Published 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
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
Research
8 | 2013
8 | 2013
105
Israel Numismatic Research
Israel Numismatic Research
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 [email protected]
Website: www.ins.org.il
For inquiries regarding subscription to the journal, please e-mail to [email protected]
The editors are not responsible for opinions expressed by the contributors.
© The Israel Numismatic Society, Jerusalem 2013
Israel Numismatic Research
Published by the Israel Numismatic Society
Volume 8
2013
Contents
5Yigal Ronen: An Unusual Aramaic Graffito on an Athenian Tetradrachm
9Rebecca 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 ‘AkkoPtolemais
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
NOTES ON DEPICTIONS OF THE ACHEMENID GREAT KING
Some Notes on the Depictions of the Achemenid
Great King on the Coins of Fourth-Century
Judah, Samaria and Philistia
Rebecca Sacks
Tel Aviv University
[email protected]
Abstract
The coins from fourth-century Judah, Samaria, and Philistia are articulate pieces of mass
media. Depictions of the Achemenid Great King on these coins reflect the complex dynamics
between overlord and vassal states. The presence of Achemenid imagery on coins from the
Levant has been explained either as enforced propaganda on the part of the Achemenids or
as a local attempt to curry favor with the Achemenid overlords. To these explanations, the
possibility must be added that the images of the Great King were used to fortify the (slightly
exaggerated) value/purity asserted by the coins.
The small silver coins struck by the governors/high priests of the provinces
of Judah, Samaria, and Philistia — part of the area referred to by the Persian
bureaucratic machine as the Fifth Satrapy or ‘Abar Nahara (Beyond the Rivers)
— are articulate pieces of media whose images reflect the area’s relationship to
a variety of cultural and imperial influences.1 The status of coins as a kind of
ancient mass media — and the possibility of ‘reading’ ancient images in general
— has been much discussed in the last 15 years (e.g., Boardman 2000:325).
The idea of visual culture as literature is relevant in considering the Achemenid
concept of the Great King in fourth-century coins from the provinces of Judah,
Samaria and Philistia.
In order to approach this topic, it is necessary to consider the introduction
of coins to the area of Palestine as well as the use of imperial images within the
Achemenid Empire. Money by no means started with coinage. What distinguished
the coins first minted in sixth-century Lydia from earlier forms of money was
“the involvement of the state” (Kroll 2012:39). Coins now carried a variety of
messages, conveyed in images that depicted the issuing authority in a way that
allowed for a mutual reinforcement of power: The issuing authority asserted the
value/purity of the coins, which simultaneously reinforced the power of the issuing
1 This paper evolved from a seminar in the international program of the Department of
Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures of Tel Aviv University. I am indebted
to Oren Tal who guided me through the entire composition process, from research
through revisions. Any errors that remain are mine alone.
INR 8 (2013): 9–16
9
10
REBECCA SACKS
authority. The power dynamics on display, therefore, are not just those between
overlord and vassal states, but those between image and authority. To understand
the coins of the Persian period, it is best to consider the Achemenid art program
as precisely that: a deliberate program with a coherent vision. In the introduction
to The King and Kingship in Achemenid Art, Root described the Persian art
program as a “consistently idealized vision of kingship and empire,” one that
emphasized “piety, control, and harmonious order” (1979:2). At the center of the
scheme, Root wrote elsewhere, is “the persona of the king,” who “exerts pressure
outward to define the furthest edges of imperial control” (1989:42). After Cyrus II
(the Great) defeated King Croesus in 547/6 BCE, Lydia came under Achemenid
control (Nimchuk 2002:58). The Achemenid kings adopted the Lydian practice
of minting gold and silver coins, with notable reforms implemented by Darius I
(522–486 BCE; Alram 2012:64).
Persian coins are generally separated into four types. The Type I coins, which
are known in siglos denomination only, are considered the oldest, with a beginning
date of 520 BCE. The coins are characterized by an image of the Persian hero
king shown from waist up, facing right, wearing a jagged crown, holding a bow
in his left hand and two or three arrows in the other (Alram 2012:64). There is no
visible action on these coins. Types II, III, and IV all display the full body of the
king. Type II (Pl. 1:1) emerges around 510–505 BCE and is characterized by a
kneeling royal figure drawing an arrow; unlike Type I, which was issued only in
silver, Type II was minted in gold and silver. The king, wearing the jagged crown,
bends on one knee to shoot an arrow. The action of the scene is heightened by the
figure’s exposed knee. A convenient terminus ante quem for Type II coins exists
in the form of the Persepolis Fortification tablet from the twenty-second year of
Darius I’s reign (500 BCE), the reverse of which bears the imprint of a Type II
coin, which was used as a seal (Root 1989:36).That the coin was used to seal an
official document indicates the importance of its image and its close association
with the authority of the king. Type III (Pl. 1:2) coins are generally dated to
around 490–480 BCE, around the accession of Xerxes in 486. These coins are
characterized by the Great King figure, again shown with a bow, but also with a
long spear held in his right hand (Alram 2012:64). Like Type I, Types II through
IV all face right; however, they are marked by more active scenes. Nimchuk
pointed out that while the sleeves in Type I are down, the sleeves in the later types
are “pushed up for action.” Furthermore, Type I does not depict the king with a
quiver, as in Types II through IV (Nimchuk 2002:64).
The depiction of the Great King as an archer was by no means limited to
coinage. Garrison stated that the “richness and diversity” with which this theme
was explored, especially on the seals from the Fortification Archive, are unrivaled
in Achemenid art (Garrison 2000:134). For example, Darius is seen holding a
bow on the façade of his own tomb, and the tomb inscription emphasizes
Darius’ archery skills: “As a horseman I am a good horseman. As a bowman I
NOTES ON DEPICTIONS OF THE ACHEMENID GREAT KING
11
am a good bowman both afoot and on horseback” (Root 1979:164, Pls. 13A–B;
Alram 2012:66). The famous rock relief at Bisotun also involves bow imagery
(Alram 2012:66). That the royal archer also appears on Persian coinage, wrote
Root, “supports the idea that the image of the king as archetypal archer carried
a symbolic value of real significance,” one potentially tied to the warrior’s
manhood and personal identity. Root posited that this association may have been
assimilated from the Elamites (Root 1979:165). Outside of the Persian heartland,
the Achemenids were strongly associated with the archer imagery. In a striking bit
of metonymy the Greeks referred to Persian coinage simply as taxotai (archers;
Konuk 2012:52–53), comparable to the convention of referring to Athenian coins
as “owls” (Root 1979:117). In Aeschylus’s The Persians, Darius is toxarchos
(first bowman; Root 1979:164).
The other stylistic convention of these coins is the so-called ‘jagged
crown,’ which Mildenberg identified as “the decisive element for identifying a
representation as that of the Great King of Persia” (1994–1999:15). All the abovementioned sigloi (Types I through IV) feature images of the archer king with a
jagged crown. Furthermore, the jagged crown is featured on Darius I’s tomb and
at Bisotun (Mildenberg 1994–1999:18–20). Some scholars have wondered about
the interpretation of the jagged crown. Root pointed out that von Gall suggested
each Achemenid king had his own crown design (which would also be worn
by the successor until the latter had his own crown design), and that the jagged
crown was the specific symbol of Darius I: thus figures wearing the jagged crown
must depict either Darius I or Xerxes I (Root 1979:92). This argument failed
to convince Root (1979:92–93), and certainly fails to explain why the imagery
would have persisted into the fourth-century Levant. Rather, as Root concluded,
depictions of the Achemenid kings stand in contrast to those of other empires in
that they are not intended to be identified as individual kings: “…the Achemenids
seem consciously and meticulously to have subsumed the personal image of
royalty into the dynastic one” (1979:310).
Armed with the symbols of the Great King — bow and jagged crown — it
will be fruitful to consider the coins from Judah, Samaria and Philistia that may
depict the Great King. The evidence, though sparse, is varied. The coins from
Judah are fairly straightforward: The head of the Great King, complete with
jagged crown, appears on three out of 30 pre-Ptolemaic types catalogued in TJC
(pp. 197–200). As Fontanille reduced this number to about a dozen iconographic
types (Fontanille 2008:29), the three types depicting the Great King appear on a
quarter of the Judahite series: TJC:197, No. 6 (where one would usually find the
head of Athena); and on smaller fractions TJC:198, No. 16 and 199, No. 26; Pl.
1:3–6).
Relative to the Judahite series, the coins of Samaria display a “rich variety of
types” (Meshorer and Qedar 1999:33) and ones marked by action scenes. The
jagged-crowned king is depicted fighting a lion (1999:93, No. 55; 102, No. 202),
12
REBECCA SACKS
attacking a sphinx (1999:110, No. 147) and smelling a flower (1999:85, No. 13;
102, No. 100). Meshorer and Qedar found that many of the coins were comparable
to Achemenid cylinder seals and bullae, but hypothesized that the primary
influence on the coinage of Samaria was Sidonian (Meshorer and Qedar 1999:32,
44). Although Meshorer and Qedar acknowledged that many Samarian coins
do depict the Achemenid king, they refrained from identifying any figure as the
“Great King.” At no point in Samarian Coinage did Meshorer and Qedar address
the appearance of the jagged crown, despite devoting considerable discussion
to the types and motifs on Samarian coinage. In fact, under a motif identified as
“Persian king” fighting a lion (1999:44), they grouped coins that show a figure in
‘kidaris’ (Nos. 7, 74, 199, 200, 203, 204) alongside ones with the jagged crown
(Nos. 55 and 202). By contrast, Gitler asserted that the Samarian coinage bears
images of the Great King in “many different postures” (Gitler 2011:109–110).
For example, what Meshorer and Qedar identified as a “crowned and bearded
head of Persian king” (1999:93, Nos. 51–52; Pl. 1:7), Gitler cited as an example
of the Great King (Gitler 2011:109); an identification echoed by Fischer-Bossert,
who endorsed using the jagged crown as the Great King’s primary identification
(Fischer-Bossert 2010:143 n. 49). Meshorer and Qedar were also hesitant to draw
a direct correlation between the Samarian archer coins and the art of imperial
Persia. The coins (Meshorer and Qedar 1999:89, No. 32; 101, No. 97; 102, No.
101; 103, No. 105; 111, No. 153; 119, No. 197; 121, No. 205; Pl. 1:8) all show the
kneeling Persian archer, and the pose (some even including the hitched-up robe
around the left knee) is familiar from Achemenid coins (Alram Types II through
IV). One such coin, No. 32, even has a jagged crown.
Meshorer and Qedar asserted that the prototypes for these coins were Sidonian
types, rather than Achemenid coins, and that “the question as to whether this figure
on Samarian coins symbolized the Persian regime, or was just a simple imitation
of a current coin, must remain open” (Meshorer and Qedar 1999:53). However,
as this article has attempted to establish, the images of the jagged crown and
the archer were intimately associated with the Achemenid rulers both internally
within the Persian heartland and externally in the provinces. Regardless of which
prototypes were used for the Samarian coins — and indeed the coins from Judah
and Philistia — it is utterly unrealistic to imagine that the people who produced
and used these coins were ignorant of the significance of the Great King and the
ideals of power and order evoked by his image.
Of the coins from Philistia, two have the jagged crown and can thus be
confidently identified as bearing the image of the Great King: a rare dromedarymotif ma‘eh (0.70 g) with a crowned head on the obverse (Gitler and Tal
2006:271, Type XXIII.1O, ‘obol’; Pl. 1:9) and a 7.77 g half shekel featuring a
NOTES ON DEPICTIONS OF THE ACHEMENID GREAT KING
13
horse and crowned rider on the obverse (Gitler and Tal 2006:273, Type XXV.1DD,
‘didrachm’; Pl. 1:10).2
Without the jagged crown, identifications of the Great King tend to be more
tenuous. For example, in his article on the Persian king in coinage from Palestine,
Gitler identified the Great King on the reverse of a 4.00 g ‘quarter’ (Gitler
2011:109, i.e., Gitler and Tal 2006:275, Type XXV.5Da, ‘drachm’; Pl. 1:11): the
figure is astride a dromedary, and holds a bow in his right hand and an arrow
in his left. On the obverse is a man in oriental headdress. While it is certainly
intriguing to see an archer highlighted in this manner (and on camelback!), it is
not clear why Gitler was so confident in identifying the figure as Great King.
The question then arises, given the overlapping depictions of the Great King
on the coins of Judah, Samaria and Philistia, and given the inexorable association
the Great King has with the ideals of Achemenid dynasty: Who was the authority
responsible for designing these coins, and for which audience(s) were they
intended? One possibility is that the coins represent the attempt of local provincial
authorities to demonstrate their fealty to the Achemenid Empire. After all, it was
a great privilege to mint one’s own coins; it granted the minting authority some
“autonomy and sovereignty” (Gitler and Tal 2006:67). Thus, the mints of Judah,
Samaria and Philistia — either individually or under the auspices of a single
minting authority (Gitler and Tal 2006:70; Gitler and Tal 2009:30–33) — might
be inclined to use the language of coins to profess loyalty to the Great King,
no doubt an especially welcome gesture given the rebellious elements in nearby
Egypt and the Aegean (Gitler and Tal 2006:43).
Conversely, it is possible that the central Persian authority enforced the use
of certain images on the coins of the provinces as a condition of minting locally;
meaning, local governments were compelled to participate in the Achemenid
imperial art program. Gitler’s thinking on the topic is evidently evolving; in his
2007 remarks (anthologized in 2011) he concluded that the images of the Great
King in the coins of Palestine have cultural value “only if we accept the idea that
they reflect the imperial image and ideas which the patron king wished to have
projected” (2011:111). This line of thinking introduces the possibility that the
motifs of the jagged crown and the royal archer were a conscious manipulation
of local pictorial traditions by the central Achemenid authority in order to present
the Persian ideology of control and imperial order in a way that would have
resonated locally.
The theory of pressure from the central government has several weaknesses.
First, it simply does not account for the incredible variety in the depictions of the
Great King, especially in Samarian coinage. Meshorer and Qedar asserted, clearly
and convincingly, that although Samaria was under the same (Achemenid) rule as
2 For the local denominations, cf. Tal 2007.
14
REBECCA SACKS
Judah, the differences in their respective coins “show that the coin designs could
be freely chosen” and that “the Persians, the official authorities, did not impose
any specific prototype” (Meshorer and Qedar 1999:32). Furthermore, the notion
that the Persians would involve themselves in the design of local moneys is rather
at odds with what we know about the Achemenid approach to governance. As
a general rule, forced standardization of vassal states (in matters of language
and religion at least) was not a feature of the empire, and archaeological
research indicates that Achemenid Persians were not particularly visible in most
local material cultures (Garrison 2000:117–118). Granted, this does not make
it impossible that a more subtle system of visual messaging would have been
enforced by the Achemenids in Palestine (again, especially given its proximity
to rebellious Egypt); however, that argument comes with a considerable burden
of proof.
It is worth noting that this quandary is not limited to the study of Palestine.
Regarding the coins of Asia Minor that bear the name of high-ranking Persian
officials, Alram wrote, “[W]e do not know for sure if they were commissioned
by the satraps/governors as the representatives of the Great King or by civic
institutions to honor their Achemenid overlords” (Alram 2012:75). Truly, the
relationship between image and authority can hardly be clear. Gitler and Tal
proposed that while sometimes, images of the Great King (assuming they are
that) were reiterated locally with specific propagandistic goals, other times the
images were borrowed from Persian (or, as Meshorer and Qedar would have
it, Sidonian) coinage without much interest in their meaning or the power they
communicated (2006:337–338).
There is another possibility that has yet to be considered –– that the Achemenid
Empire was referred to simply in order to inspire more confidence in the coins
themselves. That is to say, perhaps we should consider that the Great King was
invoked in part because the images allowed local mints to co-opt the power and
authority of the Achemenid Empire, thereby reinforcing their coins’ claim with
regard to their value and purity. After all, minting not only provides governments
with autonomy and dignity, it also makes them richer. Because the value asserted
by the coins tends to be less than the weighed value of the actual metal, by
minting coins, a government makes a profit (Konuk 2012:44). On the coins of
Asia Minor, Konuk wrote: “The face or exchange value of these coins would
have been superior to their intrinsic value, perhaps by as much as 20%” (Konuk
2012:44).
How great a motivating factor this may have been in the minting of coins
is disputed; Gitler and Tal, for example, were less convinced of its importance
(Gitler and Tal 2006:340 n. 24). Regardless, the discrepancy between bullion
value and the denominational value was a reality of ancient gold and silver
coinage. In order to convince people to overlook the incongruity between these
values, would it not make sense to employ imagery associating the coins with the
NOTES ON DEPICTIONS OF THE ACHEMENID GREAT KING
15
most powerful empire in the world at the time? The jagged crown and the archer
king were certainly part of imperial rhetoric, but every iteration of these images
need not necessarily have been propagandistic in the modern sense of that term.
Recognizing the power and authority signified by the Great King would not have
required an intimate understanding of the Achemenid ideological narrative or
art program — only an awareness that the images were closely associated with
Achemenid power. Therefore, it seems very worth considering that the images
of the Achemenids were not used for political messaging as much as they were
used to fortify the authority of the coins, especially given the relative newness of
coinage in the Levant in the fourth century BCE.
The study of the past is enlivened by the possibilities of reading the visual
media of the ancient world. However, a great challenge to this endeavor is the
limits of learning the language of visual signs. It is not difficult to establish, for
example, the signifying features of the Great King (bow and jagged crown),
nor to establish the intimate association of these symbols with the institution
and ideals of Achemenid kingship. But it is much more difficult to confront the
issue of what the images of the jagged crown and archer meant to the people
who produced and used coins bearing these depictions. What is clear is that the
coinage examined here presents rich possibilities for further analysis as more
specimens, and perhaps some new types, are uncovered and scholars refine their
ability to analyze the visual codes upon them.
DESCRIPTION OF PL. 1
1. Daric, Type II, Sardes. Darius I to Xerxes I: Circa 505-480 BCE. Nomos AG.
Auktion 8. 2013, lot 190.
2. Daric, Type III. Persia. Darius I to Xerxes I: Circa 505-480 BCE. Nomos AG.
Auktion 1. 2009, lot 191.
3. Gerah, Judah. TJC:197, No. 6.
4.Half-gerah, Judah. TJC:198, No. 16.
5.Half-gerah, Judah. TJC:198, No. 16f.
6.Half-gerah, Judah. TJC:198, No. 26.
7.“Obol,” Samaria. Meshorer and Qedar 1999:93, No. 52.
8.“Obol,” Samaria. Meshorer and Qedar 1999:101, No. 97.
9.“Obol,” Philistia. Gitler and Tal 2006: XXIII.1O.
10.“Didrachm,” Philistia. Gitler and Tal 2006: XXV.1DD.
11.“Drachm,” Philistia. Gitler and Tal 2006: XXV.5D.
16
REBECCA SACKS
REFERENCES
Alram M. 2012.The Coinage of the Persian Empire. In W.E. Metcalf ed. The Oxford Handbook
of Greek and Roman Coinage. New York. Pp. 61–87.
Boardman J. 2000. Images and Media in the Greek world. In C. Uehlinger ed. Images as Media:
Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean
(1st millennium BCE). (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 175). Fribourg. Pp. 323–337.
Fischer-Bossert W. 2010. Notes on the Coinages of Philistian Cities. In M. Huth and P. van
Alfen eds. Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms (Numismatic Studies 25). New York.
Pp. 133–196.
Fontanille J.-P. 2008. Extreme Deterioration and Damage on Yehud Coin Dies. INR 3:29–44.
Garrison M.B. 2000. Achemenid Iconography as Evidenced by Glyptic Art: Subject Matter
Social Function, Audience and Diffusion. In C. Uehlinger ed. Images as Media:
Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean
(1st millennium BCE) (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 175). Fribourg. Pp. 115–163.
Gitler H. 2011. Identities of the Indigenous Coinage of Palestine under Achemenid Rule: The
Dissemination of the Image of the Great King. In P. Iossif, S. Chankowski and C.
Lorber eds. More than Men, Less than Gods. Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial
Worship (Studia Hellenistica 51). Leuven. Pp. 105–119.
Gitler H. and Tal O. 2006. The Coinage of Philistia of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC: A
Study of the Earliest Coins of Palestine (Collezioni Numismatiche 6). Milan.
Gitler H. and Tal O. 2009. More Evidence on the Collective Mint of Philistia. INR 4:21–37.
Konuk K. 2012. Asia Minor to the Ionian Revolt. In W.E. Metcalf ed. The Oxford Handbook
of Greek and Roman Coinage. New York. Pp. 43–60.
Kroll J.H. 2012. The Monetary Background of Early Coinage. In W.E. Metcalf ed. The Oxford
Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage. New York. Pp. 33–41.
Meshorer Y. and Qedar S. 1999. Samarian Coinage (Numismatic Studies and Researches 9).
Jerusalem.
Mildenberg L. 1994–1999. A Note on the Persian King Wearing the Jagged Crown. INJ
13:15–24.
Nimchuk C.L. 2002. The ‘Archers’ of Darius: Coinage or Tokens of Royal Esteem? Ars
Orientalis 32:55–79.
Root M.C. 1979. The King and Kingship in Achemenid Art: Essays on the Creation of an
Iconography of Empire (Acta Iranica IX). Leiden.
Root M.C. 1989. The Persian Archer at Persepolis: Aspects of Chronology, Style and
Symbolism. Revue des Etudes Anciennes 91:33–50.
Tal O. 2007. Coin Denominations and Weight Standards in Fourth-Century BCE Palestine.
INR 2:17–28.
PLATE 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SACKS
1a
LORBER
1b