifth-century papyrus from Elephantine equates two sheqel to one stater (of Greek silver). Provided that fifth-century the stater in question is a tetradrachm of Attic weight, the sheqel would be equal to an Attic didrachm; see Porten (1968: 64f.); cf. Tal (2007: 22f.). Furthermore, see Anderson and van Alfen (2008: 174). Porten’s view was anticipated by Hultsch (1862: 105, n. 8). Contra Porten, see Lemaire (2004: 139f.) who suggests the equation sheqel = tetradrachm. 83. See Tal (2007: 17, n. 3), with references. Other local terms for fractions and multiples of the sheqel are discussed by van Alfen (2004–05b: 23, n. 31). 84. Elayi and Elayi (2009: 312f., 319); cf. Hendin (2001: 65). 85. Gitler and Tal recorded 59 types of hemiobols, and just four types of hemidrachms (VII.2HD, VIII.1HD, XVI.17HD, and XXVII.3HD). Additionally, see now CNG 85, 2010, 516. 86. Gitler and Tal (2006: 96, no. III.2DDa [7.81 g], and p. 273 no. XXV.1DD [7.77 g]), the latter one looking irregular. 87. On the various sheqelim of the Persian period, see Bivar (1985: 635f.); Dušek (2007: 502–507). On the Philistian weight-system(s) before coinage, see Kletter (1998: 125). 07Wolfgang.indd 147 12/28/10 9:36 PM 148 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert sures beyond a city-state’s scope. I agree with Tal’s view that the peoples in the Levant used their traditional terms for coin denominations instead of Greek ones; anything else would be strange indeed. However, I am not convinced at all that the Philistian cities, Samaria, and perhaps even the Edomites shared the same coin standard. So I cannot but help stating that the method Tal has used for determining the standards is best suited for hiding differences rather than revealing them. Tal quotes the “mean weights” of the principal denominations used by the Philistian cities and Samaria as ascertained by Gitler and Tal some years earlier.88 Such figures are misleading for two reasons: a) the mean weight (or average weight) comprises all specimens known so far, no matter how worn or corroded they may be. Omitting specimens from the calculation would be arbitrary, but drawing upon them all does not lead to the coin standard; the average weight is always far below the standard. The frequency table, a statistical approach, leads to better results, although it forces us to judge the figures.89 Gitler and Tal provided the respective histograms, but failed to draw any conclusions.90 The other reason for me to regard Tal’s figures with some scepticism is: b) the average weights are taken from large samples, but the samples are not differentiated chronologically in any way. Over the course of c. 100 years there may well have been considerable divergencies among the issues of even a single mint. For the following metrological study I have selected types of Philistian, Samarian, and Edomite coinages that are represented by relatively large numbers of specimens. For creating the largest samples possible I have tried to form groups of related iconography. I hope that these groups may be interpreted more or less as issues. However, I cannot rule out the possibility that one or another group actually consists of more issues than just one, the first issue then being the model for the latter. Secondly, I must admit there are barbarous types, that is to say, types that could have been issued by irregular mints, thus not being conclusive for the behavior of the respective Philistian mint.91 I. “Athenian-styled” Coins Decadrachm Owl Group (Ashkelon) 1. Tetradrachm (Gitler and Tal III.1T) 2. Didrachm (Gitler and Tal III.2DD) 3. Drachms (Gitler and Tal III.2D) 4. Drachms (Gitler and Tal III.3D) 5. Drachms (Gitler and Tal III.4D), barbarized style 6. Obols (Gitler and Tal III.4O), barbarized style 7. Obols (Gitler and Tal III.5O), barbarized style Bare-headed Athena Group (Ashkelon) 8. Drachms (Gitler and Tal III.6D) 9. Drachms (Gitler and Tal III.7D) 10. Obols (Gitler and Tal III.6O) 11. Obols (Gitler and Tal III.7O) 12. Obols (Gitler and Tal III.9O) Ayin-Theta Group (Gaza) 13. Drachms (Gitler and Tal V.10D) 16.86 g 7.81 g 3.81–4.05 g 3.89–4.03 g 3.75–4.05 g 0.71–0.81 g 0.68 g 3.77 g 3.70–3.80 g 0.55–0.59 g 0.72 g 0.60–0.75 g 3.80–4.25 g 88. Tal (2007: 22f.); cf. Gitler and Tal (2006: 315). 89. Hill (1924). The inevitable but modest problems of the statistics are discussed by M�rkholm (1982). The 90. Gitler and Tal (2006: 322, fig. 5.9). fig. 91. For the specimens taken into account here, see Appendix 1. 07Wolfgang.indd 148 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 149 14. Obols (Gitler and Tal V.10O) 15. Hemiobols (Gitler and Tal V.10HO) Mem Group (Gaza?) 16. Drachms (Gitler and Tal V.1D) II. “Philistian-styled” Coins Bastard I Group (Gaza) 17. Drachms (Gitler and Tal V.1D) 18. Obols (Gitler and Tal V.1O) Bastard II Group (Gaza) 19. Drachms (Gitler and Tal V.3D) 20. Obols (Gitler and Tal V.4O) Jordan and Beni �asan Hoards Group (Gaza) 21. Drachms (Gitler and Tal VI.1D) 22. Drachms (Gitler and Tal VI.2D) 23. Drachms (Gitler and Tal –) 24. Drachms (Gitler and Tal VI.4D) 25. Obols (Gitler and Tal VI.1O), perhaps irregular 26. Obols (Gitler and Tal VI.2O) 27. Obols (Gitler and Tal VI.5O) 28. Obols (Gitler and Tal VI.6O), perhaps irregular 29. Obols (Gitler and Tal VI.7O) 30. Obols (Gitler and Tal VI.8O) Bes Head Group (Gaza) 31. Drachms (Gitler and Tal VI.13D) 32. Drachms (Gitler and Tal VI.14D) 33. Obols (Gitler and Tal VI.13O) 34. Obols (Gitler and Tal VI.14O) Die-link Group (Ashdod, etc.) 35. Drachms (Gitler and Tal II.10D) 36. Drachms (Gitler and Tal XIV.16D) 37. Drachms (Gitler and Tal XVI.22D) 38. Drachms (Gitler and Tal XVII.2D) 39. Drachms (Gitler and Tal XVII.3D) III. Comparanda Samaria 40. Drachms (Meshorer and Qedar 28) 41. Drachms (Meshorer and Qedar 34) 42. Drachms (Meshorer and Qedar 61) 43. Drachms (Meshorer and Qedar 113) Edom 44. Drachms (Gitler, Tal, and van Alfen [2007: 55, nos. 34–59]) 0.61–0.74 g 0.35–0.44 g 3.80–3.97 g 3.75–3.90 g 0.64–0.73 g 3.70–4.00 g 0.60–0.72 g 3.82–4.20 g 3.85–4.00 g 3.04 g 3.55 g 0.54–0.76 g 0.50–0.59 g 0.60–0.73 g 0.67 g 0.64–0.75 g 0.63–0.75 g 3.81–4.00 g 3.90–4.00 g 0.56–0.73 g 0.63–0.75 g 3.18 g 3.25–3.38 g 3.30 g 3.10–3.36 g 3.19–3.40 g 4.00–4.10 g 3.50–3.58 g 3.80–3.90 g 3.72–4.20 g 3.83–4.26 g 07Wolfgang.indd 149 12/28/10 9:36 PM 150 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert An almost idealized distribution can be studied with the Edomite drachms (No. 44): at first sight it becomes clear that all the coins weighing below 3.83 g must not be used for determining the standard. A massive part of the sample lies within the bracket between 3.83 and 4.26 g. It is obvious, therefore, that the standard must be looked for within these limits. Single coins above this bracket may be ignored (‘runaways’) as well as all that can be found below the bracket. It is true, fixing the limits of a bracket remains a matter of personal judgement, but there is the rule that the bracket has to keep at the maxima. Personally, I prefer wide brackets, and would suggest always that the standard norm lies close to the upper limit: usually all coins are more or less worn, hence having lost some weight, and for reasons noted above the mints tended to produce underweight coins rather than heavy ones. Turning to individual results, both internal and external divergencies are obvious. As to internal divergencies, the case of Ashkelon is revealing. The drachms from the Decadrachm Owl Group (Nos. 3–5) appear to be heavier than the Bare-headed Athena Group drachms (Nos. 8–9): 3.8–4.0 g and 3.7–3.8 g respectively. Clear differences within the issues of one mint can also be seen with Samaria (Nos. 40–43). It is hard to say whether such differences may be interpreted as a hint to the relative chronology: heavy coins being earlier than the light ones. Although it is a rule of thumb that mints were inclined to lower the standard (as proven by the history of the Attic standard), readjustments might have occurred after periods of silver shortage. It strikes the eye, however, that the heaviest drachm issue of Samaria (No. 43) contains a coin that is said to be derived from a Cilician hoard that has been dated to c. 380/70 BCE.92 If both the attribution to the hoard and the burial date are reliable, the cumulative evidence would establish an early Samarian issue. An external divergency can be observed by comparing the Die-link Group that was at least partly issued by the city of Ashdod (Nos. 35–39) with the various Gaza groups: the Die-link Group proves to be much lighter without exception. Perhaps the Die-link Group belongs to the latest Philistian issues. Perhaps, also, this represents another, Ashdodian standard. It should also be noted that the Jordan and Beni �asan Hoards Group (Nos. 21–30), which seems to be very early on grounds of a coin allegedly from the Jordan hoard (IGCH 1482), contains some extremely heavy specimens, the drachm standard apparently being above 4.00 g here.93 Yet the question of whether the group may really be dated as early as c. 450 BCE is, as we have seen above, hard to answer; on the one hand there is the high standard, on the other there is an obol from the very same group that is derived from the Beni �asan hoard (IGCH 1651) buried c. 340 BCE. At any rate, the average weights Gitler and Tal relied upon do not make sense as soon as the various coin standards are parsed: 218 Philistian drachms may well have a mean weight of 3.58 g, but this does not reveal the divergencies discussed here.94 The overall picture might be more complicated than it was hitherto thought. Yet it can now be stated that the highest standard(s) of the Philistian coinages are just slightly below the Attic standard. In the second half of the fifth century, Athenian tetradrachms kept to a bracket of 17.00–17.25 g.95 The early pseudo-Athenian tetradrachms from the Philistian mints are within the same bracket, or not much below that: 92. IGCH 1259 = CH 9.391; furthermore, see Newell (1934: 11, n. 15); Le Rider (1971: 148); Elayi and Elayi (1993: 264f., no. LX); Barron (1998: 25); Vismara (1999: 104–106); Pfisterer (2000: 50); van Alfen (2002a: 45, n. 56). 93. On the problem of attributing the coin to the hoard, see above n. 24. 94. Cf. Tal (2007: 22f.); Gitler and Tal (2006: 315). On the standards of the yehud coinage of Judaea, see Ronen (1998). 95. See Jenkins (1970: 130); Naster (1974: esp. p. 10f.); Nicolet-Pierre (2000c: 41). Hultsch (1862: 148) calculated 17.27 g for the Attic fifth-century tetradrachm; Elsen (2002) gives the figure of 17.28 g. 07Wolfgang.indd 150 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 151 I. Early tetradrachms (Athena with frontal eye) Gitler and Tal III.1T (Ashkelon) a) 16.86 12 Jerusalem, Israel Museum 15279 (Gitler and Tal [2006], no. III.1Ta) = NumisArt & Michel Dürr 15 Nov. 1998, 489 (Mildenberg [2000: 96, n. 19]), ex Ismailiya hoard 1983. Gitler and Tal V.5T (Gaza) a) 17.16 9 New York, ANS 1944.100.24332 (SNG ANS 6, 1; Gitler and Tal [2006], 116 no. V.1Ta), ex Burton Y. Berry (SNG Berry 701; Berry (1971: 66, no. 356 “one of the two Gaza tetradrachms”), ex Tell el-Maskhūta hoard (IGCH 1649; cf. Robinson [1947: 115]; Jenkins [1956: 363]; van Alfen [2002b: 65, no. 9, pl. 14]). b) 17.15 ? Boston, Museum of Fine Arts (Baldwin Brett [1955: 287, no. 2203, pl. 103]), ex Albert Sangorski collection (Kraay [1976: 377, no. 1061, pl. 62]; Svoronos [1926, pl. 110, 49]; BMC Palestine, p. lxxxiv pl. XLII, 1). c) 16.81 7 Berlin, Münzkabinett 468/1891 (Svoronos [1926, pl. 13, 1]; ZfN 21 (1898), p. 207; Beulé [1858: 44 fig., upper row, at right]). d) 16.55 ? Current disposition unknown (Leo Mildenberg files). Gitler and Tal V.7T (Gaza) a) 17.10 9 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 118, no. V.7Ta]). b) ? ? Current disposition unknown, ex Syrian hoard (CH 8.158; cf. Price [1993: 34, no. 42, pl. IX]; van Alfen, [2002b: 13] [rev. additional letter; obv. two test cuts, rev. two parallel test cuts]). Gitler and Tal –, cf. V.17T, with mem but with frontal eye (Gaza?). a) 17.12 ? Peus 321, 1988, 238. Gitler and Tal XIV.7T (crude style, without ethnic: probably from an irregular mint) a) 15.68 6 Tel Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum K-508.91 (Gitler and Tal [2006: 192, no. XIV.7Ta]). Gitler and Tal XV.1T (without ethnic) a) 17.05 10 Jerusalem, Israel Museum 15280 (Gitler and Tal [2006: 212, no. XV.1Ta]) = NumisArt & Michel Dürr 15 Nov. 1998, 488 (Mildenberg [2000: 96, n. 20]), ex Ismailiya hoard 1983. b) 14.85 3 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale (Gitler and Tal [2006: 212, no. XV.1Tb]; Leo Mildenberg files), ex Henri Seyrig Collection, acquired at Cairo in 1922 (broken, about a sixth of the coin is missing). The late ones, reflecting the Athenian pi-style issues without any exception, are a bit lighter:96 Figure 6: Gaza, tetradrachm (V.17T) 96. On the weight standard of the Athenian pi-style coinage, see most recently Anderson and van Alfen (2008: 174 ff.). 07Wolfgang.indd 151 12/28/10 9:36 PM 152 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert II. Late tetradrachms (Athena with profile eye) Gitler and Tal V.17T (Gaza?), with mem a) 16.95 ? NAC 52, 2009, 186 b) 16.50 9 Alan Casden collection (Samuels, Rynearson, and Meshorer [2000: 152 no. 1]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 126, no. V.17Ta]). c) 16.22 9 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 126, no. V.17Tb]) (rev. test cut at 10 o’clock). Gitler and Tal V.18T (Gaza?), with mem a) 16.79 9 Jerusalem, Israel Museum 1177 (Meshorer [1977: 78, fig. 1]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 128, no. V.18Ta]), ex Reuben Hecht collection (Leo Mildenberg files), ex Babylon hoard (CH 1.38). Gitler and Tal V.19T (Gaza?), with mem a) 17.02 9 Arnold Spaer collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 73747/8; Gitler and Tal [2006: 128, no. V.19Ta]) = Lanz 30, 1981, 369. b) 17.02 9 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 128, no. V.19T[variant]a]). Gitler and Tal XI.5T, with zayin a) 16.96 9 Utrecht, Stichting Geld- en Bankmuseum 8130 (Gitler and Tal [2006: 160, no. XI.5T]). b) 16.35 7 Sternberg 22, 1989, 108 (obv. two parallel test cuts, rev. test cut). The theoretical weight of the Attic drachm (4.366 g) was not often reached; Athenian drachms from the second half of the fifth century weigh usually 4.00–4.15 g.97 The reduction of the standard after 100 years can be calculated by the inscriptions on silver vessels found in a late classical Macedonian tomb (320/300 BCE): drachms of 4.18–4.35 g underlie those figures.98 These figures do refer, of course, to the market drachm, i.e., c. 105 % of the actual coin weight, thus resulting to a bracket of 3.98–4.14 g.99 As a whole, the Philistian standard is close to the contemporary Attic standard. The Levantine peoples are not likely to have asked at Athens for official weights and measures; rather they might have adopted their standards from Athenian coins circulating in the eastern markets. Apart from the wear of coins travelling that far, adopting a foreign standard is always accompanied by the inclination of underselling it. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that the Philistian standard appears to be a ‘reduced Attic standard’. Once adopted, each of the pseudo-Athenian standards might have had a history of its own, particularly since the impact of the Athenian currency was weakened for some decades after 412/04 BCE. It cannot yet be said whether the Philistian variety was originally a joint standard of the three cities that was to develop local versions in later times. At any rate, in the second half of the fourth century there was more than one coin standard in use within the Philistian area. 7. Fabric Despite the plethora of short-lived issues, the general appearance of the Philistian coinages is fairly uniform. In part, this is due to the uniqueness of the Philistian pictorial language. Another element is the uniformity of the manufacture. The Philistian issues were not made ad hoc but with 97. Cf. SNG München 14, 60–64. The theoretical figure as given by Hultsch (1882: 208 ff.); cf. Hitzl (1996: 9, n. 57). 98. Themelis and Touratsoglou (1997: 216f.). Themelis 99. Cf. n. 73 above. 07Wolfgang.indd 152 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 153 Figure 7: Philistian obol [XII.13O] practice and much experience. In the unpublished papers left by Leo Mildenberg, he wrote: “The flans were prepared by casting; even the tiny ones for the obols and their divisions were cast from moulds and not cut from rolled sheets of silver. The small coins were struck more carefully than the large denominations. The bulk of the small coins are well centered, and even the drachms are rarely off center.”100 Indeed, Philistian engravers were used to cutting small images that scarcely covered the whole flan. It may be added that the preparation of the flans was done al marco for all denominations (anything else would be strange enough); at the same time, the variance of weights is nothing but normal. There are a few plated coins, and test cuts demonstrate the sound suspicions of the market, but in general this is a coinage that lived on its own reputation rather than the good reputation of any model it imitated.101 Among the coins that are dealt with here there is just one sort that does not fit Mildenberg’s description of the flan preparation: a good number of the pseudo-Athenian obols and fractions with the late, profile-eyed Athena head (including those bearing the letter mem) were minted on a square or rectangular flan that looks as though the edges would have been clipped.102 Without further examination it is hard to say whether the respective flans had been prepared by cutting pieces from a rod, but in any case, the fabric is somewhat different from that of the principal issues of the Philistians. Quite a few earlier pseudo-Athenian obols (i.e., with the frontal-eyed Athena) and two “Philistian-styled” types share this fabric; none of them carries an ethnic.103 There is no doubt that coins of the relevant types had been circulating within the Philistian area; the Ashkelon hoard (CH 9.369) consisted exclusively of obols with square or rectangular flans.104 A special technique used for minor denominations only? The Samaria hoard (CH 9.413) consisting of 334 Levantine coins, among them 66 pseudo-Athenian fractions, offers food for thought here.105 The overwhelming majority of the Phoenician and Samarian coins from the hoard are minted on round or at least just insignificantly ‘clipped’ flans, whereas the pseudo-Athenian obols (and hemiobols) are quite reminiscent of those from the Ashkelon hoard. It may well be that Samaria shared specialized technical features with the Philistian mints. Apart from the dichotomy of pseudo-Athenian and local types, and a certain overlapping of the circulation areas, the two coinages have both stylistic and technical features in common: for example, typological similarities, a fondness for dotted square frames, and an employment of partly incuse images.106 On the other hand, it is hardly comprehensible that a special fabric that has no 100. L. Mildenberg, Introduction to the Philisto-Arabian Coinage (unpublished), p. 12. 101. As to plated specimens, see n. 71 above. For test cuts, see Appendix 1. 102. V.14O, V.20Oa, V.21Oa, V.22F, V.23O, VII.3O, VII.4HO, VII.5O, IX.1O, IX.2O, IX.3O, X.1Oe-g.i-l, X.2O, XI.3O, XI.3HO, XI.4HO, XII.8O, XII.10O, XII.13O, XII.15O, XII.21O. 103. Frontal eye: XI.6O, XI.6HO, XII.4O. “Philistian-styled”: XIV.25F, XXVII.8O. 104. See Gitler (1996: 2–6); cf. Appendix 2, no. 14. 105. See Meshorer and Qedar (1991: 71–80) (the pseudo-Athenian obols and hemiobols ibid., pp. 78–80 nos. 269ff.). 269ff.). On the hoard, cf. Elayi and Elayi (1993: 218–231, no. XLIX); van Alfen (2002a: 22); Spaer (2009: 157). The coins were sold at Sotheby’s (Zurich) 28 Oct. 1993, 960–999. 106. Similarities of types: Cf. Gitler and Tal XIII.11D with Meshorer and Qedar (1999: no. 77); cf. Gitler and Tal XVI.17HD (obverse) and XX.6D with Meshorer and Qedar (1999: no. 34); cf. Gitler and Tal XXVIII.7HO with Meshorer and Qedar (1999: no. 198); cf. Gitler and Tal XIV.23HO (obverse) with Meshorer and Qedar (1999: nos. 156–157, 159); cf. Gitler and Tal XVI.25D and XXV.3O (obverses) with Meshorer and Qedar (1999: no. 173). Typically enough, Meshorer and Qedar (1999: nos. 151 and 208) have been reattributed by Gitler and Tal (XIII.10F and XI.2O 07Wolfgang.indd 153 12/28/10 9:36 PM 154 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert meaning other than technical implications should not have been implemented for coins bearing the local types. The fabric of the square or rectangular flans appears to have been more or less confined to pseudo-Athenian fractions that are found at Samaria as well as Ashkelon. At any rate, this fabric is of no help for attributing an issue to either Samaria or the Philistian mints.107 It cannot even be a peculiar fabric of the latest issues, because the Samaria Hoard was buried c. 350 BCE, twenty years before both the Samaria and Gaza mints ceased to exist. Leo Mildenberg was already sceptical about the local origin of the Ashkelon hoard specimens.108 He might be right, and some day the ‘square flan issues’ could be proven to be the products of a regional mint operating for the governors’ or even the satrap’s supply of pseudo-Athenian coins. 8. Conclusion All things considered, it is not so easy to say whether a merchant from the kingdom of Qataban arriving at the Philistian terminals of the incense road really took notice of the small change he got there while doing minor shopping in the suqs. He is more likely to have kept those coins in mind that he used when dealing with merchandise on a large scale, i.e., the Athenian coins. Indeed, the earliest ‘Arabian owls’ from al-Jawf (see Huth [Chp. IV] and [137–142]) do not show any signs of influence from the Philistian coinages but endeavor to reproduce models right from the Attic mint, especially the Athenian tetradrachms. The same is true for the early Sabaean tetradrachm [149], and Qatabanian coinage seems to have taken pattern from the contemporary Attic standard (cf. van Alfen [Chp. XI] and [305 ff.]), of course with all those subtractions from the original that have been dealt with above in a generalized way. When looking for traces the Philistian coinages would have left on the coinages of ancient Arabia, sooner or later one is drawn to the letter that Athena has on her cheek on many “Athenianstyled” coins attributed to the Philistian mints. This is the only numismatic feature adopted by the South Arabians that is particular to the Philistian coinages. This might hold true even if a great deal of the coins bearing the letter mem would have to be eliminated from the directory, for there is an issue from the Gaza mint that has the letter mem in the field but the letter ayin (for Gaza) on the cheek.109 The meaning of the Philistian ‘cheek-letter’ is not entirely clear, but apparently the creators of the Sabaean and Qatabanian coinages had their own uses in mind when adopting it.110 In short, the Philistian coinages might certainly have played the role of a prototype for tribes and chieftains in the surrounding deserts—the by now rehabilitated lot from the “Med�in ��li� hoard” gives valuable insights into the conditions of fourth-century �idjâz111—, but when the kings of South Arabia and their councillors were about to create coinage that would stand the test of time, they looked to the city whose coinage was well-known from Carthage to Afghanistan: Athens. They did not much care about these nice-looking but insignificant coinages their merchants dealt with during their stays along the Mediterranean Sea. respectively). So it is not at all astonishing that a minor variant of Gitler and Tal XXVIII.HO would have been attributed to Samaria, see CNG 63, 2003, 784 (0.09 g), and CNG 64, 2003, 433 (0.10 g). Partly incuse images: Gitler and Tal VI.3O, XIV.36D; Meshorer and Qedar (1999: no. 50). Obviously, Phoenician models were the trendsetters here, see Naster (1958); Elayi and Elayi (2009: 294). 107. Gitler and Tal (2006: 158) argue the type XI.2O might be Philistian rather than Samarian because of the square flan. flan. 108. Mildenberg (2000: 91): ”must not mean that they were produced in Ascalon”. 109. Gitler and Tal (2006: 124–127), nos. V.15D/V.16D. Cf. the types V.14D (nun?), V.25D (mem), [6] (het), XI.5Da ( (?), XI.8D (yod), XI.9D (gimel), XI.10D (beth), and XIII.20D (beth). All these types do imitate fifth-century models, i.e., Athena has the frontal eye. Letters can be found even on the cheeks of oriental male heads: XX.13D/XX.14D (beth), see Fig. 8b. 110. See Huth [Chp. X] and Stein [Chp. XII]; cf. Kropp and Hahn (1997). 111. See Appendix 2, no. 18. 07Wolfgang.indd 154 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 155 Figure 8a: Letter on cheek drachm (V25.D) Figure 8b: Letter on cheek drachm (XX.14D) Appendix 1: Metrological Data I. “Athenian-styled” Coins Decadrachm Owl Group (Ashkelon) 1. Ashkelon tetradrachms (Gitler and Tal III.1T), the owl standing to front a) 16.86 12 Jerusalem, Israel Museum 15279 (Gitler and Tal [2006: 96, no. III.1Ta]) = NumisArt & Michel Dürr 15 Nov. 1998, 489 (Mildenberg [2000: 96, n. 19]), ex Ismailiya hoard 1983. 2. Ashkelon didrachms (Gitler and Tal III.2DD), the owl standing to front a) 7.81 12 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 96, no. III.1DDa]) = Leu 83, 2002, 255 “found near Hebron.” 3. Ashkelon drachms (Gitler and Tal III.2D), the owl standing to front a) 4.12 ? Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (Babelon [1893: 49, no. 331, pl. vii, fig. 9, and 1901–1932: II 2, no. 1041, pl. CXXIII, 17]; Babelon [1930: 99, no. 2888, pl. CVII]; Mildenberg [1998a: pl. XX, 18]). b) 3.93 11 Alan Casden collection (Samuels, Rynearson, and Meshorer [2000: 154 no. 17]) c) 3.81 4 London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 177, no. 9, pl. XIX, 9; Mildenberg [1998a: pl. XX, 19]), ex Rollin et Feuardent 1906 [holed]. d) 3.60 12 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 98, no. III.2Da]). e) 3.41 6 New York, ANS 1944.100.62656 (SNG ANS 6, 32). 4. Ashkelon drachms (Gitler and Tal III.3D), the owl standing to front a) 4.05 12 Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (Babelon [1893: 49, no. 330, pl. 8, 8, and 1901– 1932: II 2, no. 1040 pl. CXXIII, 16]; Mildenberg [1998a: pl. XX, 20]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 98, no. III.3Da]). b) 4.03 ? Baldwin’s 37, 2004, 762 = Baldwin’s 34, 2003, 610, ex James C. Brindley collection. c) 3.89 9 London, British Museum (Kraay [1976: 377, no. 1062, pl. 62]; BMC Palestine, p. 177 no. 8 pl. XIX, 8), ex William Webster 1868. 5. Ashkelon drachms (Gitler and Tal III.4D), the owl standing to front. Barbarized style a) 4.05 6 Arnold Spaer collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 98, no. III.4Da]). b) 3.98 6 Leu 75, 1999, 1304. c) 3.75 6 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg Files). d) 3.61 6 London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 178 no. 10 pl. XIX, 10; Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 6]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 98, no. III.4Dc]), ex Sir Alexander Cunningham 1888. e) 3.49 3 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 98, no. III.4Db]). f) 3.33 2 London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 178 no. 11 pl. XIX, 11; Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 5]), ex William Webster 1868. 07Wolfgang.indd 155 12/28/10 9:36 PM 156 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert 6. Ashkelon obols (Gitler and Tal III.4O), the owl standing to front. Barbarized style a) 0.81 11 Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (Babelon [1893: 49, no. 333, pl. viii, fig. 10, and 1901– 1932: II 2, no. 1042, pl. CXXIII, 18]; Babelon [1930: 100, no. 2890, pl. CVII]). b) 0.79 9 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 98, no. III.4Oa]). c) 0.77 6 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 98, no. III.4Ob]). d) 0.73 1 London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 178, no. 12, pl. XIX, 12; Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 7]). e) 0.71 6 Leu 75, 1999, 1305. f) 0.65 ? Turin?, cast in Winterthur (“B.T.” Leo Mildenberg files). g) 0.64 ? Peus 376, 2003, 555 = Peus 372, 2002, 581. 7. Ashkelon obols (Gitler and Tal III.5O), the owl standing to front. Barbarized style a) 0.68 4 Jay Galst collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 100 no. III.5Oa]) = Leu 72, 1998, 346. Bare-headed Athena Group (Ashkelon) 8. Ashkelon drachms (Gitler and Tal III.6D) a) 3.77 12 Private collection (Mildenberg [1998a: pl. XX, 17]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 100, no. III.6Da]). 9. Ashkelon drachms (Gitler and Tal III.7D) a) 3.80 7 Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum (Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 40]) [holed]. b) 3.75 12 Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority (Mildenberg [1998a: pl. XX, 16]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 100, no. III.7Da]). c) 3.70 ? Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum (Leo Mildenberg files) 10. Ashkelon obols (Gitler and Tal III.6O) a) 0.59 9 Abraham Sofaer collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 100, no. III.6Oa]). b) 0.55 12 Tel Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum K-505.91 (Gitler and Tal [2006: 100 no. III.6Ob]). 11. Ashkelon obols (Gitler and Tal III.7O) a) 0.72 12 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 100, no. III.7Oa]). 12. Ashkelon obols (Gitler and Tal III.9O) a) 0.77 3 Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1043, pl. CXXIII, 19]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 102, no. III.9Oc]). b) 0.75 3 New York, ANS 1944.100.62650 (SNG ANS 6, 25). c) 0.74 9 Madrid, Museo Arqueológico Nacional 4/20–4904/6–7 (Leo Mildenberg files). d) 0.70 10 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 102, no. III.9Oe]). e) 0.68 9 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 102, no. III.9Oa]). g) 0.67 12 Berlin, Münzkabinett (Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 22]), ex Arthur Löbbecke 1906. h) 0.66 12 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 102, no. III.9Od]). i) 0.66 3 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files; Gitler and Tal [2006: 102, no. III.9Ob]). k) 0.65 3 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files), ex Gustav Philipsen (Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 24]). l) 0.60 11 London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 177, no. 4, pl. XIX, 4), ex William Webster 1868. m) 0.56 3 Arnold Spaer collection 34 (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 73540/1), acquired 1981. 07Wolfgang.indd 156 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 157 Ayin-Theta Group (Gaza) 13. Gaza drachms (Gitler and Tal V.10D), among them some contemporary forgeries a) 4.50 9 Jerusalem, Hebrew University 3237 (Leo Mildenberg files). b) 4.26 1 Jerusalem, Israel Museum 8974 (Leo Mildenberg files) [obv. die blurred]. c) 4.25 2 Arnold Spaer collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 86905/6). d) 4.22 ? Peus 315, 1986, 170. e) 4.18 10 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 122, no. V.10De]). f) 4.04 8 Leu 72, 1998, 349. g) 4.01 9 [3] [overstruck?]. h) 4.00 ? Jerusalem, Israel Museum 763 (Leo Mildenberg files). i) 3.99 11 London, British Museum 1934–9–3–1. k) 3.80 5 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 37506/7). l) 3.80 ? CNG 43, 1997, 769 = CNG 40, 1996, 1083. m) 3.77 9 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 83333/4). n) 3.67 9 [2] [test cut]. o) 3.66 6 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files). p) 3.63 8 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 122, no. V.10Dd]). q) 3.36 9 [4] [small test cut]. r) 3.27 9 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 122, no. V.10Db]) = Leu 75, 1999, 1309 [plated, rev. test cut]. s) 3.16 7 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 29233/4; Gitler and Tal [2006: 122, no. V.10Da]). t) ? ? Arnold Spaer collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 85803/4). u) ? ? Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 73508/9). v) ? ? Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 122, no. V.10Df]). 14. Gaza obols (Gitler and Tal V.10O) a) 0.74 4 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 122, no. V.10Ob]). b) 0.68 ? Arnold Spaer collection 16 (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 73366/7), acquired 1972 [obv. totally blurred]. c) 0.64 4 Jerusalem, Israel Museum 4654 (Leo Mildenberg files). d) 0.63 10 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 122, no. V.10Oa]) = Sternberg 24, 1990, 169. e) 0.61 ? MMAG FPL 395, 1977, 71. f) 0.55 10 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 122, no. V.10Oc]). g) ? 10 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files). 15. Gaza hemiobols (Gitler and Tal V.10HO) a) 0.44 9 Jerusalem, Israel Museum 4652 (Leo Mildenberg files). b) 0.41 10 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 122, no. V.10HOa]). c) 0.35 7 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 122, no. V.10HOb]). d) 0.34 3 New York, ANS 1944.100.62648(SNG ANS 6, 21). e) 0.33 ? Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 73514/5). f) 0.31 10 Jerusalem, Israel Museum 4653 (Leo Mildenberg files). g) ? ? Arnold Spaer collection (Leo Mildenberg files). 07Wolfgang.indd 157 12/28/10 9:36 PM 158 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert Mem Group (Gaza?) 16. Gaza (?) drachms (Gitler and Tal V.25D) a) 3.99 1 CNG 78, 2008, 963. b) 3.97 3 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 130, no. V.25Dc]). c) 3.97 11 CNG 84, 2010, 734. d) 3.94 ? Berk 165, 2009, 223 [rev. Aramaic letter on right?]. e) 3.94 3 Leu 74, 1998, 267. f) 3.93 1 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 130, no. V.25De]). g) 3.92 6 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006:130, no. V.25Da]). h) 3.92 9 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 130, no. V.25Dd]). i) 3.91 1 Triton 10, 2007, 408. k) 3.80 11 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 130, no. V.25Db]). II. “Philistian-styled” Coins Bastard Group I (Gaza) 17. Gaza drachms (Gitler and Tal V.1D), the owl with parrot head a) 4.19 12 Jerusalem, Israel Museum 14925 (Gitler and Tal [2006: 114, no. V.1Da]). b) 3.89 5 Alan Casden collection (Samuels, Rynearson, and Meshorer [2000: 152 no. 3]; Leo Mildenberg Files). c) 3.88 11 Berlin, Münzkabinett (Leo Mildenberg files; Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 37]), ex Arthur Löbbecke 1906 [rev. blurred]. d) 3.76 3 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 114, no. V.1Dc]). e) 3.75 2 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 114 no. V.1Dd]). f) 3.16 11 Berlin, Münzkabinett (Leo Mildenberg files; Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 38]), ex Arthur Löbbecke 1906 [obv. blurred]. g) ? ? Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 114, no. V.1Db]). h) ? ? Arnold Spaer collection 43 (Leo Mildenberg files, photo 73358/9). i) ? ? Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 73530/1). k) ? ? Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 73528/9). 18. Gaza obols (Gitler and Tal V.1O), the owl with parrot head a) 0.73 12 Arnold Spaer collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 73560/1), acquired 1969. b) 0.65 12 Tel Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum K-6837 (Leo Mildenberg files). c) 0.64 ? Sternberg 21, 1988, 173. d) 0.57 6 Madrid, Museo Arqueológico Nacional 2/18, 4904/2–3 (Leo Mildenberg files). e) 0.56 ? Naville 5, 1923, 2852. f) 0.53 9 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 114, no. V.1Ob]). g)? 6 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files). h)? ? Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 114, no. V.1Oa]). i) ? ? Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files). Bastard Group II (Gaza) 19. Gaza drachms (Gitler and Tal V.3D), the owl between ears of corn a) 4.04 3 Glendining 5 March 1970, 132 = Hess-Leu 28, 1965, 205. 07Wolfgang.indd 158 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 159 b) 4.02 2 c) 3.92 d) 3.91 e) 3.88 f) 3.88, g) 3.85 h) 3.79 ? 12 9 6 12 6 i) 3.76 k) 3.73 l) 3.71 m) 3.70 n) 3.70 o) 3.64 p) 3.60 q) 3.40 r) 3.30 s) ? t) ? 6 ? 8 6 ? 6 3 2 ? ? ? Leu 75, 1999, 1306 = Hess-Leu 12 Apr. 1962, 368 = Naville 5, 1923, 2851 = London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 176, no. 2, pl. XIX, 2; Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 12]), ex William Webster 1868. MMAG FPL 95, 1950, 1 = Naville 1, 1921, 3073. New York, ANS 1944.100.62655 (SNG ANS 6, 31; Gitler and Tal [2006: 116, no. V.3Da]). Hess-Leu 36, 1968, 335 = Hirsch 34, 1914, 511. Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files), ex Superior 31 May 1988 = Schulman 286, 1982, 1561 = Schulman 254, 1971, 553. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, ex Sir Alexander Cunningham 1889. Tell Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum (Leo Mildenberg Files), ex Moosberg = MMAG FPL 166, 1957, 17 = Hirsch 21, 1908 (Consul Eduard Friedrich Weber collection), 4324. London, British Museum 1906-11-3-2623 (Leo Mildenberg files). Baldwin’s 34, 2003, 612. London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 176 no. 1 pl. XIX, 1; Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 11]), ex William Webster 1868. Tell Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum (Leo Mildenberg files). Schlessinger 13, 1935 (Ermitage, St. Petersburg), 1507. Berlin, Münzkabinett (Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 10]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 116, no. V.3Db]), ex Arthur Löbbecke 1906. Berlin, Münzkabinett (Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 8]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 116, no. V.3Dd]), ex Arthur Löbbecke 1906. Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (Babelon [1893: no. 326, pl. 8, 6; and 1901–1932: II 2, no. 1033, pl. CXXIII, 10]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 116, no. V.3Dc]). Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1034, pl. CXXIII, 11]). MMAG FPL 177, 1958, 40. Egger 46, 1914, 2608. 20. Gaza obols (Gitler and Tal V.4O), the owl between ears of corn a) 0.72 12 Madrid, Museo Arqueológico Nacional 5/21, 4904/8–9 (Leo Mildenberg files). b) 0.72 11 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 116, no. V.4Oa]). c) 0.65 7 Tel Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum K-6840 (Leo Mildenberg files). d) 0.64 9 London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 177 no. 5 pl. XIX, 5; Svoronos [1926: pl. 110, 15), ex William Webster 1868. e) 0.60 ? MMAG 25, 1962, 525 = Hesperia Art Bulletin 24, 54. f) ? 9 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 116, no. V.4Ob]). Jordan and Beni �asan Hoards Group (Gaza) 21. Gaza drachms (Gitler and Tal VI.1D) a) 4.28 12 Abraham Sofaer collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 132, no. VI.1Da]). b) 4.20 8 Brussels, Bibliothèque Nationale (Naster [1959: 292, no. 1757]), ex Schlumberger Collection. c) 4.19 ? Once in the Sir Herman Weber collection (Forrer [1929: 799, no. 8119, pl. 299]), ex Arthur Sambon 1900. d) 4.19 ? Berk 163, 2009, 154 = MMAG 25, 1962, 523. 07Wolfgang.indd 159 12/28/10 9:36 PM 160 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert e) 4.11 f) 4.08 g) 4.08 h) 4.04 12 ? ? 6 i) 4.03 12 k) 4.00 ? l) 4.00 ? m) 3.99 12 n) 3.98 ? o) 3.93 ? p) 3.91 9 q) 3.90 r) 3.85 s) 3.82 t) 3.82 u) 3.75 v) 3.55 w) 3.55 x) 3.19 y) 3.08 z) ? 9 8 7 6 ? 9 ? ? 3 ? Leu 54, 1992, 178 = Leu 2, 1972, 296. Once in the Sir Herman Weber collection (Forrer [1929: 799, no. 8118, pl. 299]). MMAG 25, 1962, 522. Glendining 21 Feb. 1961, 2682 = SNG Lockett 3233 = Naville 5, 1923, 2804 = Ratto 26 Apr. 1909, 5249. Leu 75, 1999, 1307. Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1065 pl. CXXIV, 14]). Sternberg 26, 1992, 122 [rev. test cut at 3 o’clock]. New York, ANS 1944.100.62659 (SNG ANS 6, 35) = Hirsch 24, 1909, 3067. Baldwin’s 34, 2003, 614. Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1066, pl. CXXIV, 15]). Berlin, Münzkabinett, ex Prokesch-Osten 1875 (this is not Gitler and Tal [2006: 33, fig. 3.5, 1]). Jerusalem, Israel Museum 2363 (Leo Mildenberg files; Gitler and Tal [2006:132, no. VI.1Dc]). Gemini 6, 2009, 268, ex Stephen Gerson collection. Copenhagen, National Museum (SNG Cop. Palestine 43), acquired 1860. New York, ANS 1944.100.62658 (SNG ANS 6, 34). Superior 10 Dec. 1988 (Moreira collection), 2056 = MMAG 32, 1966, 285. London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 178, no. 14, pl. XIX, 14), ex William Webster 1868. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum (Kraay and Moorey [1968: 191, no. 89]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 65, fig. 3.22]), ex Jordan hoard (IGCH 1482). Once in the Robert Jameson collection (Jameson [1913: 130 no. 1779]), ex Gustave Duruflé. CNG 84, 2010, 735 [rev. test cut at 10 o’clock]. Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 132 no. VI.1Db]) [obv. graffito]. 22. Gaza drachms (Gitler and Tal VI.2D) a) 4.00 3 London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 178 no. 13 pl. XIX, 13), ex Rollin et Feuardent 1906. b) 3.97 ? Gorny 84, 1997, 5414 = Gorny 81, 1997, 419 = Gorny 78, 1996, 289 = Gorny 73, 1995, 221. c) 3.85 ? Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1067, pl. CXXIV, 16]) [rev. test cut at 8 o’clock]. d) ? ? Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 134, no. VI.2Da]) e) ? 7 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 134, no. VI.2Db]) [rev. test cut at 11 o’clock]. 23. Gaza drachms (Gitler and Tal –, types as VI.3O) a) 3.04 2 CNG 75, 2007, 527. 24. Gaza drachms (Gitler and Tal VI.4D) a) 3.55 4 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 134, no. VI.4Da]). 25. Gaza obols (Gitler and Tal VI.1O), perhaps irregular 07Wolfgang.indd 160 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 161 a) 0.76 b) 0.54 c) 0.52 3 12 ? Stephen Gerson collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 132, no. VI.1Oa]). Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 132, no. VI.1Ob]). Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum, ex Beni �asan hoard (IGCH 1651). 26. Gaza obols (Gitler and Tal VI.2O) a) 0.59 6 Jerusalem, Israel Museum 2364 (Gitler and Tal [2006: 134, no. VI.2Oa]). b) 0.50 ? Schweizerischer Bankverein 5, 1979, 311. 27. Gaza obols (Gitler and Tal VI.5O) a) 0.73 11 London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 179 no. 18 pl. XIX, 18), ex William Webster 1868. b) 0.72 8 London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 179 no. 17 pl. XIX, 17), ex William Webster 1868. c) 0.66 2 London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 179 no. 19 pl. XIX, 19), ex William Webster 1868. d) 0.65 3 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 136, no. VI.5Oa]). e) 0.60 12 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 136, no. VI.5Ob]). 28. Gaza obols (Gitler and Tal VI.6O), perhaps irregular a) 0.67 12 Tel Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum K-6841 (Gitler and Tal [2006: 136, no. VI.6Oa]) = MMAG 25, 1962, 527. 29. Gaza obols (Gitler and Tal VI.7O), obv. janiform head like with V.3D etc. a) 0.75 6 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 136, no. VI.7Ob]). b) 0.68 6 Abraham Sofaer collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 136, no. VI.7Oa]). c) 0.64 6 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 136, no. VI.7Oc]). d) 0.53 9 Copenhagen, National Museum (SNG Cop. Palestine 44), ex E.J. Seltman 1910. 30. Gaza obols (Gitler and Tal VI.8O), obv. janiform head like with V.3D etc. a) 0.77 ? Sternberg 33, 1997, 116. b) 0.73 6 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 136, no. VI.8Oa]). c) 0.68 ? Baldwin’s 34, 2003, 616 = Leu-MMAG 3 Dec. 1965 (Niggeler collection), 505. d) 0.63 10 London, British Museum (BMC Palestine, p. 179 no. 20 pl. XIX, 20), ex William Webster 1868. e) 0.63 6 New York, ANS 1944.100.62660 (SNG ANS 6, 36). f) 0.60 3 Jay Galst collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 136, no. VI.8Ob]). g) 0.59 ? MMAG 25, 1962, 528. Bes Head Group (Gaza) 31. Gaza drachms (Gitler and Tal VI.13D) a) 4.05 10 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 138, no. VI.13Dc]) [rev. test cut at 1 o’clock]. b) 4.00 9 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files) [rev. test cut at 1 o’clock]. c) 3.99 8 Lanz 24, 1983, 391 [rev. test cut at 11 o’clock]. d) 3.91 9 Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1060, pl. CXXIV, 9]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 138, no. VI.13Da]). e) 3.91 6 Alan Casden collection (Samuels, Rynearson, and Meshorer [2000: 152 no. 4]). [rev. test cut at 5 o’clock]. 07Wolfgang.indd 161 12/28/10 9:36 PM 162 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert f) 3.85 g) 3.85 h) 3.81 i) 3.61 k) 3.60 l) 3.58 m) 3.51 n) 3.47 o) 3.45 p) 3.09 q) 2.76 r) ? s) ? 12 4 12 9 6 5 5 7 10 6 ? ? ? Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 138, no. VI.13Db]) [rev. test cut at 1 o’clock]. Leu 72, 1998, 353 [rev. test cuts at 7 and 12 o’clock]. London, British Museum 1936–6–6–16 (Robinson [1937: 254, pl. 32, 32]), ex Abu Shusheh hoard (IGCH 1507) [rev. test cut at 12 o’clock]. Private collection (Leo Mildenberg Files) [obv. re-worked test cut at 3 o’clock, rev. test cut at 12 o’clock]. Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 138, no. VI.13Dd]) [rev. test cut at 7 o’clock]. Schweizerischer Bankverein 5, 1979, 309 = Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (Babelon [1893: 51, no. 345 pl. 8, 20]). Arnold Spaer collection 197 (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 73418/9) [rev. test cut at 11 o’clock]. CNG 84, 2010, 736 [shallow cut on rev.]. Leu 75, 1999, 1311. London, British Museum 1940.0605.7 [rev. test cut at 12 o’clock]. Tel Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum = NFA 7, 1979, 303 [rev. test cut at 6 o’clock]. Once in the J.P. Six collection, cast at Winterthur (Leo Mildenberg files) [rev. test cut at 11/12 o’clock]. Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 73420/1) [rev. test cut at 9 o’clock]. 32. Gaza drachms (Gitler and Tal VI.14D) a) 4.00 12 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 140, no. VI.14Dc]) [rev. test cut at 12 o’clock]. b) 3.96 9 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 140, no. VI.14Db]) [rev. test cut at 7 o’clock]. c) 3.90 12 Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1059, pl. CXXIV, 8]; Gitler and Tal [2006: 140, no. VI.14Da]), ex Qasr Naba hoard (IGCH 1493) d) ? ? Berlin, Münzkabinett. e) ? ? Hirsch 229, 2003, 2013 [rev. test cut at 1 o’clock]. 33. Gaza obols (Gitler and Tal VI.13O) a) 0.73 6 Tel Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum K6839 (Leo Mildenberg files). b) 0.72 3 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 140, no. VI.13Od]). c) 0.71 3 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006:140, no. VI.13Oa]). d) 0.71 2 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006:140, no. VI.13Oc]). e) 0.60 11 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files). f) 0.59 12 Jerusalem, Hebrew University 3221 (Gitler and Tal [2006: 140, no. VI.13Ob]). g) 0.57 5 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 83200). h) 0.56 11 Leu 75, 1999, 1312. i) ? ? Paris, Cabinet des Médailles, ex Henri Seyrig collection (Leo Mildenberg files). k) ? ? Arnold Spaer collection 98 (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 73412/3). l) ? 10 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 140, no. VI.13Oe]). 34. Gaza obols (Gitler and Tal VI.14O) a) 0.92 5 Gil Chaya collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 142, no. VI.14Oa]). 07Wolfgang.indd 162 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 163 b) 0.74 c) 0.73 5 ? d) 0.65 12 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files). Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 142, no. VI.14Ob]) = Baldwin’s 37, 2004, 765 = Baldwin’s 34, 2003, 618, ex James C. Brindley collection = MMAG FPL 395, 1977, 79. Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files). Die-link Group (Ashdod) 35. Ashdod drachms (Gitler and Tal II.10D) a) 3.18 3 New York, ANS 1944.100.62663 (SNG ANS 6, 40; Gitler and Tal [2006: 88, no. II.10Da; and 2009: 23f., no. 2a, pl. 2]) = Cahn 71, 1931, 575, ex Nouri Bey collection (Leo Mildenberg files). 36. Uninscribed drachms (Gitler and Tal XIV.16D) a) 3.38 1 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files; Gitler and Tal [2006: 196, no. XIV.16Db; and 2009: 24, no. 2b, pl. 2). b) 3.25 3 Baldwin’s 37, 2004, 763 = Baldwin’s 34, 2003, 611 = Leu 54, 1992, 179. c) 3.15 3 Leu 83, 2002, 254. d) ? ? Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 196, no. XIV.16Da]). 37. Uninscribed drachms (Gitler and Tal XVI.22D) a) 3.30 8 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 228, no. XVI.22Da; and 2009: 24, no. 2f pl. 2]). 38. Uninscribed drachms (Gitler and Tal XVII.2D) a) 3.38 2 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 232, no. XVII.2Da]). b) 3.36 ? Sternberg 34, 1998, 344. c) 3.22 ? Berk 165, 2009, 224. d) 3.18 3 Arnold Spaer collection 129 (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 76920/1). e) 3.10 7 Tel Aviv, Eretz Israel Museum K6843 (Leo Mildenberg files; Gitler and Tal [2006: 232, no. XVII.2Dc; and 2009: 24, no. 2d pl. 2]). f) 3.00 12 Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 83345/6) [“rev. top an alef”]. g) 2.98 11 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 232, no. XVII.2Db]). h) 2.90 ? Gil Chaya collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 87830/1). 39. Uninscribed drachms (Gitler and Tal XVII.3D) a) 3.42 11 Jerusalem, Israel Museum 8975 (Leo Mildenberg files). b) 3.41 2 Jay Galst collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 232, no. XVII.3Da]). c) 3.40 3 Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 232, no. XVII.3Dc]). d) 3.34 ? Leu 72, 1998, 344. e) 3.33 12 Herb Kreindler collection (Leo Mildenberg files). f) 3.31 ? CNG 66, 2004, 722. g) 3.30 4 Berlin, Münzkabinett, ex Imhoof-Blumer collection. h) 3.30 3 R. Deutsch 27 Dec. 1993 (Leo Mildenberg files) [“uncleaned”]. i) 3.29 10 CNG 75, 2007, 526 [rev. test cut at 9 o’clock]. k) 3.19 ? Schweizerischer Bankverein 5, 1979, 310. l) 3.16 ? CNG 64, 2003, 477. 07Wolfgang.indd 163 12/28/10 9:36 PM 164 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert m) 3.07 12 n) 2.91 o) 2.90 p) 2.90 q) 2.65 r) 2.34 s) ? t) ? u) ? v) ? 6 3 2 ? 12 ? ? 3 ? Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 232, no. XVII.3Dd; and 2009: 24, no. 2c, pl. 2]). Arnold Spaer collection (Leo Mildenberg files, photo Radovan 73588/9), bought in 1982. Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files). Kovacs 18 May 1990, 168 (Leo Mildenberg files) [rev. test cut at 6 o’clock]. CNG 67, 2004, 927 = Baldwin’s 37, 2004, 751 = Schweizerischer Bankverein 5, 1979, 310 [rev. test cut at 12 o’clock]. Private collection (Leo Mildenberg files) [rev. test cut at 3 o’clock]. Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 232, no. XVII.3De]). Private collection (Gitler and Tal [2006: 232, no. XVII.3Db]). once Martin Huth collection (Leo Mildenberg files) = Berk 102, 1998, 293. Arnold Spaer collection 128 (Leo Mildenberg files). III. Comparanda Samaria 40. Samaria drachms (Meshorer and Qedar 28) a) 4.22 ? UBS 52, 2001, 125. b) 4.08 12 Private collection (Meshorer and Qedar [1999: 88, no. 28, pl. 5]). c) 4.05 4 Private collection, no. 42. d) 4.03 ? CNG 63, 2003, 746. e) 3.79 ? CNG 66, 2004, 709. 41. Samaria drachms (Meshorer and Qedar 34) a) 3.75 10 Private collection, no. 38 [obv. test cut]. b) 3.58 8 Gil Chaya collection (Meshorer and Qedar [1999: 89, no. 34, pl. 6]). c) 3.51 11 Leu 72, 1998, 1319. d) 3.50 ? Triton 1, 1997, 579. e) 3.32 12 CNG 84, 2010, 708 [overstruck by a Philistian mint, cf. Gitler and Tal XVIII.3D, but see above, Fig. 4]. 42. Samaria drachms (Meshorer and Qedar 61) a) 3.90 9 Private collection (Meshorer and Qedar [1999: 94, no. 61, pl. 10]). b) 3.89 9 Alan Casden collection (Samuels, Rynearson, and Mehorer [2000: 154 no. 18]). c) 3.42 ? Baldwin’s 34, 2003, 605. 43. Samaria drachms (Meshorer and Qedar 113) a) 4.26 10 New York, ANS 1944.100.62635 (SNG ANS 6, 5; Meshorer and Qedar [1999: 104, no. 113, pl. 16]), allegedly ex Cilician hoard (IGCH 1259). b) 3.86 ? Baldwin’s 34, 2003, 621. c) 3.72 2 Leu 83, 2002, 249. d) 3.27 ? Abraham Sofaer collection, no. A85. Edom 44. Edomite drachms (Gitler, Tal, and van Alfen [2007]), obv. ‘dome-shaped’ a) 4.32 ? New York, ANS 1998.134.2 (p. 55 no. 49). 07Wolfgang.indd 164 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 165 b) 4.26 c) 4.26 d) 4.2 e) 4.19 f) 4.18 g) 4.17 h) 4.16 i) 4.16 k) 4.13 l) 4.12 m) 4.11 n) 4.08 o) 4.07 p) 4.05 q) 4.01 r) 3.98 s) 3.95 t) 3.93 u) 3.86 v) 3.83 w) 3.83 x) 3.64 y) 3.49 z) 3.26 a’) 3.16 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Jonathan Rosen collection 18 (p. 55 no. 37). Private collection (p. 55 no. 41). Jerusalem, Israel Museum 26160 (p. 55 no. 42). New York, ANS 1944.134.4 (p. 55 no. 44). Jonathan Rosen collection 4 (p. 55 no. 39). Jonathan Rosen collection 16 (p. 55 no. 46). Jonathan Rosen collection 17 (p. 55 no. 58). Jonathan Rosen collection 28 (p. 55 no. 38). Jonathan Rosen collection 2 (p. 55 no. 51). Jonathan Rosen collection 24 (p. 55 no. 52). Jonathan Rosen collection 11 (p. 55 no. 35). Jonathan Rosen collection 6 (p. 55 no. 55). Jonathan Rosen collection 22 (p. 55 no. 47). Jonathan Rosen collection 8 (p. 55 no. 40). Jonathan Rosen collection 26 (p. 55 no. 54). Jerusalem, Israel Museum 26161 (p. 55 no. 50). New York, ANS 1944.100.62637 (p. 55 no. 43). Jonathan Rosen collection 23 (p. 55 no. 59). Jonathan Rosen collection 13 (p. 55 no. 45). New York, ANS 1998.134.9 (p. 55 no. 53). Jonathan Rosen collection 14 (p. 55 no. 57). New York, ANS 1998.134.8 (p. 55 no. 56). New York, ANS 1998.134.10 (p. 55 no. 48). Jonathan Rosen collection 20 (p. 55 no. 34). Jonathan Rosen collection 12 (p. 55 no. 36). Appendix 2: Hoards with Alleged Philistian Coins A. Hoards that can be dated with some precision I. Jordan, Hauran region, 1967 (IGCH 1482) Contents: 113 AR Burial: c. 445 BCE (Kraay, Mattingly, Sheedy, Chryssanthaki-Nagle), “about 450 or a little later” (Starr, Elayi), “450 environ” (Le Rider). One of the Levantine savings hoards comprising material from a wide range of Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean coastal mints, like the Asyut, Antilebanon and Elmalı hoards. The dating of the burial is based on the latest group of the Athenian tetradrachms and on a coin of Tyre. There is only one Philistian coin that is said to be derived from this hoard: a drachm of Gaza (Kraay and Moorey [1968: 191, no. 89] = Gitler and Tal [2006: 65, fig. 3.22, i.e., type VI.1D]). Unfortunately, Kraay was not sure that the coin that was submitted to his desk together with the other contents of the hoard really belonged to it. After having inspected the coin, Leo Mildenberg concluded that the Gaza drachm would be too worn for having been buried as early as c. 445 BCE. However, this is a vicious circle, for the date of the hoard’s burial cannot be determined otherwise than by the coins themselves. In fact, Gitler and Tal came to the conclusion that the appearance of the drachm in question is due to the poor silver alloy rather than to circulation. So they maintain “with a fair degree of certainty” that the coin forms an integral part 07Wolfgang.indd 165 12/28/10 9:36 PM 166 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert of the hoard, irrespective of the latter’s date of burial. References: E.J.P. Raven, Review of May, Abdera, NC 7th ser. VII (1967), p. 296; Kraay and Moorey (1968: 181–210); Starr (1970: 63, 81, 85, 88); Price and Waggoner (1975: 22); Kraay (1976: 287f.); Kagan (1987: 28); Mattingly (1989: 59–64 = 1996: 497–503); Mildenberg (1990: 143, n. 24 = 1998a: 84, n. 240); Elayi and Elayi (1993: 240f., no. LIII); Mattingly (1994: 8); Smith (1999: 105); Vismara (1999: 114–119); Augé (2000: 167f.); Nicolet-Pierre (2000a: 112, no. 6); Spier (2000: 371); Le Rider (2001: 171); Elayi and Elayi (2004: 618); Marcellesi (2003: 212f.); Gitler and Tal (2006: 65); Sheedy (2006: 148); Chryssanthaki-Nagle (2007: 56–58); Engels (2007: 78); W. Fischer-Bossert, Review of Gitler and Tal, ANS Magazine 6/2 (2007), p. 74; Flament (2007b: 198f.); Fischer-Bossert (2008a: 17, 26); Elayi and Elayi (2009: 203, 329). II. Ismailiya, 1983 Contents: 14+ AR Burial: c. 420/410. The Ismailiya hoard is referred to by Gitler and Tal three times: the spectacular tetradrachms III.1Ta and XV.1Ta and the drachm VII.1Db are said to “allegedly belong to a hoard found near Ismailiya”.112 A sample of the hoard was seen by several people in 1983, and a certain part of that sample, including the two tetradrachms, was sold at auction in 1998. By this opportunity some more specimens could be recorded. As is often the case, it cannot be said whether the coins recorded represent the whole hoard; they may well be just a parcel of it. As it is known so far, the contents of the hoard is as follows: 1. Athens a) Tetradrachm (weight unknown, 1 h). b) Tetradrachm (weight unknown, 6 h). c) Tetradrachm (weight unknown, 10 h). d) Tetradrachm (weight unknown, 3 h). e) Tetradrachm (weight unknown, 9 h). f) Tetradrachm (16.88 g, 4 h). g) Tetradrachm (17.00 g, 10 h). h) Tetradrachm (17.06 g, 8 h). 2. Aegina a) Stater (12.47 g, test cut on obverse). 3. Tyre a) Stater (13.65 g, 9 h) = Elayi and Elayi (2009: 50, no. 272, pl. 8) (obverse). 4. Ashkelon a) Tetradrachm (16.86 g, 12 h) = Gitler and Tal (2006: 96, no. III.1Ta); cf. Mildenberg (2000: 96, n. 19). 5. Philistian a) Tetradrachm (17.06 g, 10 h) = Gitler and Tal (2006: 212, no. XV.1Ta); cf. Mildenberg (2000: 96, n. 20). b) Drachm [10] (4.15 g, 11 h) = Gitler and Tal (2006: 148, no. VII.1Db). 6. Cyrene a) Hemidrachm (weight unknown), cf. BMC Cyrenaica, p. xxvi, no. 22a, pl. IV, 15. The deep scratches on both sides appear to be recent rather than ancient. 112. Gitler and Tal (2006: 96, 148, 212). For reasons of their related iconography, the two tetradrachms had been illustrated together in Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 40). 07Wolfgang.indd 166 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 167 The vast majority of the hoard’s coins are freshly preserved and thus cannot have been circulating for a long time. The same goes for the Aeginetan stater with the test cut, and the somewhat encrusted Athenian tetradrachms (No. a.2) and (No. a.5). More worn than the other coins is the Philistian drachm (No. e.2). It is not clear, however, whether the find must be strictly interpreted as a circulation hoard, the worn coins of which have to be dated earlier than the fresh ones. For instance, the Aeginetan stater is certainly one of the best preserved coins of the sample, but being struck before 431, it could be the second earliest coin nevertheless. Even more obvious is the incongruity with the Cyrene hemidrachm. Unless the Philistian drachm belongs to the earliest series of Philistian coins—the somewhat ‘severe’ style points to an early date indeed—the various states of wear do not give clues to the relative chronology of the issues in question. Turning to the coins themselves, we start with the hemidrachm of Cyrene. Being an outsider within the sample, it looks like an intrusion. In fact, the coin is not much worn. Based upon the evidence of the Asyut Hoard, the relevant issue can be dated c. 490–475 BCE though.113 So the coin would have been stored for five or six decades before being released to circulate with the other, mostly fresh, coins of the hoard. Secondly, the eight tetradrachms of Athens. They all belong to the standardized coinage issued during the second half of the fifth century, usually dated to 454–404 BCE.114 Since this output was as massive as it is monotonous, a die-study of it has not yet been started. The typological (rather than stylistic) divergencies recently described by Ch. Flament might not lead to a relative chronology of the issues, because such minute details are not only due to the development of style but to schools of traditions and the personal preferences of the engravers as well.115 It is fairly clear, however, that all eight tetradrachms may be called bona fide products of the Athenian mint; none of them have the slightest affinity to the styles of the known (or suspected) fifth century imitations of Athenian issues. While the Athenian tetradrachms can be dated just roughly, the Aeginetan and Tyrian staters become crucial for obtaining the date of burial. Both are as freshly preserved as the Athenian coins. The Aeginetan stater displays the tortoise and a compact reverse incuse; the type in question can be dated to c. 445–431 BCE.116 Staters of the same kind occurred among the coins of the Massyaf hoard (IGCH 1483) that was dated to 425/20 by Kraay and near to the end of the fifth century by the Elayis.117 There are several coin hoards from Greece proper closing with Aeginetan staters of the same type, but none of these hoards can be dated independently.118 The Tyrian stater has been attributed to a period covering the years 425–394, the coin in question belonging to the early part of that period, thus corroborating the date suggested by the Aeginetan stater.119 The Tyrian chronology is based here mainly on a hoard from Cilicia (IGCH 1256) that contained a late archaic tetradrachm of Syracuse, six Athenian tetradrachms of the 113. See Price and Waggoner (1975: 113, nos. 845ff.) (the unepigraphic issues being usually interpreted as being from 845ff.) the Cyrene mint). Furthermore, cf. Buttrey (1997: 13, no. 80). 114. See Kroll (1993: 6). 115. Flament (2007b: 61–117). 116. Milbank’s period V, cf. Robinson (1961: 111f.); Holloway (1971: 20); Kraay (1976: 47, pl. 6, 127); Nicolet-Pierre and Gjongecaj (1995: 290–295).. 117. Kraay and Moorey (1968: 210–235), on the Aeginetan staters mentioned see p. 214 nos. 50–53 pl. XXVI. Furthermore, see Geiser (1989: 43); Elayi and Elayi (1993: 241–245, no. LIV); Sheedy (2006: 148); Flament (2007b: 200). 118. Angistri CH 3.9 (c. 450 BCE); Myrina CH 5.11 (c. 440 BCE); Megalopolis CH 8.60 (c. 430 BCE), cf. SNG Delepierre 1825 in particular; Hollm CH 9.14 (late fifth century); Peloponnese CH 7.26 (c. 400 BCE). 119. Elayi and Elayi (2009: 338–345). 07Wolfgang.indd 167 12/28/10 9:36 PM 168 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert standardized style, a double shekel of Sidon and a shekel of Tyre:120 curiously enough, a find very similar to the Ismailiya Hoard—a bunch of Athenian and Phoenician coins together with an erratic old coin from an area far beyond. If some of the abbreviated kings’ names of the Tyrian coins of the period in question cannot be attributed with absolute certainty, the chronology of the Tyrian issues appears to be well established. To conclude: the hoard from Ismailiya might have been buried near the end of the fifth century. Along with some of the Athenian tetradrachms the Tyrian shekel is the latest coin, unless the two Philistian tetradrachms are slightly later. Considering the bewildering hemidrachm of Cyrene, the states of wear are hard to interpret. However, the date of the burial might be 420/10 rather than c. 400 BCE, unless the Aeginetic stater was stored at least twenty years before the bulk of the hoard was assembled. Anyway, the Philistian drachm (No. e.2) appears to be earlier than the two Philistian tetradrachms (Nos. d.1 and e.1). References: Two coins were mentioned by Mildenberg (2000: 96, n. 19–20) (Mildenberg did not yet know the hoard as a whole). Gitler and Tal (2006: 51). To be published by W. FischerBossert and H. Gitler, Israel Numismatic Research 5 (forthcoming). III. Delta, 1940 (IGCH 1650) Contents: 11 silver coins formerly in the Victor Adda collection, 2 of them with fused, obliterated types, 2 gashed, and 1 small cake ingot; 3 staters of Aegina; 1 drachm of ‘Sinope’; 1 fraction of Arados; 3 hemishekels of Sidon; 1 Philistian or Northwest Arabian didrachm (Robinson [1960: 35, no. 9 pl. 2] = Gitler and Tal [2006: 273, no. XXV.1DDa]). Two coins were sold at Christie’s (London) 8 Oct. 1985, (the Property of a Lady [Adda’s daughter]) 435–436. Burial: 375/0 BCE (Robinson), “schon tief im 4. Jh.” (Pfisterer), “la fin du Ve siècle” (Elayi), 420/10 (Gitler and Tal; author agrees). References: Robinson (1960: 33–36); Elayi and Elayi (1993: 289f., no. LXXIV); Pfisterer (2000: 91); Kroll (2001: 6); Elayi and Elayi (2004: 699); Gitler and Tal (2006: 65). IV. Syria, 1932 (IGCH 1485) Contents: 7 small change silver coins (drachms and fractions). Burial: c. 380 BCE (M�rkholm), “à la fin de la deuxième moitié du Ve siècle” (Elayi; author agrees). According to Henri Seyrig’s notes recently discussed by the Elayis, the hoard contained two third sigloi of Arwad, a sixteenth siglos of Sidon, and four Philistian coins (a drachm and three obols). All the Phoenician coins can be roughly attributed to fifth-century issues. So it would be most interesting to have a look at the Philistian coins. Unfortunately, while their weights are known, their types are not, and so the coins cannot be identified. The weights are as follows: a) Elayi 4: drachm (3.92 g) b) Elayi 5: obol (0.83 g) c) Elayi 6: obol (0.68 g) d) Elayi 7: obol (0.66 g) 120. The hoard was discussed by Diebolt and Nicolet-Pierre (1977); see the list p. 87 in particular; Geiser (1989: 43); The Pierre 1977); Elayi and Elayi (1993: 266, no. LXI); Flament (2007b: 191f.). Syracuse: Diebolt and Nicolet-Pierre (1977: pl. 26, 19) dies of Boehringer [1929: 157, no. 235]; on the dating of the relevant ‘Reihe X’ see Arnold-Biucchi [1990: 31 ff., 69]: “480/78–475”. Athens: Diebolt and Nicolet-Pierre (1977: pl. 25, 1. 5. 8. 9; 26, 15–16); cf. Flament (2007b: 191, n. 309, “Des représentants de nos groupes I.1, II.27, III.10, I.a, I.b, II.b, II.g, II.r”—strangely enough, six coins do represent eight groups, pl. I, 2. 6. XIII, 3. 7. XV, 7). Sidon: Diebolt and Nicolet-Pierre (1977: pl. 26,17); Elayi and Elayi (2004: 63, no. 240, ‘B = Abdamon?). Tyre: Diebolt and Nicolet-Pierre (1977: pl. 26, 18); Elayi and Elayi (2009: 48f., no. 254, nonepigraphic). 07Wolfgang.indd 168 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 169 References: Schlumberger (1953: 9, n. 1); Elayi and Elayi (1993: 246–48, no. LVII); Elayi and Elayi (2004: 698). V. Phoenicia, date unknown (IGCH 1491) Contents: 8 silver coins Burial: c. 350 BCE (M�rkholm), c. 370 BCE (Elayi; author agrees). There is little known about this hoard kept by the Hebrew University. According to the list O. M�rkholm published in IGCH, the hoard contains a tetradrachm of Athens, three fractions of Sidon, and three coins of the Philistians. The Athenian coin has been dated to the fifth century (it might have a frontal eye). The Sidonian fractions belong to a late issue of Ba’alšillem II (r. 407/2–372/68). The types of the Philistian coins have never been specified. References: Elayi and Elayi (1993: 206f., no. XLIV); Elayi and Elayi (2004: 160f., no. 1006; 167f., no. 1072 and 1080 [groupe IV.1.3.c]; 403, 697). VI. Beni �asan (250 km south of Cairo), 1903/04 (IGCH 1651 = CH 7.32) Contents: Pot hoard from excavations containing 82 silver coins (54 tetradrachms121 and 1 drachm of Athens (fifth century); 20 Sidon; 6 Tyre; 1 fraction of Gaza) and ingots, all shared by state collections: at Liverpool (Institute of Archaeology), London (British Museum), Toronto (Royal Ontario Museum), and Athens (Νομισματικό Μουσείο). Burial: c. 360 (Milne, Jenkins), c. 340 (Elayi; author agrees). There are slight divergencies as to the number of specimens. According to the research of the Elayis, the latest coins are two Sidonian double sigloi of satrap Mazday (year 2, i.e., 355 BCE) and ‘Abd-‘astart II (year 1?, i.e., 344 BCE), and a Tyrian stater of ‘Ozmilk (year 9, i.e., 341 BCE). Therefore the burial date suggested by Jenkins has been lowered by the Elayis to c. 340 BCE. The fraction of Gaza was described by Milne two times: “Obv., head r., hair tied back : rev., forepart of horse r. ; above, OZ : in square border of dots. One specimen: 8 grains” [= 0.52 g], and “fragment (la septième partie environ) de la pièce avec tête et protomé de cheval (Babelon, Achéménides no. 337).” The first description refers to the obol Gitler and Tal (2006: 132, no. VI.1O), and the second one to the drachm Gitler and Tal (2006: 132, no. VI.1D). References: Milne (1905a; 1905b; 1933); Robinson (1937c); Schlumberger (1953: 10, n. 26); Elayi and Elayi (1993: 290–295, no. LXXV); Kroll (2001: 6); Elayi and Elayi (2004: 699). VII. Nablus 1968 (IGCH 1504 = CH 9.440) Contents: 965+ silver coins. Burial: c. 338/7 BCE (Mildenberg, Spaer; author agrees), or 333/2 (Meshorer, Qedar). Along with the Samaria Hoard published in 1991 (CH 9.413),122 another hoard from the very same region surfaced on the Jerusalem market in 1968. This one was said to have been found right at or near Nablus, the modern West Bank town close to ancient Samaria. Although it has not been published, the Nablus hoard is known to have been buried c. 15 years later than the Samaria hoard. It contained a large range of Phoenician coins along with pseudo-Athenian tetradrachms and quite a few coins (or mere fragments of coins) from the northern coast of the Black Sea (1 Amisos; 2 Sinope). Several of those 737 specimens that at first sight appeared to be unrecorded types of Cilician coinage turned out to be types of the local Samarian and, perhaps, even Philistian coinages. The whole range of them is not yet known. Here are the contents as far as can be gleaned from the catalogue literature: 121. According to A.J. Evans, the Athenian tetradrachms might have been struck in Egypt, cf. Milne (1933: 120). 122. Meshorer and Qedar (1991: 65–80). 07Wolfgang.indd 169 12/28/10 9:36 PM 170 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert 1. Sidon a) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1210 (0.72 g, 3 h): 1/16 shekel = Elayi and Elayi (2004: 144 f., no. 901). b) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1211 (0.21 g, 4 h): 1/32 shekel = Elayi and Elayi (2004: 221, no. 1462). c) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1212 (0.66 g, 3 h): 1/16 shekel = Elayi and Elayi (2004: 290f., no. 1921). d) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1213 (0.82 g, 2 h): 1/16 shekel (satrap Mazday) = Elayi and Elayi (2004: 315 no. 2037). e) Sternberg 22, 1989, 136 (0.77 g): 1/16 shekel = Elayi and Elayi (2004: 320, no. 2069). f) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1214 (0.80 g, 12 h): 1/16 shekel (satrap Mazday) = Elayi and Elayi (2004: 321f., no. 2079). 2. Tyre (“93 didrachms”) a) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1215 (0.69 g, 6 h): 1/16 shekel = Elayi and Elayi (2009: 200, no. 1812). b) Sternberg 22, 1989, 137 (0.55 g): 1/16 shekel = Elayi and Elayi (2009: 65, no. 434). 3. Samaria a) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1221 (0.57 g, 7 h): obol, cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 83, no. 4). b) Oxford (0.55 g): Obol (ΒΑΓΑΒΑΤΑΣ) = Ashmolean Museum, Report of the Visitors (1969– 70), p. 41 pl. XII, 2 [rev.]; Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 83, no. 4). c) Sternberg 22, 1989, 143 (0.55 g): obol (ΒΑΓΑΒΑΤΑΣ), cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 83, no. 4). d) Oxford (0.62 g, 7 h): obol = Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 84, no. 5). e) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1222 (0.71 g, 2 h): obol (B[agaba]t), cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 84, no. 6). f) Oxford (0.57 g): obol (B[agaba]t) = Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 84, no. 6). g) Leu 38, 1986, 157 (0.80 g, 4 h): obol, cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 84, no. 6). h) Sternberg 22, 1989, 141 (0.49 g): (B[agaba]t), cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 84, no. 6). i) CNG 66, 2004, 708 = Sternberg 24, 1990, 148 (0.80 g): obol, cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 84, no. 6). j) Oxford (0.23 g, 12 h): hemiobol = Ashmolean Museum, Report of the Visitors (1969–70), p. 41 pl. XII, 3; Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 85, no. 11). k) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1223 (0.87 g, 5 h): obol, cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 85, no. 13). l) Oxford (0.76 g): obol = Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 85, no. 13). m) Sternberg 22, 1989, 140 (0.69 g): obol (BDY�BL), cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 85, no. 14). n) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1224 (0.77 g, 1h): obol (BDY�BL), cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 86, no. 15) o) Oxford (0.68 g): obol (BDY�BL) = Ashmolean Museum, Report of the Visitors (1969–70), p. 41 pl. XII, 5 [rev]; Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 86, no. 15). p) Oxford (0.77 g): obol (YHW‘NH) = Ashmolean Museum, Report of the Visitors (1969–70), p. 41 pl. XII, 1 [obv]; Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 90, no. 40). q) Sternberg 22, 1989, 142 (0.75 g): obol (YHW‘NH), cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 90, no. 40). r) Sternberg 22, 1989, 145 (0.82 g): obol (‘BD’L), cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 94, no. 59). s) Oxford (0.33 g, 12 h): hemiobol = Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 99, no. 84). t) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1220 (0.71 g, 12 h): obol (satrap Mazday), cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 102, no. 100). u) Oxford (0.78 g): obol (satrap Mazday) = Ashmolean Museum, Report of the Visitors (1969– 07Wolfgang.indd 170 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 171 70), p. 41 pl. XII, 4 [rev.]; Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 102, no. 100). v) Leu 38, 1986, 158 (0.73 g, 2 h): obol (satrap Mazday), cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 102, no. 100) w) Leu 72, 1998, 342 = Leu 45, 1988, 279 (0.82 g, 1 h): obol (satrap Mazday), cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 102, no. 100). x) Sternberg 22, 1989, 144 (0.74 g): obol (satrap Mazday), cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 102, no. 100). y) Oxford (0.37 g): Hemiobol = Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 102, no. 101). z) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1225 (0.62 g, 4 h): obol, cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 108, no. 134). a’) Oxford (0.74 g): obol = Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 108, no. 134); Fried (2003: 79, pl. V, 4). b’) London, British Museum (0.22 g, 1 h): Hemiobol = Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 119, no. 197). c’) Private coll. (0.39 g): hemiobol = Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 121, no. 206). d’) A. Sofaer coll. (0.50 g): obol = Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 122, no. 213). e’) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1218 (0.54 g, 2 h): obol, cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 122, no. 214). f ’) A. Sofaer coll. (0.57 g): obol = Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 122, no. 216). g’) SNG Cop. Suppl. 1219 (0.84 g, 2 h): obol, cf. Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 123, no. 219). h’) A. Sofaer coll. (0.87 g): obol = Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 123, no. 219). 4. Ashkelon a) New York, ANS 1969.158.4 SNG ANS 6, 26 (0.55 g, 11 h): obol, cf. Gitler and Tal (2006: 104, no. III.15O). 5. Gaza a) Sternberg 22, 1989, 147 (0.63 g): obol, cf. Gitler and Tal (2006: 142, VI.16O). 6. Pseudo-Athenian coins without ethnic a) [15] (4.22 g, 7 h): drachm. b) New York, ANS 1969.158.1; SNG ANS 6, 18 (0.80 g, 9 h): obol. c) New York, ANS 1969.158.2; SNG ANS 6, 19 (0.74 g, 12 h): obol. d) New York, ANS 1969.158.3; SNG ANS 6, 22 (0.86 g, 12 h): obol. e) New York, ANS 1969.157.3; SNG ANS 6, 23 (0.66 g, 9 h): obol. f) Oxford, denomination not specified = Ashmolean Museum, Report of the Visitors (1969– 70), p. 41 “two local imitations with Athenian types” g) Oxford, denomination not specified = Ashmolean Museum, Report of the Visitors (1969– 70), p. 41 References: ANS Annual Report (1969), p. 10; Ashmolean Museum, Report of the Visitors (1969–70), p. 41 pl. XII, 1–5; Elayi and Elayi (1993: 231–239, no. LI); Mildenberg (1996: 124; 1998a: 29, n. 124; 55, n. 11; 2000: 92f.); Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 71); Nicolet-Pierre (2000: 112, no. 7); Fried (2003: 79); Elayi and Elayi (2009: 219f.); Spaer (2009). VIII. Qasr Naba in Syria, between 1922 and 1967 (IGCH 1493 = CH 9.425) Contents: 30 small change silver coins from Sidon, Byblos, and Gaza. The hoard has been dispersed. Burial: c. 340 BCE (M�rkholm), “à la fin de la période perse” (Elayi). According to the Elayis, the IGCH editors were wrong in ascribing a coin of the satrap Mazday to the hoard. The piece from Byblos can be attributed to king ‘Ainel;123 it is sufficient for bring123. Cf. Berve (1926: 150, no. 299). 07Wolfgang.indd 171 12/28/10 9:36 PM 172 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert Figure 9a-d: four coins of hoard no. X ing the date of the burial down to 333/2 BCE. The drachm from Gaza (Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, 657f., no. 1059, pl. 124, 8] = Gitler and Tal [2006: no. VI.14Da]) belongs to the “Philistianstyled” group. Due to its state of wear, it cannot have been circulating for a long time. References: Elayi and Elayi (1993: 137–139, no. XXIV; 2004: 696). IX. Near Aleppo, Syria 1989 (CH 8.158) Contents: 162+ silver coins from Athens, Sinope, Cyzicus, Ephesus, an Asia Minor satrapal mint, Tarsus (satraps Datames and Mazday), Hierapolis-Bambyce, Tyre, Levantine pseudoAthenian mints, Gaza (?), and Memphis. Dispersed on the market. Burial: c. 333/2 BCE (Price). A hoard from the years of Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire. One of the pseudoAthenian tetradrachms has an ‘ayin on the reverse and thus might have been issued by the Gaza mint.124 Having a frontal eye Athena on the obverse, the coin could belong to the type Gitler and Tal (2006: no. V.7T). References: Price (1993) and S. Hurter, review of Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 73 (1994), p. 198f; Elayi and Elayi (1993: 246, no. LVI); Nicolet-Pierre (2000: 115, n.18f.); van Alfen (2002a). X. Unknown findspot, late 2009 Contents: 20+ AR Burial: between c. 350/40 BCE and c. 320 BCE. This hoard of Philistian and Northwest Arabian coins was dispersed on the market in winter 2009/2010. Four pseudo-Athenian drachms were recorded, all of them having Athena profileeyed (pi-style), two of them presumptive products of the Gaza mint.125 These imitations cannot have been struck before c. 350/40 BCE,126 and Alexander’s conquest of Gaza provides a terminus post quem non for the minting of any Gaza coin. All four coins are not much worn, the Gaza (?) coins being slightly better preserved than the Arabian ones. If the coins in question had been issued by the Gaza mint, all the four coins are unlikely to have had been circulating for more than a decade after Gaza’s fall in 332 BCE. A pseudo-Athenian mint is not likely to have existed within the borders of Alexander’s empire anyway. a) Gaza (?), drachm (mem on Athena’s cheek; 4.23 g; Fig. 9a); cf. Gitler and Tal (2006: V.25D). b) Gaza (?), drachm (obverse without cheek letter, but the same reverse die as previous; 4.15 g; Fig. 9b). 124. Price (1993: 34, no. 42, pl. IX); van Alfen (2002a: 13f., no. 114, pl. 6). 125. On the problem how to interprete the letter mem, see above, p. 137. 126. On the dating of the Athenian pi-style coinage, see most recently Anderson and van Alfen (2008: 169). 07Wolfgang.indd 172 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 173 c) Northwest Arabia (�idjâz), drachm (Aramaic mem on Athena’s cheek; rev. in inner right field, Aramaic legend LBLT “for BLT”; 4.18 g; Fig. 9c); cf. Svoronos (1926: pl. 108, 30); Milden; ); berg (1990: pl. VI, 4 = 1998a: pl. XXVI, 4]; Bron and Lemaire (1995: 45f.). Furthermore, cf. Numismatica Ars Classica (Zurich) 40, 2007, 274 = Numismatica Ars Classica (Zurich) 29, 2005, 226. d) Northwest Arabia (�idjâz), drachm (in right field, Aramaic legend ’SDH; 4.11 g; Fig. 9d); cf. Svoronos (1926: pl. 108, 31). XI. Tall al-Maskhūta, winter 1947/48127 (IGCH 1649) Contents: 6,000+ AR Burial: early fourth century (Robinson, Thompson); in the middle of the fourth century (Schlumberger); near to the end of the Persian period (Gitler); c. 330 BCE (Jungfleisch, Bivar; author agrees). In late 1947 the antique market of Cairo was flooded by thousands of Athenian tetradrachms. The coins were said to have been found at Tall al-Maskhūta, a site near Ismaïlia in the Eastern part of the Nile Delta. According to Marcel Jungfleisch the hoard was discovered by some locals below the floor of a chamber of mud bricks. The chamber must have looked much too poor for being laid open when Henri Édourd Naville examined the site in 1883.128 In Naville’s days, Tall al-Maskhūta was of interest because it was identified with biblical Pithom.129 Thanks to recent excavations we know the history of Tall al-Maskhūta better now.130 Situated along the canal leading from Lake Amargos to the city of Bubastis,131 Tall al-Maskhūta was a trading post in the Phoenician wine import business. The settlement was destroyed for the first time during the Persian conquest in 525 BCE. It did not lay in ruins for long. The settlement was soon rebuilt and even enlarged, and during the rebellion against the Persians in 487 BCE a stone rampart was built outside the city-wall. After the revolt was crushed, the addition of store-houses proves that the post was still flourishing. Only the Persian retreat in 404 BCE meant a sharp break; the site was left open for about a generation, and was eventually resettled c. 380 BCE.132 Artefacts show that Tall al-Maskhūta was inhabited not only by Egyptians but also by foreigners from Ionia, Phoenicia, and Arabia. As to the last mentioned, there are ashlar stones used as altars in the local cult of Atum that are reminiscent of models from South Arabia.133 Furthermore, there is the evidence of the Aramaic inscriptions on the silver bowls discussed below. While Tall alMaskhūta does not appear to have suffered during the Persian reconquest of Egypt in 343 BCE, the Macedonian invasion 332 BCE led the inhabitants to leave the post. This second break lasted longer than a generation. In fact, Tall al-Maskhūta is not likely to have been resettled before Ptolemy II (r. 282–246 BCE) had the Bubastis Canal reexcavated.134 Briefly, the archaeological strata provide chronological clues the numismatist must consider when interpreting the coin hoard. 127. Robinson’s first report in NC (1947) was published not before June 1948, after a parcel of c. 300 coins from first the hoard had reached Spink’s at London. I am grateful to Mary Hinton for checking Robinson’s desk diary and correspondence. 128. Naville (1888). 129. On this problem, see Bleiberg (1983). 130. Holladay (1982 and 1999). 131. Lexikon der Ägyptologie, VI (Wiesbaden 1986), col. 351 s.v. “Tell el Maschuta”. On the canal, see Schörner (2000). 132. Holladay (1999: 788). Persian forces under Pharnabazos operated in the Delta during the 380s (Isocr. Paneg. 140) and again in 374/3 BCE (Diod. XV.41.1). It is not clear how this affected Tall al-Maskhūta. 133. Holladay (1999: 788). On Ionian and Phoenician pottery found at the site, see Paice (1986/87). 134. The renovation of the canal is the topic of the so-called Pithom stela erected by Ptolemy II at Tall al-Maskhūta, see Thiers (2007). 07Wolfgang.indd 173 12/28/10 9:36 PM 174 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert Before turning to the coins themselves, some other objects have to be dealt with. When inspecting the coins on the Cairo market, Jungfleisch took notice of gold-mounted stones purportedly found together with the coins.135 A few years later the Brooklyn Museum acquired eight silver bowls; belonging to a Persian type of vessel and bearing Aramaic votive inscriptions, these bowls were said to have been found at Tall al-Maskhūta. Since around a dozen gold-mounted agate stones like those mentioned by Jungfleisch were part of the deal, the story generally met with acceptance.136 At least one more bowl of the same alleged provenance was acquired by the Brooklyn Museum later on. Bearing an Aramaic inscription of the same type as the other ones, the bowl might have indeed belonged to the set (wherever it had been found).137 The Brooklyn Museum has an ibex handle of a well-known Persian type that is said to be from Tall al-Maskhūta as well.138 There is a silver janiform head-vase in the British Museum that appeared on the art market with the same provenance story roughly at the same time. Unlike the objects bought by the Brooklyn Museum, the vase is a piece of Greek art that might have been made in Lycia.139 Jungfleisch related several circular gold and silver bars that surfaced on the Cairo market along with the coins. While he was inclined to distrust the story of the silver bars, Jungfleisch thought the gold ‘bars’ might have been decorations of the chamber walls.140 As far as I know, not a single specimen of either type of bars has ever been published. Lastly, the coins. After having studied large portions of the hoards on the Cairo market, Jungfleisch estimated that it originally comprised “entre cinq et dix mille pièces (80 à 160 kilos, environ)”.141 So it is clear enough that only small lots are known today, and the most important coin escaped the eyes of the numismatists for a long time: almost twenty-five years after the first report was published an Athenian decadrachm (SNG Berry 641) was said to be derived from the Tall al-Maskhūta Hoard.142 If the provenance is really true (the story told by the owner sounds trustworthy), the decadrachm is the earliest coin of the hoard. All the Athenian tetradrachms that had by far the lion’s share of the hoard were minted 20–40 years later. Among them are some plated (one with profile eye),143 and a great many countermarked specimens. While several countermarks point to the Levant anyway,144 some tetradrachms are clearly Syro-Egyptian imitations.145 Furthermore, there was a stater from the mint of Tyre (SNG Fitzwilliam 6083),146 and at least one double siglos of the satrap Mazday issued by the mint of Sidon.147 Two Phili135. Naster and Jungfleisch (1949: 124). Jungfleisch . 136. Rabinowitz (1956: 1f.). As Elayi and Elayi (1993: 284) duly noted, Jungfleisch mentioned onyx pieces, not agate. Jungfleisch On the Brooklyn agates, see now Davidson and Oliver (1984: 5–8, no. 2A-EE). 137. Rabinowitz (1959: 154f., pl. 1–3). . 138. Buechner (1967: 86f.). Cf. the list compiled by Bivar (1961: 193). .). . 139. Strong (1964). 140. Naster and Jungfleisch (1949: 124); cf. Elayi and Elayi (1993: 283). Robinson (1947: 115) reports the rumors that Jungfleisch the chamber walls were covered with gold-leafs. 141. Jungfleisch (1949a: 28). Robinson’s and Naster’s lower figure (6,000+ coins) is maintained by the IGCH. Jungfleisch figure 142. Berry (1971: 66, no. 355); cf. Starr (1982: 130, n. 9). 143. Robinson (1947: 120); Naster (1948: 7, pl. 1, 12) (one of 305 specimens examined). 144. Jungfleisch (1949: 30f.) gives a list of the countermarks he was able to observe during a rapid survey on the Jungfleisch market. He attributed them to South Anatolian, Cypriote, and Phoenician mints. 145. Robinson (1947: 117, pl. 5, 12–14), by referring to Svoronos (1926: pl. 17, 20–23, and 19, 1–8). Certain imitations from the hoard have also been specified by Weiser, Flament, van Alfen, and Hardwick. 146. Robinson (1950). 147. Seen by Naster and Jungfleisch (1949: 125); cf. Naster (1967: 8) “1 double sheqel de Sidon vu par l’auteur (sans Jungfleisch l’avoir noté avec précision) chez un marchand du Caire et qui est probablement la même pièce que celle désignée par Jungfleisch”. Furthermore, see Elayi and Elayi (1993: 283 and 2004: 698). There were rumors about “a considerable 07Wolfgang.indd 174 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 175 stian coins are recorded: the famous Gaza tetradrachm with the facing owl (SNG Berry 701 = SNG ANS 6, 1 = Gitler and Tal [2006: 116, no. V.5Ta]),148 and the only drachm (as Gitler and Tal [2006: 148, no. VII.1D]) known from the hoard so far.149 It was B.Y. Berry who bought the Athenian decadrachm and the Gaza tetradrachm from a Cairo collector by the name Joseph Khawan. According to Berry’s report, Khawan was still keeping another Gaza tetradrachm of the same provenance. For the time being, the story cannot be verified; the coin is lost.150 Although both the find-spot and the objects found together with the coins have been known for a long time, the archaeological evidence has rarely been taken into account by numismatists. The silver plate had been mentioned by the authors of the IGCH, but only Bivar’s article published in 1961 was quoted in the bibliography. While the idea that the hoard could have been a temple treasure was already suggested by Jungfleisch,151 the first to discuss the chronological consequences for both the coins and the plate were the Elayis. They came to the sobering conclusion that the unity of plate and coins cannot be proved nor disproved. Even when accepting the unity, it is hard to avoid circular arguments. Many of the authors dealing with the inscriptions on the silver bowls might have relied on an early dating of the coin hoard such as proposed by Robinson.152 All the Aramaic inscriptions refer to one and the same deity, to han-’Il�t, an Arabian goddess better known as All�t.153 The bowls were given to the goddess by several donors, among them three persons with Arabian names:154 �ēh�’ son of ‘Abd-‘Amrû, the king of Qēd�r Qaynû son of Gašmu, and �arbak son of Pasiri. Qaynû king of Qēd�r is of interest here, for the Qēd�rite tribe is attested by various sources. This tribe had its religious center at the Adummatu Oasis in the Jawf Plain in the eastern part of W�dī s-�irh�n. The kingdom of Qēd�r appears to have existed from the eighth to the early fourth century BC (the kingdom of Lihyan being the successor).155 The power and geographical extent of the Qēd�rite kingdom is controversial.156 While none of the donors themselves can be dated, king Qaynû’s father Gašmu has several namesakes: “Gešem the Arab” is mentioned as an opponent of Nehemia (445/4 BCE),157 and Gašmu ben Ša�ru is known by an inscription from the Dedan Oasis in the �idjâz.158 Although number” of Phoenician coins in the hoard, as reported by Robinson (1950). 148. Berry (1971: 68, no. 356); van Alfen (2002b: 65, no. 9, pl. 15). The coin was mentioned earlier by Robinson (1947: The 115); Jungfleisch (1949a: 32), and by G.K. Jenkins, Review of Baldwin Brett, Boston Catalogue, NC 6th series XVI (1956), p. 363. 149. van Alfen (2002b: 65, no. 8, pl. 15). Jungfleisch (1949a: 29) mentioned “l’absence totale de subdivisions du Jungfleisch tétradrachme”. 150. Berry (1971: 66) “one of the two Gaza tetradrachms”. The other genuine specimens of the relevant die-pair in Boston and Berlin have been known since the nineteenth century. 151. Jungfleisch (1949a: 32, 34). Jungfleisch 152. Robinson (1947: 121) turned against Jungfleisch’s much later date. Thompson (1979: 46) maintained Robinson’s : Jungfleisch’s Thompson early date. 153. Rabinowitz (1956: 2–4). Furthermore, see Wellhausen (1927: 32f.); Bickermann (1937: 113, n. 5); Graf (1990: 141f.); Ababneh (2005: 56). 154. Grelot (1972: 336f., nos. 78 [Qaynû], 79 [�ēh�’]); Rabinowitz (1959: 154f. [�arbak]). Honeyman (1960: 40f.) Qaynû], ], �ēh�’]); ); . �arbak]). ). deals with an Egyptian donor. 155. See Reallexikon der Assyriologie 11 (Berlin 2006–2008), p. 177 f. s.v. “Qedar” (K. Radner); Parpola and Porter (2001: 14, s.v. “Qidru”, map D3); Graf (1990: 139–143); Knauf (1989: 66 and 1990: 201–216, esp. p.207); Eph‘al (1982: 223–227, map p. 241); Bartlett (1979); Lemaire (1974). On the succession of the kingdoms of Qēd�r and Lihyan, see Cross (1986). 156. Graf (1990: 139) argues in favor of an extensive territory, but Bartlett (1979: 61) reminds us that the hard evidence is quite limited. 157. Neh. 2.19; 6.1ff. See Briant (1996: 604); Donner (1987: 423f.). 158. Caskel (1953: 39f., 101f., no. 55); Albright (1953: 4); Winnett and Read (1970: 115f.); Graf (1990: 139). 07Wolfgang.indd 175 12/28/10 9:36 PM 176 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert it is often held that all these namesakes are one and the same person (resulting in a bold reconstruction of the history of the Qēd�rite kingdom), their identity is far from being proven.159 Gašmu ben Ša�ru has been dated to the second century BCE.160 The palaeographic details of the inscription led many scholars to date the bowl inscription to c. 400 BCE,161 i.e., to the time when a son of Gešem the Arab could have been ruling indeed. The date of the bowls is more controversial; they have been dated to a wide time-span from the sixth to the late fourth century.162 It seems now to be agreed among orientalists that the silver plate’s burial took place during the revolt of Inaros and Amyrtaios (404–398 BCE).163 As we have seen, the ground for such a high dating is fragile at best: Robinson dated the hoard to the early fourth century before he learned of the rumors about the Phoenician coins; the identity of the men named Gašmu is a mere assumption, and the fragmentary silver head-vase in the British Museum has been neglected in the discussion so far. The vase can hardly be dated earlier than 380 BCE for stylistic reasons. In fact, it has already been dated to 370/60.164 Such an early burial cannot be valid for the coins anyway if it holds true that the Sidonian double siglos of the satrap Mazday (345–331 BCE) belonged to the hoard; the coin is attested by both Jungfleisch and Naster. Unless the two scholars were fooled by the Cairo dealers, the hoard cannot have been closed before the reign of Artaxerxes III. So the reason for concealing the temple treasure of Tall al-Maskhūta might have been the Macedonian conquest in 332. In any case, the elements of the hoard are quite heterogeneous and may have been collected over a very long time-span. The absence of the fourth-century coinages usually to be found in contemporary Egyptian hoards is certainly due to the special character of the hoard; the rules of temple treasures are different from those of circulation hoards. As to the two Philistian coins in the hoard the result is disappointing: the hoard could well have been buried just at the time when Alexander conquered Gaza.165 It would be hazardous just to assume that these two coins entered the treasure together with the late-fifth-century Athenian coins that make the bulk of it.166 The grades of wear as given by Naster reveal that the Athenian coins in 159. There is a pseudo-Athenian drachm from North Arabia with the Aramaic legend [g?]šm: Huth and Qedar (1999: 295–298, pl. 26, 1–2). However, what has been suggested to be the first letter gimel might rather be the owl’s legs (cf. Huth and Qedar [1999: 296, n. 4]). In any case, the coin is not likely to have been minted before the fourth century BCE, and so it cannot have been issued by king Qaynû’s father. On the other hand there is a silver fraction with the Aramaic legend šhrw that has been interpreted as an issue of Qaynû’s successor Ša�ru (II): Rizack (1984: 25–28). 160. Winnett (1938: 300); Caskel (1953: 40). 161. Dumbrell (1971: 38); Graf (1990: 139); Lemaire (1995: 54). Only Bivar (1961: 193) was sceptical: “It should be : noticed that the existence of a virtual replica of the deep bowl [from Tall al-Maskhūta] in no. 53274 from Tel Tmaï, counts against too high a dating, and tends to pull the Tel el-Maskhuta treasure closer to those of Tel Tmaï and Toukh al-Garmous.” He dated the bowl from Tel Tmaï to the early third century BCE. 162. Sixth century: Reallexikon der Assyriologie 11 (Berlin 2006–2008), p. 177 f. s.v. “Qedar” (K. Radner). Fifth century: Dumbrell (1971: 36). Fourth century: Bivar (1961: 193). 163. Lemaire (1995: 54f.). 164. Strong (1964: 100) suggested a date of c. 400 BCE. Borchardt (1976: 47f.) convincingly preferred the later date. Any speculations about the person that brought the vase to Egypt are idle. Strong (1964: 100f.). wondered whether the vase could have been donated to han-’Il�t by a Persian official, since Lycia was part of the Persian empire. According to Strong, the donation would have taken place either before 405 or after 343, since Egypt was no part of the empire between 405 and 343 BCE. However, the vase could well have been donated by a Lycian mercenary. What holds true is the fact that a vessel with the representation of the judgement of Paris is appropriate indeed for an Arabian goddess that was usually equated with Aphrodite; see Dussaud (1907: 127–131). 165. On Gaza’s fall, see Abel (1935); Seibert (1985: 83). 166. As suggested by Gitler and Tal (2006: 66). The 250 specimens kept by the Bibliothèque Royale at Brussels are itler The attributed to his late “style B” group by Buttrey (1982: 138f.), while Flament (2001: 41), attributed other specimens from that hoard to Buttrey’s “style A” and “style M” groups. 07Wolfgang.indd 176 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 177 the hoard cannot be treated as those in something like a circulation hoard.167 References: Coins: Robinson (1947); Naster (1948); Jungfleisch (1948, 1949a and b); Naster and Jungfleisch (1949); Varoucha (1949); Robinson (1950); Schlumberger (1953: 11, no. 41); G.K. Jenkins, Review of Baldwin Brett, Boston Catalogue, Numismatic Chronicle 6th series XVI (1956), p. 363; Naster (1967: 8, n. 12); Starr (1970: 89); Berry (1971: 66–68); Diebolt and Nicolet-Pierre (1977: 87); Thompson (1979: 46); Buttrey (1982: 138f.); Starr (1982: 130, n. 9); Weiser (1989: 284); Elayi and Elayi (1993: 282–286, no. LXXI); Figueira (1998: 531); Flament (2001: 41, pls. I, 5–8. 10 and II, 3–4. 6. 8–11); Kroll (2001: 11, n. 14); van Alfen (2002a: 13, 22; 2002b: 64f., pl. 15); Gitler and Tal (2006: 66); Hardwick (2006: 382–384, pl. 74); Flament (2007b: 210–212); Fischer-Bossert (2008a: 16f.). Silver bowls and related objects in the Brooklyn Museum: Rabinowitz (1956); The Brooklyn Museum. Five Years of Collecting Egyptian Art, 1951–1956 (New York 1956), p. 55 no. 50 pl. 68 b-c; Rabinowitz (1959); Honeyman (1960); Bivar (1961: 193); Buechner (1967: 86f.); Dumbrell (1971); Grelot (1972: 336f., no. 78–79); Gibson (1975: 122f.); Bartlett (1979); Davidson and Oliver (1984: 5–8, no. 2A-EE); Delsmann (1988: 579, no. 3); Shefton (1993: 179f.); Lemaire (1995: 54f.). Silver vase in the British Museum: Strong (1964: reprinted 1994: 306–316); Barnett (1974); Borchardt (1976: 47f., pls. 18, 3 and 19, 3–4); Götter, Heroen, Herrscher in Lykien, exhib. cat. (Vienna-Munich 1990), p. 120 f. no. 2. XII. Babylon, 1973 (CH 1.38 = CH 2.49 = CH 3.22 = CH 8.188). Contents: 300+ AR or even 1800+ AR (Arnold-Biucchi). Burial: c. 323–320 (Price), or 320/10 (M�rkholm). A large hoard comprising mostly of special Alexander coinages (8 decadrachms, 21 specimens of the so-called Porus coinage, and 106 Babylonian lion staters) and pseudo-Athenian tetradrachms from Phoenician, Babylonian, and Egyptian mints (Artaxerxes III, and satrap Sabaces), including an imitation of the pi-style coinage with mem (Gitler and Tal [2006: 128f. no. V.18Ta]: this specimen, confirmed by the unpublished Leo Mildenberg papers). Single coins of Philipp II, from Sardes (a siglos) and Cos are also attested. Rumors say the hoard had even been much larger than usually indicated. References: Dürr (1974: 34); M�rkholm (1974); Meshorer (1977: 78, fig. 1); Calmeyer (1979: 308, n. 39, pl. 49, 2–3); Price (1982); Himmelmann (1989: 85f.); Price (1991a and 1991b: 51); Troxell (1997: 74, no. 5); Figueira (1998: 532); Nicolet-Pierre (1999: 287, n. 11); van Alfen (2000); Nicolet-Pierre (2000a: 113); Holt (2003: 92ff., 173); C. Arnold-Biucchi, Review of Holt, New England Classical Journal 32/4 (2005), p. 358 f.; Bopearachchi and Flandrin (2005: 190f.). B. Hoards that cannot be dated with sufficient certainty XIII. Aleppo, shortly before 1866 (IGCH 1490) According to Brandis’ report, the pot hoard contained a certain number of silver fractions from Sidon and Tyre, together with pseudo-Athenian fractions, the latter “apparement philistoarabes” from Schlumberger’s point of view. Due to several misinterpretations, the information in the literature is shaky and often misleading. This holds true for the location, too (“Turin”); as the Elayis have stated, the hoard is lost. It may be speculated that it happened to be a hoard from the late fifth century, but the information is not sufficient to know this. 167. Naster (1948: 13). 07Wolfgang.indd 177 12/28/10 9:36 PM 178 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert References: Brandis (1888: 378, n. 3); Schlumberger (1953: 9, n. 14); Naster (1967: 6); Elayi and Elayi (1993: 245f., no. LV); Elayi and Elayi (2004: 698). XIV. Ashkelon, 1989 (CH 9.369) Thirty-one pseudo-Athenian obols wrapped in a linen bag were found during regular excavations at Ashkelon in a fourth-century context. Since all specimens have the same irregular shape and many of them share dies, all the coins are likely to be the products of a local mint. Gitler assigned the coins to Ashkelon, but recently he suggested that all the Philistian coins would have been produced by a collective mint most likely situated at Gaza.168 References: Stager (1991: 29); Elayi and Elayi (1993: 207, no. XLV); Gitler (1996: 2–6); Mildenberg (2000: 91); Gitler and Tal (2006: 53ff. and no. IX.1D); Elayi and Elayi (2009: 8); Gitler and Tal (2009: 32). XV. Near Gaza, 1983 (CH 8.29) Contents: 16 AR, pot hoard: 2 Athenian tetradrachms, and 14 “Egypto-Arabian or PhilistoArabian” obols. Dispersed in trade. Burial: “500–400” (CH 8); “plutôt au IVe siècle” (Nicolet-Pierre). References: Elayi and Lemaire (1995: 187); Nicolet-Pierre (2000a: 114, no. 13). XVI. Abu Shusheh, 1930 or earlier (IGCH 1507 = CH 9.434) Contents: 100+ silver fractions, 9+ bronze coins. Burial: c. 330 (Naster), c. 310–298 (Kadman). Since Kraay’s article it is generally accepted that the Abu Shusheh ‘hoard’ is likely to be a mere sample of stray finds, thus not providing any chronological clues. If this is correct, the ‘date of burial’ suggested by Paul Naster must be dismissed. However, Kraay did not argue but stated “there is some doubt as to how far this group of coins may be said to represent a hoard”. The file is not closed yet. In any case, the sample is suggestive for the circulation area of the Philistian coins that here overlaps the area of the Samarian coins. a) Lambert 3 = Gitler and Tal V.16Dc b) Lambert 4: cf. Newell (1938: 53f.); Kraay (1978: 190, no. 4); Elayi and Lemaire (1989: 161); Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 92, no. 48); Mildenberg (1998a: 58); Lemaire (1989: 146); van Alfen (2002a: 22). c) Lambert 3 = Gitler and Tal V.16Dc d) Lambert 6 = Gitler and Tal XII.21Ob e) Lambert 13 = Gitler and Tal IX.2Oa f) Lambert 15 = Gitler and Tal XIII.19Fa g) Lambert 16 = Gitler and Tal XIV.23HOa h) Lambert 17 = Gitler and Tal XIII.7HOa i) Lambert 18 = Gitler and Tal XIV.6HOa j) Lambert 43 ~ Meshorer and Qedar (1999: 92, no. 50) k) Lambert 44 = Gitler and Tal XXVIII.11HOa l) Lambert 45 = Gitler and Tal XXVIII.5Ob m) Lambert 46 = Gitler and Tal XXVIII.5Oa n) Lambert 47 = Gitler and Tal XXVIII.1Oa o) Lambert 48 = Gitler and Tal XXVIII.1Ob p) Lambert 50 = Gitler and Tal XIX.10Da q) Lambert 51 = Gitler and Tal XIX.16Oa 168. Gitler and Tal (2009). 07Wolfgang.indd 178 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 179 r) Lambert 52 = Gitler and Tal XIX.16Ob s) Lambert 53 = Gitler and Tal II.9Oa t) Lambert 54 = Gitler and Tal II.12Oa u) Lambert 55 = Gitler and Tal XVI.4Oa v) Lambert 56 = Gitler and Tal XIX.3Fa w) Lambert 57 = Gitler and Tal XIX.20HOa x) Lambert 58 = Gitler and Tal XXII.1Oa y) Lambert 59 = Gitler and Tal XIX.11Oa, cf. Lemaire (1990: 257–263 [Ashdod?]). z) Lambert 60 = Gitler and Tal XIX.12HOa a’) Lambert 61 = Gitler and Tal XXVIII.10Oa b’) Lambert 62 = Gitler and Tal XX.15Oa c’) Lambert 63 = Gitler and Tal XXVIII.16HOa The six coins discussed by Newell are now SNG ANS 6 nos. 20, 24, 40, 42, 44, and 45 (the last one not being specified by the SNG). Additional: Leu 75, 25 Oct. 1999, 1315 (same dies as Gitler and Tal [2006: 200, no. XIV.23HO]). Furthermore, Gitler and Tal accepted Robinson’s attribution of some fractions to the hoard that surfaced at the London market during the 1930s: XII.12HOa, XII.15Oa, XVI.14HOa, XX.4Oa, and XX.17HOa-b. Three more coins from the same parcel, now kept by the British Museum, should be mentioned here: the drachms 1936–6–6–16 (as Gitler and Tal VI.13D) and 1936–6–6–28 (as Gitler and Tal XIV.21D), and the obol 1936–6–6–15 (as Gitler and Tal XXVIII.5O). References: Lambert (1933); Robinson (1936: 199f. and 1937b: 254f., pl. 32, 32); Schlumberger (1953: 9, no. 17); Newell (1938: 47–58); Naster (1967: 5, 18–20); Kadman (1967: 324 tab. hoard 1); Kraay (1978: 190–192); Lemaire (1990); van Alfen (2002a: 22); Gitler and Tal (2006: nos. XII.12HOa, XII.15Oa, XVI.14HOa, XX.4Oa, XX.17HOa-b); W. Fischer-Bossert, Review of Gitler and Tal, ANS Magazine 6/2 (2007), p. 74. XVII. Gaza environs, c. 1975 (CH 9.448) Contents: +10 AR. Burial: “dans le dernier tiers du IVe siècle” (Elayi). A sample of Phoenician coins (Arados, Sidon, and Tyre) mainly from the first half of the fourth century, allegedly found together with post-lifetime Alexanders from the Babylon mint and “Philisto-Arabian” coins (not specified). Dispersed on the market. Reference: Elayi and Elayi (1993: 208f., no. XLVI, pl. XXXIII). XVIII. ‘Med�in ��li� [ancient Dedan], 1856’ (IGCH 1755) Due to a misunderstanding, the IGCH number covers two separate hoards. In February 1856, the physician and resident of Alexandria August Schledehaus169 bought some coins of a hoard of small change that was offered to him by a fellah. Some days later he bought the rest of that hoard. According to the fellah, the hoard had been found some time before near Saleh Hedjr in the �idjâz. Schledehaus suspected the hoard would be rather from Egypt. At the end of 1857 Schledehaus bought another hoard of small change coins that was said to have been found in the Delta of the Nile. It was by mere chance that Schledehaus published both hoards in one and the same article (he passed away a month after finishing it). Adolf Erman discussed both the hoards which were then kept by the secondary school of Schledehaus’ home town Osnabrück, and by so doing he published for comparison a coin of the Berlin Cabinet that had been acquired 169. On Schledehaus, see Heese (2004: 382–401). Furthermore, see Savio (1997: 10). 07Wolfgang.indd 179 12/28/10 9:36 PM 180 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert Figure 10a: Schledehaus’ drawing 07Wolfgang.indd 180 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 181 Figure 10b: Erman’s drawing 07Wolfgang.indd 181 12/28/10 9:36 PM 182 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert Figures 11a-g: Coins 1b, 4b, 5a, 5d, 7b, 9a, and 10a from Beirut (Erman [1882: 298, pl. VI, 10]). While Schledehaus had never suggested that the two parcels might be parts of one and the same hoard, Erman wondered whether the second lot could have been brought to Egypt by a Mecca pilgrim. Babelon (1901–1932: II 2, col. 663, n.1), however, not only put the single Berlin coin among the hoards’ contents but treated all the relevant coins the same way by citing the location “Osnabruck” only. This might have lead to the impression that all the coins were derived from one source, and such is the way the IGCH editors handled the matter. In fact, the two lots do not overlap each other as to any type, and so it is not likely that an original hoard had been shared among two (or more) finders. In any case, the Berlin coin mentioned above that raised suspicions might be from Cilicia (cf. SNG Levante 233) and has nothing to do with both the lots. The two lots must be separated again. Both of them contained several coins reminiscent of Philistian types while the origin of the other ones is still a matter of debate. As mentioned above, Schledehaus did not believe in the alleged provenance of the first lot from ��li� Hedjr. So it is not without interest to note that Charles M. Doughty when staying at Med�in ��li� in 1876 heard rumors of two coin hoards. “A villager of el-Ally thirty years before found in a stone pot, nearly a bushel of old silver coinage. Also two W.[élad] Aly tribesmen, one of whom I knew, had found another such treasure in late years. Of the himmarît, some not fully corroded show a stamped Athenian owl, grossly imitated from the Greek moneys; they are Himyaric.”170 The hoard found c. 30 years before 1876 may well have to do with the first lot bought by Schledehaus in 1856. A brief visit at the Kulturgeschichtliches Museum, Osnabrück, in March 2010 revealed that there are only a few remnants of Schledehaus’ sample. Seven specimens could be identified, among them certainly the most important ones. Since three coins were given by exchange to the Berlin Münzkabinett, the other missing ones might also have exchanged with other collections. Lot I (said to be from ��li� Hedjr, �idjâz, before Feb. 1856): 1. Obols (Gitler-Tal [2006: 162, comment as to no. XI.7HO]) Obv. Athena’s head r. Rev. Owl facing, with wings closed, on either side olive sprays. Bottom right, ayin; bottom left, zayin. The whole within Quadratum incusum. a) 0.5 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Six [1877: 225, no. 20a “0.50 g”]; Erman [1882: pl. VI, 1]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1047a, “0.50 g”, pl. 123, 21]). b) 0.43 9 Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Schledehaus [1862: pl. 31, 6]; Six [1877: 225, no. 20b “0,45 g”]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1047b “0.42 g”, pl. 123, 22]). 170. Doughty (1936: 153). On Doughty’s stay, see Hogarth (1928: 41–45). 07Wolfgang.indd 182 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 183 2. Hemiobol (Gitler-Tal [2006: 162, no. XI.7HO]) Obv. Athena’s head r. Rev. Owl facing, with wings closed, on either side olive sprays. Bottom right, ayin; bottom left, zayin. The whole within Quadratum incusum. a) 0.31 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus. 3. Hemitetartemoria Obv. Athena’s head r. Rev. Owl facing, with wings closed, on either side olive sprays. Bottom right, ayin; bottom left, zayin. The whole within Quadratum incusum. a) 0.09 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Schledehaus [1862: pl. 31, 7]; Six [1877: 225, no. 20c “0.10 g”]; Erman [1882: pl. VI, 2]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1048b]). b) 0.1 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Erman [1882: pl. VI, 3]; Bablelon [1901–1932: no. 1048a]). c) 0.1 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Schledehaus [1862: pl. 31, 8]; Six [1877: 225, no. 20d]). d) 0.1 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus. 4. Obols Obv. Athena’s head r. Rev. Bes head facing within Quadratum incusum. a) 0.38 5 Berlin, inv. 356/1885 (Svoronos 1926, pl. 109, 46 [obverse]. 47 [reverse], ex “Rathsgymnasium in Osnabrück, Oberlehrer Dr. Stüve”, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Erman [1882: pl. VI, 4]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1073a “0.65 g”, pl. 124, 23] = rev. of Erman [1882: pl. VI, 6]). b) 0.33 4 Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Erman [1882: pl. VI, 5 “0.55 g”]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1073b “0.55 g”, pl. 124, 24]). c) ? ? (Schledehaus [1862: pl. 31, 1]) d) 0.45 3 Berlin, inv. 358/1885 (Svoronos 1926, pl. 109, 49), ex “Rathsgymnasium in OsRathsgymnasium nabrück, Oberlehrer Dr. Stüve”, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Schledehaus [1862: pl. 31, 2]). e) 0.28 5 Berlin, inv. 357/1885 (Svoronos 1926, pl. 109, 48), ex “Rathsgymnasium in OsRathsgymnasium nabrück, Oberlehrer Dr. Stüve”, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Schledehaus [1862: pl. 31, 3]). 5. Hemiobols Obv. Athena’s head r. Rev. Bes head facing within Quadratum incusum. a) 0.45 7 Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Erman [1882: pl. VI, 6 “0.45 g”]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1074a]). b) 0.38 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1074b]). c) 0.37 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus. d) 0.28 5 Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus. e) 0.31 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus. f) 0.26 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1074c]). 07Wolfgang.indd 183 12/28/10 9:36 PM 184 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert 6. Hemitetartemoria Obv. Athena’s head r. Rev. Bes head facing within Quadratum incusum. a) 0.12 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Erman [1882: pl. VI, 7]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1075a]). b) 0.1 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Schledehaus [1862: pl. 31, 4]; Erman [1882: pl. VI, 8]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1075b]). c) 0.1 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Schledehaus [1862: pl. 31, 5]; Erman [1882: pl. VI, 9]). Lot II (Delta Hoard, Dec. 1857): 7. Hemiobola Obv. Female head facing, wearing wreath and crown. Border of dots. Rev. Owl standing r., head facing. In upper left corner, olive spray. At right, panathenaic amphora on stand. The whole within Quadratum incusum. a) 0.34 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Schledehaus [1862: pl. 31, 9]; Erman [1882: pl. VI, 11]). b) 0.35 5 Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Erman [1882: pl. VI, 12 “0.41 g”]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1045a “0.49 g”, pl. 123, 20]). c) 0.40 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Erman [1882: pl. VI, 13]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1045e “0.37 g”]). 8. Tetartemoria (obv. cf. Gitler and Tal [2006: 192, no. XIV.6HO; rev. cf. p. 176 no. XII.23O]) Obv. Young male head r., wearing wreath. Rev. Owl standing r., head facing. In upper left corner, olive spray. At right, panathenaic amphora on stand. The whole within Quadratum incusum. a) 0.17 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Erman [1882: pl. VI, 14]). b) 0.16 ? once at Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Schledehaus [1862: pl. 31, 10]; Erman [1882: pl. VI, 15]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1044d “0.16 g”]). 9. Hemiobol Obv. Female head r., wearing mural crown. Rev. Owl standing r., head facing. In upper left corner, olive spray. At right, object (Erman: “Bes?”. Monkey?). The whole within Quadratum incusum. a) 0.41 3 Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Schledehaus [1862: pl. 31, 11]; Erman [1882: pl. VI, 16 “0.44 g”]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1046a “0.44 g”]). 10. Tetartemorion Obv. Type obliterated. Rev. Bearded man standing r., wearing long garment, holding lituus. At right, ΑΙΞ[.]. The whole within Quadratum incusum. a) 0.16 ? Osnabrück, ex Ch. Schledehaus (Schledehaus [1862: pl. 31, 12]; Erman [1882: pl. VI, 17 “0.19 g”]; Babelon [1901–1932: II 2, no. 1076a “0.20 g”]; BMC Palestine, p. lxxxv n. 8 “the inscription [ΑΙΓΙ] seems to be extremely doubtful”). References: Schledehaus (1862); Six (1877: 225, no. 20); Erman (1882); Babelon [1901–1932: II, 649 f. nos. 1044–1048, and col. 663–666 nos. 1072–1076); G.F. Hill, BMC Palestine, p. lxxxix; Schlumberger (1953: 10, no. 29); van Alfen (2002a: 21). 07Wolfgang.indd 184 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 185 Fig. 1 a: Fig. 1 b: Fig. 1 c: Fig. 1 d: Fig. 2: Fig. 3 a: Fig. 3 b: Fig. 3 c: Fig. 3 d: Fig. 3 e: Fig. 3 f: Fig. 4: Fig. 5 a: Fig. 5 b: Fig. 5 c: Fig. 6: Fig. 7: Fig. 8 a: Fig. 8 b: Fig. 9 a: Fig. 9 b: Fig. 9 c: Fig. 9 d: Fig. 10 a: Fig. 10 b: Fig. 11 a: Fig. 11 b: Fig. 11 c: Fig. 11 d: Fig. 11 e: Fig. 11 f: Fig. 11 g: Athens, decadrachm (42.41 g, 9 h). ANS 1968.34.16 ex B.Y. Berry Ashkelon, drachm [III.3D] (3.89 g, 9 h). BMC Palestine, p. 177, 8 Athens, tetradrachm (16.83 g, 7 h). Leu 83, 2002, #233 Ashdod, drachm [I.1Da] (3.03 g, 8 h). BM 1953.1203.1 Philistian drachm [XIV.28D] (4.07 g, 3 h). BMC Palestine, p. 177, 7 Gaza, drachm [VI.1D] (3.56 g, 9 h). BMC Palestine, p. 178, 14 Philistian drachm [XIII.22D] (3.25 g, 4 h). BM 1972.1005.2 Philistian drachm [XVI.11D] (3.78 g, 7 h). BM 1949.0704.2 Philistian drachm [XVI.25Da] (3.29 g, 11 h). BMC Palestine, p. 181, 29 Philistian drachm [XXV.5Db] (3.88 g, 6 h). BMC Palestine, p. 180, 25 Philistian obol [XXVIII.5O] (0.62 g, 2 h). BM 1936.0606.15 Philistian drachm [XVIII.3D] (3.32 g, 12 h). CNG 84, 2010, #708 Ashkelon, tetradrachm [III.1Ta] (16.86 g, 12 h). IM 15279 Philistian tetradrachm [XV.1Ta] (17.05 g, 10 h). IM 15280 Philistian drachm [VII.1Db] (4.15 g, 11 h). [10] Gaza, tetradrachm [V.17T] (16.95 g). NAC 52, 2009, #186 Philistian obol [XII.13O] (0.70 g, 6 h). Leu 91, 2004, #225 Gaza, drachm [V.25D] (3.97 g, 11 h). CNG 84, 2010, #734 Philistian drachm [XX.14D] (3.88 g, 9 h). BM 1934.0611.5 Gaza (?), drachm [V.25D] (4.23 g). Private collection Gaza (?), drachm [cf. V.25D] (4.15 g). Private collection Northwest Arabian drachm (4.18 g). Seen in commerce Northwest Arabian drachm (4.11 g). Seen in commerce ‘Med�in ��li� Hoard’, drawing. Schledehaus 1862, pl. 31 ‘Med�in ��li� Hoard’, drawing. Erman 1882, pl. VI ��li� Hedjr Hoard, obol 1 b (0.43 g, 9 h). Osnabrück ��li� Hedjr Hoard, obol 4 b (0.33 g, 4 h). Osnabrück ��li� Hedjr Hoard, hemiobol 5 a (0.45 g, 7 h). Osnabrück ��li� Hedjr Hoard, hemiobol 5 d (0.28 g, 5 h). Osnabrück Delta Hoard, hemiobol 7 b (0.35 g, 5 h). Osnabrück Delta Hoard, hemiobol 9 a (0.41 g, 3 h). Osnabrück Delta Hoard, tetartemorion 10 a (0.16 g). Osnabrück © American Numismatic Society, New York © Trustees of the British Museum, London By courtesy of LHS Numismatics, Zurich By courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Lancaster © Israel Museum, Jerusalem By courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica, Zurich Author After Schledehaus 1862. After Erman 1882. © Kulturgeschichtliches Museum, Osnabrück List of Figures Fig. 1 a, 5 c: Figs. 1 b. d, 2, 3 a-f, and 8 b: Fig. 1 c: Fig. 4, 8 a: Fig. 5 a-b: Fig. 6: Fig. 9 a-d, 11 a: Fig. 10 a: Fig. 10 b: Fig. 11 b-g: 07Wolfgang.indd 185 12/28/10 9:36 PM 186 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert References Ababneh, M. I. 2005. Neue safaitische Inschriften und deren bildliche Darstellungen. Aachen. Abel, F. M. 1935. Le siège de Gaza. Revue Biblique 44: 42–61. Albright, W. F. 1953. Dedan. In Geschichte und Altes Testament [Festschrift Albrecht Alt], pp. 1–12. Tübingen. Anderson, L., and P. G. van Alfen. 2008. A fourth century BCE hoard from the Near East. American Journal of Numismatics 20: 155–198. Arnold-Biucchi, C. 1990. The Randazzo hoard 1980 and Sicilian chronology in the early fifth century B.C. Numismatic Studies 18. New York: American Numismatic Society. Augé, C. 2000. La circulation des monnaies à l’est du Jourdain à l’époque perse. Transeuphratène 20: 167–168. Babelon, E. 1893. Les Perses achéménides, les satrapes et les dynastes tributaires de leur empire. Paris. ———. 1901–1932. Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines, Part I. II 1–4. Paris. ———. 1930. Catalogue de la collection de Luynes. Monnaies grecques, III. Asie Mineure et Phénicie. Paris. Baldwin Brett, A. 1955. Museum of Fine Arts. Greek Coins. Boston. Balmuth, M. ed., 2001. From Hacksilber to coinage. New insights in the monetary history of the Near East and Greece. Numismatic Studies 24. New York: American Numismatic Society. Barnett, R. D. 1974. A silver head vase with Lycian inscriptions. In Mansel’e armağan, II, pp. 893– 903. Ankara. Bartlett, J. R. 1979. From Edomites to Nabataeans: a study in continuity. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 111: 59–62. Barron, J. P. 1998. Two goddesses in Samos. In R. Ashton and S. Hurter, eds., Studies in Greek numismatics in memory of Martin Jessop Price, pp. 23–36. London. Berry, B. Y. 1971. A Numismatic Biography. Lucerne. Berve, H. 1926. Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage II. Munich. Beulé, E. 1858. Les monnaies d’Athènes. Paris. Bickermann, E. 1937. Der Gott der Makkabäer. Berlin. Bingen J. 1973. In A. Mussche et al., eds., Thorikos 1969. Rapport préliminaire sur la sixième campagne des fouilles, pp. 7–59. Brussels. Bivar, A. D. H. 1961. A rosette phialē inscribed in Aramaic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 24: 189–199. ———. 1985. Achaemenid coins, weights and measures. In The Cambridge ancient history of Iran, vol. 2: the Median and Achaemenid periods, I. Gershevitch, ed., pp. 610–639. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bleiberg, E. 1983. The location of Pithom and Sukkoth. In: J. K. Hoffmeier, ed., Egyptological miscellanies. A tribute to professor Ronald J. Williams, pp. 21–27. Chicago. Bodenstedt, F. 1981. Die Elektronmünzen von Phokaia und Mytilene. Tübingen. Boehringer, Ch. 1999. Bronze silber gold. Überlegungen zu den Nominalen einiger sizilischer Goldmünzen. Revue Belge de Numismatique 145: 49–59. Boehringer, E. 1929. Die Münzen von Syrakus. Berlin & Leipzig. Bopearachchi, O., and Ph. Flandrin. 2005. Le portrait d’Alexandre le Grand. Paris. Borchardt, J. 1976. Die Bauskulptur des Heroons von Limyra. Istanbuler Forschungen 32. Tübingen. Brandis, J. 1888. Das Münz-, Maß- und Gewichtswesen in Vorderasien. Berlin. 07Wolfgang.indd 186 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 187 Briant, P. 1996. Histoire de l’empire perse. Paris. Bron, F., and A. Lemaire. 1995. Pseudo-athéniennes avec légende araméene LBLT et monnaie BLT en Arabie du sud. Transeuphratène 10: 46–56. Brousseau, L. 2007. Sur l’étalon monétaire en usage à Poseidonia. In Gh. Moucharte et al., eds., Liber amicorum Tony Hackens, pp. 47–56. Louvain-la-Neuve. Buechner, Th., ed. 1967. The Brooklyn museum. Handbook. New York. Burrer, F. 2009. Die Tetradrachmenprägung Philipps V. von Makedonien—Serie II. Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 59: 1–70. Buttrey, T. V. 1982. Pharaonic imitations of Athenian tetradrachms. In T. Hackens, and R. Weiller, eds., Proceedings of the 9th international congress of numismatics, Berne 1979, pp. 137–140. Louvain-la-Neuve. ———. 1997. The coins. In D. White, ed., The extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya. Final Reports, VI, pp. 1–66. Philadelphia. Buxton, R. F. 2009. The Northern Syria 2007 hoard of Athenian owls—behavioral aspects. American Journal of Numismatics 21: 1–27. de Callata�, F. 1983. Un trésor de drachmes aux types d’Alexandre le Grand conservé au Cabinet des Médailles à Bruxelles. Revue Belge de Numismatique 129: 23–60. Calmeyer, P. 1979. Zur Genese altiranischer Motive. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus dem Iran 12: 303–313. Caskel, W. 1953. Lihyan und Lihyanisch. Cologne. Chryssanthaki-Nagle, K. 2007. L’histoire monétaire d’Abdère en Thrace. Meletemata 51. Athens. Crawford, M. 1974. Roman republican coinage. Cambridge. ———. 1985. Coinage and money under the Roman republic. London. Cross, F. M. 1986. A new Aramaic stele from Tayma. Catholic Bible Quarterly 48: 387–394. Cuvigny, H. 2004. Deux pièces d’argenterie hellénistique avec notations pondérales. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 147: 183–200. Davesne, A., and G. Le Rider. 1989. Le trésor de Meydancıkkale. Paris. Davidson, P. F., and A. Oliver jr. 1984. Ancient Greek and Roman gold jewelry in the Brooklyn museum. New York. Delsmann, W. C. 1988. Aramäische Grab- und Votivinschriften. In O. Kaiser, ed., Religiöse Texte, Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, II 4, pp. 573–581. Gütersloh. Diebolt, J., and H. Nicolet-Pierre. 1977. Recherches sur le métal de tétradrachmes à types Athéniens. Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 56: 79–91. Donner, H. 1987. Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen. Göttingen. Doughty, Ch. M. 1936. Travels in Arabia deserta, I. London. Dumbrell, W. J. 1971. The Tell el-Maskhuta bowls and the ‘kingdom’ of Qedar in the Persian period. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 203: 33–44. Dussaud, R. 1907. Les Arabes en Syrie avant l’Islam. Paris. Dušek, J. 2007. Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450–332 av. J.-C. Leiden. Dürr, N. 1974. Neues aus Babylonien. Schweizer Münzblätter 24/94: 33–35. Elayi, J. and A. Lemaire. 1989. Numismatique. Transeuphratène 1: 155–164. ———. 1995. Numismatique. Transeuphratène 10: 177–187. ———, and A. G. Elayi. 1993. Trésors de monnaies phéniciennes et circulation monétaire (Ve-IVe siècle avant J.-C.). Supplément No. 1 à Transeuphratène. Paris. 07Wolfgang.indd 187 12/28/10 9:36 PM 188 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert ———. 2004. Le monnayage de la cité phénicienne de Sidon à l’époque Perse (Ve–IVe s. av. J. -C). Paris: Supplement no. 11 à Transeuphratène. Paris. ———. 2009. The coinage of the Phoenician city of Tyre in the Persian period (5th-4th centuries BCE). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 188. Studia Phoenica XX. Leuven-Paris-Walpole, MA.: Peeters. Elsen, J. 2002. La stabilité du système pondéral et monétaire attique (VIe-IIe siècle avant notre ère), Revue Belge de Numismatique 148: 1–32. Engelmann, H. 1985. Wege griechischer Geldpolitik. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 60: 166–168. Engels, D. 2007. Die politische Geschichte des Hauran in hellenistischer Zeit. Bonner Jahrbuch 207: 75–102. Eph’al, J. 1982. The ancient Arabs. Leiden. Erman, A. 1882. Neue Nachahmungen griechischer Münzen. Zeitschrift für Numismatik 9: 296– 301. Figueira, Th. 1998. The power of money. Coinage and politics in the Athenian empire. Philadelphia. Fischer-Bossert. W. 1999. Chronologie der Didrachmenprägung von Tarent 510–280 v. Chr., AMuGS XIV. Berlin. ———. 2005. Die Lysimacheier des Skostokos. Revue Belge de Numismatique 151: 49–74. ———. 2008a. The Athenian Decadrachm. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 168. New York: American Numismatic Society. ———. 2008b. Athenian and pseudo-Athenian coinages. Some remarks on the metrological side of the issue. In M. Asolati, and G. Gorini, eds., I ritrovamenti monetali e i processi inflativi nel mondo antico e medievale, Atti del IV Congresso Internazionale di Numismatica e di Storia Monetaria, Padova 12–13 ottobre 2007, pp. 11–19. Padova. ———, and H. Gitler (forthcoming). The Ismailiya 1983 hoard. Israel Numismatic Research 5. Flament, C. 2001. À propos des styles d’imitations athéniennes définis par T.V. Buttrey. Revue Belge de Numismatique 147: 39–50. ———. 2005. Un trésor de tétradrachmes athéniens dispersés suivi de considérations relatives au classement, à la frappe et à l’attribution des chouettes à des ateliers étrangers. Revue Belge de Numismatique 151: 29–38. ———. 2007a. Quelques considérations sur les monnaies athéniennes émises au IVe siècle. Numismatica e Antichità Classiche, Quaderni Ticinesi 36: 92–110. ———. 2007b. Le monnayage en argent d’Athènes. Louvain-la-Neuve. Forrer, L. 1929. The Weber Collection III. London. Franken, N. 2007. Vexierbilder – Umkehrbilder – Wendeköpfe. Zu einem innovativen Phänomen der hellenistischen Bildkunst. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 76: 121–128. Fried, L. S. 2003. A silver coin of Yohanan Hakkôhen. Transeuphratène 26: 65–85. v. Fritze, H. 1912. Die Elektronprägung von Kyzikos. In H. v. Fritze, and H. Gaebler, eds., Nomisma VII, pp. 1–38. Berlin. Furtwängler, A. 1982. Griechische Vieltypenprägung und Münzbeamte. Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 61: 5–27. Geiser, A. 1989. Le trésor de monnaies classiques trouvé en 1981 sur l’agora d’Érétrie. In Proceedings of the 10th international congress of numismatics, London 1986, pp. 41–44. London. Gibson, J. C. L. 1975. Textbook of Syrian Semitic inscriptions, II. Aramaic inscriptions. Oxford. 07Wolfgang.indd 188 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 189 Gitin, J. S., and A. Golani. 2004. A silver-based monetary economy in the 7th century BCE: a response to Raz Kletter. Levant 36: 203–205. Gitler, H. 1996. New fourth-century BC coins from Ascalon. Numismatic Chronicle 156: 1–9. ———. 2000. Achaemenid motifs in the coinage of Ashdod, Ascalon and Gaza from the fourth century BC, Transeuphratène 20: 73–87. ———. 2006. A hacksilber and cut Athenian tetradrachm hoard from the environs of Samaria. Israel Numismatic Research 1: 5–14. ———. 2009. A Persian period drachm of Judah. Transeuphratène 37: 169–170. ———, M. Ponting, and O. Tal. 2009. Athenian tetradrachms from Tel Mikhal: a metallurgical perspective. American Journal of Numismatics 21: 29–49. ———, and O. Tal. 2006. The coinage of Philistia of the fifth and fourth centuries BC—A study of the earliest coins of Palestine. Milan/New York. ———, and O. Tal. 2009. More evidence on the collective mint of Philistia. Israel Numismatic Research 4: 21–37. ———, O. Tal, and P. van Alfen. 2007. Silver dome-shaped coins from Persian-period southern Palestine. Israel Numismatic Research 2: 47–62. Giuman, M. 2000. Episemata e politica. Scudi e monete nell’Atene di VI secolo a.C. Ostraka 9: 31–42. Graf, D. F. 1990. Arabia during Achaemenid times. In H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, and A. Kuhrt, eds., Achaemenid history IV: centre and periphery. Leiden. Grelot, P. 1972. Documents araméens d’Égypte. Paris. Hardwick, N. 1998. The coinage of Terone from the fifth to the fourth centuries BC. In R. Ashton, and S. Hurter, eds., Studies in Greek numismatics in memory of Martin Jessop Price, pp. 119–134. London. ———. 2006. Ancient hoards. Numismatic Chronicle 166: 382–384. Harrison, C. 2002. Numismatic problems in the Achaemenid west: the undue modern influence of ‘Tissaphernes.’ In V. B. Gorman, and E.W. Robinson, eds., Oikistes. Studies in constitutions, colonies, and military power in the ancient world offered in honor of A.J. Graham, pp. 301–319. Leiden. Heese, T. 2004. Ein eigenes Local für Kunst und Alterthum. Die Institutionalisierung des Sammelns am Beispiel der Osnabrücker Museumsgeschichte. Bramsche. Heinrichs, J., and S. Müller. 2008. Ein persisches Statussymbol auf Münzen Alexanders I. von Makedonien. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 167: 283–309. Heisserer, A. J. 1984. IG XII, 2, 1. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 55: 115–132. Hendel, M., and S. Qedar. 1999. A Coin from North Arabia with an Aramaic inscription and related coins of the incence road. Numismatic Chronicle 159: 295–298. Hendin, D. 2001. Guide to Biblical coins. 4th edition. New York. Hill, G. F. 1924. The frequency table. Numismatic Chronicle 5th ser. 4: 76–85. Himmelmann, H. 1989. Herrscher und Athlet. Milans. Hitzl, K. 1996. Die Gewichte griechischer Zeit aus Olympia. Olympische Forschungen 25. Berlin. Hogarth, D. G. 1928. The life of Charles M. Doughty. London. Holladay, J. S. 1982. Tell el-Maskhuta. Preliminary report on the Wadi Tumilat project 1978–1979. Malibu. ———. 1999. Tell el-Maskhuta. In K. A. Bard, and S. Blake Shubert, eds. 1999. Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt, pp. 786−789. London. 07Wolfgang.indd 189 12/28/10 9:36 PM 190 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert Holloway, R. R. 1971. An archaic hoard from Crete and the early Aeginetan coinage. American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 17: 1–22. Holt, F. 2003. Alexander the Great and the mystery of the elephant medaillons. Berkeley. Honeyman, A. M. 1960. Two votaries of han-’Ilat. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 19: 40–41. Hopper, R. J. 1968. Observations on the Wappenmünzen. In C. M. Kraay, and G.K. Jenkins, eds., Essays in Greek coinage presented to Stanley Robinson, pp. 16–39. Oxford. Houghton, A., C. Lorber, and O. Hoover. 2008. Seleucid Coins, II, 1. Lancaster and London. Hultsch, F. 1862. Griechische und römische Metrologie. Berlin. ———. 1882. Griechische und römische Metrologie. 2nd edition. Berlin. Hurter, S. 2005. Addenda et corrigenda zu G.K. Jenkins, Coins of Punic Sicily, Part I. Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 84: 5–13. ———. 2008. Die Didrachmenprägung von Segesta. Bern. Huth, M., and S. Qedar. 1999. A coin from north Arabia and related coins of the incense road. Numismatic Chronicle 159: 295–298. Jameson, R. 1913. Collection R. Jameson: Monnaies grecques antiques, I. Paris. ———. 1924. Collection R. Jameson: Monnaies grecques antiques, III. Paris. Jenkins, G. K. 1956. Review of Baldwin Brett, Museum of Fine Arts Boston. Greek Coins. Numismatic Chronicle 6th series XVI: 361–363. ———. 1970. The coinage of Gela. AMuGS II. Berlin. ———. 1977. The coinage of Punic Sicily, Part III, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 56: 5–65. Jongkees, J. H. 1945. Notes on the coinage of Athens. Mnemosyne ser. III, 12: 81–117. Jungfleisch, M. 1948. Procès-verbal de la séance du 5 juin 1948. BSFN 3/6: 3. ———. 1949a. Remarques sur une trouvaille de tétradrachmes athéniens faite au voisinage de Pithom. Revue Numismatique: 27–34. ———. 1949b. Les tétradrachmes fourrées du trésor de Pithom. Spink’s Numismatic Circular 57/12, pp. 487–490 and pp. 608–610. Kadman, L. 1967. The monetary development of Palestine in the light of coin hoards. In A. Kindler, ed., International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem 1963, pp. 311–325. Jerusalem. Kagan, J. H. 1987. The decadrachm hoard: chronology and consequences. In I. Carradice, ed., Coinage and administration in the Athenian and Persian empires. BAR 343, pp. 21–28. Oxford. ———. 2004. The so-called Persian weight coins of Larisa. In Το νόμισμα στο Θεσσαλικό χώρο. Πρακτικά συνεδρίου τησ Γ’ επιστημονικής συνάντησης, οβολός 7, pp. 79–86. Athens. Kletter, R. 1998. Economic keystones. The weight system of the kingdom of Judah. Sheffield. ———. 2003. Iron age hoards of precious metals in Palestine—an underground economy. Levant 35: 139–152. ———. 2004. Coinage before coins? A response. Levant 36: 207–210. Knauf, E. A. 1976. Archaic and classical Greek coins. London. ———. 1978. Some notes on the Abu Shusheh “Hoard.” Israel Exploration Journal 28: 190–192. ———. 1979. The coinage of Ambracia and the preliminaries of the Peloponnesian war. Numismatica e Antichità Classiche, Quaderni Ticinesi 8: 37–66. ———.1989. Ismael. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Wiesbaden. ———. 1990. The Persian administration in Arabia. Transeuphratène 2: 201–217. 07Wolfgang.indd 190 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 191 ———, and P.R.S. Moorey. 1968. Two fifth century hoards from the Near East. Revue Numismatique 10: 181–235. Kraay, C. M. 1964. The Melos hoard of 1907 re-examined. Numismatic Chronicle 7th ser. 4: 1–20. Kroll, J. H. 1981. From Wappenmünzen to gorgoneia to owls. American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 26: 1–10. ———. 1993. Greek coins. The Athenian agora XXVI. Princeton. ———. 2001. A small find of silver bullion from Egypt. American Journal of Numismatics 13: 1–20. ———. 2006. Athenian tetradrachms recently discovered in the Athenian Agora. Revue Numismatique 162: 57–63. Kropp, M., and W. Hahn. 1997. Letters on the cheek of Athena: the denominations of the Sabaean sigloi and their numerical signs. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 27: 159–164. Kushnir-Stein, A. 2000. Late Hellenistic coins of Gaza and the date of the Hasmonaean conquest of the city. Schweizer Münzblätter 50: 22–24. Lambert, C. 1933. Egypto-Arabian, Phoenician, and other coins of the fourth century B.C. found in Palestine. The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 2: 1–10. Lang, M., and M. Crosby. 1964. Weights, measures and tokens. The Athenian Agora X. Princeton. Lemaire, A. 1974. Un nouveau roi arabe de Qédar dans l’inscription de l’autel à encens de Lakish, Revue biblique 81: 63–72. ———. 1989. Remarques à propos du monnayage cilicien d’époque perse et ses légendes araméennes. Revue des études anciennes 91: 141–156. ———. 1990. Lemaire, Le trésor d’Abu Shusheh et le monnayage d’Ashod avant Alexandre. Revue Numismatique: 257–263 ———. 1995. “La fin de la première période perse en Égypte. Transeuphratène 9: 51–61. ———. 2004. Taxes et impôts dans le Sud de la Palestine (IVe siècle avant J.-C.). Transeuphratène 28: 133–142. Le Rider, G. 1966. Monnaies crétoises. Paris. ———. 1971. Sur le monnayage de Byzance au IVe siècle. Revue Numismatique 13: 143–153. ———. 1989. À propos d’un passage des Poroi de Xénophon: La question du change et les monnaies incuses d’Italie du Sud. In Kraay – Mørkholm essays, pp. 159–172. Louvain-la-Neuve. ———. 2001. La naissance de la monnaie. Paris. Liampi, K. 2005. Argilos. A historical and numismatic study. Athens. Lorber, C. 2008. Weight standards of Thracian Toreutics and Thraco-Macedonian coinages. Revue Belge de Numismatique 154: 1–29. Loreto, L. 1995. La grande insurrezione Libica contro Cartagine del 241–237 A.C. Rome. Mackil E., and P. G. van Alfen. 2006. Cooperative coinage. In P. G. van Alfen ed., Agoranomia. Studies in money and exchange presented to John H. Kroll, pp. 201–246. New York: American Numismatic Society. Marcellesi, M.-Ch. 2003. Milet des Hécatomnides à la domination romaine. Milesische Forschungen 3. Mainz. Marinescu, C. 2004. From Byzantium to the Black Sea: dies, engravers and the production of posthumous Lysimachi coinages during the 3rd-2nd C. BC. In Numismatic and sphragistic contributions to history of the western Black Sea coast, Conference Varna 2001, pp. 127–138. Varna. Mattingly, H. B. 1989. The Jordan hoard (IGCH 1482) and Kimon’s last campaign. In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Numismatics, London 1986, pp. 59–64. Wetteren. 07Wolfgang.indd 191 12/28/10 9:36 PM 192 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert ———. 1994. A New light on the early silver coinage of Teos. Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 73: 5–11. ———. 1994. The Athenian empire restored. London. May, J. M. F. 1939. The coinage of Damastion. London. Meshorer, Y. 1977. Three Gaza coins from the Persian period. Israel Museum Notes 12: 78–79. ———, and S. Qedar. 1991. The coinage of Samaria in the fourth century BCE. Jerusalem. ———, and S. Qedar. 1999. Samarian coinage. Jerusalem. Mildenberg, L. 1990. Gaza mint authorities in Persian times. Preliminary studies of the local coinage in the fifth Persian satrapy. Part 4. Transeuphratène 2: 137–146. ———. 1993–1994. On the Cyzicenes: A reappraisal. American Journal of Numismatics 5–6: 1–14. ———. 1991. Palästina in der persischen Zeit. In T. Hackens et al., eds, A survey of numismatic research 1985–1990, pp. 102–105. Brussels. ———. 1993. Über das Münzwesen im Reich der Achämeniden, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 26: 55–79. ———. 1996. yĕhūd und šmryn. Über das Geld der persischen Provinzen Juda und Samaria im 4. Jh. In H. Cancik, et al., eds., Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion. Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, I: Judentum, pp. 119–146. Tübingen. ———. 1998a. In L. Mildenberg, U. Hübner, and Ernst A. Knauf, eds., Vestigia Leonis: Studien zur antiken Numismatik Israels, Palästinas und der östlichen Mittelmeerwelt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ———. 1998b, Money Supply under Artaxerxes III Ochus. In R. Ashton, and S. Hurter eds., Studies in Greek numismatics in memory of Martin Jessop Price, pp. 277–286. London: Spink. ———. 1994–1999. A Note on the Persian great king wearing the jagged crown. Israel Numismatic Journal 13: 15–24. ———. 2000. On fractional silver issues in Palestine, Transeuphratène 20: 89–100. Milne, J. G. 1905a. A hoard of coins from Egypt of the fourth century B.C. Revue archéologique 5: 257–261.9a0 ———. 1905b. Trouvailles. Revue Numismatique: 235–236. ———. 1933. The Beni Hasan coin-hoard. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 19: 119–121. ———. 1937. The origin of certain copies of Athenian tetradrachms. Iraq 4: 54–58. M�rkholm, O. 1974. A coin of Artaxerxes III. Numismatic Chronicle 7th ser. 14: 1–4. ———. 1982. The Attic coin standard in the Levant during the Hellenistic period. In S. Scheers, ed., Studia Paulo Naster oblata I. Numismatica antiqua, pp. 139–149. Leuven. ———. 1991. Early Hellenistic coinage. Cambridge. ———, and J. Zahle. 1972. The coinage of Kuprlli. Acta Archaeologica 43: 57–113. Naster, P. 1948. Un trésor de tétradrachmes athéniens à Tell el-Maskhouta (Égypte). Revue Belge de Numismatique 94: 5–14. ———. 1958. La technique des revers partiellement incus de monnaies phéniciennes. In H. Ing. holt, ed., Centennial Publication of the American Numismatic Society, pp. 503–512. New York: American Numismatic Society. ———. 1959. La Collection Lucien de Hirsch. Brussels. ———. 1967. Le développement des monnayages phéniciens avant Alexandre, d’après les trésors. In A. Kindler, ed., International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem 1963, pp. 3–24. Jerusalem. ———. 1974. Méthode de métrologie monétaire appliquée aux monnaies d’Athènes. Revue Belge de Numismatique 120 : 5–17. 07Wolfgang.indd 192 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 193 ———, and M. Jungfleisch. 1949. Le trésor de Tell el-Maskhouta. Note complémentaire. Revue Belge de Numismatique 95: 124–125. Naville, H.É. 1888. The Store-city of Pithom and the route of the exodus. London. Newell, E. T. 1934. A hoard from Siphnos. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 64. New York: American Numismatic Society. ———. 1938. From Cyrene to India: miscellanea numismatica. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 82. New York: American Numismatic Society. Nicolet-Pierre, H. 1979. Les monnaies des deux derniers satrapes d’Égypte avant la conquête d’Alexandre. In O. M�rkholm, and N. M. Waggoner, eds., Greek numismatics and archaeology. Essays in honor of Margaret Thompson, pp. 221–229. Wetteren. ———. 1999. Argent et or frappées en Babylonie entre 331 et 311 ou de Mazdai à Séleucos. In M. Amandry, and S. Hurter, eds., Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts à Georges Le Rider, pp. 285–305. London. ———. 2000a. Tétradrachmes athéniens en Transeuphratène. Transeuphratène 20: 107–119. ———. 2000b. Le trésor de Lentini (Sicile) 1957 (IGCH 2117). In S. Mani Hurter and C. ArnoldBiucchi, eds., Pour Denyse. Divertissements numismatiques, pp. 165–175. Bern. ———. 2000c. Metrologie des monnaies grecques. Annali Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 47: 11–76. ———, and S. Gjongecaj. 1995. Le monnayage d’argent d’Égine et le trésor de Hollm (Albanie) 1991. Bulletin de la correspondance hellénique 119: 283–338. Paice, P. 1986–1987. A preliminary analysis of some elements of the Saïte and Persian pottery found at Tell el-Maskhuta. Bulletin of the Egyptian Seminar 8: 95–107. Parpola, S., and M. Porter. 2001. The Helsinki atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian period 15. Helsinki. Peter, U. 1997. Die Münzen der thrakischen Dynasten. Berlin. Pfisterer, M. 2000. Ein Silberschatz vom Schwarzen Meer. Studia Iranica 22. Paris. Picard, O. 2006. Mines, monnaies et impérialisme: conflits autour du Pangée (478–413 av. J.-C.). In A.-M. Guimier-Sorbets, M.B. Hatzopoulos, and Y. Morizon, eds., Rois, cités, nécropoles. Institutions, rites et monuments en Macédoine, Coll. Nanterre 2002/Athènes 2004. Meletemata 45, pp. 269–283. Athens. Porten, B. 1968. Archives from Elephantine: the life of an ancient Jewish military colony. Berkeley. Price, M. J. 1975. Coins and the Bible. London. ———. 1982. The « Porus » coinage of Alexander the Great: a symbol of concord and community. In S. Schepens, ed., Studia Paulo Naster oblata I, pp. 75–88. Leuven. ———. 1991a. Circulation at Babylon in 323 B.C. In W. E. Metcalf, ed., Mnemata. Papers in memory of Nancy M. Waggoner, pp. 63–72. New York . ———. 1991b. The coinage of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. London & Bern. ———. 1993. More from Memphis and the Syria 1989 hoard. In A. Burnett, and R. Bland, eds., Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins, pp. 31–35. London. ———, and N. Waggoner. 1975. Archaic Greek silver coinage. The “Asyut” Hoard. London. Psom�, S. 2007. Le monnayage fédéral acarnien de l’époque classique. Klio 89: 7–23. Regling, K., and H. Dressel. 1927. Zwei ägyptische Funde altgriechischer Münzen. Zeitschrift für Numismatik 37: 1–137. Rabinowitz, I. 1956. Aramaic inscriptions from the fifth century BC from a North-Arab shrine in Egypt. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15/1: 1–9. 07Wolfgang.indd 193 12/28/10 9:36 PM 194 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert ———. 1959. Another Aramaic record of the North-Arabian goddess han-‘Ilat. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 18/2: 154–155. Rizack, M. A. 1984. A coin with Aramaic legend šhrw, a King-Governor of Lihyân. American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 29: 25–28. Robinson, E. S. G. 1936. British Museum acquisitions for the years 1933–34. Numismatic Chronicle 5th ser. 16: 169–201. ———. 1937a. Coins from the excavations at al-Mina. Numismatic Chronicle 5th ser. 17: 182–196. ———. 1937b. British Museum acquisitions 1935–36. Numismatic Chronicle 5th ser. 17: 233–259. ———. 1937c. A hoard from ‘Sidon’ (Beni Hassan). Numismatic Chronicle 5th ser. 17: 197–199. ———. 1947. The Tell el-Mashkuta hoard of Athenian tetradrachms. Numismatic Chronicle 6th ser. 7: 115–121. ———. 1948. Greek coins acquired by the British Museum. Numismatic Chronicle 6th ser. 8: 48–56. ———. 1950. Greek coins from the Pyramids. Numismatic Chronicle 6th ser. 10: 298. ———. 1960. Two Greek coin hoards. Numismatic Chronicle 6th ser. 20: 31–36. ———. 1961. A hoard of archaic Greek coins from Anatolia. Numismatic Chronicle 7th ser. 1: 107–117. Ronen, Y. 1998. The weight standards of the Judaean coinage in the late Persian and early Ptolemaic period. Near Eastern Archaeology 61: 122–126. Rutter, K. 1979. Campanian coinages 475–380 BC. Edinburgh. ———. 2002. La monetazione di Velia. In La monetazione dei Focei in Occidente, Atti dell’XI Convegno del Centro Internazionale di Studi Numismatici, Naples 1996, pp. 167–185. Rome. Salmon, J. 1984. Wealthy Corinth. Oxford. ———. 1993. Trade and Corinthian coins in the West. In La monetazione corinzia in Occidente, Atti del IX Convegno Internazionale di Studi Numismatici, Naples 1986, pp. 3–17. Rome. Samuels, C. W., P. Rynearson, and Y. Meshorer. 2000. The numismatic legacy of the Jews. New York. Sargent, T. J., and F.R. Velde. 2002. The big problem of small change. Princeton. Savio, A. 1997. Monete alessandrine. Collezione F.A. Schledehaus. Bramsche. Schell, J. A. 2000. Observations on the metrology of the precious metal coinage of Philip II of Macedon: the Thraco-Macedonian standard or the Corinthian standard. American Journal of Numismatics 12: 1–8. Schledehaus, A. 1862. Typhon auf altgriechischen Autonom-Münzen. In H. Grote, Münzstudien 2, pp. 484–490. Leipzig. Schlumberger, D. 1953. L’argent grec dans l’empire achéménide. In R. Curiel, and D. Schlumberger eds., Trésors monétaires d’Afghanistan, pp. 1–64. Paris. Schörner, H. 2000. Künstliche Schiffahrtskanäle in der Antike. Der sogenannte antike Suez-Kanal. Skyllis 3/1: 38–43. Schwabacher, W. 1950. Geldumlauf und Münzprägung in Syrien im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Opuscula Archaeologica 6: 139–149. Seibert, J. 1985. Die Eroberung des Perserreiches durch Alexander den Großen auf karthographischer Grundlage. TAVO Beih. B 68. Wiesbaden. Seltman, Ch. 1924. Athens. Its history and coinage before the Persian invasion. Cambridge. ———. 1955. Greek coins. London. Sheedy, K. 2006. The archaic and classical coinages of the Cyclades. London. Shefton, B. 1993. The white lotus, Rogozen and Colchis: the fate of a motif. In J. Chapman, and P. Dolukhanov, eds., Cultural transformations and interactions in Eastern Europe, pp. 178–210. Avebury. 07Wolfgang.indd 194 12/28/10 9:36 PM VII. Notes on the Coinages of the Philistian Cities 195 Shenkar, M. 2007–2008. The coin of the god on the winged wheel. Boreas 30–31: 13–23. Six, J. 1877. Observations sur les monnaies phéniciennes. Numismatic Chronicle 2nd ser. 17: 177–239. Smith, M. N. 1999. The mint of “Lete.” Ann Arbor. Spaer, A. 2009. A note on the Nablus hoard. Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 88: 157–159. Spier, J. 2000. Coin hoards. Numismatic Chronicle 160: 371. Stager, L. E. 1991. Why were hundreds of dogs buried at Ashkelon? Biblical Archaeological Review 17: 29. Starr, Ch. 1970. Athenian coinage 480–449 B.C. Oxford. ———. 1982. New specimens of Athenian coinage, 480–449 BC. Numismatic Chronicle 8th ser. 142: 129–134. Strong, D. E. 1964. A Greek silver head-vase. BMQ 28: 95–102. ———. 1994. Roman museums. Selected papers on Roman art and architecture. London. Svoronos, J. N. 1926. Les monnaies d’Athènes. Munich. Tal, O. 2007. Coin denominations and weight standards in fourth century BCE Palestine. Israel Numismatic Research 2: 17–28. Thiers, Ch. 2007. Ptolémée Philadelphe et les prêtres d’Atoum de Tjékou. Nouvelle édition commentée de la « stèle de Pithom » (CGC 22183), Orientalia Monspeliensia XVII. Montpellier . Themelis, P., and I. Touratsoglou. 1997. Οι τάφοι του Δερβενίου. Athens. Thompson, M. 1979. Hoards and overstrikes. The numismatic evidence. Expedition 21/4: 40–46. Thompson, C. M. 2003. Sealed silver in iron age Cisjordan and the ‘invention’ of coinage. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22 (1): 67–107. Tiverios, M. 1990. Eπισήματα ασπίδων και αγάλματα επί κιóνων στoυς παναθηναϊκoύς αμφoρείς. Egnatia 2: 31–42. Troxell, H. 1997. Studies in the Macedonian coinage of Alexander the Great. Numismatic Studies 24. New York. van Alfen, P. 2000. The “owls” from the 1973 Iraq hoard. American Journal of Numismatics 12: 9–58. ———. 2002a. The “owls” from the 1989 Syria hoard, with a review of pre-Macedonian coinage in Egypt. American Journal of Numismatics 14: 1–57. ———. 2002b. Two unpublished hoards and other “owls” from Egypt. American Journal of Numismatics 14: 59–71. ———. 2004–2005a. A new Athenian “owl” and bullion hoard from the Near East American Journal of Numismatics 16–17: 47–61. ———. 2004–2005b. Herodotus’ “Aryandic” silver and bullion use in Persian-period Egypt. American Journal of Numismatics 16–17: 7–46. van Driessche, V. 2007. Arguments pour une datation (très) tardive du début des émissions monétaires en argent de Philippe II de Macédoine. In Gh. Moucharte, et al., eds., Liber amicorum Tony Hackens, pp. 11–22. Louvain-la-Neuve. Varoucha, I. 1949. Bulletin du cabinet. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 73: 520. Vismara, N. 1999. Ripostigli d’epoca pre-ellenistica (VI-IV sec. a.C.) con monete della Lycia antica. Milan. Warren, J. 2007. The bronze coinage of the Achaian koinon. London. ———. 2009. Sikyon: a case-study in the adoption of coinage by a polis in the fifth century BC. Numismatic Chronicle 169: 1–13. Weiser, W. 1989. Die Eulen von Kyros dem Jüngeren—Zu den ersten Münzportraits lebender Menschen. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 76: 267–296. 07Wolfgang.indd 195 12/28/10 9:36 PM 196 Wolfgang Fischer-Bossert Wellhausen, J. 1927. Reste arabischen Heidentums. Berlin-Leipzig. Winnett, F. V. 1938. Notes on the Lihyanite and Thamudic inscriptions. Le Muséon 51: 299–310. ———, and W. L. Reed. 1970. Ancient records of North Arabia. Toronto. Woodward, A. M. 1951. ΑΠΟΥΣΙΑ. Numismatic Chronicle 6th ser. 11: 109–111. Zimmermann, K. 2001. Zur Münzprägung »der Libyer« während des Söldnerkrieges. In K. Geus, and K. Zimmermann, eds., Punica – Libyca – Ptolemaica. Festschrift für Werner Huß, Studia Phoenicia XVI, pp. 235–252. Leuven. 07Wolfgang.indd 196 12/28/10 9:36 PM