DOI issue:
Artikuły / Articles
DOI article:Ariʾel, Donald Tsevi: The circulation of locally minted Persian-Period coins in the Southern Levant
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41338#0026
DONALD T. ARIEL
of their respective geographical regions. The archaeologically provenanced map
suggests further significant ąualifications as well.
Philistian coins constitute the bulk- almost half (46%) - of the archaeological
coins. They are found as far east and south as any of the series under discussion
(Wadi ed-Daliyeh to the east and Khirbat Lasifar to the south). However, although
Samarian coins have been excavated north of Samaria, no coins of the Philistian
series have been excavated any further north than the city of Samaria.
Yehud coins circulated throughout Judea, and are concentrated there. However,
they are also found outside of Judea, and at Mount Gerizim in Samaria.
From Fig. 1, we can see that Samarian coins are also concentrated near
the place they were minted. North of the region of Samaria, a pair of Samarian
coins has been found (at JJorbat 'Eleq and Tel Dor). As befits the northemmost
mint of the three largest Southern Levantine production centers, these are
the northemmost appearances of any of the Persian series which were struck
south of Sidon. South of Samaria, the only outliers are two Samarian coins from
Jerusalem, one from Khirbat Qeiyafa, the coin I consider of uncertain provenance,
which was found at Gan Soreq, and another uncertain (lead?) issue from Yafo.
It may be provisionally concluded that there was morę of an overlap between
the circulation zones of the Yehud and Samarian series than that of the Philistian
and Samarian, as claimed by Fischer-BossertA
The distribution of the remaining two series, Dor and Edom, were recently
published and consequently their archaeological findspots have not changed much.
The distribution óf the proposed Tissaphernes/Dor series has not been augmented
by new archaeological finds. For the Edomite series, it will be recalled that the first
archaeologically provenanced coin was from Judea. Now there are five new finds
from three sites: three from Khirbat Qeiyafa, one (possibly) from Tell rAzeqa, and
the fifth (an apparent bronze core of an Edomite coin) from Tell Gamma. If the last
Identification is correct, then this is the first Edomite coin found in an excavation
whose site may qualify as being in Edom.
Looking at the map of the reported provenances of coins (Fig. 2), there are
in fact few essential differences between it and the map with the archaeological
findspots. Numerically, the reported provenances are predominated by three hoards.
The “Samaria Region” hoard appears to be the most monolithic. However,
it should be recalled that the sixty-six “Pseudo-Athenian” or “Athenian-styled’
coins reported by Meshorer and Qedar were deemed nonattributable by my
collection criteria. As a result, they do not appear on the map in Fig. 2. Because
5‘’ F1SCHER-BOSSERT 2010: 143. The origin of the comment by Gitler and Lorber (2008: 64, fn. 28)
on “the claim that the coinages of Samaria and Yehud were meant to circulate together” is unclear to me.
of their respective geographical regions. The archaeologically provenanced map
suggests further significant ąualifications as well.
Philistian coins constitute the bulk- almost half (46%) - of the archaeological
coins. They are found as far east and south as any of the series under discussion
(Wadi ed-Daliyeh to the east and Khirbat Lasifar to the south). However, although
Samarian coins have been excavated north of Samaria, no coins of the Philistian
series have been excavated any further north than the city of Samaria.
Yehud coins circulated throughout Judea, and are concentrated there. However,
they are also found outside of Judea, and at Mount Gerizim in Samaria.
From Fig. 1, we can see that Samarian coins are also concentrated near
the place they were minted. North of the region of Samaria, a pair of Samarian
coins has been found (at JJorbat 'Eleq and Tel Dor). As befits the northemmost
mint of the three largest Southern Levantine production centers, these are
the northemmost appearances of any of the Persian series which were struck
south of Sidon. South of Samaria, the only outliers are two Samarian coins from
Jerusalem, one from Khirbat Qeiyafa, the coin I consider of uncertain provenance,
which was found at Gan Soreq, and another uncertain (lead?) issue from Yafo.
It may be provisionally concluded that there was morę of an overlap between
the circulation zones of the Yehud and Samarian series than that of the Philistian
and Samarian, as claimed by Fischer-BossertA
The distribution of the remaining two series, Dor and Edom, were recently
published and consequently their archaeological findspots have not changed much.
The distribution óf the proposed Tissaphernes/Dor series has not been augmented
by new archaeological finds. For the Edomite series, it will be recalled that the first
archaeologically provenanced coin was from Judea. Now there are five new finds
from three sites: three from Khirbat Qeiyafa, one (possibly) from Tell rAzeqa, and
the fifth (an apparent bronze core of an Edomite coin) from Tell Gamma. If the last
Identification is correct, then this is the first Edomite coin found in an excavation
whose site may qualify as being in Edom.
Looking at the map of the reported provenances of coins (Fig. 2), there are
in fact few essential differences between it and the map with the archaeological
findspots. Numerically, the reported provenances are predominated by three hoards.
The “Samaria Region” hoard appears to be the most monolithic. However,
it should be recalled that the sixty-six “Pseudo-Athenian” or “Athenian-styled’
coins reported by Meshorer and Qedar were deemed nonattributable by my
collection criteria. As a result, they do not appear on the map in Fig. 2. Because
5‘’ F1SCHER-BOSSERT 2010: 143. The origin of the comment by Gitler and Lorber (2008: 64, fn. 28)
on “the claim that the coinages of Samaria and Yehud were meant to circulate together” is unclear to me.