FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Numismatic and History Discussion Forums => Roman Provincial Coins Discussion Forum => Topic started by: 77HK77 on June 13, 2011, 12:55:03 pm
-
This coin is listed in a current auction as:
JUDAEA. Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem). Agrippa II, with Vespasian. Circa 50-100 CE. Æ 32mm (18.31 g). Dated year 26 (85/6 AD).
My understanding was the name "Aelia Capitolina" starts with Hadrian. Am I incorrect in that start point? Do they mean just Jerusalem?
My second question regards Jerusalem as a mint. Was Jerusalem minting coins so close to the end of the first revolt? when did they start minting again after the first revolt?
-
I duplicated a previous record and didn't update all the information. I've corrected the description. Thanks for pointing it out.
JUDAEA, Herodian Kings. Agrippa II, with Vespasian. Circa 50-100 CE. Æ 32mm (18.31 g). Caesarea Paneas mint. Dated year 26 (85/6 AD). Laureate head of Vespasian right / Tyche standing left, holding grain ears and cornucopia. RPC II 2274; Meshorer 158; Hendin 1282. Near VF, attractive brown patina, small pinch on edge.
Barry Murphy
VAuctions Director
-
Thank you for the Info Barry,
I am interested in understanding when the minting od coins in jersalem started after the first revolt?
Anyone offer a good reference work (historical not just coins) for the time period between the first and second revolt?
-
Thank you for the Info Barry,
I am interested in understanding when the minting od coins in jersalem started after the first revolt?
Anyone offer a good reference work (historical not just coins) for the time period between the first and second revolt?
I do not have a reference, but I believe that common understanding is that Jerusalem laid in ruins after the first revolt until Hadrian founded Aelia Capitolina during his visit to Judaea.
-
Aelia Capitolina was the name given by Hadrian. This city was rebuilt on the destroyed Jerusalem, and Hadrian erected a temple to Jupiter where the Second Temple had stood.
I have Hendin's GBC 3. I'm not sure if there was more research on this area, but Hendin writes that the coins struck between the years 85/86 and 86/87 CE were struck at a "mystery mint". The three known mints of Agrippa II are Sepphoris (Tzipori), Caesarea Panias (Banias), Tiberias (Teveriah) and Caesarea Maritima.
I'm not sure if this coin was indeed struck in Jerusalem in 85/86 CE. The coinage of the procurators stopped with Festus in 59 CE as well.
-
Thanks Aarmale,
I take it the first offical coin minted in Jerusalem, after the first revolt, would be under Hadrian?
The gap in minting from 59 to circa 136?
It seems the only silver minted was during the revolt and under roman rule only bronze coins were produced. Is that correct?
-
First revolt coins are believed to be minted in Jerusalem. It had been argued that some of Bar Kochba coins were overstruck on Hadrian's Aelia Capitolina founder coins (do not remember the source). The gap therefore might be AD 69/70 - AD 132.
-
It seems the only silver minted was during the revolt and under roman rule only bronze coins were produced. Is that correct?
Actually, no to both. Bronze coins of the first revolt were minted in several denominations. AR tetradrachms of Caracalla were minted in Aelia Capitolina.
-
First revolt coins are believed to be minted in Jerusalem. It had been argued that some of Bar Kochba coins were overstruck on Hadrian's Aelia Capitolina founder coins (do not remember the source). The gap therefore might be AD 69/70 - AD 132.
Bar-Kochba coins were overstruck on anything circulating - most famously, IVDAEA CAPTA issues.
-
First revolt coins are believed to be minted in Jerusalem. It had been argued that some of Bar Kochba coins were overstruck on Hadrian's Aelia Capitolina founder coins (do not remember the source). The gap therefore might be AD 69/70 - AD 132.
Bar-Kochba coins were overstruck on anything circulating - most famously, IVDAEA CAPTA issues.
Bar Kochba struck upon Aelia Capitolina means that Hadrian founded the city before the revolt.
-
It had been argued that some of Bar Kochba coins were overstruck on Hadrian's Aelia Capitolina founder coins (do not remember the source).
No such overstrikes, however, were known to Mildenberg, Bar Kokhba, p. 100: he only mentions that "Aelia bronzes have turned up in hoards containing Bar Kokhba pieces."
Mildenberg does however argue that Aelia Capitolina was founded and began to strike coins before the outbreak of the second revolt: "Some of the Aelia coins must have been struck in the pre-war years 130-132 and others in the post-war years 135-138."
-
First revolt coins are believed to be minted in Jerusalem. It had been argued that some of Bar Kochba coins were overstruck on Hadrian's Aelia Capitolina founder coins (do not remember the source). The gap therefore might be AD 69/70 - AD 132.
Bar-Kochba coins were overstruck on anything circulating - most famously, IVDAEA CAPTA issues.
Bar Kochba struck upon Aelia Capitolina means that Hadrian founded the city before the revolt.
There is no doubt that the city was rebuilt before the revolt, so we do not need coins to determine a terminus post quem. The Jews were not allowed to enter the city, which was one of the reasons of the revolt in the first place.
-
There is no doubt that the city was rebuilt before the revolt, so we do not need coins to determine a terminus post quem. The Jews were not allowed to enter the city, which was one of the reasons of the revolt in the first place.
This is inaccurate according to Mildenberg.
Mildenberg states that the foundation date of the city, whether before or after the revolt, is indeed debatable.
Eusebius, M. says, dates the foundation to after the revolt, but M. thinks it must actually have taken place before the revolt, since this seems to be stated by Dio Cassius: "At Jerusalem he founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple of Jupiter. That brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration." Plus it's hard to date all of Hadrian's coins at Aelia to after the revolt and M. thinks that at least one of the three issues must have been produced before the revolt.
In his discussion of the cause of the war, pp. 102-109, M. says not one word about the prohibition alleged by Aarmale, that Jews couldn't enter the city. According to M. it was Hadrian's prohibition of circumcision that caused the rebellion.
-
It had been argued that some of Bar Kochba coins were overstruck on Hadrian's Aelia Capitolina founder coins (do not remember the source).
No such overstrikes, however, were known to Mildenberg, Bar Kokhba, p. 100: he only mentions that "Aelia bronzes have turned up in hoards containing Bar Kokhba pieces."
Mildenberg does however argue that Aelia Capitolina was founded and began to strike coins before the outbreak of the second revolt: "Some of the Aelia coins must have been struck in the pre-war years 130-132 and others in the post-war years 135-138."
The source definitely was not Mildenberg; I will try to find it. Might have been Israel Numismatic Journal or something else. I remember a very emotional claim that the proof that had been long looked for was finally discovered.
-
I remember a very emotional claim that the proof that had been long looked for was finally discovered.
That would be interesting!
-
This is inaccurate according to Mildenberg.
Mildenberg states that the foundation date of the city, whether before or after the revolt, is indeed debatable.
Eusebius, M. says, dates the foundation to after the revolt, but M. thinks it must actually have taken place before the revolt, since this seems to be stated by Dio Cassius: "At Jerusalem he founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple of Jupiter. That brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration." Plus it's hard to date all of Hadrian's coins at Aelia to after the revolt and M. thinks that at least one of the three issues must have been produced before the revolt.
In his discussion of the cause of the war, pp. 102-109, M. says not one word about the prohibition alleged by Aarmale, that Jews couldn't enter the city. According to M. it was Hadrian's prohibition of circumcision that caused the rebellion.
The circumcision law was instituted to prevent the Jews from entering, as they are were circumcised when they were 8 days old.
Hadrian visited Jerusalem in 130 CE and ordered it to be rebuilt - before the revolt. Yehoshua Zlotnik argues that "Jerusalem was rebuilt as a colony by Hadrian in 129-130 and called "Aelia Capitolina"... And is described by a pair of oxen on the face of coins minted by Hadrian in Jerusalem [The city was founded in an ancient Roman ceremony called sulcus primigenius]".
As well he writes "The sources refer to the founding of the city before the revolt and its re-founding after it. "
See Zlotnik's "The Question of the Conquest of Jerusalem by the Bar Kokhba rebels (http://www.numis.co.il/Question_Jerusalem.pdf)"
-
Aarmale,
I don't see, however, that you are adducing any more actual evidence than Mildenberg cites: Dio's statement, and the coinage which probably began before the revolt.
A mere modern assertion does not strengthen the case. Bar Kokhba coinage overstruck on Aelia Capitolina would, however, prove it!
-
First revolt coins are believed to be minted in Jerusalem.
Biblical Archeology Review had an article in their Mar/Apr edition that proposed a definite location on the Temple Mount for the mint during the 1st revolt. I don't have enough firsthand knowledge to argue for/against their location but found it interesting reading.
-
What I'm pointing out is that all the evidence, except for Eusebius, who lived 200 years after the revolt took place, seems to point that the city was founded before the revolt, and coinage was likely struck then as well.
Eusebius' writing on this is not widely accepted.
-
Quite likely, I fully agree, but not yet absolutely proven, as you originally wanted to claim.
-
Quite likely, I fully agree, but not yet absolutely proven, as you originally wanted to claim.
I will admit that my previous statement was phrased badly. What I wanted to say was that most scholars agree that the city was build before the revolt took place. It would indeed be beneficial to find an overstruck coin of Aelia Capitolina.
-
Aelia Capitolina was founded twice.Before the revolt when some work was done,and after the revolt when the usual ceremonies took place again.
Will be back with more detail on the Roman laws on circumcision,messianism and other possible reasons for the start of the second revolt.
-
Cassius Dio maintains that the founding of the city caused the revolt, Eusebius that the city was founded afterwards. Coin evidence supports Dio. Eusebius quotes Aristo of Pella as the source for his claim that Jews were banned from the area around Jerusalem after the revolt, but gives no source for his statement that the city of Aelia Capitolina arose subsequently to the revolt. If Benito is correct about a double founding - are there any parallels? - that that would explain the discrepancy.
-
I will bet that Benito's solution, though stated so confidently, is not based on any additional evidence, but is simply a combination of the accounts of Dio and Eusebius, added to one possible dating and interpretation of the known coin types.
-
Cassius Dio clearly indicates thet the founding of Aelia Capitolina preceded the Secon Revolt.
By that time Hadrian was in Judaea and his respect for the old civic and religious traditions is well known : "Sacra Romana diligentissime curavit,peregrina contempsit ,pontificis maximi officium peregit" (Spartianus.Vita Hadriani,22.)
The second refounding ,probably after the end of the war with the fall of Better,but possibly after the fall of Jerusalem (again destroyed) one year earlier ,was made in the name of the Emperor by the Governor of judaea Timeius Rufus.
F.M. Abel writes in Histoire de la Palestine (T II,p. 93) " celui-ci eut la satisfaction de reprendre
l'oeuvre interrompue par les rebelles et sans doute saccagee au point qu'il fut necessaire de renouveler les rites de la fondation".
The ceremonies are attested in Ta'anith jer IV, 6 ,Ta'anith bab,as well as in the Dialogue of Timothee and d'Aquila,possibly after Ariston of Pella "...and having taken the stones of the Temple,he used them to build the wall and the theater,and laboured the (land of )Temple".
-
This is not a question I have investigated myself, but I have great faith in Mildenberg: if there was clear evidence of two foundings, Mildenberg would have known about it and would have advanced that explanation himself.
Benito, nothing in your latest post changes my opinion.
Abel, as quoted by you, says that Timeius Rufus "presumably (sans doute) had to renew the foundation ceremonies." That is merely Abel's conjecture: if there was definite ancient evidence for the double foundation, Abel wouldn't have used that expression "presumably".
You say other sources give details of the foundation ceremonies and of Hadrian's reconstruction of Jerusalem. But I strongly doubt that these sources specify when those events took place, whether before or after the rebellion. If they did so specify, surely Mildenberg would have known and would have cited them!
-
This is not a question I have investigated myself, but I have great faith in Mildenberg: if there was clear evidence of two foundings, Mildenberg would have known about it and would have advanced that explanation himself.
Benito, nothing in your latest post changes my opinion.
Abel, as quoted by you, says that Timeius Rufus "presumably (sans doute) had to renew the foundation ceremonies." That is merely Abel's conjecture: if there was definite ancient evidence for the double foundation, Abel wouldn't have used that expression "presumably".
You say other sources give details of the foundation ceremonies and of Hadrian's reconstruction of Jerusalem. But I strongly doubt that these sources specify when those events took place, whether before or after the rebellion. If they did so specify, surely Mildenberg would have known and would have cited them!
My quote of Abel. " celui-ci eut la satisfaction de reprendre l'oeuvre interrompue par les rebelles et sans doute saccagee au point qu'il fut necessaire de renouveler les rites de la fondation".Could be translated: He had the satisfaction of restarting the work interrupted by the rebels and NO DOUBT destroyed to the extent that it was necessary to renew the rites (rituals)of foundation".
IMO. Foundation and first works. Rebellion and seizure of Jerusalem by the rebels. Romans reconquer the city.New foundation and construction. Details on demand.AS for dates,if supra is not enough
The ceremonies are attested in Ta'anith jer IV, 6 ,Ta'anith bab,as well as in the Dialogue of Timothee and d'Aquila,possibly after Ariston of Pella "...and having taken the stones of the Temple,he used them to build the wall and the theater,and laboured the (land of )Temple". In the dialogue before the ..and having taken.....you can read " Hadrian sold the Jews in Hebron at the rate of four for a measure of cereal." Those where the Jews captured during the rebellion.
IMO.Same timing as before.
There is a typo in my post. Its Tineius not Timeius.
-
Benito,
"No doubt", in French as in English, signals not a known fact, but a conjecture that the author regards as probable. If the fact were certain, the author would merely state it and cite the source; adding "no doubt" admits that there is, in fact, doubt! I therefore regard "presumably" as an accurate translation.
If the double foundation is a certain fact, then why does your own author admit doubt, and why weren't Mildenberg and virtually all other modern scholars persuaded?
-
Leaving aside semantics ( do not agree with your interpretation of sans doute)I think my author is quite clear when he writes about the double foundation of Aelia Capitolina,and mentions some texts.
"and having taken the stones of the Temple,he used them to build the wall and the theater,and laboured the (land of )Temple". This laboured is nothing but
the traditional ceremony of the individual leading a pair of bovids ( white ox and cow) and a plough (bronze).
What is the position or arguments of Mildenberg ?.
-
Benito,
How do you come to the conclusion that "laboring the land of the Temple" is the same as the foundation ceremony of plowing a furrow around the boundaries of a new city? Such a ceremony for Jerusalem, I think, would not have impinged upon the site of the Temple, which lay within the city. The point of the quote seems to be that Hadrian scorned the Temple by using its stones for profane structures and turning over its site to profane uses.
Surely you will admit that Abel doesn't know that the war's devastations led to a second foundation ceremony for Jerusalem, but is merely guessing that that might well have been the case?
I have summarized Mildenberg's arguments about the foundation of Aelia Capitolina above: Dio says that refounding the city led to the war, therefore the foundation must have taken place before the outbreak of the war, and some of the coins of Aelia Capitolina would appear to date from before the revolt. I haven't found that he says anything about a possible refounding of the city after the war.
-
Benito,
How do you come to the conclusion that "laboring the land of the Temple" is the same as the foundation ceremony of plowing a furrow around the boundaries of a new city? Such a ceremony for Jerusalem, I think, would not have impinged upon the site of the Temple, which lay within the city. The point of the quote seems to be that Hadrian scorned the Temple by using its stones for profane structures and turning over its site to profane uses.
Surely you will admit that Abel doesn't know that the war's devastations led to a second foundation ceremony for Jerusalem, but is merely guessing that that might well have been the case?
I have summarized Mildenberg's arguments about the foundation of Aelia Capitolina above: Dio says that refounding the city led to the war, therefore the foundation must have taken place before the outbreak of the war, and some of the coins of Aelia Capitolina would appear to date from before the revolt. I haven't found that he says anything about a possible refounding of the city after the war.
No problem with the last paragraph. Abel also agrees with a first founding of Aelia Capitolina.
First and second paragraph. The Temple was ceremoniously laboured ( after the rebellion) previously to the building on its site of the Temple of Iupiter Capitolinus and the raising of the statue of Hadrian. Will try to translate Abel into english ( he mentions two ceremonies ,that of the Temple ,and another one for the perimeter of the city) and lay my hands on the documents he mentions .
I am quite ignorant of jewish numismatics. Any known pieces of Aelia Capitolina coins overstruck with second revolt coins ? In ac search I found this coin
http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?search=aelia+capitolina&view_mode=1&en=1&de=1&fr=1&it=1&es=1&ol=1&sort=&c=&a=&l=#0
founding scene dated 136 AD ( after the revolt).
-
In case the link fails. A pic of the Aelia coin.
-
I am quite ignorant of Jewish numismatics. Any known pieces of Aelia Capitolina coins overstruck with second revolt coins ? In ac search I found this coin
http://www.acsearch.info/search.html?search=aelia+capitolina&view_mode=1&en=1&de=1&fr=1&it=1&es=1&ol=1&sort=&c=&a=&l=#0
founding scene dated 136 AD ( after the revolt).
1. Snegovik thinks a second-revolt overstrike on a coin of Aelia Capitolina has been discovered: see above, on p. 1 of this thread.
2. The CNG coin has merely been dated on the assumption that it was struck after the revolt. The only dates on the coin itself are a) Hadrian P P, so after 128, b) Hadrian founder of Aelia Capitolina, so not before 130.
-
It would be interesting to see this overstruck coin if it exists. Most Bar-Kochba bronzes were filed before restriking, so it is usually difficult, if not impossible, to the the undertype. Perhaps someone should contact a numismatist who may know about this overstuck coin.
There is not much reason to doubt that Aelia Capitolina was built before the revolt. Eusebius lived almost 200 years after the revolt took place. Most of the evidence suggests that Aelia Capitolina was built and rebuilt before and after the revolt.
-
It would be interesting to see this overstruck coin if it exists. Most Bar-Kochba bronzes were filed before restriking, so it is usually difficult, if not impossible, to the the undertype. Perhaps someone should contact a numismatist who may know about this overstuck coin.
There is not much reason to doubt that Aelia Capitolina was built before the revolt. Eusebius lived almost 200 years after the revolt took place. Most of the evidence suggests that Aelia Capitolina was built and rebuilt before and after the revolt.
The idea to look for such an overstrike had been circulating for a while. Unfortunately, I can not find the source I was referring to. I think now that it could have been description of a coin offered for sale.
-
Unfortunately David Hendin has no knowledge of such an overstrike, so Snegovik is probably misremembering.
My e-mail to David:
Second Revolt overstrike on Aelia Capitolina coin?
David,
Is such an overstrike known to you?
A participant on Forvm thinks he saw an article presenting such an overstrike, but he can't remember where.
David's reply:
Curtis highly unlikely. It was renamed to aelia either in 132 or 135. if the latter, impossible, if the former still unlikely due to late issuance. The date of the renaming is a big issue so such an overstrike would be big news. I never heard of it. They are mostly struck on Ascalon or Gaza
-
In case the link fails. A pic of the Aelia coin.
Of the not too many Aelia foundation coins, in how many can the number of the Legion on the vexillum be read ?. If more than one,what legions ?
-
In case the link fails. A pic of the Aelia coin.
Here's the link: http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=12465.
Hendin seems to think that Aelia Capitolina was founded after the revolt.
I don't think this issue will be settled any time soon.
-
THanks.
But where do you recommend to go to answer my question.
Of the not too many Aelia foundation coins, in how many can the number of the Legion on the vexillum be read ?. If more than one,what legions ?
-
Curtis, Benito, Aarmale and Snegovik,
Thank you for the excellent information
Are there any indirect clues, something like the closing of a nearby mint, that might futher point to a start date of minting in Aelia Capitolina?
I've seen some coins from the period and area label as an unknow mint. Is there real evidence of an undetermined location minting Roman Provincals at this time or is it a conjecture because the true mint could not be determined?
-
This has been a fascinating debate to watch evolve. At every turn I anticipated one of the discussants would bring Meshorer and his seminal work on the coin series into the debate. However, I was disappointed to see that it did not happen. There is probably no single numismatist that has studied the history and coinage of Aelia Capitolina more than Ya'akov Meshorer and his 1989 work on the coin series remains the definitive reference. I will take the liberty to summarize his view on some of your previous dialogue.
"The most controversial problem concerning Aelia Capitolina is the date of its foundation. In the past, scholars tended for various reasons to disregard Dio Cassius' account of this event. Dio wrote 'At Jerusalem, he (Hadrian) founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter'. Dio goes on commenting that the founding of Aelia Capitolina was the reason for the outbreak of the Bar-Kochba War. In the past historians preferred Eusebius' account, who maintained that Aelia Capitolina was founded by the Romans in 136 CE, after the suppression of the Bar-Kochba revolt. Eusebius explains the founding of the city as a divine punishment."
Meshorer goes on to conclude, "The foundation of the city could have taken place either during Hadrian's visit to Judaea in 130/131 CE, or immediately after 135 CE, when the war was over; another possibility would be to place it during the Bar-Kochba War. We have already shown elsewhere that hoards of Bar-Kochba coins, undoubtedly buried during the war, included coins of Aelia Capitolina (the founder types). This proves beyond any doubt that the city was founded before the war was over, and most probably before it started." Meshorer cites Hadrian's visit to the area (130/131 CE) which is commemorated on Roman Imperial types ("ADVENTI JUDAEAE") as well as coins minted in Gaza with the expression "visit" in Greek.
Concerning the timing of the Aelia mint, Meshorer concludes, "We believe that as soon as the city was founded (130/131 CE) it began to mint coins." As for Benito's query regarding regarding the legionary standard on the Aelia founder types, Meshorer states, "So far, unfortunately, not a single coin has been found on which the lettering on the standard is clearly legible." On a personal note, of the 36 specimens of this coin I have been able to study, I have never seen one that is clear enough to assess the legionary reference. However, given the commonality of Legio X Fretensis (tenth legion) countermarks in the region at this time as well as the numerous Aelia types that occur later in the series with clear 10th legion symbols (Meshorer 4, 30, 31, 32, 34, 132, 169, and 170) one could conjecture that the standard present on Hadrian's founders coin would read "LXF".
Lastly, in reference to the overstrike...I would defer to David Hendin on the matter. I have examined almost 1000 coins from Aelia Capitolina and never seen one that was an overstrike or overstruck.
I recognize my remarks far from clear up the matter, but I hope that some of the debate can be set aside until more coins are found or additional archeological evidence is able to add clarity to the discussion.
-
Meshorer goes on to conclude, "The foundation of the city could have taken place either during Hadrian's visit to Judaea in 130/131 CE, or immediately after 135 CE, when the war was over; another possibility would be to place it during the Bar-Kochba War. We have already shown elsewhere that hoards of Bar-Kochba coins, undoubtedly buried during the war, included coins of Aelia Capitolina (the founder types). This proves beyond any doubt that the city was founded before the war was over, and most probably before it started."
I had wondered about these hoards, also mentioned by Mildenberg. They seem almost as conclusive as an actual overstrike that Aelia Capitolina was founded before or in the course of the rebellion, not afterwards, for wouldn't the revolt coinages have been demonetized and immediately have disappeared from circulation once the Romans crushed the rebellion and regained control of all of Judaea?
Yet not everyone has been convinced, for in the fourth edition of his Guide to Biblical Coins, New York, 2001, p. 351, David Hendin thinks Aelia's coinage only started in 135. I will ask him about this!
Threegracesguy, thanks for your summary of Meshorer, who agrees with Mildenberg, though in somewhat greater detail.
-
Nobody's produced another example of a double founding, so do we assume that, if it happened, this was a unique event? That obviously wouldn't make it any likelier.
-
Nobody's produced another example of a double founding, so do we assume that, if it happened, this was a unique event? That obviously wouldn't make it any likelier.
It would appear thet Beirut was founded twice . First by Augustus ,later by Trajan.
There are coins from both emperors with the traditional founding scene.
-
Nobody's produced another example of a double founding, so do we assume that, if it happened, this was a unique event? That obviously wouldn't make it any likelier.
It would appear thet Beirut was founded twice . First by Augustus ,later by Trajan.
There are coins from both emperors with the traditional founding scene.
As you can see there is a definite possibility of founding and refounding cities.I mentioned Berytus and Rome. I think Patras,according to its coinage ,was founded by Augustus and refounded by Marcus Aurelius..
Curtis has mentioned the refounding of Rome by Commodus. Alex insists that there only was a first founding and that the expansion of the pomerium of a city
can not be considered as a re-founding. IMO the ritual of founding ( or refounding) has not only civic but sacral or religious implications ( that could apply in the case of Jerusalem ).
It is evident that the above mentioned cases do not imply that Jerusalem was founded and refounded in a short period of time under Hadrian but does not exclude the possibility ( or certainty as F.M.Abel writes.)
Any expert knows of the following coin ?
Tetradrachm
Obverse.Facade of a temple with four columns (tetrastyle) with an architrave. Over the architrave a star or curved line possibly representing a cloud.
Between the central columns a Torah holder ( excuse my English). Around the name of Jerusalem..
Reverse. Ethrog and loulab. Legend " Year 1 of the redemption of Israel.
Be back in three months with new theories explaining the founding and refounding of Jerusalem. Right now I'm finishing a book on precolumbian whistles and flutes in Mesoamerica,masterpieces of the benito collection.
-
Any expert knows of the following coin ?
Tetradrachm
Obverse.Facade of a temple with four columns (tetrastyle) with an architrave. Over the architrave a star or curved line possibly representing a cloud.
Between the central columns a Torah holder ( excuse my English). Around the name of Jerusalem..
Reverse. Ethrog and loulab. Legend " Year 1 of the redemption of Israel.
Be back in three months with new theories explaining the founding and refounding of Jerusalem. Right now I'm finishing a book on precolumbian whistles and flutes in Mesoamerica,masterpieces of the benito collection.
Here's the description of the type from my website:
Coin type: Sela (equal to a Shekel or Tetradrachm)
Metal: AR
Reference: Hendin 674, Mildenberg 124, 3
Obverse description: Front view of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, Ark and scrolls can be seen in the entrance. Around the right, top and left are the ancient Hebrew letters that spell “Jerusalem”
Obverse legend: Yerushalayim
Reverse description: Lulav (ritual item made from branches of certain trees, and used during the Jewish holiday of Sukkot) and on the left is an Etrog (also used for Sukkot. This fruit is called a citron in English), ancient Hebrew surrounds, meaning “Year one for the redemption of Israel”.
Reverse legend: Sh'nat Eḥad L'Galut Yisrael
Year: 1 = 132/133 CE
-
Thanks Aarmale. With the word sela found many in AC Search.
Three more questions.
1.Any other images of the second Temple in Jewish coinage ( besides the 2 nd revolt Sela).
2.Can it be confirmed that the device between the central columns is the Ark of the Covenant.
I am not sure about it.
3. Any links to Jewish coinage with lots of pics ?
Thanks again.
-
Thanks Aarmale. With the word sela found many in AC Search.
Three more questions.
1.Any other images of the second Temple in Jewish coinage ( besides the 2 nd revolt Sela).
This is the only series with the depiction of the temple.
2.Can it be confirmed that the device between the central columns is the Ark of the Covenant.
I am not sure about it.
I am personally not aware of how it was suggested that the line in the temple gates is the Ark. I have seen many early depictions of the Second Temple on mosaics, and none include this box. If anyone knows if there is any evidence to support this, please tell us.
3. Any links to Jewish coinage with lots of pics ?
There are many. Some sites are:
The Menorah Coin Project (http://menorahcoinproject.org/)
Wildwinds (http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/judaea/i.html)
My website, the Judaea Coin Archive (http://judaea.chimehost.net/)
Regards,
Aarmale
-
Thanks Aarmale. With the word sela found many in AC Search.
Three more questions.
1.Any other images of the second Temple in Jewish coinage ( besides the 2 nd revolt Sela).
This is the only series with the depiction of the temple.
2.Can it be confirmed that the device between the central columns is the Ark of the Covenant.
I am not sure about it.
I am personally not aware of how it was suggested that the line in the temple gates is the Ark. I have seen many early depictions of the Second Temple on mosaics, and none include this box. If anyone knows if there is any evidence to support this, please tell us.
3. Any links to Jewish coinage with lots of pics ?
There are many. Some sites are:
The Menorah Coin Project (http://menorahcoinproject.org/)
Wildwinds (http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/judaea/i.html)
My website, the Judaea Coin Archive (http://judaea.chimehost.net/)
Regards,
Aarmale
On # 2.
Reference: Hendin 674, Mildenberg 124, 3
Obverse description: Front view of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, Ark and scrolls can be seen in the entrance. Around the right, top and left are the ancient Hebrew letters that spell “Jerusalem”
Obverse legend: Yerushalayim
http://www.acsearch.info/ext_image.html?id=32601
http://www.acsearch.info/ext_image.html?id=4722
and many others in acsearch.
Of course I can be misreading the coin,that was the reason for asking about the Ark.