After having a discussion with Salem in another
thread about this, I have decided that he is right after rereading
Hendin. It has been years since I read the section that he pointed out. This summer I got Ya’akov
Meshorer’s book
Acncient Jewish Coins, Volume I: Persian Period through Hasmonaeans which
had a very persuasive argument for dating coins of Hyrcannus I as Hycannus II coins. I now see the error of my ways, again, after rereading
Hendin.
To summarize
Hendin, there was a
Hoard of Yehohanan the High Preist coins found in 1988, called the Nablus
Hoard. There were all
types of Yehohanan coins in this
hoard. Also in this
hoard were
Seleucid coins from the 2nd Century BC, but no coins from
Alexander Jannaeus. This proved that the Yehohanan coins must be earlier than
Alexander Jannaeus and minted by Hyrcaneus I.
As Salem pointed out, there is uncertainty about later coins, especially the ones minted in the name of Yonatan. Yonatan coins have been assigned to either
Alexander Jannaeus or John Hyrcannus II.
Hendin does mention that in the Dead Sea Scrolls that Yonatan is used as a name for
Alexander Jannaeus, but he dismisses this with the following argument.
Hendin believes that Yonatan is a nickname for
Alexander Jannaeus and would never be used for an
inscription on an object like a coin because it is an “official object”, which should have the formal name of the ruler.
I have an interesting article in the
The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 26 (1989) which dates coins with the names of Yehonatan and Yonatan to
Alexander Jannaeus only. This article is
The Initial Coinage of Alexander Jannaeus by Mark D. McLean. The following is found on page 161 of the article.
- ca. 100 B.C. The Anchor/Diadem and the common yhwntn were issued, either jointly, or with the later following after the following shortly after the former and continuing concurrently. The relative scarcity of Anchor/Diadem coins with yntn suggests this was a later development occurring slightly before the recall of the Anchor/Lily and the Palm Branch/Lily series.
- ca. 95 B.C. The Anchor/Radiant series and its variations began to be issued for use in the provinces. Some time after 95 B.C., the lead coins with Aramaic inscriptions and the small anchor in solid circle began to be struck.
- ca. 88 B.C. The Anchor/Lily and the Palm Branch/Lily were issued in celebration of the successful conclusion of the civil war.
- ca, 79 B.C. In a move to placate the Pharisees, the Anchor/Lily and Palm Branch/Lily series were recalled. The Anchor/Lily coins were overstruck using common yntn dies cut by engraver I.
[/b]
It would seem that McLean connects the above series of coins by using an analysis of the engraving of the
inscription and says that one engraver did
work on the whole series (most likely with other engravers, but he has identified one
style of engraving that can be found on all coins in the series.) He says that the switch from
yhwntn (Yehonatan) to
yntn (Yonatan) was done to save space.
McLean goes on to explain why the Anchor/Lily and
Palm Branch/Lily coins were treated differently on recall. He says that the
Palm Branch is a symbol of
victory and that it might be a reminder of bitter memories. At the end of the civil war, in 88 B.C.,
Jannaeus crucified 800 of
his enemies, and slaughter their wives and children. McLean speculates that the
Palm Branch/Lily coins might be connected with this event. When
Jannaeus made
peace with the Pharisees, this coin was seen as truly unfit to circulate, even after being
overstruck, and were melted down, while the Anchor/Lily coins were just
overstruck.
My question is, has there been any more
work in the Anchor/Lily and
Palm Branch/Lily series of coins since McLean speculated on them over 25 years ago?
