Hasmonean Silver

[mlkrt]

Well, the lack thereof... Could someone please share their knowledge regarding any explanations provided by scholars for the lack of Hasmonean silver issues? If there are any relevant articles available on the net I'd be grateful for a link.

[Aarmale]

Provenanced finds from Ariel and Fontanille suggests even in the Roman period, Tyrian shekels dominated and pre-imperial denarii circulated in limited quantities.

[cmcdon0923]

Did they have access to a reliable and sufficient source of silver?

[Robert_Brenchley]

No. They'd have had to buy it in.

[Joe Sermarini]

Actually, I think they had an excellent source of silver - the Temple.

Just as the U.S. government is better off issuing paper than silver, ancient governments were better off issuing bronze than silver. Fiat money makes for a far stronger economy than gold or silver ever could. The volume of coinage suggests Judaea was a more monetized economy than most in that period. Why strike silver when the economy accepted bronze?

They also may have been prohibited from striking silver at first by the Seleucids and then by the Romans, but I don't know if this was the case.

[cmcdon0923]

Thanks Robert....I've always assumed they didn't have a readily available source.  So to buy silver at "market price" and then go through the expense of recoining, wouldn't make sense.

Joe......even though they had extensive silver stores in the Temple, many of the same issues above would come into play.  In addition, Tyrian silver was widely accepted because of its quality and fineness.  

A new coinage, if they intended for it to circulate outside of their own country, would have to maintain a similar level of quality. If not, it would have served no real purpose, other than propaganda, which to the average "man and woman on the street", was secondary to the necessities of survival.  

And besides, once it entered the Temple's treasury, the powers in charge were reluctant to let it out unless it served their own purposes/agendas.

And yes, they would have needed permission from the powers that truly ruled them....which probably would have required that they use the designs and motifs that were dictated to them.  And because of Jewish laws against graven images....and especially those of Greek or Roman gods......they may have felt it better not to tempt fate by seeking permission to coin silver.

[mlkrt]

I've managed to find a Hebrew article about the topic. It says that according to the Book of Maccabees Simon Thassi, the High Priest and Hasmonean ruler, received in 139 BC a letter from Antiochus VII Sidetes authorising him to mint coins. Despite this permission, the first Hasmonean coins were the bronze issues of his son and successor, John Hyrcanus, and subsequently only bronze coins were minted.

The lack of silver is not a plausible explanation as silver coins had been minted in Judaea during the Persian and Ptolemaic periods and later during the two major Jewish rebellions against the Romans. The Nabateans, the Phoenician cities and some coastal cities had also minted in silver despite the lack of local mines.

The reluctance to issue coins bearing human effigies on religious grounds has also been cited as a possible factor, but it doesn't address the problem of why bronze coins could still be minted.

I'm still puzzled by this - It would be interesting to see if anyone could shed more light on this problem.

[Joe Sermarini]

Just as the U.S. government is better off issuing paper than silver, ancient governments were better off issuing bronze than silver. Fiat money makes for a far stronger economy than gold or silver ever could. The volume of coinage suggests Judaea was a more monetized economy than most in that period. Why strike silver when the economy accepted bronze?

[Aarmale]

If propaganda was one of the important reasons for mintage (e.g. as E. Regev believes), it would explain why bronze coinage was preferred. Instead of minting a moderate quantity of silver coinage, they instead minted millions of ubiquitous small bronze coins.

[Joe Sermarini]

It wasn't just propaganda. Foreign coins may have been banned for local trade. Even if they were not banned, they would have been accepted only at a discount, probably silver value. Governments struck coins to make a profit. They obtained foreign coins for silver value and struck their own coins at a face value slightly higher than than silver value. The motive was profit but the profit was limited.

Bronze coinage would have been preferred because it was fiat currency, that is, worth a lot more than the bronze value. The profit was greater. (Augustus made huge profits introducing the orichalcum sestertius and dupondius.) Judaean kings probably struck bronze only, at least in great part, because the people accepted bronze coinage. In most of the world at that time, trade was likely still mostly barter and bronze coins, if used at all, were accepted only as small change.

[Aarmale]

It wasn't just propaganda. Foreign coins may have been banned for local trade. Even if they were not banned, they would have been accepted only at a discount, probably silver value. Governments struck coins to make a profit. They obtained foreign coins for silver value and struck their own coins at a face value slightly higher than than silver value. The motive was profit but the profit was limited.

The coins weren't only for propaganda, certainly. As you say, a large reason for minting is to make money (literally and figuratively). Coins were often minted to fund construction or military projects. It is difficult to imagine, however, that foreign coins were banned, since that ban would be impractical to enforce and would also dampen trade with other nations.

D. Syon explains the paucity of Phonecian coins in Galilee during the Hasmonean period as follows: "I believe that this phenomenon, though certainly deriving from the fact that Hasmonean currency was expected by the state to be the main currency within its domains, is also a reflection of preference/rejection on an ethnic background, otherwise it is hard to explain the very minor diffusion of currencies across [the Galilee-Phoenicia] boundary."

Meshorer (AJC 2:58-9) believes that since the Hasmoneans did not have silver mines, their main source of silver was the treasury of Tyrian coinage. The Hasmoneans "did not consider it to be either politically necessary or economically expedient to melt these pieces in order to mint his own issues." The Hasmoneans were able to publicize their autonomy by the mintage of millions of small coins.

[Joe Sermarini]

"Ancient" covers many centuries and many different kingdoms and cities. There is no one rule that could fit all cities or probably even one city for all times, but I think it is almost certain that many kingdoms and cities did require transaction take place in the local money and that the motivation was mostly the profit to the government from striking coinage. This served as a sort of tax on imported silver and gold. I don't think we would have the great variety of coinage that we have were it not for the economic benefit striking coins provided. And very few of those cities obtained their silver from mines.

I seem to recall reading the translation of some Athenian law that prohibited use of foreign coinage for transactions in the Agora. If I remember right, the penalties included confiscation of the entire amount of the transaction. I could be remembering wrong.

We do know that both the Ptolemies and the Romans prohibited foreign coinage in Egypt.

I think that it is much more likely that the lack of coins crossing borders was due to regulation than preference. I think it is not hard to explain if you consider that possibility.

[Robert_Brenchley]

I've always assumed that the Temple provided silver for coining during the two revolts, but that only covers two short periods, and coin issued for a specific purpose, for the Temple tax. During the Persian and Ptolemaic periods, Jerusalem issues small silver similar to other cities of the region, and presumably shared whatever source of silver they were using. But there's no large-scale silver issue from the city.

[L.C.Sulla]

It’s a very good question which I’ve been asking myself for many years now, also asking it occasionally when talking to experts. I think there are several facts and well based assumptions we may relay on:

NO Silver coins were issued by a “Jewish” political authority in antiquity with two exceptions:

•   At the Great revolt the various political authorities (that as history tells us – changed during the various stages of the revolt, while the pattern of their coins remained the same) minted the “Tample Tax Shekels / half Shekels”. These coins are strongly related to the Jerusalem temple and were NOT in wide circulation as means of payment. They were NOT found outside Judea (with the exception of occasional items that found their way to faraway places not as being legal money but as war booty / relic) – not even in the Galilee! Obviously these coins were illegal to obtain, thus people would not have risked trading with them in the besieged and later conquered Galilee, but still  - not even a single item… Almost all Silver Shekels were found in hoards located in sites that were directly related to the war in Jerusalem (we know that also from the information regarding hoards that were not found by archaeologists). In some cases single coins were kept as sort of relics by future generations – some found mixed with 2nd revolt hoards (65-70 years later) – also pointing on the fact they value was symbolic and related to the Temple system.

•   The silver coins of the 2nd revolt are not really a denomination minted by the Jewish authority – all were valid Denarius /Drachma / Tetradrachma coins in circulation that were overstruck by the rebellion’s authorities. This is more of a mean of propaganda rather then a revolution in Judean commerce. Its like when during the 1989 Romanian revolution people cut the Communist symbol outside the Romanian flag – they did not create a new flag: just removed a symbol they regarded as alien.


•   The huge inflation in very small bronze denominations in Judean is an issue for itself – I do not think it is related to the absence of Silver denominations. Whether it’s the Hashmonaim, Herodian dynasty (till Aprippa the 1st), Roman administration (till the revolt) and the 1st revolt – the phenomenon is clear and repeating itself MOSTLY in Judea and with coins minted for the Jews (Herodians that ruled territories that were predominantly NON Jewish tended to mind larges denominations and in much smaller numbers).

•   It has been recently suggested, and based on some very good bases of archaeological finds, that not all Judean coins were refer for a certain authority were actually minted by one authority. The outstanding number of “Barbarian” coin types AND the large number of flan casting stone molds led researchers to bring the assumption that it may have been that there were many minting sources for coins that were on the same type – as opposed to one central mint. Archaeologists excavating a cluster of industrial 1st century AD facilities south of that time Jerusalem located what is probably a small mint where dozens of “Barbaric” Roman Administration coins from the same dies were found – while such coins with die matches found elsewhere are very rare. Other industrial remains related to minting coins was found there too. This means we might be quite far from understanding the Judean monetary system in the 1st centuries BCE and AD. It might well have been quite different compared to the centralized systems we know from other entities.



•   Obviously as silver coins are supposed to reach much better standards of fitness and reliability – such products were out of the question in that economic atmosphere. Coins, after all, were a semi “product” and one that could not have compete in the markets due to being unreliable in fitness, representing an unstable entity and one unable for force its taxpayers to use its silver money – they would just not do it. Preparing even a small amount of silver money “just for the principle” doesn’t seem to have existed as an idea. The Silver Shekels of the 1st rebellion had, as mentioned, a specific purpose – and still may have well minted also as a symbol: which makes sense as the rebellion is often regarded as a case of “Theological madness”.   

[Aarmale]

One of the more compelling reasons to favour the argument that Jews preferred to trade with Judaea than with pagan Phoenicia is that the coin distribution agrees with the pottery distribution. Adan-Bayewitz carried out neutron activation analyses on Galilean pottery for his dissertation and he found that pottery was produced at two Galilean sites---and seldom from pagan sites, even when they are geographically closer. More recently, Adan-Bayewitz et al. found that the bulk of oil lamps originated in Jerusalem and not from nearer sources, and they conjecture the reason was ceremonial and religious; lamps lit on Friday evenings are one of the most recognized symbols of the Sabbath.

Thus, order for one to accept that it was illegal to use foreign coins in Galilee, one must also accept that trade with foreign cities was not allowed. This seems unlikely too, since a coin of Antipas was found in Cyprus and also, a study found that some shells and mollusks from Sepphoris were in fact from as far as the Nile.

[77HK77]

I would suspect pottery to be one of the least compelling comparisons. Aside from basic economic consideration (If the pagan area had a healthier economy the pottery might have simply been too expensive) you also have culture and religious preferences, which all change over time, making such a comparison unrealistic.

The Judeans of the time did not have the types of monetary exchange controls we enjoy today. You can go on the web to see the rate of exchange between the euro and dollar. They didn’t have the luxury of such knowledge which allows the very complex world we live in.

Without these monetary exchange systems the first means of exchange is barter. I have olives you have dates, I’ll give you five dates to an olive. No currency required. But this requires a face to face meeting.
Along comes the middleman (Wholesaler, trader etc) who buys your dates in local currency to sell somewhere elsewhere. Which he sells in another local currency then buys olives to return to you and sell in local currency. Only local currencies needed
Finally comes the speculator. I want to buy something you have and resell it to the rest of the world. Now we have an issue. I have denarii you have these little bronze things. The answer is in easily exchangeable commodity- bullion. We do have references to silver and gold used being used in bullion terms (Josephus referring to Romans taking Talents, a weight measure) and the curious requirement of Tyrian shekels, which because of silver purity looks a little like bullion (to me), in and around Judea.

Having condensed a library into a handful of words I suspect the answer regarding the lack of silver coinage is firmly rooted in the relation of the basic exchanges described to the currency needs of these exchange types.

They just didn’t need silver coins to function

[Aarmale]

I would suspect pottery to be one of the least compelling comparisons. Aside from basic economic consideration (If the pagan area had a healthier economy the pottery might have simply been too expensive) you also have culture and religious preferences, which all change over time, making such a comparison unrealistic.

The Judeans of the time did not have the types of monetary exchange controls we enjoy today. You can go on the web to see the rate of exchange between the euro and dollar. They didn’t have the luxury of such knowledge which allows the very complex world we live in.

Without these monetary exchange systems the first means of exchange is barter. I have olives you have dates, I’ll give you five dates to an olive. No currency required. But this requires a face to face meeting.
Along comes the middleman (Wholesaler, trader etc) who buys your dates in local currency to sell somewhere elsewhere. Which he sells in another local currency then buys olives to return to you and sell in local currency. Only local currencies needed
Finally comes the speculator. I want to buy something you have and resell it to the rest of the world. Now we have an issue. I have denarii you have these little bronze things. The answer is in easily exchangeable commodity- bullion. We do have references to silver and gold used being used in bullion terms (Josephus referring to Romans taking Talents, a weight measure) and the curious requirement of Tyrian shekels, which because of silver purity looks a little like bullion (to me), in and around Judea.

Having condensed a library into a handful of words I suspect the answer regarding the lack of silver coinage is firmly rooted in the relation of the basic exchanges described to the currency needs of these exchange types.

They just didn’t need silver coins to function

I disagree, as does Adan-Bayewitz and Syon. If pottery was too expensive for the Judaeans to purchase, why did the pagans simply buy from Kfar Hananiah and Sihin? In regards to the cultural and religious preference whch I argue for, it appears fairly consistent throughout time. Kfar Hananiah was making pottery since the middle of the first century BCE until well into the rabbinic period, and we still see the same patterns, no matter when the pottery is from.

Eastern Sigillata A was produced by the Phoenicians and is ubiquitous throughout the southeastern Mediterranean. They are found in Tyre and Sidon and even sites east of Galilee, such as Scythopolis and in sites in Transjordan. Yet, ESA is seldom found in Judaea and Galilee. This makes it very conjectural to posit that simple rules of trade caused the bifurcation of pottery sources along the border like you say, since there should be no reason for us to expect Judaea and Galilee to be different from any other regions.

The pottery is compelling because it largely agrees with the numismatic data, viz. that items and money made in Judaea and Galilee often did not leave in large quantities and items from pagan lands often did not enter in large quantities.

[77HK77]

There are two very different mechanisms affecting the distribution of coins and the distribution of pottery

Money is commodity used to facilitate a transaction. It’s utility is driven by the necessities of the transaction type. A prutah is useless in Rome much like a Canadian Loonie is useless in the US. Your only hope is to find someone to exchange it with. Fiat money will stay within its own economy. It will not travel because of the nature of its utility

Pottery is a manufactured commodity and it’s perceived utility is subject to a massive range of variables, from it’s appropriateness to do the job it was designed for, to the color, to price, delivery, to who made it etc, including the relative strengths of economies involved.

The coins of Judea do not flow out because they have no utility outside of Judea. The movement of pottery does not flow out or in because…..take your pick….social, religious, economic, crappy design, but it is not because pottery cannot function outside Judea. The basic utility of pottery remains the same, unlike the coins, outside of the home market. Other factors must be at work.

Even though the result is the same, the items stay inside Judea; the reasons for the result cannot be linked because of the nature of each item's utility.