DOI Heft:
Artikuły / Articles
DOI Artikel:Ariʾel, Donald Tsevi: The circulation of locally minted Persian-Period coins in the Southern Levant
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41338#0031
THE CTRCULATION OF LOCALLY MINTED...
and “Nablus region” hoards were deposited thirteen years apart, and pointed out that
in the intervening period very different types were issued, such that the numismatic
profile of the later “Nablus region” hoard was rather dissimilar from the “Samaria
region” one.77 This provisional conclusion for the Samarian series, that it was
also chronologically quite restricted, suggests that the entire Samarian series was
issued no morę than a couple of generations after the bulk of the Philistian issues.
Thus, it is no surprise that Philistian coins are found in the hoards reported from
Samaria, but that the hoard from Ashąelon (all in all, a smali hoard) was devoid
of Samarian coins.78
The idea that the two largest series of locally minted Persian-period coins
in the Southern Levant had restricted dates of issue (and perhaps exclusively so)
might point to a scenario whereby coin striking initiatives were local idiosyncratic
events minimally influenced by the degree of monetization of these provinces and
the neighboring ones. This seems to conform to the new model now being applied
to satrapal coinages in the larger Persian world. Here, Bodzek found little rhyme
or reason for the distribution of local satrapal coinages. They seem to have been
very local initiatives, with little chronological continuity.79 The Yehud series does
not appear to behave in this way,80 but this assessment may also be wrong. In sum,
the geographical diffusion - broader than originally thought - of the local coinages
of the Southern Levant should not be taken to imply similar chronologies.81
Outside the Southern Levant, potentially valuable information provided
by Persian-period coins from reliable archaeological provenances is largely
unavailable. Reported hoards are morę commonly the basis of mint attributions
and ideas about circulation pattems. Metrological analyses dictate discussions
on the interrelationships between different coins. For the Southern Levant, however,
the large dataset of proyenanced coins deserves appreciation. A confluence
of factors has led to its availability. As a result, numerous ąuestions of attributions
and circulation may now be addressed in a robust way.
77 MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: 65-66. See also WYSSMANN 2015.
78 It will be interesting to know the identity of the type of Yehud coin in the “Nablus region” hoard,
as it should provide the terminus post quem for that type, in a series that seems to have much later dates.
79 BODZEK 2014a: 72-73; IDEM 2014b: 6.
80 In that the Yehud coins are represented by much fewer types, naming fewer individuals, and yet seem
to have been minted for a longer time span (TAL 2013: 29).
81 GITLER and TAL 2014: 24-25.
and “Nablus region” hoards were deposited thirteen years apart, and pointed out that
in the intervening period very different types were issued, such that the numismatic
profile of the later “Nablus region” hoard was rather dissimilar from the “Samaria
region” one.77 This provisional conclusion for the Samarian series, that it was
also chronologically quite restricted, suggests that the entire Samarian series was
issued no morę than a couple of generations after the bulk of the Philistian issues.
Thus, it is no surprise that Philistian coins are found in the hoards reported from
Samaria, but that the hoard from Ashąelon (all in all, a smali hoard) was devoid
of Samarian coins.78
The idea that the two largest series of locally minted Persian-period coins
in the Southern Levant had restricted dates of issue (and perhaps exclusively so)
might point to a scenario whereby coin striking initiatives were local idiosyncratic
events minimally influenced by the degree of monetization of these provinces and
the neighboring ones. This seems to conform to the new model now being applied
to satrapal coinages in the larger Persian world. Here, Bodzek found little rhyme
or reason for the distribution of local satrapal coinages. They seem to have been
very local initiatives, with little chronological continuity.79 The Yehud series does
not appear to behave in this way,80 but this assessment may also be wrong. In sum,
the geographical diffusion - broader than originally thought - of the local coinages
of the Southern Levant should not be taken to imply similar chronologies.81
Outside the Southern Levant, potentially valuable information provided
by Persian-period coins from reliable archaeological provenances is largely
unavailable. Reported hoards are morę commonly the basis of mint attributions
and ideas about circulation pattems. Metrological analyses dictate discussions
on the interrelationships between different coins. For the Southern Levant, however,
the large dataset of proyenanced coins deserves appreciation. A confluence
of factors has led to its availability. As a result, numerous ąuestions of attributions
and circulation may now be addressed in a robust way.
77 MESHORER and QEDAR 1991: 65-66. See also WYSSMANN 2015.
78 It will be interesting to know the identity of the type of Yehud coin in the “Nablus region” hoard,
as it should provide the terminus post quem for that type, in a series that seems to have much later dates.
79 BODZEK 2014a: 72-73; IDEM 2014b: 6.
80 In that the Yehud coins are represented by much fewer types, naming fewer individuals, and yet seem
to have been minted for a longer time span (TAL 2013: 29).
81 GITLER and TAL 2014: 24-25.