Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2014, 04:07:29 pm
Search Calendar Login Register

Recent Additions to Forum's Shop


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numismatic and History Discussions  |  Roman Provincial Coins (Moderator: slokind)  |  Topic: understanding the Aelia Capitolina timeline 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]  All Go Down Print
Author Topic: understanding the Aelia Capitolina timeline  (Read 2986 times)
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8891



« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2011, 07:59:34 am »

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!
Logged

Curtis Clay
benito
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra


« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2011, 09:02:52 am »

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.




Logged

curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8891



« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2011, 10:12:10 am »

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?
Logged

Curtis Clay
benito
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra


« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2011, 12:42:18 pm »

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 ?.
Logged

curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8891



« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2011, 01:56:23 pm »

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.
Logged

Curtis Clay
benito
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra


« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2011, 11:58:29 pm »

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).









Logged

benito
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra


« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2011, 12:28:22 am »

In case the link fails. A pic of the Aelia coin.
Logged

curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8891



« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2011, 08:02:13 am »

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.
Logged

Curtis Clay
Aarmale
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1612


Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati


« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2011, 09:20:00 am »

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.
Logged

Gallery: http://tinyurl.com/aarmale
היינו דאמרי אינשי: טבא חדא פלפלתא חריפתא ממלי צני קרי
Snegovik
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 769



« Reply #34 on: June 22, 2011, 09:53:44 am »

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.
Logged

Illegitimi non carborundum
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8891



« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2011, 11:23:22 am »

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

 

Logged

Curtis Clay
benito
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra


« Reply #36 on: June 22, 2011, 11:58:14 am »

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 ?
Logged

Aarmale
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1612


Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati


« Reply #37 on: June 22, 2011, 12:16:55 pm »

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.
Logged

Gallery: http://tinyurl.com/aarmale
היינו דאמרי אינשי: טבא חדא פלפלתא חריפתא ממלי צני קרי
benito
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra


« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2011, 12:52:04 pm »

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 ?
Logged

77HK77
Consul
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


« Reply #39 on: June 24, 2011, 03:22:53 pm »

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?
Logged
Samaritan
Praetorian
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67

www.ancientcoinage.org


« Reply #40 on: June 25, 2011, 06:44:28 am »

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.
 

Logged
curtislclay
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8891



« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2011, 05:41:45 pm »

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.
Logged

Curtis Clay
Robert_Brenchley
Comitia Curiata X
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7683

Honi soit qui mal y pense.


WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 27, 2011, 03:32:19 pm »

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.
Logged

Robert Brenchley

My gallery: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
benito
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra


« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2011, 03:39:34 am »

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.
Logged

benito
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra


« Reply #44 on: June 28, 2011, 01:40:08 pm »

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.
Logged

Aarmale
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1612


Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati


« Reply #45 on: June 28, 2011, 08:36:16 pm »

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
Logged

Gallery: http://tinyurl.com/aarmale
היינו דאמרי אינשי: טבא חדא פלפלתא חריפתא ממלי צני קרי
benito
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra


« Reply #46 on: June 29, 2011, 01:51:20 am »

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.
Logged

Aarmale
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1612


Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati


« Reply #47 on: July 01, 2011, 05:07:26 pm »

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
Logged

Gallery: http://tinyurl.com/aarmale
היינו דאמרי אינשי: טבא חדא פלפלתא חריפתא ממלי צני קרי
benito
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


quousque tandem abutere Sadigh pecunia nostra


« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2011, 01:44:05 am »

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.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2]  All Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numismatic and History Discussions  |  Roman Provincial Coins (Moderator: slokind)  |  Topic: understanding the Aelia Capitolina timeline « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 2.504 seconds with 72 queries.