H. Gitler, Different Aspects of the Quantification of Persian Period Coinages of Palestine, in F. de Callataÿ (ed.), Quantifying Monetary Supplies in Greco-Roman Times (Pragmateiai 19), Bari 2011, pp. 267–284.

HAIM GITLER DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE QUANTIFICATION OF PERSIAN PERIOD COINAGES OF PALESTINE The current paper will deal with aspects related to the quantification of monetary supplies in Persian period Palestine as well as other implications that this study has revealed. The discussion will be divided into three sections, the coinages of Philistia, Samaria and Judah. Philistia The exciting data on the Philistian coinages does not allow us to carry out a quantitative study in order to estimate the output of coin production in this area. However other noteworthy aspects of these coinages can be proposed based on the quantification of the 311 coin-types of this series. The following four tables (Tables 1-4) are based on the coins recorded in Gitler & Tal 2006 and provide a new quantitative perspective on the occurrences of types of coins struck from the same pair of dies as opposed to those struck from several dies. Table 3 is a quantitative summary of Philistian coins known to us so far from a single specimen. Figure 1 brings forward a comparative summary of Tables 1–3 combined. The quantitative study of the Philistian coins reveals the following data regarding the minting procedure of these coinages. Out of the 390 published Philistian coins, 103 (26.4%) were struck from the same pair of dies (Table 1); 60 (15.4%) are struck from several pairs of dies (Table 2) and 227 (58.2%) are coins known from single specimens (Table 3, see also fig. 1). Moreover, out of the 311 coin-types of Philistian coins which we have recorded 70 belong to a coin series of more than one denomination (Table 4). Chronological implications. Elsewhere we have proposed revised chronology for dating the beginning of Philistian coinage to slightly after 450 BC – parallel to 2 HAIM GILTER Ashdod Ashkelon Gaza Philistian Total 390 types of Philistian coins – 103 are struck from the same pair of dies* Tetradrachms Didrachms Drachms Obols Hemiobols Fractions 8 5 1 5 6 1 6 4 1 1 22 38 6 2 1 41 52 7 – * The term “types” refer to different types of coins regardless their denomination as opposed to the term “cointypes” which describes coins bearing the same motifs but minted in different denominations (coin V23O has not been included in this table). Table 1. - Quantitative summary of Philistian coins struck from the same pair of dies (modified after data in Gitler and Tal 2006). 390 types of Philistian coins – 60 are struck from several pairs of dies Tetradrachms Didrachms Drachms Obols Hemiobols 1 1 1 3 9 8 1 19 14 3 30 26 4 Fractions Ashdod Ashkelon Gaza Philistian Total Table 2. - Quantitative summary of Philistian coins struck from several pair of dies (modified after data in Gitler and Tal 2006). 390 types of Philistian coins – 227 single specimens Didrachms Drachms Hemidrachms Obols 5 7 6 6 10 11 1 62 3 50 1 83 3 74 Tetradrachms Ashdod Ashkelon Gaza Philistian Total 1 5 2 8 Hemiobols 2 2 5 39 48 Table 3. - Quantitative summary of Philistian coins know from a single specimen (modified after data in Gitler and Tal 2006). Fig. 1. - Comparative summary of Tables 2–4 combined (total of 390 Philistian coins). DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE QUANTIFICATION OF PERSIAN PERIOD CONIAGE IN PALESTINE 3 Ashdod Ashkelon Gaza Philistian Total 311 coin-types of Philistian coins 70 belong to a coin series of more than one denomination Tetradrachms Didrachms Drachms Drachms Drachms Drachms Drachms Drachms Obols Obols Obols Hemiobols Hemiobols Hemiobols Fractions 1 7 1 1 4 1 4 8 1 1 5 26 1 1 1 11 45 1 Table 4. - Quantitative summary of Philistian coins belonging to a series of more than one denomination (modified after data in Gitler and Tal 2006). the first issues of the Phoenician cities 1. The three coastal cities that struck coins in Philistia – Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza – were probably under tight PhoenicianTyrian hegemony. Effectively, their political status became semi-autonomous once they received the right to mint municipal coins. This status is very much evident in the motifs chosen for depiction on their coins: although originating from varied sources (including Phoenician ones), the motifs are mostly unique. We may assume that Tyre proffered this semi-autonomous status with the approval of the Achaemenid rule. The Use of the Archaic Eye Motif? From an iconographic point of view, Philistian coins can be divided into two groups, Athenian-styled and Philistian-styled. The Athenian-styled issues copy two types of Athena’s heads, one with a frontallydepicted eye and the other with a fully-developed profile eye. The dating of these styles in the original Athenian issues is commonly accepted. The shift to the conventionalized Athenian style occurred circa 450s BC. These issues depict Athena with a frontal eye. Kroll in fact suggests a more precise dating of these Athenian issues to the years 454 to circa 415–413 BC, 2 as he sees the beginning of the conventionalized style and the mass striking of this series in relation to the removal of the Athenian League treasury from Delos to Athens in 454 BC, and its most probable termination in relation to the decline in silver bullion income from Athens’ allies and the Laurion mines. 3 Tetradrachms with Athena’s (new) profile eye show up in three Sicilian hoards of the 380s. 4 However, since the minting output was modest and remained so to the middle of the fourth century BC the fully-developed profile eye is best attested in the so-called pi-style tetradrachms dated to circa 350 1 2 Gitler & Tal 2006, 63-68. Kroll 1993, 6-7. 3 Kroll 1993, 6, esp. note 11 and Kroll 2001, 3, note 2. 4 Kroll 1993, 8. 4 HAIM GILTER Fig. 2. - Left: Athenian Tetradrachm depicting a frontal eye. Center: Philistian drachm with a frontal eye (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris PA341 - Gitler and Tal 2006: XIX. 17Da). Right: Superposition of the facial area around the frontal eye of the Philistian drachm over the same area on the Athenian tetradrach BC. Accordingly a quantitative study of the appearance of these two styles in the Philistian coinage may have chronological (and possibly historical) implications. A so far overlooked fact may shed even further light on the chronological aspects of the Philistian (and the Judean and Samarian) coinage. From the iconographical point of view, it is clear that the Athenian head not only influenced local Athenianstyled types but also the Philistian-styled ones. A clear example is seen on fig. 2. This example shows that Philistian die engravers used Athena’s head as a prototype for the designing of heads in the Philistian series. Comparison of the appearance of the frontally-depicted eye versus that of the profile eye in both the Athenian- and Philistian-styled coinages (Tables 5-6) produces intriguing results. Table 5 shows that there are no coins with Athena-head obverses from the mints of Ashdod and Ashkelon with profile eyes. Moreover, the vast majority of Athenian-styled coins from the remainder of the mints depict a frontal eye (85.5%). This distinctive preference for the earlier style is even more significant when we examine the Philistian-styled coins. On Table 6 we note that without exception all the 181 Philistian-styled coins depicting female and male heads depict a frontal eye! May we draw implications from these findings? One could be that the Philistian die engravers had a preference for the earlier (archaic) style, and specifically for the frontally-depicted eye. 5 Although the Athenians had made a noticeable stylistic change in the depiction of the eye, the Philistian die engravers clearly did not implement this on their coinage. However, can a stylistic preference be sufficient to explain the fact that over 95% of the Philistian coins with heads depict a frontal eye? 5 A similar stylistic preference is evident in the middle or the second half of the fourth century BC Egyptian Athenian-styled issues. In both the 4D Egyptian imitations (Buttrey 1982, 1984), and the Athenian-styled Artaxerxes III Pharaoh tetradrachms with demotic characters (Mørkholm 1974), the eye of Athena is frontally-depicted and not profile (see also Figueira 1998, 531-532). DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE QUANTIFICATION OF PERSIAN PERIOD CONIAGE IN PALESTINE 5 Philistian issues with Athena’s Head* Frontal eye 6 9 9 53 77 Ashdod Ashkelon Gaza Philistian Total Profile eye 0 0 8 5 13 * Based on coin-types (excluding VII–X - except VII.6O) Table 5. - Quantitative summary of Philistian coins with Athena-head obverses. Philistian Female / Male Heads Frontal eye 12 15 20 134 181 Ashdod Ashkelon Gaza Philistian Total Profile eye 0 0 0 0 0 Table 6. - Quantitative summary of Philistian issues with Female / Male Heads. Another alternative is that this is not a preference in style but rather it reflects a chronological difference. All the Philistian-styled coins may have a circa 380 BC (or even more likely circa 350) terminus ante quem. Most of the Athenian-styled coins as well may have the same terminus ante quem. There is no doubt that the Philistian and Gazaian issues which depict Athena’s head with a profile eye have a terminus post quem of circa 380 BC (or even more likely circa 350). This is because the change in style from a frontal to a profile eye would not have occurred in Philistia before it did in Athens given the stylistic influences mentioned above. It should be noted, however, that Coin-types VII-X 6 are excluded from Table 5. These are Athenian-styled Athena/Owl Palestinian imitations, with neither additional motifs nor any North-West Semitic letters in the field. Most of these issues are ma‘en (m‘n) (“obols”) 7 which are the most common denomination used in Late Persian-period Palestine. The finding of more profile eye specimens in this group might imply that these coins became more common towards the second half of the fourth century BC. Gitler & Tal 2006. The use of denominational designations such as “drachms” and “obols” in Persian-period Palestinian coins is faulty. Based on epigraphic sources of the late Persian period the coins denominations most likely corresponded to the local quarter sheqel (rb‘ [¡ql]) and 1/24 sheqel (m‘h [ma‘eh] or Biblical gra [gerah] in Judah) respectively, see Tal 2007. For the sake of clarity, I have used in this article the previously accepted terms for the denominations for Persian-period Palestinian coins. 7 6 6 HAIM GILTER Fig. 3. - Drachm of Gaza (left); two pi-style Tetradrachms (right). Recently a hoard composed of 15 silver issues was found near Jerusalem. 8 The hoard includes three coins of particular interest which could support the relative chronology suggested above: a drachm of Gaza with a frontally depicted eye which is substantially worn compared to two pi-style profile eye Athenian tetradrachms. This seems to suggest that the former was issued earlier (fig. 3). The historical implications of the later date, proposed above, call for the assumption that the coastal cities of Philistia were involved in Artaxerxes III Ochos’ unsuccessful attempt to re-conquer Egypt in about 351-350 BC, and especially in the aftermath when Phoenicia revolted, led by Tennes, king of Sidon. Although Sidon was finally taken by Artaxerxes III Ochos in about 345 BC, the destruction of a number of coastal Phoenician centers is well-documented in the archaeological record. 9 One cannot exclude the possibility that the coastal cities of Philistia or more specifically Ashdod and Ashkelon were deprived of minting rights because of their involvement in the rebellion, whereas Gaza – the main launching base of military activities aimed at restoring control over Egypt 10 – continued to mint municipal issues as is evident from the shift in style from the frontally-depicted to the profile eye. It should be stressed that this shift occurs only in the Athenian-styled Gazian issues (see Table 5). Accordingly, we may further assume that the minting authority of Gaza ceased issuing Philistian-styled coins and was probably the sole 8 1 drachm of Gaza – worn condition (Gitler & Tal 2006: Gaza V.10D); 1 dome-shape Edomite drachm – worn (Gitler, Tal & van Alfen 2007, pl.10, nr. 48); 1 worn Philistian drachm (cf. Gitler, Tal & van Alfen 2007, pl. 6, nr. 9); 2 pi-style Athens tetradrachms – good condition; 2 frontally depicted eye Philistian obols – worn; 3 profile eye Philistian obols – worn; 5 Philistian obols (unrecognizable style of the eye) – worn. Although this group of coins was not found in a controlled archaeological excavation, the patina evident on all of the pieces suggests that they were retrieved from the same findspot. I’m grateful to Jonathan Rosen who owns this hoard for granting me the rights to mention this hoard and prepare a more detailed publication. 9 Elayi 1990, 182-184 and Tal 2005, 83-86; see however Briant 1996, 703-704 and 1030-1031. 10 Gitler & Tal 2006, 41-42. DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE QUANTIFICATION OF PERSIAN PERIOD CONIAGE IN PALESTINE 7 Coins with Athena’s Head Frontal eye 1 Issues with Female / Male Heads 6 7 Total 2 5 Profile eye 3 Table 7. - Quantitative summary of the Judaean issues with Athena’s Head and Female / Male Heads. Coins with Athena’s Head Frontal eye 13 all the drachms with Athena’s head have a frontal eye (5) Issues with Female / Male Heads 19 32 Total 30 42 Profile eye 12 Table 8. - Quantitative summary of the 224 Samarian coins with Athena’s Head and Female / Male Heads. Frontal eye Profile eye Unrecognizable 4 43 34 Table 9. - Quantitative summary of 81 Athenian-styled Samarian issues in the Samaria Hoard. producer of the Athena/Owl issues (the Philistian “small change” – mostly ma‘en and half-ma‘en – without a city legend). Support for the theory that eye style preference does have a chronological significance and that this is not only a matter of artistic preference (in which die-engravers continued to use the earlier, archaic style) can be seen from the same quantitative analysis done on the coinage of Judah and Samaria (Tables 7-9). The coinage of Judah (Table 7) shows some preference towards the earlier (archaic) frontally-depicted eye (58.3%) when compared to the profile eye (41.7%). 11 The coinage of Samaria has the opposite stylistic tendency, in which the frontallydepicted eye (43.2%) is less preferred over the profile eye (56.8%) (Table 8). Moreover, the frontally-depicted eye (8.5%) is far less representative than the profile eye (91.5%) in the Athenian-styled coins of the Samaria hoard (Table 9). These numbers confirm the accepted general chronological sequence of the three coinages 11 These calculations are based on very small sample (12 specimens) so the results should be considered with caution. 8 HAIM GILTER Philistia Judah Samaria Frontal eye 95.2 58.3 43.2 Profile eye 4.8 41.7 56.8 Table 10. - Comparison of style preference in Late Persian Period Palestinian Coinages (Meshorer and Qedar 1991). of Late Persian period Palestine and the comparative results of this comparison appear on Table 10. Following the reasoning stressed above, it seems that both Judah and Samaria minted coins to the end of the Persian period. Furthermore, the comparison may indicate that Samaria started minting coins after Judah did. Technological aspects of the minting procedure in Persian Period Palestinian coins. From a technological point of view, it has been suggested that in the hammer-striking process, most commonly employed in antiquity, the upper or reverse die (“punch”) wore down more rapidly than the lower or obverse die (“anvil”), as it received the full impact of the hammer blow, while the obverse die embedded in the anvil was better protected. 12 For this reason we find, particularly in Persian and Hellenistic coinages, relatively numerous reverse dies and comparatively fewer obverse dies. 13 The coins under consideration here employed a different technique: the punch die was the “obverse” while the lower and better protected die was the “reverse”. Similar phenomena have been noted in other Persian period Palestinian coinages, namely the Ashkelon 1989 Hoard 14 and the Edomite dome-shaped coins from Southern Palestine. 15 Die-mobility – or in other words, interchangeability of dies – makes it unlikely that there was a difference in shape between the obverse and reverse dies in certain periods. Stannard has suggested that dies could be set into an anvil or into a die-sheath, and swapped about at will. His theory is based on some pieces in the Roman Republic and the early Empire, and the practice is very common in central Italian issues of the 1st century BC. 16 This does, of course, not necessarily mean that this applies to other materials such as the coinages discussed it this paper, but it may. Stannard’s theory is strengthened by Goddard’s study on the brockages in the 12 Hill 1922, 30-32. Michaux-Van der Mersch & Delamare [1987, 11-12, notes 18-22 and 15-32] describe the energy dissipation and the stress on the materials during the striking process. 13 On the ratio of reverses to obverses dies see de Callataÿ 1997a; 1999 and Faucher 2006, 164165. 14 Gitler 1996, figs. 3-4. 15 Gitler, Tal & van Alfen 2007. 16 Stannard 1987 and 1995. DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE QUANTIFICATION OF PERSIAN PERIOD CONIAGE IN PALESTINE 9 Gallic Empire which suggests that “obverse” and “reverse” dies could simply be swapped around. 17 Samaria Until now, it was believed that the Samarian coins were struck from a limited number of dies. Meshorer and Qedar, based on their study of the Samaria Hoard (SH) [CH 9.413 (Samaria, before 1990)], pointed out that: «Each type of coin is struck from one pair of dies only. … Coin 101, with 43 examples in the hoard, is the only Fig. 4. - Ashkelon Hoard – CH 9.369 (Ascalon, 1989), die links of O1–5 and R1 (and one specimen of R5). one which seems to have two pairs of dies, unless the coins which look somewhat different may have been struck with the same dies after they were lightly re-cut». 18 A re-examination of this hoard reveals a more elaborate picture (Table 11). In some cases, we do find that several coins were struck from the same pair of dies, e.g. SH 66-69,144-153 and 154-162 (see fig. 5). However, in most other cases (SH 2-21; 22–36; 37–65; 71–100, 113; 101-143) more than one pair of dies were used (figs. 7-8). Judah The coinage of Judah has been extensively recorded in the last years by JeanPhilippe Fontanille. Numerous specimens of each coin-type are recorded in his website: http://www.menorahcoinproject.org/ (based on more than 800 specimens). 17 18 Goddard 1993. Meshorer & Qedar 1991, 67. 10 HAIM GILTER Fig. 5. - Ashkelon Hoard. The obverse dies used in the first group, were changed frequently, even though in the case of O2 the die was in a good state of preservation. Coin nos. in hoard SH 66-69 SH 144-153 SH 154-162 SH 2-21 SH 22-36 SH 37-65 SH 71-100, 113 SH 101-143 No. of coins 4 hemiobols 10 hemiobols 9 obols 20 hemiobols 15 hemiobols 29 obols 32 obols 42 hemiobols Obverse dies 1 1 1 1 4 4(?) 5(?) 5(?) Reverse dies 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 Table 10. - Comparison of style preference in Late Persian Period Palestinian Coinages (Meshorer and Qedar 1991). In order to estimate the coin output we need first to estimate the original number of dies (D). Several methods have been proposed. 19 The calculations below are based on Carter’s 1983 simplified method since it is the only one that takes into consideration the inequality of coin production. This method also gives the higher number of original dies, as compared to the others, which is methodologically what we are looking for, namely to establish the higher possible limits of coin production. 20 Carter’s simplified method is based on the following formulas that are chosen in function of the ratio n/d we have from our sample (n: number of coins in the series; d: known obverse dies). So, if: Carter 1980 and 1983, Müller 1981 and Esty 1984, 1986 and 2006. de Callataÿ 1997a, 392. I am grateful to Panos Iossif for his valuable help in explaining the different methods and suggesting which of them all I should use. 21 These two figures are based on calculations carried out in the last decade by several scholars. The number of coins issued by an obverse die is generally comprised between 10,000 and 30,000 coins with a median of 20,000 coins per obverse die. de Callataÿ 1997a, gives three different figures: 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000; de Callataÿ 1997b and 2005 postulates 20,000 coins per obverse die; Marchetti 1999 (especially 104-109) suggests, after studying the famous Amphictionic decree from Delphi, around 14,350 coins per die; while Th. Faucher recently conducted experiments and arrived at a figure of 15,000 as a perfectly reasonable (and minimal) number. However, these scholars considered for their calculations large silver denominations. We should expect very different limits for 20 19 Fig. 6. Obv/Rev links in the Samaria Hoard – coins struck mainly from a single pair of dies. Fig. 7. - Obv/Rev links in the Samaria Hoard – coins struck from several obverse dies. 12 HAIM GILTER Fig. 8. - Obv/Rev links in the Samaria Hoard – coins struck from several obverse dies. a. n<2d, then the formula for the estimation of the original number of dies (D) is: D=(n*d)/1.214*n-1.197*d b. n=2 to 3d, D=(n*d)/1.124*n-1.016*d c. n>3d, D=(n*d)/1.069*n-0.843*d The original number of obverse dies is multiplied times 15,000 and 20,000 – the estimate number of coins produced per obverse dies. 21 The die charts prepared by Fontanille 22 (figs. 9-13) enable us to estimate the coin output of the Judaean coinages in the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods. Several examples are brought below. Athena/Owl type (TJC 4, 7, 12) (fig. 10): n = 88/ d = 1/ D = 1/ Estimate output between 15,000 and 20,000 coins. tiny silver coins. The small amounts of silver involved should have put less stress on the dies, but maybe they allowed the dies to strike against each other, leading to a more rapid breakdown of the dies as noted in Fontanille 2008. Accordingly, we intend to carry out in the future a simulation of the striking of tiny silver coins. 22 I am grateful to Jean-Philippe Fontanille for the permission to publish these charts. Fig. 10. - Die links of Falcon / Lily (TJC 15). Fig. 9. - Die links of Athena/Owl type (TJC 4, 7, 12) Falcon / Lily (TJC 15) (fig. 11): n = 43/ d = 1/ D = 1/ Estimate output between 15,000 and 20,000 coins. Head of Persian King / Falcon (TJC 16) (fig. 12); n = 106/ d = 19/ n/d = 5.6/ D = 21/ Estimate output between 315,000 and 420,000 coins. Roaring lion/eagle with head reverted (TJC 27 and Gitler & Lorber 2008, 7071, fig. 7) (fig. 12), Macedonian period: n = 55/ d = 1/ D = 1/ Estimate output between 15,000 and 20,000 coins. Young male/Eagle with spread wings (Gitler & Lorber 2006, 30–31, nr. 4 = TJC 29) (fig. 13), under Ptolemy I, 302/1-c. 295/4 BC: n = 13/ d = 6/ n/d = 2.2/ D = 9/ Estimate output between 135,000 and 180,000 coins. Taking into account that the average weight of this coin type is 0.18 g, the total silver bullion used for the production of this series can be estimated between 24.3 and 32.4 kg of silver. Ptolemy I / Berenice I (Gitler & Lorber 2006, 33-34, nr. 10 = TJC 33–33a), under Ptolemy II, 283/2 – after 270 BC: n = 21/ d = 10/ n/d = 2.1/ D = 17/ Estimate output between 255,000 and 340,000 coins. Taking in account that the average weight of this coin type is 0.18 g, accordingly the total silver bullion used for the production of this series can be estimated between 45.9 and 61.2 kg of silver. 14 HAIM GILTER Fig. 12. - Die links of roaring lion/eagle with head reverted (TJC 27). Fig. 11. - Die links of Head of Persian King / Falcon (TJC 16). The above examples are tabulated below (Table 12). When one compares the original number of known dies with the estimated original number of dies for this specific series, it seems that Carter’s simplified method is providing quite accurate numbers. However the calculation of coins issued for each of these coin types –based on the multiplication of the original number of dies times 15,000 or 20,000 coins per die– results in disputable or questionable estimations. The percentage of estimate coin output shows that we have only an exceptionally low sample of the entire output. Accordingly we must conclude that for this type of coinage, i.e. hemiobols and quarter obols (tetartemoria), it is inconceivable that each die could produce circa 15,000-20,000 coins. This presumption is supported by the fact that a significant proportion of Judaean coins were struck from dies that had been damaged one way or another. The damage could have been caused 15 by excessive wear, breaks or errors during the striking process (clashed dies) (Fontanille 2008). 23 Fontanille displays in his article the progressive stages of the deterioration of the obverse die of two types which have been discussed above. The first is the obverse related to TJC 4, 7and 12 (above Figure 8) and the second is TJC 27 (above fig. 12).24 If we assume that only between 0.40.6% and 0.3-0.4% respectively of the estimated coin output of these coin types have been recovered (Table 12), the statistical probability that we could randomly find – in both cases – enough examples in the tiny population of known specimens to show this progressive deterioration Fig. 13. - Die links of young male/eagle wit would be extremely low. In conclusion the prevailing view that between 15,000 and 20,000 coins were produced by a single obverse die must be reconsidered at least in our cases where the existing evidence sug- 23 A closely related phenomenon is noted for the Southern Palestinian coins of the Persian Period (defined as Edomite coins) where mainly drachms (“quarter sheqels”) but also some obols (“ma‘ehs”) were struck from worn obverse dies (meaning dies damaged by prolonged use), which were then recut and repolished. As a result, the coins’ obverse in many cases is simply dome-shaped, with no recognizable traces of Athena’s head or helmet (Gitler, Tal and van Alfen 2007: 47-52 and Gitler, Ponting and Tal 2008). 24 See Fontanille 2008, 31, figs. 1 and 3. TJC 4, 7 and 12 have all been struck from the same obverse die, but this die had already degenerated when associated with the two of the reverse dies, on TJC: Nos. 7 and 12 (Fontanille 2008, 30). 16 Coin type TJC 4, 7, 12 TJC 15 TJC 16 TJC 27 Gitler and Lorber 2006: nr. 4 = TJC 29 Gitler and Lorber 2006: nr. 10 = TJC 33–33a D HAIM GILTER 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 7 Known specime ns 88 43 106 55 29 21 Estimate output between 15,000 and 20,000 coins between 15,000 and 20,000 coins between 315,000 and 420,000 coins between 15,000 and 20,000 coins between 135,000 and 180,000 between 255,000 and 340,000 coins Percentage of estimate coin output 0.4-0.6% 0.2-0.3% circa 0.03% 0.3-0.4% circa 0.02% 0.006-0.008% Table 12. - Estimate number of Judaean coins issued. Double sheqels Ba‘al¡illem II (401–366 BC) ‘Abd‘a¡tart I (365–352 BC) Mazday (353–333 BC) ‘Abd‘a¡tart II (342–333 BC) * Original no. of obverse dies 53 43 33 30 * Estimate no. of coins issued 795,000-1,060,000 645,000-860,000 495,000-660,000 450,000-600,000 ** ** See Elayi and Elayi 2004, Ba‘al¡illem II, 400-410, Fig. 8; ‘Abd‘a¡tart I, 411-419, Fig. 12; Mazday, 426-429, Fig. 22; ‘ Abd‘a¡tart II, 424-426, Fig. 21. Estimation of die output is calculated by 15,000 and 20,000 coins per each obverse die. Table 13. - Estimation of number of coins issued for the Sidonian series of double sheqels. gest that the coin output must have been significantly lower and the coins under discussion are small denominations (hemiobols and quarter obols). Addendum. For the sake of comparison, I have prepared a table of the estimated number of double sheqels issued in the Sidonian coinage from 401 to 333 BC (Table 13). These figures show that the volume of Sidonian coinage was higher although here again we must raise the question if such an estimated output is realistic. Bibliography P. Briant 1996, Histoire de l’Empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris. Th. V. Buttrey 1982, Pharaonic Imitations of Athenian Tetradrachms, in T. Hackens and R. Weiller (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Numismatics, Bern, September 1979, Vol. 1, Louvain-La-Neuve, 137-140. Th. V. Buttrey 1984, Seldom What they Seem – The Case of the Athenian Tetradrachm, in W. Heckel and R. Sullivan (eds.), Ancient Coins of Graeco-Roman World, The Nickle Numismatic Papers, Calgary, 292-294. G. F. Carter 1980, A Graphical Method for Calculating the Approximate Total Number of DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE QUANTIFICATION OF PERSIAN PERIOD CONIAGE IN PALESTINE 17 Dies from Die-Links of Ancient Coins, in Scientific Studies in Numismatics (Occasional Papers of the British Museum 18), London, 17-29. G. F. Carter 1983, A Simplified method for calculating the original number of dies from dielink statistics, ANSMN, 28, 195-206. Fr. de Callataÿ 1997a, L’histoire des guerres mithridatiques vue par les monnaies (Numismatica Lovaniensia 18), Louvain-la-Neuve. Fr. de Callataÿ 1997b, Recueil quantitatif des émissions monétaires hellénistiques, Wetteren. Fr. de Callataÿ 1999, Étude de technique monétaire : le rapport “nombre de coins de droit/nombre de coins de revers” à l’époque hellénistique, Revue des Archéologues et Historiens de l’Art de Louvain, 32, 91-102. Fr. de Callataÿ 2005, A Quantitative Survey of Hellenistic Coinages: Recent Achievements, in Z. H. Archibald et al. (eds.), Making, Moving and Managing. The New World of Ancient Economies, 323–31 BC, Oxford, 73-91. J. Elayi 1990, Sidon, cité autonome de l’Empire perse, 2nd ed., Paris. J. Elayi and A. G. Elayi 2004, Le monnayage de la cité phénicienne de Sidon à l’époque perse (Ve-IVe s. av. J.-C.) (Transeuphratène Suppl. 11), Paris. W. W. Esty 1984, Estimating the Size of a Coinage, NC, 144, 180-183. W. W. Esty 1986, Estimation of the Size of a Coinage: A Survey and Comparison of Methods, NC, 146, 185-215. W. W. Esty 2006, How to Estimate the Original of Dies and the Coverage of a Sample, NC, 166, 359-364. Th. Faucher 2006, L’atelier monétaire d’Alexandrie sous les Lagides: problèmes techniques et stylistiques, unpublished PhD (Université de Paris IV/Sorbonne), Paris. Th. Figueira 1998, The Power of Money. Coinage and Politics in the Athenian Empire, Philadelphia. J.-Ph. Fontanille 2008, Extreme Deteriotation and Damage on Yehud Coin Dies, Israel Numistmatic Research, 3, 29-44. H. Gitler 1996, New Fourth-Century BC Coins from Ascalon, NC, 156, 1-9. H. Gitler and C. Lorber 2006, A New Chronology for the Ptolemaic Yehud Coinage, AJN, 18, 1-41. H. Gitler and C. Lorber 2008, A New Chronology for the Yehizkiyah coins of Judah, SNR 87, 61-82. H. Gitler and O. Tal 2006, The Coinage of Philistia of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC: A Study of the Earliest Coins of Palestine (Collezioni Numismatiche 6), Milan. H. Gitler, M. Ponting and O. Tal 2008, Metallurgical Analysis of Southern Palestinian Coins of the Persian Period, Israel Numismatic Research, 3, 13-27. H. Gitler, O. Tal and P. van Alfen 2007, Silver Dome-shaped Coins from Persian-period Southern Palestine, Israel Numismatic Research, 2, 47-62. J. P. Goddard 1993, Roman Brockages: A Preliminary Survey of their Frequency and Type, in Metallurgy in Numismatics, 3, London, 71-83. G. F. Hill 1922, Ancient Methods of Coining, NC, 5 (2), 30-32. J. H. Kroll 1993, The Greek Coins (The Athenian Agora 26), New Jersey. J. H. Kroll 2001, A Small Find of Silver Bullion from Egypt, AJN, 13, 1-20. P. Marchetti 1999, Autour de la frappe du nouvel amphictionique, RBN, 145, 99-113. Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar 1991, Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century BCE, Los Angeles-Jerusalem. Y. Meshorer and S. Qedar 1999, Samarian Coinage (Numismatic Studies and Researches 9), Jerusalem. 18 HAIM GILTER Fr. Michaux-Van der Mersch and F. Delamare 1987, Évolution de la technique de frappe des statères éginétiques, RBN, 133, 5-38. O. Mørkholm 1974, A Coin of Artaxerxes III, NC, 7 (14), 1-8. J. W. Müller 1981, Estimation du nombre originel de coins, in PACT 5, 157-172. C. Stannard 1987, Two-headed and Two-tailed Denarii in the Roman Republic, NC, 147, 160-163. C. Stannard 1995, Two-headed and Two-tailed Denarii again, Annotazioni Numismatiche, 17, 361–362. O. Tal 2005, Some Remarks on the Coastal Plain of Palestine under Achaemenid Rule – An Archaeological Synopsis, Persika, 6, 71-96. O. Tal 2007, Coin Denominations and Weight Standards in Fourth-Century BCE Palestine, Israel Numismatic Research, 2, 17-28. TJC = Y. Meshorer 2001, A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba, New York.