IsraelNumismaticResearch8 | 2013

Volume 8 2013

Israel Nu

mism

atic Research

8 | 2013

Contents

5 YIGAL RONEN: An Unusual Aramaic Graffito on an Athenian Tetradrachm

9 REBECCA SACKS: Some Notes on the Depictions of the Achemenid Great King on the Coins of Fourth-Century Judah, Samaria and Philistia

17 CATHARINE C. LORBER: A Mint Imitating Ptolemaic Tetradrachms of ‘Akko-Ptolemais

25 TOM BUIJTENDORP: Tyrian Sheqels as Savings: A New Perspective on the Ramat Raḥel Hoard

31 CECILIA MEIR: Tyrian Sheqels from the ‘Isfiya Hoard, Part Four: Half Sheqels

39 IDO NOY: Head Decoration Representations on Hasmonean and Herodian Coins

55 ISADORE GOLDSTEIN AND JEAN-PHILIPPE FONTANILLE: The Small Denominations of Mattathias Antigonus: Die Classification and Interpretations

73 DAVID B. HENDIN, NATHAN W. BOWER AND SEAN G. PARHAM: A Critical Examination of Two Undated Prutot of the First Jewish Revolt

89 GIL GAMBASH, HAIM GITLER AND HANNAH M. COTTON: Iudaea Recepta

105 AARON J. KOGON: New Details and Notes on Some Minimi of Caesarea

109 UZI LEIBNER AND GABRIELA BIJOVSKY: Two Hoards from Khirbat Wadi Ḥamam and the Scope of the Bar Kokhba Revolt

135 YOAV FARHI: Note on Two Types of Lead Currency from Late Roman/Early Byzantine Palestine (Fifth Century CE)

143 ROBERT KOOL, BORYS PASZKIEWICZ AND EDNA J. STERN: An Unrecorded Bohemian Saint Christopher Penny from Montmusard, Acre

159 ADOLFO EIDELSTEIN AND DANNY SYON: An Unknown Token of the Commune of Genoa in Thirteenth-Century ‘Akko

165 DAVID J. WASSERSTEIN: Islamic Coins and their Catalogues IV: Ḥandusis

175 WARREN C. SCHULTZ: Mamlūk Minting Techniques: The Manufacture of Dirham Flans, 1250–1412

184 Corrigendum

185 Abbreviations

Israel Numismatic ResearchPublished by the Israel Numismatic Society

Published by The Israel Numismatic Society

Israel Numismatic Research Published by the Israel Numismatic Society

Editorial Board: Donald T. Ariel (Editor), the late Alla Kushnir-Stein, David Wasserstein, Danny Syon, Ilan Shachar

Text editor: Miriam Feinberg Vamosh

Typesetting: Michal Semo-Kovetz and Yael Bieber,Tel Aviv University Graphic Design Studio

Printed at Elinir, Tel Aviv

ISSN 1565-8449

Correspondence, manuscripts for publication and books for review should be addressed to: Israel Numismatic Research, c/o Haim Gitler, The Israel Museum, P.O. Box 71117, Jerusalem 9171002 ISRAEL, or to dtariel@ins.org.ilWebsite: www.ins.org.il

For inquiries regarding subscription to the journal, please e-mail to info@ins.org.il

The editors are not responsible for opinions expressed by the contributors.

© The Israel Numismatic Society, Jerusalem 2013

Israel Numismatic ResearchPublished by the Israel Numismatic Society

Volume 8 2013

Contents

5 Yigal Ronen: An Unusual Aramaic Graffito on an Athenian Tetradrachm 9 Rebecca SackS: Some Notes on the Depictions of the Achemenid Great

King on the Coins of Fourth-Century Judah, Samaria and Philistia 17 cathaRine c. loRbeR: A Mint Imitating Ptolemaic Tetradrachms of ‘Akko-

Ptolemais 25 tom buijtendoRp: Tyrian Sheqels as Savings: A New Perspective on the

Ramat Raḥel Hoard 31 cecilia meiR: Tyrian Sheqels from the ‘Isfiya Hoard, Part Four: Half

Sheqels 39 ido noY: Head Decoration Representations on Hasmonean and Herodian

Coins 55 iSadoRe goldStein and jean-philippe Fontanille: The Small Denominations

of Mattathias Antigonus: Die Classification and Interpretations 73 david b. hendin, nathan W. boWeR and Sean g. paRham: A Critical

Examination of Two Undated Prutot of the First Jewish Revolt 89 gil gambaSh, haim gitleR and hannah m. cotton: Iudaea Recepta 105 aaRon j. kogon: New Details and Notes on Some Minimi of Caesarea 109 uzi leibneR and gabRiela bijovSkY: Two Hoards from Khirbat Wadi

Ḥamam and the Scope of the Bar Kokhba Revolt 135 Yoav FaRhi: Note on Two Types of Lead Currency from Late Roman/Early

Byzantine Palestine (Fifth Century CE) 143 RobeRt kool, boRYS paSzkieWicz and edna j. SteRn: An Unrecorded

Bohemian Saint Christopher Penny from Montmusard, Acre 159 adolFo eidelStein and dannY SYon: An Unknown Token of the Commune

of Genoa in Thirteenth-Century ‘Akko 165 david j. WaSSeRStein: Islamic Coins and their Catalogues IV: Ḥandusis 175 WaRRen c. Schultz: Mamlūk Minting Techniques: The Manufacture of

Dirham Flans, 1250–1412 184 Corrigendum 185 Abbreviations

89INR 8 (2013): 89–104

IUDAEA RECEPTA

gil gambaSh haim gitleR hannah m. cotton

University of Haifa Israel Museum Hebrew University, Jerusalem ggambash@univ.haifa.ac.il gitler@imj.org.il hannah.cotton@mail.huji.ac.il

AbstractThis article, in memory of Alla Kushnir-Stein, discusses a newly discovered aureus, bearing a previously unattested legend, Iudaea recepta, and an equally unattested combination of iconographic elements on its reverse, issued immediately after the fall of Jerusalem in September, 70 CE. The idea of recepta, conveyed in both legend and iconography, was the re-subjugation of an old province, indeed precisely what one would have expected after a revolt was put down. This message must have been deliberately suppressed soon after the coin was issued, in favor of the capta type associated with the acquisition of new territory.

INTRODUCTION

A newly discovered aureus with the word combination Iudaea recepta was the subject of our last communication with our friend and colleague, Alla Kushnir-Stein (1941–2013). Naturally we had turned to her for help, and she excused her delayed response with her usual charming irony: “I am here but was forced underground by circumstances”. Little did we know that the end was so near. This study is dedicated to her memory, as a token of love and admiration.1

Iudaea recepta has not been found before in the official Roman propaganda advertising the conclusion of the first Jewish revolt (66–70 CE; Fig. 1) — whether on coins or elsewhere. The uniqueness of the coin does not stop at the legend, however: the various elements of the iconography on the reverse have also never before been found together.2 Being a unique coin type (so far) makes it immediately suspect, but in itself this does not necessarily undermine the coin’s authenticity. The Greek graffiti on the reverse, discussed in the Appendix, certainly corroborates the coin’s genuineness, as does the unanimous verdict of the scholars we have consulted.3

1 We are indebted to David and Jemima Jeselsohn for inviting us to publish this unique coin. It was bought at Numismatica Ars Classica, Auction 72, May 16, 2013, Lot 621.

2 It should be pointed out that the drapery on Vespasian’s left shoulder on the obverse is very unusual for gold or silver (Ian Carradice, pers. comm.).

3 We owe a great debt to many people who have given us indispensable help and generous advice: Aleksander Bursche, Ian Carradice, Werner Eck, Johannes Heinrich, Achim Lichtenberger, Ari Paltiel, Johan van Heesch, David J. Wasserstein, Alexander

gil gambaSh, haim gitleR and hannah m. cotton

90 GIL GAMBASH, HAIM GITLER AND HANNAH M. COTTON

The emergence of a single Iudaea recepta coin is enough to evoke Fergus Millar’s celebrated ‘double negative’, namely that “it is not the case that there are no examples of x from a particular time or place. That being so, the form of other arguments on larger issues will also be affected” (Millar 2002:48), prompting us to accommodate the coin’s existence and eventual (or rather immediate) eclipse with the evidence known so far.

The coin introduces a new and surprising piece of evidence for the Roman perception of the revolt and its aftermath. Its message can hardly be reconciled with the many elaborate theories, which for more than a century have been fueling heated debates. These debates revolve around the interpretation of Roman policy toward Jews and Judea in the aftermath of the revolt against the background of the termination of the civil wars, the Flavian need for legitimacy, and finally, an allegedly ingrained Jewish rebelliousness and its corollary, the beginning of a consistently anti-Jewish Roman policy.

However, we cannot be certain that the Iudaea recepta coin belongs to the well-known Iudaea capta type. As we will see both its iconography and the message conveyed by recepta suggest the opposite. Furthermore, there are good reasons to believe that it is earlier than the capta type. In this article, we will try to substantiate these two claims and elaborate on the message conveyed by the new coin.

DESCRIPTION

This aureus is allegedly part of a hoard of nine aurei, two of Nero, two of Vespasian (including the Iudaea recepta issue); one of Titus, one of Hadrian and three of Antoninus Pius.4

Yakobson and Anna Zapolska. Last but not least we wish to thank Reinhard Wolters for crucial last minute corrections, pointed out during a seminar entitled Currents in Numismatic Research, held December 1, 2013 in the Austrian Hospice, Jerusalem. We look forward to Wolters’ own article on the coin.

4 The references for these aurei (all mint of Rome) are as follows: Nero (´2, 64–65 CE; RIC I [rev.]:153, Nos. 48 and 52); Vespasian (´1, 76 CE; RIC II/1 [rev.]:119, No. 838); Titus (´1, September 13–December 31, 81 CE; RIC II/1 [rev.]:267, No. 22); Hadrian (´1, 117 CE; RIC II:340, No. 16); Antoninus Pius (´3, 138 CE; RIC III:27, No. 13; 140–143 CE; RIC III:34, No. 72c and 148–149 CE; RIC III:48, No. 177a).

91IUDAEA RECEPTA

Fig 1. The new Vespasian IVDAEA RECEPTA aureus (2:1 scale)Obv. Laureate head of Vespasian r., with drapery on l. shoulder; clockwise, inwardly from lower l.: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVGRev. The personification of Judea appears as a woman with crossed legs, bent arms, head resting on r. hand, beside a palm tree (without fruit); on l. and r. field inwardly: IVDAEA–RECEPTA; in exergue, graffito: ΛΔ or ΔΔ5

Š, ¯, 7.06 g,6 19 mm. Unpublished.

CHRONOLOGY

The post quem date of the new coin is determined by the legend on its reverse: A coin bearing the legend Iudaea recepta is not likely to have been issued before the fall of Jerusalem, as dated by Josephus, namely: “in the second year of the reign of Vespasian on the eighth of the month of Gorpiaios” (Josephus, BJ 6:435) ― whatever the Julian equivalence happens to be; i.e., September 2, 8 or 25, 70 CE.7 In fact, this should serve as the post quem date for the entire so-called capta series, whether our coin belongs to the latter or not. However, the imperial titulature on the obverse, IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG (RIC II/1[rev.]:19), inscribed clockwise, inwardly, from lower left (the direction changed in 73), and the lack of datable ‘republican titles and powers’, suggests strongly that it was issued

5 The appearance of Greek graffiti on this issue strongly suggests that the coin circulated in the Levant, see the appendix below.

6 The recepta aureus’ weight (7.06 g) is very close to the average weight of Vespasian’s aurei, which is 7.23 g (Bolin 1958:191–195). Bolin based his calculation (p. 192, Table 16) on the average weight of 667 aurei of Vespasian. The recepta coin may have lost some weight as it is evidently worn.

7 The ‘principle’ enunciated in the text above seems to have been acknowledged by Mattingly in CRE II, almost as an afterthought: “perhaps not till after the capture of Jerusalem, 7–8 September 70” (II:xxxiii). For the problematic nature of Josephus’ equivalence between Julian, Macedonian and Jewish months see Stern 2001:34–38; for a recent discussion of the three alternative dates (September 2, 8 and 25), see now Filippini 2012:134–143.

92 GIL GAMBASH, HAIM GITLER AND HANNAH M. COTTON

soon after the “eighth of the month of Gorpiaios”.8 This earlier dating is further supported by the unusual style of Vespasian’s portrait. This was the style used by Vespasian before adopting the so-called ‘Haupttypus’. The latter is well known for its realistic features and fits much better with Vespasian’s anti-Neronian ideology.9

CAPTA AND RECEPTA: ICONOGRAPHY AND LEGENDS ON ROMAN COINAGE

Victories over rebellious provincials were commemorated on a modest scale, restricted to the decoration of individuals and, on occasion, to the dedication of monuments solely located within the pacified province (Gambash 2009). This presents a contrast to the practice of commemoration on a grand scale that followed foreign achievements, whether victory on the battlefield or diplomatic success. The sources, written and material, naturally abound with representations of such commemorative projects, which may be characterized, above all, by the great scope of the celebrations, their long duration and the wide publicity given them across the empire. The numismatic evidence that normally takes the form of a capta type, with a variety of symbols and depictions of the defeated enemy and victorious Rome, plays a significant role here (Methy 1992; Cody 2003). The type may include, other than the specific legend of capta, legends similar in nature and significance, such as Antony’s Armenia devicta, or Drusus the Elder’s De Germanis.10 Sometimes the name of the province may be omitted, as well as the legend capta, leaving only the characteristic iconography (e.g., RIC II/1 [rev.]:84, Nos. 368–369; 178, No. 1562).

8 The same titulature is found on some undated aurei and denars, minted in Rome, RIC II/1 (rev.):58, Nos. 1–6; two of these coin types which have the legend IVDAEA in the exergue, should also be dated soon after the Julian equivalent of 8 Gorpiaios. For more examples cf. RIC II/1 (rev.):39, 41–42, 98, 158–159, Nos. 1365–1366; 1368; 1370; 1373–1375A; 1377; 1380–1383; 1385–1389.

9 Bergmann and Zanker 1981: esp. pp. 332–335. The early style may be seen in the bust of Vespasian in Museo arqueológico de Sevilla: http://www.museosdeandalucia.e s / c u l t u r a y d e p o r t e / m u s e o s / M A S E / i n d e x . j s p ? r e d i r e c t = S 2 _ 3 _ 1 _ 1 .jsp&idpieza=364&pagina=3. This is a style rarely seen in coins, e.g., Kent, Overbeck and Stylow 1973: Pl. 58:225. These early portraits have considerable variation in style, but they all differ from the later characteristic portrait. Therefore, it has been further suggested that some of them resemble that of Vitellius (e.g., RIC II/1 [rev.]:19, 58, Pl. 1:17, 27) whereas other resemble that of Galba (e.g., RIC II/1 [rev.], Pl. 2:30]. We owe special thanks to Achim Lichtenberger for this information as well as for many other helpful comments throughout the paper.

10 For Antony’s Armenia devicta see RRC:539, No. 543/1; for Drusus the Elder’s De Germanis see RIC I (rev.):132, No. 126.

93IUDAEA RECEPTA

Numismatists have recognized as the origin of the type a long line of late Republican capta coinage, which does not have capta on the reverse, but is consistent in representing a conquered enemy, usually kneeling, mourning and with hands bound.11 Moreover, the imagery also differentiates the capta type from other types, which represent the evolving relationship between Rome and its dominions, i.e., from conquest, to a plea for Roman favor, to the raising of the province from the ground by a Roman official and, finally, to the recognition of its loyalty. This process is documented numismatically in the following types: capta, supplicatio, provincia restituta and, finally, provincia fidelis.12

Popular during the late Republic and in the Augustan period, the capta type all but disappeared under the later Julio-Claudians. With the accession of the Flavians, however, it came back with a vengeance. In the 80s, a man’s purse in Rome, or elsewhere in the empire, would have held a variety of capta coins commemorating victories won in Judea, Britain and Germany. The case of Judea is exceptional, however, in that it attests to the repression of a revolt inside the empire, unlike the other two, which celebrate foreign victories over barbarian enemies. Taking its name, as it does, from the verb capere, the capta type does not offer the most accurate or natural representation of the restoration of control over a rebellious province; the official usage of the verb normally implied fierceness and brutality, measures often accentuated in the propaganda that followed foreign campaigns, but hardly ever characteristic of the subjugation of provincial revolts.13

11 The earliest example of the full scene is Marius’ celebration of his achievements in Gaul, namely his victories over the Cimbri and Teutones (RRC:328, No. 326.2, dated 101 BCE). A kneeling captive with hands tied behind her back appears on a denar that alludes to victories in Bithynia and Pontus of C. Memmius L. (RRC:451, No. 427.1, 56 BCE). Other examples include coins of Julius Caesar relating to Gaul (RRC:467, No. 452.4–5, 48–47 BCE; RRC:479, No. 468.1–2, 46–45 BCE and see Rose 2005:33–34). The issues of 46–45 BCE are the earliest examples showing a seated female captive with her head resting on her arm in a posture very similar to the one found one hundred years later on the Iudaea capta issues and on the coin discussed here; see below the discussion on Iudaea recepta. Also relevant are representations of shaggy-haired barbarian captives — from conquests in Spain in the early first century BCE (RRC:389, No. 372.2, 81 BCE) down to Caesar’s war in Gaul (RRC:463–464, No. 448.2–3, 48 BCE). For similar representations in sculpture see Picard 2009.

12 All this is explained and illustrated by Methy 1992 and Cody 2003. We deliberately refrain from using the term fides-type; fides in Latin is far too complex a concept to be used in this context, see the classical treatment by Heinze (1960:56–86).

13 The violent undertones of the term capta are conveyed clearly enough in such statements as the one supplied by Tacitus in his report of the brutal annexation of the client kingdom of the Iceni, which precipitated the eruption of the Boudican revolt: quod contra vertit, adeo ut regnum per centuriones, domus per servos velut capta vastarentur [But the opposite thing transpired, to the extent that the kingdom was plundered by centurions and the royal house by slaves, as though conquered in war]

94 GIL GAMBASH, HAIM GITLER AND HANNAH M. COTTON

It is against this backdrop that we should consider the occurrence of the recepta legend and differentiate the type from that of the capta type, without losing sight of the iconography, which, needless to say, should be in harmony with the legend, or at least not contradict it.

Until the Iudaea recepta coin discussed here surfaced, relevant coins carrying the legend recepta on their reverse were known only for the time of Octavian/Augustus.14 The first known representation carries the legend Asia recepta, dating to 29–27 BCE (Fig. 2).

Fig 2. ASIA RECEPTA quinarius, Ephesus, 29–27 BCE (RIC I [rev.]:61, No. 276; BNCMER I:143, Nos. 899–904; Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung) (2:1 scale)

Bequeathed to Rome by Attalus III of Pergamum in 133 BCE, the province of Asia found itself often backing the losing side in local conflicts as well as in the civil wars of the first century BCE, down to the debacle at Actium in 31 BCE and had to be readmitted to the victor’s favor. The issuing of capta coinage at the time, representing Asia as a foreign enemy recently conquered, would have been inappropriate. In fact, from that point onward, the province demonstrated its renewed loyalty by organizing the ruler cult of Augustus at both provincial and civic level. This background may explain the choice of the term recepta for the coins that were eventually issued for Asia. The term was either newly invented for the occasion, or, if earlier representations of it existed, one readily available for the commemoration of the regaining of control over a veteran province.

The contrast with the contemporary Aegupto capta coinage drives home the point: The latter propagated foreign conquest on a large, imperial scale and served perfectly Octavian’s need for foreign victories. He could now (29 BCE) celebrate in Rome his famous first triumph, marking his victory at Actium, the annexation of Egypt and victories won in Illyricum (RIC I [rev.]:38, 85–86, Nos. 544–546).

The next known appearance of a recepta legend on coins occurred after Augustus’ Armenian settlement of 20 BCE. Following the eastern campaigns of Lucullus and Pompey, Rome conducted a long but ultimately successful

(Tac. Ann. 14:31).14 That is, coins relating to the preservation or expansion of the provincial system.

Augustus’ and Vespasian’s signis receptis will be discussed below.

95IUDAEA RECEPTA

struggle with Parthia over Armenia. In the year 20 BCE, Rome responded to popular demand in Armenia by sending home Tigranes III, who had been held as hostage and educated in Rome at least since 30 BCE. Even before Tigranes reached Armenia, king Artaxias II was assassinated. Tigranes’ installation on the throne, with the support of Tiberius and a Roman army, proceeded bloodlessly. Notwithstanding Tigranes’ overtures toward the Parthians, as revealed in his coinage, his promise to keep his allegiance to Rome allowed Augustus to claim that although he could have turned Armenia into a province, he preferred to install a native king there (See RG 27).

Two types of coinage are known to have been issued in commemoration of this achievement: the one reading Armenia recepta, the other Armenia capta (Fig. 3).15

Fig 3. ARMENIA RECEPTA and ARMENIA CAPTA denars, Pergamum, 19 BCE (Classical Numismatic Group and Numismatica Ars Classica) (1.5:1 scale)

Along with these legends, both have on their reverse an Armenian tiara, a quiver and a bow case. On the obverse we find Augustus’ familiar portrait above the legend AVGVSTVS. Given the distinction pointed out above between Aegupto capta coins on the one hand and Asia recepta coins on the other, one wonders why the successful and peaceful investiture of Tigranes won these two clashing representations: in fact, as pointed out by Spannagel (2000:623), neither one of the two was appropriate to describe the status of a client kingdom that almost slipped out of Roman hands and was reclaimed by a move that may best be described as diplomatic in nature.16 However, it is worth noting that as in the present case, recepta gave place to capta (Spannagel 2000).

15 For Armenia capta see RIC I [rev.]:83, Nos. 515–516, 520 and BNCMER I:154–155, Nos. 995–999. For Armenia recepta see RIC I [rev.]:83, No. 517 and BNCMER I:154, No. *. The Armenia Capta series includes also aurei with Victory kneeling on the back of a bull and a seated Sphinx (RIC I [rev.]:82–83, Nos. 513–514) and denars with a standing figure (RIC I [rev.]:83, No. 519).

16 The right way to express the investiture of a client king in Armenia was REX ARMENIS DATVS, as we learn from the coins minted by Trajan and Antoninus Pius (Spannagel 2000:623 n. 14).

96 GIL GAMBASH, HAIM GITLER AND HANNAH M. COTTON

Be that as it may, the term recepta in the imperial-provincial context, i.e., a return to the embrace of the empire, represents a status essentially different from that conveyed by the term capta, a conquest by force of new territory, and the corresponding iconography reflects it as well.

It is against this background that one should examine the anomaly of describing as capta an old province that had rebelled against Rome and was brought under the imperial yoke again when the revolt was put down. It is precisely in this case that we would have expected Iudaea recepta. Ironically, as it happens, it is the recent emergence of a Iudaea recepta coin that must now be explained.

THE FIRST JEWISH REVOLT

Roman policy toward the Jews during and after the first Jewish revolt has won the attention it deserved in Goodman’s magisterial Rome and Jerusalem (2007) and the reactions to that work. Goodman rightly ascribed great importance to the harshness shown toward the Jews after the suppression of the revolt, which created the climate for further escalation. He mentioned Rome’s failure to allow the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem and the imposition, as well as the retention, of the special tax imposed on Jews throughout the Roman world. This, according to Goodman, unusual and unexpected severity cannot be explained by ordinary considerations of Roman imperial policy, but was the result of the new dynasty’s need to base its legitimacy on a victory over a foreign enemy, in which light the Jews had to be constantly presented and treated. This policy, Goodman suggested, had fateful repercussions for the relations between the Jews and the Roman Empire, resulting finally in two further rebellions with catastrophic results, in the Diaspora under Trajan and in Judea under Hadrian.

Most scholars, however, although acknowledging the severity demonstrated toward the Jews, nevertheless would not follow Goodman in attributing these steps to the private needs of the Flavian dynasty. “No want of legitimacy would have existed for an emperor who brought to an end a civil war which endangered the very existence of the Roman state”.17 Secondly, the Jews may well have been perceived by the Roman government as foreign enemies of the empire and the revolt as a foreign war of conquest no later than the initial Roman debacle, when Cestius Gallus, the governor of Syria, was humiliatingly defeated by the rebels in Bet Ḥoron in 66 (Gambash 2013; see below).

The immediate consequence of this event put on hold the long and generally friendly relationship of Rome with the Jews and all prospects for a prompt renewal of mutual trust in the region. The next campaign, led by Vespasian and

17 The quotation is taken from Yakobson forthcoming. We thank Alexander Yakobson for generously sharing with us the draft of his forthcoming article.

97IUDAEA RECEPTA

Titus, was prepared and executed on a large scale as a campaign of conquest of new territory and its scope and duration left no doubt as to its nature. If further proof is needed, the allocation of a massive force of 60,000 troops, commanded by a senior general, supplies it. Vespasian’s task force in 67 was twice as large as that employed by Gallus a year earlier and equal in strength to the army that invaded Britain in 43 under the command of Aulus Plautius.18 Vespasian, who was the commander of legio II Augusta in that invasion, would treat Jewish insubordination just as severely as he had treated the Durotriges and Dumnonii earlier (Millett 1990:47–49; cf. Suet. Vesp. 4). No wonder, then, that the methods employed by this army were similar to those used in foreign campaigns of conquest in several respects, such as the distinct preference for the concentration of effort, the employment of time-consuming tactics and the severity shown toward the civilian population (Gambash 2013). In addition there are reasons to suspect that Vespasian’s personal interests also played a part in prolonging the suppression of the revolt: as early as the initial part of the campaign in Judea and even before the outbreak of the civil war, the growing instability of the imperial throne would have been noticed around the Roman world, naturally prompting a general like Vespasian, standing at the head of a strong army, to make efforts to maintain his special command for as long as possible — and all the more so once news of Nero’s death reached him (Josephus, BJ 4:502; Tac. Hist. 5:10; see Nicols 1978; Griffin 1987; Griffin 2000). At that point, with so many contenders for the throne, he would not have failed to take advantage of his position at the head of four legions with an imperium maius in the East, where two strong allies, C. Licinius Mucianus in Syria and Tiberius Iulius Alexander in Egypt, had already committed themselves and their armies to his cause. This constellation would have favored slow progress, thereby adding to the duration of the campaign.

All of the factors enumerated above, combined with the perception of the rebellious population as a dedicated enemy, must have dictated the ‘terms of peace’. Once pacified, the province would have had to be strictly secured and remain heavily garrisoned — at least for a period. Indeed, upon victory, the legio X Fretensis was stationed on the site of the destroyed city of Jerusalem, turning the province into the first one-legion province with a governor of pro-praetorian rank.19 The auxiliary force posted in the province was increased to match the legionary presence. It comprised troops originating in foreign regions,20 since those that had once garrisoned the region, and consisted of troops of local origin, were transferred to other provinces (Josephus, Ant. 19:366).

18 Millar 1993:72. For the comparison with Britain see Millar 2005:101.19 Thomasson 1973; Cotton 1999; Cotton, Eck and Isaac 2003. 20 As indicated by a military diploma from the year 86 (CIL 16.33).

98 GIL GAMBASH, HAIM GITLER AND HANNAH M. COTTON

IUDAEA RECEPTA

Indeed, soon after the fall of Jerusalem, the suppression of the first Jewish revolt was celebrated in Rome as a victory over a foreign enemy. Such hostile treatment of the population of a province had little precedent in the long and varied history of the Roman government’s relationship with its dominions. It has been observed that the triumph celebrated by Vespasian in 71 was an anomaly — the only one ever to be held in celebration of a victory over a provincial population, as was the raising of two arches commemorating it.21 The production and wide circulation of Iudaea capta coins were in harmony with this line of commemoration — capta coin types having been issued up to that point only to celebrate foreign victories.22 Once the violent suppression of the Jewish revolt had lasted long enough, requiring the investment of a huge military effort, it was only natural as well as desirable for the Flavians to use the campaign to buttress their position and indirectly celebrate the end of the civil war in the empire.

How to account, therefore, for the existence of the Iudaea recepta coin, whose import and significance seem to be in direct contradiction to a triumphal ceremony and the dedication of arches to Titus for his victory over the Jews, even if that victory served only as a guise for celebrating the far greater achievement of bringing the civil war to an end?

Before we answer this question we need to examine the legend together with the imagery and convince ourselves that the contradiction is indeed there.

Two features in particular deserve attention, namely the crossed legs and the raised arm. The crossed legs do not necessarily represent a Jewish captive. True, later Flavian issues of Iudaea capta do present a Jewish captive standing with crossed legs (Vespasian 71 CE; RIC II/1 [rev.]:63, No. 51; 71, No. 163; Titus 80–81 CE; RIC II/1 [rev.]:208, Nos. 146, 149, 153),23 but earlier employment of this posture, e.g., on coins minted by Galba, belongs to the provincia fidelis type. Moreover, Titus and Domitian themselves used it to represent Venus and Salus respectively (Fig. 4).24

21 E.g., Millar 2005:102; Gambash 2009:67–69. Unlike the triumph and the two arches, the Templum Pacis primarily celebrated the end to the civil war, and although the Flavian Amphitheater, popularly known as the Colosseum, was financed by the manubiae obtained in the first Jewish revolt (see Alföldy 1995), it did not directly commemorate the victory over the Jews; but see GBC:412–415 for a specific Colosseum type, sestertii of Titus, which Hendin assigned to the capta series.

22 For the typology of Iudaea capta coins see Ciecielag 2006.23 The closest parallels to the Iudaea capta issues depicting a captive standing with

crossed legs and a mourning woman resting her head on her arm are the Germania capta sestertii of Domitian, minted in Rome between 85 and 87 CE (RIC II/1 [rev.]:284, Nos. 274; 297, No. 463; 301, No. 525).

24 Sculptural representations do not offer much help: Standing figures with crossed legs

99IUDAEA RECEPTA

Fig 4. Issues of Galba depicting Gallia and Hispania (RIC I [rev.]:233, No.150; Soler y Llach Subastas); Titus representing Venus (RIC II/1 [rev.]:200, Nos. 13–16) and Domitian showing Salus (RIC II/1 [rev.]:205, No. 97)

The raised arm should give us pause;25 this posture did indeed become a consistent representation of Judea’s mourning on Iudaea capta coins. However, on the latter it is always in the company of a variety of other attributes, such as the kneeling position of the image, or the trophy towering over its head etc., which are completely absent from the recepta coin. Here the raised arm is not accompanied by any of the attributes that make a regular capta scene into one of complete and utter dejection. Indeed, to an eye unprejudiced by the Iudaea capta coinage, it may well have appeared as representing regret or contemplation rather than the loss of hope.26 Furthermore, later representations of this gesture in sculpture are usually interpreted as a token of provincial submissiveness and devotion (Schneider 1992:300), and the recepta coin may well be an early example expressing these ideas.

The combination of the crossed legs and the raised arm is unknown on coins before the third century CE, representing Securitas.27 It also appears in Greek sculpture: It is, for example, one of several elements in the so-called Thusnelda statue which represents an oriental barbarian, possibly Medea.28

are known mostly from later centuries, generally representing barbarian peoples; only when their hands are bound can they be identified as captives (e.g., Schneider 1986: Pl. 38).

25 The only earlier appearance of the gesture, known to us, is found on Caesar’s coinage discussed above (n. 11). During the over 100 years intervening between Caesar and our coin, there was no recurrence of the gesture.

26 This interpretation is more or less a paraphrase of Iohannes Heinrichs’ personal communication and we are grateful to him for allowing us to cite it here.

27 Securitas is standing with legs crossed, placing her right hand on the head, and leaning on a column: RIC IV/3:145, No. 191 (Trajan Decius); 150, No. 225 (Hostilian); 172, Nos. 124 (Trebonianus Gallus); 174, No. 136 (Volusian); 189, No. 261 (Volusian).

28 For modern perceptions of Thusnelda see Benario 2004. For later examples and

100 GIL GAMBASH, HAIM GITLER AND HANNAH M. COTTON

However, it seems pointless to concentrate on one detail or another and isolate it from the whole. The specific posture and detail of the female figure on our coin, taken together with the legend Iudaea recepta, conveys a totally different message from that conveyed by the iconography and legend on the Iudaea capta coinage. True, on the basis of what we see on the coin we cannot claim that we have something similar to the provincia fidelis-type (see n. 12 above), but it most emphatically does not belong with the capta type. Quite the contrary. It would be perfectly admissible to apply in this case the connotation of recepta established by the Augustan precedents. Judea is presented as a former province that had temporarily been lost to the empire and was now reintegrated into the provincial system.

This would in fact have been in line with Rome’s normal practice, which sought to return as quickly and efficiently as possible to the antequam situation, i.e., not merely the avoidance of sweeping retributive measures, but also a rapid demilitarization and a prompt resumption of the province’s former status (Gambash 2012). This is precisely what took place once the Batavian revolt, led by Civilis, was put down by Petilius Cerialis in the year 71 (Tac. Germ. 29). On the latter occasion Vespasian was satisfied with advertising the return of the military standards, which had been lost during the conflict, on his signis receptis coinage,29 recalling the Augustan precedent (RIC II/1 [rev.]:67, Nos. 119–120; RIC II/1 [rev.]:69, No. 138).

We propose that the Iudaea recepta coin expresses what must have been an earlier and short-lived (and probably also short-sighted) policy, completely opposed to the one eventually adopted, and for that reason immediately discarded. The message it conveyed to the Jews and the empire at large was at variance with the great impact of the revolt, the toll it had taken on Rome and, last but not least, it was a political blunder of which Vespasian, if it was he who was responsible for issuing the coin, must have repented later.30 But was it Vespasian?

We thus tentatively propose that it was Titus, rather, who impulsively rushed to declare, that Judea was back under the yoke (Iudaea recepta), only to be called

an interpretation of the specific posture, particularly the raised arm, see Schneider 1992. For provinces represented in various postures see the ethne statues from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias (e.g., in Smith 1987). For ‘Thusnelda’ examined against the background of the simulacra gentium, see Carpenter 1941:63–65.

29 For the lost standards see Tac. Hist. 4:12–37.30 Vespasian may well have been back in Rome by the end of September, 70 CE see

Halfmann 1986:178; Kienast 1996: 108.

101IUDAEA RECEPTA

to order by his father.31 In this case our coin is likely to have been minted in Judea, either in Jerusalem or somewhat later in Caesarea Maritima.32

APPENDIX

Two incised letters appear in the exergue of the reverse, lambda (Λ) and delta (Δ), or perhaps the letter delta (Δ) appears twice.33

The practice of incising graffiti on coins (one or more letters, monograms or symbols) is on the whole confined to the Levant. Deliberate incisions first appear on silver issues of the Persian period (fifth–fourth centuries BCE) and become common during Hellenistic times (fourth–third centuries BCE). The most detailed review of the phenomenon for the early periods appears in Elayi and Lemaire 1998 (especially pp. 15–19) and also Lemaire and Elayi 1992 (see also Ronen, this volume). There seem to be no fixed rules for placing the graffiti but they are mostly incised in an empty space on the coin where they are more visible. It has been noted that roughly 5% of Syro-Phoenician provincial tetradrachms dated from the first century BCE to the third century CE display graffiti on them, which, as in the present case, appear in empty spaces on the coin (see Gitler and Ponting 2003:97–99). This phenomenon is also well attested on Late Roman and Byzantine solidi, discussed by Bijovsky (2002:178–180) and on the Umayyad gold dinars after the reform by ‘Abd al-Malik (Berman 1989). The example of

31 See Spannagel 2000: 628 for pertinent remarks on the need to examine the process of decision making in the creation of coin legends and the dissemination of propaganda.

32 For the minting of aurei in Judea see Carradice and Buttrey in RIC II/1 (rev.):46 on a group of aurei minted in 70 CE (Nos. 1530–1538): “Stylistic links with the provincial ‘Judaea Capta’ coinage and other evidence points to a Judaean origin for these coins. Most of the reverse types are original and some refer directly or indirectly to the Flavian, and especially Titus’ victories in Judaea, which is why they are usually dated to the period after the fall of Jerusalem in August 70”; similarly, RPC II:271, Nos. 1908–1913. Finally, see Lach 2012 for the demand for gold coins in the East at the time.

However, stylistic criteria must be supplemented by metallurgical analysis. For example, chemical analysis has revealed that while the traditional numismatic attributions of Severan denarii are generally accurate, about 10% of attributions are false, thereby allowing a significant portion of uncertainly attributed denarii to be given definite attributions: see Gitler and Ponting 2003: esp. pp. 52, 63–78).

33 For examples of contemporaneous early Roman aurei and denars with graffiti see: http://pro.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=137829&AucID=163&Lot=329; http://pro.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=520131&AucID=930&Lot=25904; http://pro.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=235038&AucID=337&Lot=2066; http://pro.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=423087&AucID=767&Lot=314; and http://pro.coinarchives.com/a/lotviewer.php?LotID=74550&AucID=79&Lot=517.

102 GIL GAMBASH, HAIM GITLER AND HANNAH M. COTTON

the Byzantine-period Bet She’an hoard is striking: it includes no fewer than 262 solidi with graffiti, which represent almost 35% of the whole group of 751 solidi in the hoard dated to the reigns of Phocas, Heraclius, Constans II and Constantine IV (Bijovsky 2002:179).

Several theories have been put forward to explain the phenomenon of graffiti on coins. It is likely that graffiti served different functions over time. Anderson and van Alfen (2008:170–174) suggested that the cuts were made to discover counterfeits or alternatively that they represented a crude marking system. It has also been suggested that they represent initials or combinations that served as personal marks or coded identifications of owners, moneychangers and merchants (Holzer 1944:33, 36). Finally, they have been said to represent aids to counting and reckoning (Berman 1989:184). However, a thorough overall study of the phenomenon is still needed before the function of the graffiti can be fully understood.

REFERENCES

Alföldy G. 1995. Eine Bauinschrift aus dem Colosseum. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 109:195–226.

Anderson L. and van Alfen P.G. 2008. A Fourth Century BCE Hoard from the Near East. AJN 20:155–198.

Benario H.W. 2004. Arminius into Hermann: History into Legend. Greece and Rome 51:83–94.

Bergmann M. and Zanker P. 1981. ‘Damnatio memoriae’. Umgearbeitete Nero- und Domitiansporträts. Zur Ikonographie der flavischen Kaiser und des Nerva. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 96:317–412.

Berman A. 1989. Sgraffiti. In V. Tzaferis. Excavations at Capernaum I: 1978–1982. Winona Lake, Ind. Pp. 181–190.

Bijovsky G. 2002. A Hoard of Byzantine Solidi from Bet She’an in the Umayyad Period. RN 158:161–227.

BNCMER I: J.-B. Giard. Catalogue des monnaies de l’empire Romain I: Auguste. Paris 1988.

Bolin S. 1958. State and Currency in the Roman Empire to 300 A.D. Stockholm.

Carpenter R. 1941. Observations on Familiar Statuary in Rome. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 18:1–110.

Ciecielag J. 2006. Anti-Jewish Policy of the Roman Empire from Vespasian until Hadrian, in the Light of Numismatic Sources – Fact or Myth? INR 1:101–110.

Cody J.M. 2003. Conquerors and Conquered on Flavian Coins. In A.J. Boyle and W.A. Dominik eds. Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text. Leiden-Boston. Pp. 103–123.

103IUDAEA RECEPTA

Cotton H.M. 1999. Some Aspects of the Roman Administration of Judaea/ Syria-Palaestina. In W. Eck and E. Müller-Luckner eds. Lokale Autonomie und römische Ordnungsmacht in den kaiserzeitlichen Provinzen vom 1. bis 3. Jahrhundert. Münich. Pp. 75–91.

Cotton H.M., Eck W. and Isaac B. 2003. A Newly Discovered Governor of Judaea in a Military Diploma from 90 CE. Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology 2:17–31.

Elayi J. and Lemaire A. 1998. Graffiti et contremarques ouest-sémitiques sur les monnaies grecques et proche-orientales (Glaux 13). Milan.

Filippini A. 2012. Sul Dies Natalis di Giulia, il calendario ebraico e la strategia militare di Tito. In G.L. Gregori and A. Filippini, I Flavi e le Popolazioni Alpine Adtributae a Brixia. In F. Morandini and P. Panazza eds. Divus Vespasianus. Brescia. Pp. 132–167.

Gambash G. 2009. Official Roman Responses to Indigenous Resistance Movements: Aspects of Commemoration. In J. Geiger, H.M. Cotton and G.D. Stiebel eds. Israel’s Land: Papers Presented to Israel Shatzman on his Jubilee. Ra‘anana-Jerusalem. Pp. 53–76.

Gambash G. 2012. To Rule a Ferocious Province: Roman Policy and the Boudican Revolt. Britannia 43:1–15.

Gambash G. 2013. Foreign Enemies of the Empire: The Great Jewish Revolt and the Roman Perception of the Jews. Scripta Classica Israelica 32:173–194.

GBC: D. Hendin. Guide to Biblical Coins (5th ed.). New York 2010.

Gitler H. and Ponting M. 2003. The Silver Coinage of Septimius Severus and His Family (193–211 AD): A Study of the Chemical Composition of the Roman and Eastern Issues (Glaux 16). Milan.

Goodman M. 2007. Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations. London-New York.

Griffin M.T. 1987. Nero: the End of a Dynasty. London.

Griffin M.T. 2000. The Flavians. In A.K. Bowman, P. Garnsey and D. Rathbone eds. The Cambridge Ancient History xi: The High Empire, A.D. 70–192. (2nd ed.) Cambridge. Pp. 1–83.

Halfmann H. 1986. Itinera principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich. Stuttgart.

Heinze R. 1960. Vom Geist des Römertums. Stuttgart.

Holzer H. 1944. Christian and Secular Graffiti on Late Roman and Byzantine Gold Pieces. Numismatic Review 2:33–47.

Kent J., Overbeck B. and Stylow A.U. 1973. Die römische Münze. Munich.

Kienast D. 1990. Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie. Darmstadt.

Lach K. 2012. Aurei of Vespasian Struck in Alexandria. Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization 16:183–190.

104 GIL GAMBASH, HAIM GITLER AND HANNAH M. COTTON

Lemaire A. and Elayi J. 1992. Graffiti monétaires ouest-sémitiques. In T. Hackens and G. Moucharte eds. Numismatique et Histoire économique dans le monde phénico-punique (Studia Phoenicia IX). Louvain-la-Neuve. Pp. 59–76.

Methy N. 1992. La représentation des provinces dans le monnayage romain de l’époque impériale (70–235 après J.C.). Quaderni Ticinesi, Numismatica e Antichità Classiche 21:267–289.

Millar F. 1993. The Roman Near East. 31 BC–AD 337. London-Cambridge, Mass.

Millar F. 2002. Epigraphy. In H.M. Cotton and G.M. Rogers eds. Rome, the Greek World, and the East 1. Chapel Hill. Pp. 39–84.

Millar F. 2005. Last Year in Jerusalem: Monuments of the Jewish War in Rome. In J. Edmondson, S. Mason and J.B. Rives eds. Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome. Oxford. Pp. 101–128.

Millett M. 1990. The Romanization of Britain. An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. Cambridge.

Nicols J. 1978. Vespasian and the Partes Flavianae. Wiesbaden.

Picard P. 2009. Le Gaulois captif. In L. Long and P. Picard eds. César. Le Rhône pour mémoire. Vingt ans de fouilles dans le fleuve à Arles. Catalogue de l’exposition tenue à Arles, musée départemental Arles antique, 24 octobre 2009–19 septembre 2010. Pp. 152–161.

Rose C.B. 2005. The Parthians in Augustan Rome. American Journal of Archaeology 109:21–75.

Schneider R.M. 1986. Bunte Barbaren: Orientalen Statuen aus farbigem Marmor in der römischen repräsentationskunst. Worms.

Schneider R.M. 1992. Orientalische Tischdiener als römische Tischfüsse. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1992:295–305.

Smith R.R.R. 1987. The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias. Journal of Roman Studies 87:88–138.

Spannagel M. 2000. ARMENIA RECEPTA aut CAPTA? Zur Veranderung einer augusteischen Münzlegende. TINC 12:622–629.

Stern S. 2001. Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar, Second Century BCE―Tenth Century CE. Oxford.

Thomasson B.E. 1973. The One-Legion Provinces of the Roman Empire during the Principate. Opuscula Romana 9:61–66.

Yakobson A. Forthcoming. Rome’s Attitude to Jews and Judaea after the Great Rebellion—Beyond raison d’état?