A RE-ATTRIBUTION OF THE KING HEROD AGRIPPA I

YEAR 6- ISSUE
The canopy and three ears of corn
K. Lnnqvist

It is believed that King Herod Agrippa I of Judaea (King A.D. 41-44)

struck a very large series of small bronze coins from the Jerusalem mint in
the sixth year of his reign (i.e. A.D. 42).1 In fact, the Year 6 series of
bronze is one of the largest Jewish bronze series ever minted inside ancient
Palestine, except for certain coin types of the Hasmonaean ruler Alexander
Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.) and the First Jewish Revolt coinage (A.D. 66-70).
The coin under discussion meets the following description (Fig. 1,
size1:1):

Fig. 1

Obv. Royal canopy or umbrella; around Greek legend: BACILEWC

AGRIPA
Rev. Three ears of corn, beneath two leaves; in the field date L
(Year6).

1. So Y. Meshorer in Ancient Jewish Coinage (= AJC), vol. II, Jerusalem 1982, p. 249, coin
no. 11. According to the newly published Addendum I to AJC, in INJ 11, 1990-91 (1993),
p. 122, coin no. 9, this series was issued from autumn 41 onwards until the beginning of A.D.
44. The dating system of Agrippa Is coins has been discussed by A. Stein, The Undated
Coins of Agrippa II under Nero, INJ 8, 1984-85 (1986), pp. 9-11; Some Notes on the Chro-
nology of the Coins of Agrippa, INJ 5, 1981, pp. 22-26; Meshorer, Addendum I to AJC,
p. 110. See also D.R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last Jewish King (Texte und Studien zum
Antiken Judentum 23), Tbingen 1990, p. 57. It is possible that Agrippa I, and why not
Agrippa II for that matter too, counted the regnal years according to the civic year, as starting
in September - October (Tishri), although our study and the coins do not shed any new light
on the subject. Technically the Year 6 bronze issue is problematic since all the details point
to the fact that the coins cannot possibly have been minted in one single year, as the coin date
purports to tell. It has been suggested by several scholars (Meshorer, AJC, II, p. 57; S. Qedar,
verbal communication) that the series was, in fact, minted over a period of many years. Con-
sidering the huge amount of dies (minimum hundreds, if not more) with which the coinage

LA 47 (1997) 429-440
430 K. LNNQVIST

The coin is known for its spread flan and thin fabric. The mean weight
of the coins is about 2.50 grams, with a diameter of 16-19 mm of the coin
material. The axis of the coins tends to be 11.00-12.00 oclock. The coins
of this type are slightly heavier and larger than the 19 main coin types is-
sued by the Roman provincial administration of Judaea A.D. 6-66, although
apparently being of same denomination.

Research goal

We intend to demonstrate preliminary by re-examining the coinages of Kings

Herod Agrippa I and his son Agrippa II (A.D. 56-100), their features and find
circumstances, that this canopy bronze series cannot have been struck by
Agrippa I in A.D. 42, but rather by his son, Agrippa II, who according to
present knowledge started minting in the year A.D. 66/67.2 The evidence for
this attribution is manifold, consisting of metrologic (the denominational
system), stylistic (paleography, iconography and symbolism of the coins),
quantitative (coin frequency, coin profiles of archaeological excavations) and
chronological (archaeological and stratigraphical contexts) elements, which
is now brought together. We are aware, of course, of the far-reaching conse-
quences of this re-attribution since the coin type is because of its frequency
often used for dating archaeological structures belonging to this period.

The denominational systems of the coinages of Agrippa I and II

Several scholars have commented upon the coinages of Agrippa I and II,
among them A. Burnett and Y. Meshorer most recently.3

was produced and the total bulk of coinage made, this seems more than likely. Why exactly
the coinage was struck with dies bearing the same date over a period of many years is not
known. It is for instance possible that the mint prepared in anticipation of the large-scale pro-
duction a very large number of dies without, however, any precise knowledge of the bulk to
be minted.
2. For the beginning of the coinage of Agrippa II see for instance Meshorer, AJC, II, pp.
65-73; Addendum I to AJC, pp. 109-110.
3. See especially A. Burnett, The Coinage of King Agrippa I of Judaea and A New Coin
of King Herod of Chalcis, in H. Huvelin - M. Christol - G. Gautier (ed. par), Mlanges de
Numismatique offerts Pierre Bastien loccasion de son 75e anniversaire, Wetteren 1987,
pp. 25-38; idem, RPC, I, London 1992, pp. 683-685; Meshorer, AJC, II, s.v.; Addendum I
to AJC, pp. 104-132.
 A RE-ATTRIBUTION 431

The coins of Agrippa I and II seem to have been struck in four or five
denominations.4 The largest denomination weighs around 15-16 grams, the
next one 10-11 grams, the third about 6-7 grams, the fourth 3-4 grams and
the smallest one slightly more than two grams, on an average 2.0-2.5 grams.
Agrippa II appear to have produced a full series of denominations from dif-
ferent mints, including the smallest ones. King Agrippa I issued coins from
the mints of Caesarea Paneas, Tiberias and Caesarea Maritima in relatively
small numbers in several denominations, but apparently not in the smallest
size. It seems therefore that all of the coins of Agrippa I are clearly larger
than the single size and denomination coin of Year 6 which is now under
discussion and which is supposed to have been minted in Jerusalem. As Y.
Meshorer wrote: We do not know why Agrippa I chose to mint only prutot
in Jerusalem; he struck coins of larger denominations in all of his other
mints.5 In our view, the large Year 6 series of bronze fits therefore better
into the denominational system of the coinage of Agrippa II.

The paleography of the coin legends

In the late 1980s Mr. Shraga Qedar pointed out to us that he believed that
the Year 6 canopy bronze was minted by Agrippa II, and not by Agrippa
I. Qedar based his view on the reading of the coin legend and stated then
that the royal title of basilew Agrippa is on this Year 6 canopy bronze
curiously written with only one Greek P (Agripa). On all the known speci-
mens attributed to king Agrippa I the name of the ruler is never written
with a single Greek P, but always with two P, i.e. (Agrippa). On Agrippa
IIs coins, however, the title of the King does appear in the form Agripa.6
The reason for this is unclear as yet.
Meshorer commented upon this inconsistency as follows: The spell-
ing of the name, with one pi instead of the customary two, is the first con-
spicuous feature of the legend. We cannot explain this Jerusalemite spelling
idiosyncrasy. The entire inscription comprises the second oddity. Follow-
ing the edict of Claudius, Agrippa I consistently inscribed on his coins
struck in Caesarea between 42 and 43 C.E. the legend BACILEUC

4. See Meshorer, AJC, II, pp. 63, 93. The average weights for the coins (denominations) of
Agrippa II were calculated from Meshorers coin catalogue on pp. 250-258.
5. AJC, II, p. 59.
6. For instance Meshorer, AJC, II, pp. 94, 251. Year 14 = 74/75 A.D., coins nos. 8, 10-
11. Idem, Addendum I to AJC, p. 125, no. A.
432 K. LNNQVIST

MEGAC AGRIPPAC FILOKAICAR (The great king, Agrippa, the

friend of the emperor).7 It seems therefore that also this spelling inconsis-
tency points to the direction of Agrippa II, rather than Agrippa I.

The iconography and symbolism of the coinages

As A. Burnett recently pointed out in the monumental book on the Roman Pro-
vincial Coinage8, the coinage of Agrippa I from all his chief mints belongs to
a common tradition imitating or coping closely Roman coin prototypes. Most
of the coins refer in some way to the members of the Imperial family in Rome
or commemorate important events which took place at Rome and which related
to the ruling class in Judaea. Agrippa Is coins are also portrait coins or have
humans depicted, and are as a rule, as mentioned above, of a larger denomi-
nation than our Year 6 canopy bronze. Meshorer AJC, vol. II, no. 11 of
Agrippa (I) which we now reattribute to Agrippa II, clearly belongs to a dif-
ferent tradition being aniconic, and of a smaller denomination.
On the other hand, in the sequence of Agrippa IIs coinage non-portrait
coins are known. As a matter of fact, if we transfer the canopy bronze of
Year 6 to Agrippa II we can make some interesting observations which
may not be a mere coincidence. According to the now accepted theory, Agrippa
II was not in full control of his domain until A.D. 66/67 and consequently did
not start minting before that date. It means that the doubledated Meshorer
AJC, vol. II, no. 6 of Agrippa II, with a hand holding ears of corn and fruit
belongs to the first year of Agrippas minting activity, or A.D. 66/67, and is
according to our suggestion contemporary to the Year 6 canopy bronze
with the canopy and three ears of corn. It means therefore that we have coin
types of the same size, denomination and symbolic message being issued
contemporary (probably) at different mints, which makes sense.

The coin frequency

A brief survey of both coin collections and archaeological excavations

where coins appear demonstrate clearly enough that there is in general a

7. Meshorer, AJC, II, p. 60.

8. A. Burnett - M. Amandry - P. Ripolls, Roman Provincial Coinage, Vol. I: From the
Death of Caesar to the Death of Vitellius (44 BC - AD 69), Part 1: Introduction and Cata-
logue, London 1992, p. 683.
 A RE-ATTRIBUTION 433

meaningful and substantial difference between the frequency of the coins

of Agrippa I and his son, Agrippa II. For instance in RPC an attempt was
made to characterize the relative coin frequency by a number (index) re-
flecting the amount of recorded specimens in the coin collections.
The eleven major museum collections in RPC (private collections and
other known specimens outside these are also mentioned), give an index
number, usually one or two, and in exceptional cases, three, to each coin
type attributed to Agrippa I9 On an average the coin types of Agrippa II
appear to be far more common than the coin types of his father, Agrippa I.
At the same time we find the extremely high frequency number of 52 for
the canopy three ears of corn bronze series struck in Year 6, which
sharply contradicts the otherwise rare, very rare or unique coins of Agrippa
I. Thus it is apparent that the Year 6 canopy bronze is also more compat-
ible with the coin frequency of Agrippa IIs coinage than Agrippa Is. This
has, in fact, been already pointed out for instance by I.A. Carradice10 and
we fully agree with this interpretation.

The coin profile of the archaeological excavations

A fact when speaking of the coin profile of sites of the early Roman period
in Israel is that the early Roman provincial coinage of Judaea minted A.D.
6-66 and the Year 6 canopy bronze is often found together. From this it
has been concluded that the two coinages circulated together. Under tight
scrutiny such a conclusion ignores, however, to a large extent the mecha-
nisms of the build-up of archaeological material of the archaeological sites,
i.e. the stratigraphy and its ramifications, and the numismatic reasons
which may have influenced what we are able to observe today. When we
first started looking for some hard evidence for the re-attribution years ago
we noticed soon a stunning feature in the site find records of many exca-
vations, a feature which repeats itself regularly: the Year 6 canopy
bronze which interests us here seemed to appear in several well-defined
and curious archaeological contexts, mostly with coin types from the late
50s and 60s or coins struck during the First Jewish Revolt or even later.

9. See RPC, I, pp. 683-685.

10. I.A. Carradice, Coinage in Judaea in the Flavian Period A.D. 70-96, INJ 6-7, 1982-
83 (1983), pp. 14-21, in particular p. 16, where the author attributes the coinages of the
procurators and Agrippa I to the Jerusalem mint. This attribution is followed by others such
as A. Burnett, The Coinage, p. 31.
434 K. LNNQVIST

In some cases the canopy bronze coins come from archaeological destruc-
tion levels of the First Jewish Revolt, combined with coins struck during
those years of unrest with no earlier or later coins present, clear purporting
to tell that the traditional attribution to Agrippa I is not correct. All the ar-
chaeological, stratigraphical and numismatic evidence now available sup-
port this view.
We examined the coin profile of close to twenty important archaeologi-
cal sites in Israel, special attention being paid to stratigraphical, contextual
and chronological factors related to the coins, whenever such were present
and identifiable. The following sites should be mentioned: Coastal Plain
(Sharon): Aphek-Antipatris, Tell Mevorach, Tell Dor; Upper Galilee and
Golan: Meiron, Gamala; Western Lower Galilee: Jotapatha, Sepphoris;
Central Samaria: Samaria-Sebaste; Jordan Valley: Jericho; Coastal Plain
(Philistea): Lachish; Hill Country of Judaea: Emmaus, Ramat Rachel,
Gibeon, Jerusalem; Wilderness of Judah (Dead Sea): Qumran, Ein Gedi,
Masada; Medeba Plateau: Machaerus.11 We shall summarize the evidence
briefly.

11. For Aphek-Antipatris see: M. Kochavi, Aphek-Antipatris 1972-1973: The Two First
Seasons of Excavations at Aphek-Antipatris. Preliminary Report, TA 2 (1975), pp. 17-42;
Aphek-Antipatris. Five Seasons of Excavations at Tel Aphek-Antipatris (1972-1976), Tel
Aviv 1977; W. Neidinger, A Typology of Oil Lamps from the Mercantile Quarter of
Antipatris, TA 9 (1982), pp. 157-169. For Tell Mevorach see: E. Stern, Excavations at Tel
Mevorach, Qedem 9 (1978), pp. 19-20. For Tell Dor see: E. Stern et alii, Excavations at
Dor, Final Report. Vol. 1 B: Areas A and C: the Finds, Qedem Reports 2, Jerusalem 1995,
p. 469. For Meiron see: J. Raynor - Y. Meshorer, The Coins of Ancient Meiron (Meiron
Excavation Project Series, 4), 1988, Table 1, p. 80. For Gamala see: D. Syon, The Coins
from Gamala Interim Report, INJ 12, 1992-93 (1994), pp. 34-55. For Jotapatha see: B.
Ariel, A Numismatic Survey of Yotapatha, INB 2 (1962), pp. 48-49. For Sepphoris see: L.
Watermann, Preliminary Report of the Unversity of Michigan. Excavations at Sepphoris,
Palestine, in 1931, Ann Arbor 1937, pp. 39-43. For Samaria-Sebaste see: G.A. Reisner -
S.C. Fischer - G.D. Lyon, Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908-10, vol. I, Massachuchets
1924, p. 267; J.W. Crowfoot - G.M. Crowfoot - K.M. Kenyon, The Objects from Samaria,
111, Samaria-Sebaste Reports of the Joint Expedition in 1931-1933 and the British Expedi-
tion in 1935, London 1957, p. 54; W.J. Fulco - F. Zayadine, Coins from Samaria-Sebaste,
ADAJ 25 (1981), p. 209. For Jericho see: J.B. Pritchard, The Excavations at Herodian Jeri-
cho, 1951, conducted by the American Schools of Oriental Research, AASOR 32-33 for
1952-4, pp. 27, 29. For Lachish see: O. Tufnell, Lachish III: The Iron Age (Tell el-Duweir):
The Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Research Expedition to the Near East, London 1953,
p. 413. For Emmaus-Qubeibeh see: B. Bagatti, Emmaus-Qubeibeh. The Resuls of Excava-
tions at Emmaus-Qubeibeh and Nearby Sites (1873, 1887-1890, 1900-1902, 1940-1944)
(SBF Collectio Maior 4), Jerusalem 1993, p. 182. For Ramat Rachel see e.g.: L.Y. Rahmani,
in Y. Aharoni, Excavations at Ramat Rachel, Seasons 1959 and 1960 (Universit degli studi
di Roma - Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Rome 1962, pp. 94-97. For Gibeon see: J.B.
Pritchard, Winery, Defenses and Soundings at Gibeon (Museum Monographs, The Univer-
sity Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 4), Pennsylvania 1964, pp. 56-60,
 A RE-ATTRIBUTION 435

The basic feature which unites the above sites is that they have a rela-
tively homogeneous assemblage of first century A.D. coins, although not
necessary a very rich numismatic profile. In some cases the assemblage of
coins even represents concentrated groups where the individual specimens
are found so close to each other as to be considered as lost purses or
hoards, meaning that the coins must have been approximately contempo-
raneously in use. At Masada and Jerusalem12 several such groups or
purses were discovered, but the unnecessary complicated and in addition
to this, insufficient way of archaeological documentation renders all at-
tempts of understanding the coin material in more detail impossible. For-
tunately, there are however, sites with more accurately datable contexts and
these shall be dealt with separately.
As we already mentioned, the canopy bronze of Agrippa appear fre-
quently in contexts where coins of the Roman governors A. Felix (A.D.
54), P. Festus (A.D. 59) or both, and the early years of the First Jewish

also 23-24. For Jerusalem see: D.T. Ariel, A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem (Until the
End of the Byzantine Period), LA 32 (1982), pp. 273-326, and its respective sources. For
Qumran see: R. de Vaux, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrn, Rapport prliminaire sur les 3e, 4e
et 5e campagnes, RB 63 (1956), pp. 533-577, esp. pp. 565-566, see also R. Donceel, Re-
prise des Travaux de Publication des Fouilles au Khirbet Qumrn, RB 99 (1992), pp. 557-
573. As far as Qumran is concerned, it should be mentioned that the exact number and the
types of the coins still remain unclear, because a final publication of the site has not ap-
peared. In any case, according to Donceel (above) most of the bronze coins reported by de
Vaux are today missing and cannot be relocated, so a complete coin catalogue will probably
not be forthcoming. For Ein Gedi see: B. Mazar - I. Dunayevski, En-Gedi: The Fourth and
Fifth Seasons of Excavations (Preliminary Report), IEJ 17 (1967), pp. 133-143, esp. 141-
143, with numismatic commentary in Y. Meshorer, The En-Gedi Hoard, in Actes du 8me
Congrs International de Numismatique. New York - Washington, Septembre 1973, Paris
1976, pp. 111-112. For Masada see: Masada I, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965,
Final Reports: The Aramaic and Hebrew Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions by Y. Yadin and J.
Naveh; The coins of Masada by Y. Meshorer, Jerusalem 1989. For Machaerus see: J.
Vardaman, Preliminary Report on the Results of the 1968 Excavations at Machaerus, Lou-
isville 1969, pp. 17-19.
12. D.T. Ariel has informed us 1.9.1997 verbally that he had identified a group of coins
from the renewed excavations at the Southern Wall (Kotel) in Jerusalem. The coins were in
loci of the so-called commercial street were material from the time of the destruction of the
Temple (A.D. 70) was deposited. The coins were primarily Year 2 and Year 3 Revolt
coins, with a few from Year 4. The Roman provincial coinage was represented by many
specimens of Porcius Festus (A.D. 59), with small inclusions of earlier provincial gover-
nors. The canopy/three ears of corn issue was represented by one or two specimens only.
The find is interesting, but it is difficult to make any secure conclusions of this material
without a published report on the coins where some of the contextual archaeological infor-
mation would be discussed.
436 K. LNNQVIST

Revolt coinage occur (usually Year 2, more rarely Year 3)13 and were
occasionally later coins also appear. Among the sites at least Aphek-
Antipatris, Tell Mevorach, Tell Dor, Samaria-Sebaste, Sepphoris, Jericho,
Lachish, Emmaus, Ramat Rachel, Gibeon, Jerusalem, Masada, Machaerus
and Meiron should again be mentioned. Beside these, Qumran and Ein
Gedi at the Dead Sea and Gamala on the Golan and Jotapatha in the Gali-
lee deserve the extra space they have been given below.

Qumran

At Qumran several loci, which appear to have been used for a relatively
short period or were sealed off by destruction instantly during the Jewish
War, were found. In locus 83 e.g., in a settling cistern, a homogenic as-
sembly of Neronian coins and coins issued shortly afterwards, was discov-
ered. This find included 82 coins, of which 16 coins were minted by
Porcius Festus (A.D. 59), one was a Neronian provincial silver tetradrachm
from Antioch (A.D. 61), 28 coins were from the second and third years of
the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 67-68). The rest of the coins (37 specimens)
consisted of the canopy bronze type of Agrippa, believed to have been
minted by Agrippa I. According to de Vaux, all the latter coins were
strayfinds lost by the ones who made use of the big bath, but the coins may
have been lost during the assault of the place in the late 60s A.D. as well;
in any case they do belong to the same archaeological context and period
as the rest of the coins.

Ein Gedi

From Ein Gedi we have twofold evidence from the excavations of a large
structure from the Roman period (loci 236, 238, 240, 244, 271): coins from
a destruction layer and a relatively large hoard of bronze coins of the pe-
riod deposited in an oil lamp in the wall of the building. During the exca-
vations a conflagration layer was discovered on the floor of room 238,
where several coins from the second year of the Revolt and two coins of
Agrippas canopy bronze were found. In the vicinity water pools were ex-

13. It is uncertain what this implies. It could be a simple reflection of the fact that Year 2
represents the peak of the bronze coin production during the Revolt.
 A RE-ATTRIBUTION 437

cavated also with exactly the same result, showing coins of the second year
of the Revolt only combined with the canopy bronze type of Agrippa.
The lamp hoard was found in the wall of locus 236, which is separated
by a closed wall from locus 238. The Ein Gedi lamp hoard of 139 small
bronze coins contained in its original form 21 coins of A. Felix (A.D. 54),
71 coins of P. Festus (A.D. 59) and 47 coins of Agrippas canopy type
bronze, all of the same denomination.14 The composition of the hoard, the
coin types and the die study we made clearly point to the fact that it repre-
sents a type of currency hoard withdrawn simultaneously from circulat-
ing specimens. There is for instance no significant difference in wear
among the two lots of coins: the Roman provincial and the Agrippan
coins. Accepting that the lots had been minted one to two decades apart,
one would expect some difference in the wear factor. We believe therefore,
on the basis of this observation, and some technical evidence of the die
study which cannot be discussed here, that the hoard was buried during the
Revolt, probably A.D. 67/68, when the Roman troops were approaching the
area, which also explains the composition of the coins from the destruc-
tion level of the same structure, as described above.

Gamala

According to Josephus Jewish War (IV, 83) Gamala fell c. 10 November

67 A.D.; the city was captured and destroyed. The numismatic profile of
the site is rich, consisting of over 6200 coins recovered. The majority of
the first century Roman provincial coins belongs to the rule of A. Felix and
P. Festus. Of the 24 coin attributed to Agrippa I a total of 18 are of the
Agrippan canopy bronze type.

Jotapatha

According to Josephus (War III, 316-328) Jotapatha was laid waste in July
67 A.D. A numismatic survey of the area was published in 1962 by A.
Berman which included more than 90 coins. Since that five seasons of ex-

14. We express our gratitude to The Israel Antiquities Authority for the permission to see
the Ein Gedi coins and to publish our findings. Especially we want to mention Mrs. Ruth
Peled, then the Chief Curator, and Donald T. Ariel, Head of the Numismatic Department,
who helped us with many of the outstanding issues and problems.
438 K. LNNQVIST

cavations by the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and the Israel Antiquities

Authority have been conducted, with a total of 376 coins found up to
date.15 The first century coin profile is very illuminating with coins con-
centrating to the 50 and 60s. Of the coins we have discussed here only
three are coins of P. Festus type. Four coins of Agrippas canopy type are
present, in addition to the other coins from the late 60s A.D. published by
Berman.

The era of coinage and the question of the mint

Of the two coinage eras suggested for Agrippa II, one started about A.D.
56 and the other one about 61. We can effectively exclude for the Year 6
canopy bronze the first one which began A.D. 56, and assume safely that
the years were counted from about A.D. 61. This is shown by the coin de-
posits presented above which often pinpoint the latest coins to about A.D.
66/67, which should also be the date of our Year 6 canopy bronze.
This study cannot attempt to answer which calendar Agrippa II used
for dating his coinage. Assuming that he would have used the year starting
from 1st Nisan, would for the Year 6 coinage mean that it was minted
from fall of 66 to spring 67, with the A.D. 61 era. That would have given
the coins which reached for instance Yotapatha plenty of time to reach the
users or the soldiers which stormed the city in May - June A.D. 67.16 The
same applies for the years calculated as starting in the autumn (Tishri).
The Year 6 canopy bronze have been attributed to the mint of Jerusa-
lem purely on the grounds of the geographical distribution of the coins
found, which concentrate heavily in the city. It should be pointed out that
there are no other numismatic or historical evidence for such an attribu-
tion. Accepting that Agrippa II was responsible for the Year 6 canopy
bronze type solves, of course, the question of the mint being Jerusalem.
Agrippa I did not mint coins at the Jerusalem mint, and neither did his son,
Agrippa II, who ruled the large territories in the north. It would not be
possible to place the mint of the canopy bronze of Agrippa II who was pro-

15. We want to thank Donald T. Ariel, for the preliminary data on the excavations and his
help in this matter.
16. One may perhaps argue that the likely date for the starting of the Year 6 canopy
bronze series was from September - October A.D. 66 to the early months of A.D. 67, since
the Roman soldiers in general were paid only every four months and by May - June A.D.
67 the coinage was already in a wide circulation.
 A RE-ATTRIBUTION 439

Roman in Jerusalem, while the same mint started in 66 A.D. to strike coins
in silver and bronze for the revolutionary movement which struggled
against Rome. It is therefore certain that the geographic distribution of the
coinage is more a record of the coin circulation or the Roman troop move-
ments, and the destruction followed by the war, than it is an index for the
mint in question.
Another thing to remember is that many archaeological factors indicate
that the Roman provincial coinage of Judaea continued to be used even
during, and maybe even some years after the years A.D. 66-73. This must
have equally affected the Agrippan coinage and would also have contrib-
uted to the dispersion of it.
The enormous size of the Year 6 series, some of the technical char-
acteristics and certain other features which may relate to the Roman pro-
vincial coinage, point to a large, central mint. As for the Roman provincial
coinage, we also believe concerning the Agrippan canopy bronze, that it
may have been struck at Caesarea, which was the base for the Roman op-
erations during the First Jewish Revolt.

Chronological and historical conclusions

The survey of the Galilean sites calls for at least two very important con-
clusions. First, although not being of primary interest for this discussion
we can deduce that the Roman provincial coinage did not circulate in Ga-
lilee before A.D 54 and the time of Antonius Felix (coins struck A.D. 54).
This agrees well with the historical knowledge of the period, according to
which Galilee was added to the Province of Judaea after the death of
tetrarch Herod Antipas in A.D. 39, probably after A.D. 44 when the Procu-
rators took over.17
Second, we must determine whether the presence of certain coin types
in otherwise clear and well-defined archaeological contexts, mainly in Ga-
lilee and on the Golan, is due to chronological or quantitative reasons or
perhaps a combination of both. The coin material which we have discussed
gives us at least one certain date: the terminus ante quem for the minting
of the canopy bronze is July A.D. 67, i.e. the time when Yotapatha fell. The
coinage was already then in plentiful circulation.

17. Josephus, War II, 183. Following the administrative changes occuring after the death
of Agrippa I in A.D. 44 the area was reduced to provincial status falling under Roman ju-
risdiction.
440 K. LNNQVIST

The evidence from the destruction and conflagration layers of many

sites point, as we have argued, to the late character of our coin type. Very
good examples of this are Macherus, Jotapatha, Ein Gedi and Qumran. At
Qumran for instance, it would be hard to see why the occupants of the site
or the Roman soldiers (either of the assault legions or the later Roman gar-
rison which was posted there) would have walked around with and used
then obsolete and worthless coins minted 25 years ago by a Jewish mon-
arch, if the coin type really was struck in A.D. 42 and was lost by people
who used the locus. It seems also quite unacceptable to think that the Ro-
man provincial administration, which took over in A.D. 44 after the death
of King Agrippa I, would have allowed the coins of this separatist King to
continue in circulation for more than 25 years.
Meanwhile as we await the final evidence (such as an overstrike) for
the re-attribution, we are convinced that our suggestion that the canopy
three ears of corn bronze coin was struck by Agrippa II is correct. The
coins of Year 6 were probably minted starting about September - Octo-
ber A.D. 66 to the spring or early summer of A.D. 67. The enormous series
of small bronze is probably to be considered as Agrippa IIs contribution
to the cost of participating in the First Jewish Revolt. The coins were likely
the primary pay-money to the Agrippan troops. This may also explain the
high frequency of the coin types in certain contexts (e.g. Jerusalem and
Masada), which are known to have been sacked by the Roman army and
its allied troops.
That King Agrippa II started minting in A.D. 66/67 with one of these
large series of small bronze (the denomination was small, but the bulk
value enormous) is very logical, considering that this year he was in full
charge of his domains. He therefore chose to depict the royal canopy on
his first large coin series, which is to be seen as a reflection of his royal
powers bestowed upon him. On the other hand, we do not know for sure if
King Agrippa II received the permission for minting coins from the local,
provisional war-time Roman administration in Judaea, from the Syrian
legate or from the Roman Emperor himself. We may perhaps assume that
the Emperor granted him the permission for striking the coins in gratitude
of his loyalty to Rome and for participating in the Jewish War.

Kenneth Lnnqvist