the numismatic chronology of qumran: fact and fiction

THE NUMISMATIC CHRONOLOGY OF QUMRAN: FACT AND FICTION 121

The Numismatic Chronology of Qumran: Fact and Fiction

KENNETH and MINNA LÖNNQVIST

IntroductionIN 1947 the discovery of ancient manuscripts in caves at Qumran on the shore of the Dead Sea generated large-scale archaeological investigation. Field work was started by Father Roland de Vaux of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française, Jerusalem, in the caves and settlement ruins of Qumran in the late 1940s and continued until the late 1950s. More than 900 ancient manuscripts were discovered in the caves, and the theory emerged that the site was inhabited by Essenes who produced the texts.

De Vaux published a few preliminary reports in the Revue Biblique in the 1950s and delivered the 1959 Schweich Lectures of the British Academy on the archaeological importance of the site. An English translation appeared in the same series in 1973 following the death of the author;1 this made use of the revisions of de Vaux’s original coin identifi cations done by P.A. Spijkerman. The scroll publication project was largely fi nished by 2002, but the small fi nds remain for the most part unpublished. A general list of coins from Qumran along with de Vaux’s fi eld diary was published in 1994 in French. A German translation (with statistics of coin issue periods) appeared in 1996. In 2003 the coin identifi cations from Spijkerman’s cards were published in a new English edition of de Vaux’s fi eld diary.2 However, in the 1960s most of the bronze coins disappeared.3 Spijkerman’s identifi cation cards are the source for the Qumran coin lists, but most of the attributions of the bronze coins cannot now be checked. The published Qumran silver coins are kept by the IAA in Jerusalem, and two unpublished lots are in Amman.

The importance of the coins for the chronology and for our understanding of the history of the site has been clear from the beginning. However, the lack of fi nal excavation reports, the many misinterpretations of the coinage in the preliminary reports by the original excavator and later by non-archaeologists (and also archaeologists) and non-numismatists, and the dispersal and disappearance of most of the bronze coins have hampered the production of a comprehensive numismatic synthesis, which is attempted here for the fi rst time.

De Vaux divided the chronology of Qumran into three periods which he called Periods Ia/Ib, II and III.4 Period Ia was a Hellenistic, 2nd century BC occupational phase, which pre-dated the coins of John Hyrcanus I (135-104 BC). The late 2nd-1st century BC Period Ib was marked by the circulation of the coinage of Hyrcanus I and Alexander (Yehonatan) Jannaeus (103-76 BC), and ended with the supposed earthquake in 31 BC under Herod the Great (37-4 BC). De Vaux believed that, after being abandoned for about a generation, Qumran was reoccupied in Period II under Herod Archelaus (4 BC - AD 6). Period II, which ended

1 De Vaux 1961; de Vaux 1973. 2 De Vaux 1994; de Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996; Humbert, Chambon and Pfann 2003.3 Noted in de Vaux 1973, p. 18, n. 2. Information on the coins varies, but they are not at the École Biblique

et Archéologique Française, Jerusalem, the Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, or the Studium Biblicum Fransiscanum, Jerusalem.

4 De Vaux was not interested in the Israelite or Iron Age occupation at Qumran, and did not study or publish it.

KENNETH and MINNA LÖNNQVIST122

with the fi nal destruction of the site during the First Jewish Revolt (AD 66-73), was the largest and most intensive period of occupation. All the major Qumran publications persist in the belief that the site was destroyed in exactly AD 68. De Vaux’s Period III signifi ed a short occupation lasting perhaps until the end of the 1st century AD when a Roman legionary detachment was assumed to have been garrisoned at the site after the First Jewish Revolt in AD 66-73. According to de Vaux, no signifi cant occupation occurred after that. We believe that de Vaux’s chronology is broadly accurate.

In 2002 and 2004 J. Magness, C.M. Murphy and Y. Hirschfeld published major studies on the archaeology of Qumran.5 The coin evidence should play an important role in such endeavours, but the authors, who are not numismatists, do not give the coins suffi cient attention or take account of the advances in the interpretation of the Qumran coins since 1994, and of ancient Jewish coinage in general over the past 25 years, in particular the works of Y. Meshorer.6 The numismatic sources cited by Magness (p. 207) were published between 1962 and 1984, and her interpretations are based on the provisional coin lists in de Vaux’s 1961/1973 popular lecture books. Hirschfeld’s book lacks several of the latest major works on the archaeology of Qumran and all the numismatic books on ancient Jewish coinage in general, although he uses the Qumran and ’Ein Feshkha coins extensively to establish his own chronology. He relied on third-hand sources such as Murphy, although the publications based on de Vaux’s fi eld diary were available at that time. Murphy (p. 309) makes an admirable effort to discuss the circulation and loss of coins and wealth at Qumran in antiquity, but of the 700 titles in her bibliography, only nine are related to coinage in some way. About half of these date from the 1950s and 1960s, and all but one of the rest from the 1980s; not more than four articles are relevant to the numismatic problems discussed. All important primary sources on Qumran and the most important recent numismatic research on Jewish coins are missing. Most of the numismatic explanations offered by these authors are at best rarely even plausible.

The Qumran coinageDe Vaux’s periods and chronology for Qumran were based on the coins and the pottery. A

crucial question is whether or not there were 2nd century BC pottery and lamps at Qumran or not. We shall start with reviewing what we know and do not know of the coins. Thereafter we shall put the results into a broader numismatic, archaeological, chronological and historical perspective.

The fi rst tentative analysis of the Qumran coins by numismatists was published by the present authors in 2002.7 We have reports of 1250 coins (569 silver and 681 bronze), a surprisingly high total given the small size of the site, which will be discussed later.8 The following is a summary of the coins found at Qumran, reconstructed from the coin lists in de Vaux’s fi eld diary (as published in 1994, 1996 and 2003). The catalogue numbers in the footnotes are the original registration numbers given to the archaeological fi nds by de Vaux

5 Magness 2002; Magness 2004 (which does not signifi cantly change the major claims in Magness 2002); Murphy 2002; Hirschfeld 2004.

6 AJC, and the updated version TJC. Magness 2002, p. 207, uses AJC once, in connection with the controversy over Herod the Great’s involvement with the minting of late Tyrian tetradrachms.

7 Lönnqvist and Lönnqvist 2002. The manuscript of this book was fi nished in 1996 prior to the availability of de Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996, and of Humbert, Chambon and Pfann 2003, with Spijkerman’s identifi cations. Hence the conclusions in the present paper differ from those in our 2002 book.

8 For the Qumran coins, see de Vaux 1994, pp. 291-341; de Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996, pp. 119-30, 159-81; Humbert, Chambon and Pfann 2003, pp. 11-64; de Vaux 1953, pp. 93-4; de Vaux 1954, pp. 229-31; de Vaux 1956, pp. 565-9; de Vaux 1973, passim; Donceel 1992, pp. 559-61. Donceel and Donceel-Voûte 1994, p. 3; Ariel 1993; Sharabani 1980, pp. 274-84; Lönnqvist and Lönnqvist 2002, pp. 143-4, 147.


(1-2673; each inventory number may contain several objects or coins), and retained in de Vaux 1994, de Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996 and Humbert, Chambon and Pfann 2003. A detailed list of the coins is given in the Appendix at the end of this article. 9

Authority Coin type Total Seleucid rulers: 9 Antiochus III, the Great (223-187 BC)10 1 bronze coin 1 Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (175-164 BC)11 1 bronze 1 Demetrius II, Nicator (146-140 BC)12 1 silver coin 1 Antiochus VII, Sidetes Euergetes (138-129 BC)13 4 silver coins + 2 bronze coins 6

Hasmonean rulers: 171 John Hyrcanus I (135-104 BC)14 14 bronze coins 14 Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC)15 145 bronze coins 145 Mattathias Antigonus (40-37 BC)16 6 bronze coins 6 Hasmonean, not identifi ed17 6 bronze coins 6 Herodian dynasty: 118 Herod the Great (37-4 BC)18 16 bronze coins 16 Herod Archelaus (4 BC-AD 6)19 16 bronze coins 16

9 The lists do not include coins found during new and resumed surveys and excavations conducted at Qumran since 1958 (see e.g. Broshi and Eshel 1999, pp. 343-6, 348). The numbers of coins from Qumran cited in various secondary sources vary (see Donceel 1992, p. 559, and Murphy 2002, p. 305), and are usually unreliable since they are not based on de Vaux’s fi eld notes published in 1994, 1996 and 2003. The detailed coin list in e.g. Murphy 2002 (p. 305) refers to ‘de Vaux’s fi eld notes’, but in the bibliography there is no mention of the 1994 and 1996 publications (the 2003 publication postdated Murphy’s book) or to any other primary source.

10 De Vaux 1994, p. 340, no. 291; Humbert, Chambon and Pfann 2003, p. 62; not confi rmed in de Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996, p. 121, n. 9.

11 De Vaux 1994, p. 340, no. 178; Humbert, Chambon and Pfann 2003, p. 62; not confi rmed in de Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996, p. 121, n. 9.

12 No. 1307, silver didrachm.13 Four are silver: nos 772 (didrachm, 136 BC), 1308 (didrachm), 693 (tetradrachm), 159 (tetradrachm, 131/130

BC). Two are bronze: nos 547 and 994 (132/131 BC).14 The attribution to John Hyrcanus I is recent: see Meshorer 1993, and TJC, pp. 25-6. Judas Aristobulus I (104-

103 BC) did not mint coins (AJC 1, p. 47; TJC, p. 217). The minting of Judah Aristobulus II (67-63 BC) is also uncertain (TJC, pp. 29, 217-18). Two of the coins attributed here to John Hyrcanus I are certain. The other 12 are with a question mark and should be checked as to whether they belong to TJC groups A-J (Yehohanan), or to TJC groups K-T (Yehonatan) of A. Jannaeus. Spijkerman attributed most of these to Hyrcanus I.

15 Nos 115, 1608, 553, 374, 241, 251, 252, 315, 311, 293, 391, 269, 261, 342, 344, 313, 334, 341, 327, 328, 347, 481, 511, 512, 513, 1615, 601, 455, 597, 606, 610, 643, 549, 718, 720, 702, 981, 982, 983, 1252, 1253, 1003, 1146, 1265, 1174, 1176, 1306, 754, 1314, 1599, 1660, 1267, 1396, 1394, 1517, 1642, 1534, 1524, 1663, 1664, 155, 665, 694, 990, 2001, 2459, 2035, 2053, 2113, 2527, 2590, 2067, 2191a, 2440, 2160, 2193, 2239, 2572, 2573, 2471, 2282, 2314, 2425, 2262, 2396a, 2396b, 2396c, 2396d, 2396e, 2396f, 2396g, 2396h, 2398, 2403, 2404, 2429, 2430, 2603, 2624, 1646, 2371, 2373a, 2373b, 2373c, 2397, 2438, 2439, 2372, 2383, 2385, 2612, 2561, 373, 164, 174, 176, 177, 183, 184, 186, 188, 200, 272, 273, 274, 275, 290, 292, 309, 330, 331, 1010, 1011, 2517, 2518, 2526, 2558, 2559, 2560, 2569, 2590, 2631, 2632, 2633 and 2635. Five of the Alexander Jannaeus coins are with a question mark.

16 Nos 109, 110, 111, 437, 735 and 2402. 17 Nos 868, 879, 880, 881, 165 and 212.18 Of these de Vaux 1973, p. 19, says ‘The coins of Herod the Great I shall reserve for later discussion’. All coins

of Herod the Great appear to have been found in mixed levels with Roman provincial coins from the fi rst century AD. Herod’s coins are nos 122, 555, 2667, 866, 898, 1536, 1607, 1266, 1535, 2118, 2571, 2313, 2261, 2329, 175, 160. Four of these are with a question mark.

19 Herod Archelaus’ coins are: Nos 550, 221, 340, 371, 598, 739, 1232, 1305, 1135, 1156, 1667, 2302, 2382, 1647, 187, 2570. Two of these are with a question mark.


Herodes Agrippa II (AD 66/67)20 84 bronze coins 84 Herod Agrippa II (AD 50-100)21 1 bronze coin 1 Aristobulus king of Armenia Minor (AD 54-92)22 1 bronze coin 1 First Roman provincial coinage: 104 Coponius (AD 6)23 3 bronze coins 3 M. Ambibulus (AD 9-12)24 5 bronze coins 5 Coponius or Ambibulus (AD 6-12)25 2 bronze coins 2 Valerius Gratus (AD 15-26)26 9 bronze coins 9 Pontius Pilate (AD 26-36)27 29 bronze coins 29 Gratus or Pilate (AD 15-36)28 12 bronze coins 12 Antonius Felix (AD 54)29 7 bronze coins 7 Porcius Festus (AD 59)30 34 bronze coins 34 Felix or Festus (AD 54-59)31 3 bronze coins 3

First Jewish Revolt (AD 66-70):32 91 Year 2 (AD 67) 76 bronze coins 76 Year 3 (AD 68) 6 bronze coins 6 Unidentifi ed coins 9 bronze coins 9 Second Jewish Revolt (Bar Cochba coinage, AD 132-135):33 6 bronze coins 6

20 According to Spijkerman’s identifi cations, all these coins are of the three ears of corn/canopy type (AJC 2, 11; TJC 120), previously attributed to Herod Agrippa I, but in fact minted by Herod Agrippa II in 66/67 outside Jerusalem (see n. 52 below). The coin type circulated together with the late Roman provincial coinage and the First Jewish Revolt coinage (AD 66-70), as can be seen clearly, for example, at Qumran.

21 No. 639, AD 87/88 (Titus/Nike).22 Coin no. 1318 is misattributed in the listings of 1994, 1996 and 2003 to Judas Aristobulus I, who did not mint

coins (see n. 14 above). Spijkerman’s description corresponds to TJC 367, AD 70/71, Aristobulus of Armenia. 23 Nos 972, 2119 and 2449.24 Nos 106, 107, 108, 1586, 2245.25 Nos 2189 and 2405.26 Nos 104, 105, 113, 257, 608, 1612, 1661, 2589 and 2359.27 Nos 119, 123a, 593, 556, 599, 1069, 1173, 1398, 1399, 1421, 1521, 1519, 1463, 1656, 2061, 2016, 2076, 2077,

2078, 2079, 2080, 2211, 2166, 2192, 2269, 2237, 2238, 2246, 2428. Note the new evidence for Pontius Pilate’s chronology (Lönnqvist 2000). It seems that Pontius Pilate’s mandate fell between AD 17/18-36 and that of Valerius Gratus from AD 15 to 17/18, which is supported both by historical and numismatic evidence.

28 Nos 121, 509, 1028, 1400, 1420, 1366a, 2120, 2121, 2227, 2589, 2639 and 2644.29 Nos 102, 767, 912bis, 662, 1087, 637 and 2159.30 Nos 254, 250, 763, 398, 323, 400, 326, 467, 514, 651, 769, 1017, 1144, 900, 1295, 1296, 1088, 1617, 1345,

1424, 1425, 1430, 1431, 616, 666, 2154, 2155, 2214, 2223, 2277, 2278, 2276, 2361 and 2630.31 Nos 1089, 1365 and 2432. The expression ‘procurators under Claudius or Nero’ is found in publications prior to

1982 and Meshorer’s AJC. Of the Judaean procuratores under Claudius (AD 41-54) only A. Felix minted coins, in AD 54. Under Nero (AD 54-68) only P. Festus minted coins, in AD 59.

32 Nos 118, 120, 193, 248, 188, 483, 484, 438, 741, 742, 1438, 743, 1233, 1316, 988, 1327, 1328, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1356, 1358, 1357, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1504, 147, 638, 2445, 2009 (40 coins), 2057, 2190, 2191a, 2188, 2356 and 2360. The recorded number of coins in the hoard found in locus 103 varies between 35 and 42 (de Vaux 1994, p. 324 (2009-2044); Humbert, Chambon and Pfann 2003, p. 47; de Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996, p. 126.

33 Nos 490, 491, 492, 493, 495 and 714.


City coins: 24 Aelia Capitolina (under Elagabalus, AD 218-222)34 1 bronze coin 1 Antioch35 1 bronze coin 1 Ascalon36 2 bronze coins 2 Caesarea Maritima37 11 bronze coins 11 Caesarea Panaeas38 1 bronze coin 1 Canata/Canatha39 1 bronze coin 1 Dora40 4 bronze coins 4 Neapolis (under Trebonianus Gallus, AD 251-253)41 1 bronze coin 1 Tyre42 1 silver + 1 bronze coin 2

Client kings: 4 Nabataean kings, Aretas IV (9 BC-40 AD)43 4 bronze coins 4 Roman imperial coinage: 18 Judaea Capta (AD 71-81)44 3 coins 3 Vespasian (AD 69-79)45 1 silver + 1 bronze coin 2 Trajan (AD 98-117)46 3 bronze coins 3 Late Roman (AD 3rd-4th century)47 10 bronze coins 10

34 No. 2054, Elagabalus with quadriga, AD 218-222. This is a city coin and not an imperial coin.35 No. 893, Roman imperial SC coin from Antioch, under Nero AD 54-68. Also found at Masada.36 Nos 243 and 590, Tyche/war-galley type, AD 72/73, found in quantities at Masada.37 In the Qumran coin listings the city coins of Caesarea were attributed either to the Roman procurators of Judaea

(fi rst Roman provincial coinage, AD 6-59) or were misidentifi ed as First Jewish Revolt coinage (AD 66-70), which they have nothing to do with. The Caesarea coins are nos 546, 369, 310, 348, 336, 338, 409, 668, 699, 1439, 829. Of the identifi ed coins, no. 699 was minted under Claudius, the rest are probably all from Nero’s AD 68 issues, as all the identifi ed coins are from year AD 68, represented, for example, at Masada.

38 No. 507, minted under Nero, temple motif, also found at Masada.39 No. 1161, minted under Claudius in AD 49/50. The type occurs also at Masada. Not minted by the Roman

governors of Judaea, as the Qumran coin listings claim.40 Nos 337, 596, 1518 and 2151, Doros/Astarte (Tyche?) type coins, all minted in AD 67/68.41 No. 2315, Bust of Gallus/ Mount Gerizim and eagle.42 No. 832 (29 BC, tetradrachm) and 2062 (AD 33/34, AE).43 No. 1072 (5-3 BC?), no. 2122 (5 BC-AD 3), no. 2143 (5-3 BC?) and 2221 (AD 18/19).44 Nos 333 (AD 79-81), 595 (AD 71-81) and 801 (AD 71-81). Minted at Caesarea Maritima. The number of Judaea

Capta coins at Qumran is quite high, given that Masada has not yielded more than fi ve coins of these series.45 No. 486, AD 73 (AE) and no. 611, AD 70/71 (silver).46 Nos 487, 488 and 499 (AD 103-111). Humbert, Chambon and Pfann 2003, p. 23, claim that these were silver,

whereas de Vaux 1994 p. 302, and de Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996, p. 127, describe them as bronze. 47 Nos 605, 642, 1147, 1462, 1563, 1583, 1522, 640, 2129, 173.


Byzantine imperial coinage48 2 bronze coins 2

Arabic coinage (not identifi ed)49 5 bronze coins 5

Turkish coinage (not identifi ed)50 1 bronze coin 1

Identifi ed bronze coins 546 Unidentifi ed, disintegrated or lost bronze coins 135 bronze coins 135 Total of bronze coins found at Qumran 681

Three hoards of silver coins (locus 120)51 561 Other identifi ed silver coins (stray fi nds) 7 Unidentifi ed silver coin (no. 993) 1 Total of silver coins found at Qumran 569 QUMRAN, GRAND TOTAL OF COINS: 1250

The coin profi le and circulation of coins at QumranIf the 1250 coins derived above from the 1994, 1996 and 2003 lists are a reasonably accurate

refl ection of the original corpus of coins found at Qumran, they may be of considerable help in elucidating the foundation, function and destruction of the site.

Table 1 below shows three peaks. The largest comprises the 145 coins of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC). Altogether, the Hasmonean period yielded 171 coins for 98 years of rule. The Herodian dynasty yielded together 118 coins, although there is a difference in pattern between the early and late Herodian coinage, to which we shall return. The Procuratorial coinage in the centre forms the second peak with a total of 104 coins minted during 60 years, especially under P. Pilate (AD 26-36) and P. Festus (AD 59). The third, and last peak represents the coinage of Herod Agrippa I/II and of the First Jewish Revolt (AD 66-70). The money market during the First Jewish Revolt is characterised by two groups of coins which, as we have shown elsewhere,52 circulated together: the small bronze lepta with three ears of corn/canopy and the Revolt bronze coinage. The enormous three ears of corn/canopy series was previously thought to have been minted by Agrippa I in AD 41 (or AD 42/43) in Jerusalem, but the numerous late archaeological contexts of these coins, including at Qumran, indicate that they were struck by Agrippa II starting in AD 66/67, perhaps as a contribution to the war effort. The First Jewish Revolt coinage at Qumran is represented by ‘Year 2 and 3’ coins (about 10 % are still unclassifi ed by year). The coins of Aretas IV, of various cities and of the Late Roman, Byzantine and Arabic/Turkish periods account for not more than 3.5 % of the total.

48 No. 1073 (?), and no. 1618, AD 491-538, Anastasius I (AD 491-518) – Justinian I (AD 527-565). In Humbert, Chambon and Pfann 2003, p. 27, coin no. 1073 is said to be ‘Late Roman’ and a surface fi nd from south of the ruins.

49 Nos 641, 1254, 1482, 404, 2618. Some are possibly Umaiyad (anonymous), from the Damascus mint etc., up to the 19th century (?).

50 No. 984.51 See Sharabani 1980.52 Lönnqvist 1997.


Table 1: Absolute numbers of coins at Qumran (vertical axis) by minting authority or period (horizontal axis). C. or A. = Coponius (AD 6-9) or Ambibulus (AD 9-12). H. Agrippa I/II = Herod Agrippa I (AD 37-43) or Herod Agrippa II (AD 50-100)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Ant

ioch

us I

II

Ant

ioch

us I

V

Dem

etri

us I

I

Ant

ioch

us V

II

J. H

yrca

nus

I

A. J

anna

eus

M. A

ntig

onus

Her

od t

he G

reat

Her

od A

rche

laus

Are

tas

IV

Cop

oniu

s

Am

bibu

lus

C. o

r A

.

V. G

ratu

s

P. P

ilat

e

Gra

tus

or P

ilat

e

A. F

elix

P. F

estu

s

Fel

ix o

r F

estu

s

H. A

grip

pa I

/II

1 R

evol

t

2 R

evol

t

Cit

y co

ins

R. I

mpe

rial

Byz

anti

ne

Ara

bic

Tur

kish

Tables 2 and 3 below give the percentages and absolute numbers of coins from different periods found at Qumran in tabular and histogram form. 99% were bronze. Only 1% was silver (excluding the three hoards of silver coins from locus l20). However, all fi ve Seleucid silver coins, 63 % of the total of 8 silver coins, belong to the second half of the 2nd century BC, which is archaeologically and chronologically signifi cant. Equally signifi cant is the fact that the coin profi le at Qumran does not have any major lacunae. All the major periods usually represented at this type of site in Israel are also present at Qumran, although coins appear in different proportions.

Table 2: Percentages of coins from each period

Period Total Percentage Silver Bronze

Seleucid 9 1,0% 5 4 Hasmonean 171 25,0% - 171 Herodian 118 17,0% - 118 Roman provincial 104 15,0% - 104 1 Jewish Revolt 91 13,0% - 91 2 Jewish Revolt 6 1,0% - 6 City coins 24 3,5% - 24 Roman Imperial 18 2,5% 1 17 Others 13 2,0% 1 12 Not identifi ed 135 20,0% 1 134 689 100% 8 (1%) 681 (99%)


Table 3: Histogram. Absolute numbers on the axis to the left.

020406080100120140160180

Seleu

cid

Hasm

onea

n

Hero

dian

Roma

n pro

vincia

l

1 Jew

ish R

evolt

2 Jew

ish R

evolt

City

coins

Naba

taean

Roma

n Imp

erial

Byza

ntine

Impe

rial

Arab

ic

Turk

ish

The fi rst important conclusion from the above tables is that there are too many coins from Qumran to be consistent with the view that the site was small and isolated, occupied by a sect or a community of poor people. If we, for instance, compare Qumran with the coin profi le of Masada,53 we see striking similarities, although there are some variations, which can be explained by historical factors and the difference in function of the two sites. For example, the construction of Masada under Herod the Great is refl ected in the number of his coins found there, whereas the Hellenistic occupation of Qumran intensifi ed at the latest under Alexander Jannaeus, and this is refl ected in the Hasmonean peak in its coin profi le.

Secondly, there are obvious differences in the coinage totals from the Herodian, Roman (provincial, AD 1st century) and First Jewish Revolt periods, and we will attempt to explain some of them below. Thirdly, there seem to be very few coins from the post AD 70 period; we shall argue that a combination of political and military events in Roman Judaea in AD 66-73 probably resulted in economic decline and a collapse of the currency system.

However, the raw fi gures used above are not suffi cient to illuminate the site’s politico-economic importance. Other considerations should be taken into account, such as the fact that coin losses tend to refl ect the volume of coinage originally issued, its intrinsic value, the political and economic factors prevailing at the time, and the physical size of the individual coins.54 Again, rather than accepting at face value the absolute numbers of coins as evidence for occupation or non-occupation (as, for instance, Magness and Hirschfeld did), we should also factor in the length of the periods or reigns concerned, dividing the numbers of coins by the number of years in each period or reign, to produce a common statistical set based on annual losses; this, according to the system elaborated by Casey, is best expressed as an annual average coin loss per 1000 coins.55 These principles are adopted in Tables 4 and 5 below. In Table 5 the Herodian coinage is divided into an early and late group by separating the coinage of H. Agrippa I/II from the other Herodian rulers.

Tables 4 and 5 indicate an annual average coin loss at Qumran around 0.9-1.0 per 1000 coins for all the major periods, with only few exceptions (the anomalous fi gure for the

53 Meshorer 1989a.54 Discussed by e.g. Casey 1986, pp. 69, 88-91. For ancient coinages, however, estimates of coin volumes will

probably remain uncertain, since there are few die counts for base-metal coins, and we do not know how long individual dies lasted in antiquity.

55 Casey 1986, pp. 88-9.


First Jewish Revolt is partly explained by hoards and the fi nal destruction of the site). An overall conclusion from Tables 4 and 5 is that Qumran was thoroughly monetized in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. There seems to have been no unwillingness to accept foreign or local coins at Qumran, and no disposition to choose certain coins and reject others.56 Since the annual average coin loss coeffi cient remains relatively constant throughout the major occupation periods, we can also conclude that there do not appear to have been any major changes in the role of coins and money in the economic system at Qumran, a point to which we shall return later.

Tables 4 and 5 also prove that coins counts which deal only with the absolute numbers of coins are fl awed. Thus the fi gures for average annual coin loss in the two major historical periods at Qumran, the late Hellenistic or Hasmonean (135-37 BC) and early Roman provincial (AD 6-66), are identical, although the Hasmonean period yielded nearly 40% more coins than the early Roman provincial. The Roman coinage may therefore have been as signifi cant as the Hasmonean. As mentioned above, ancient coin losses are assumed to be proportional to the volume of coinage originally minted (and later lost), indicating according to the results of Tables 4-5, that the amount of Roman coins circulating at Qumran in the 1st century AD may have been at least as large as, and possibly even larger than, the Hasmonean. Worth noting here is the usual assumption that each coin recovered at a site represents perhaps 1000 or 10, 000 coins originally in circulation. If this is an accurate estimator, millions of bronze coins must have circulated at Qumran.

Table 4: Histogram of coin issue periods, by annual loss per 1000 coins. Seleucid = Antiochus III (223-187 BC) to Antiochus VII (138-129 BC); Hasmonean = John Hyrcanus I to Mattathias Antigonus, 135-37 BC; Herodian = Herod the Great (37-4 BC) to Herod Archelaus, 4 BC- AD 6) to Herod Agrippa II (c.AD 50-100); Roman = Roman provincial coinage AD 6-66; 1 Revolt = First Jewish Revolt, AD 66-70; 2 Revolt = AD 132-135; Late Roman = Roman imperial coinage, post AD 73-AD 4th century.

Qumran - annual loss per 1000 coins

0,05

0,9

0,44

0,9

6,63

1,04

0,02

Seleucid

Hasmonean

Herodian

Roman

1 Revolt

2 Revolt

Late Roman

56 Murphy 2002, pp. 315-16, argues that the religious laws of the people who inhabited Qumran and lived briefl y on Masada (up to AD 73) would have prevented them from using certain coinages whose symbolism and imagery may have been considered offensive. There is no foundation for such a view in the numismatic fi nds either at Qumran or Masada, which both feature ordinary coins, some of them Roman. For instance, there are numerous simpulum and lituus-type of coins from Qumran minted by Pontius Pilate. Besides, we have no historical evidence that the introduction of a Roman coin would at any point have caused any disturbance in Roman Judaea, even under the rule of Pontius Pilate.


Table 5: Histogram of the coin issue periods, by annual loss per 1000

Qumran - annual loss per 1000 coins

0,05

0,9

0,4

0,9

0,9

6,63

1

0,02

Seleucid

Hasmonean

Herodian

Roman

Agrippa II

1 Revolt

2 Revolt

Late Roman

That the fl ow of cash at Qumran may have been large in the 1st century AD is hardly surprising given the archaeological evidence of trade at Qumran in luxury goods such as glass, which is specifi cally dated to that period.57 At Qumran there seems to have been an unusual diversity of glass objects58 or jewellery in use. The same goes for the Roman pottery, like the terra sigillata, Roman mould-made lamps etc., all of which undermines the theory of a sectarian and isolated community that avoided contacts with the outside world.59

In Table 5 where the early and late Herodian coinage are shown separately, the annual loss of coinage minted before AD 6 drops to under half the established ‘norm’. The coinage of Agrippa I /II is close to the average. This suggests that under Herod the Great (37-4 BC) unusual circumstances disrupted the normal circulation, use and loss of coins. As coinage was present at Qumran in all the other periods on a similar scale, it is diffi cult to believe that the reason for its partial absence in the early Herodian period was numismatic or economic.

In Tables 6 and 7 the equalisation process has been performed down to the level of individual ruler/issue periods. In Table 6 it is assumed that the coinage of A. Jannaeus did not circulate after his death in c.76 BC. In Table 7 it is assumed that it remained in circulation after c.76 BC, possibly to the end of the Hasmonean period (37 BC). Signifi cant differences emerge when the length of the periods or rules are taken into account. When we compare, for instance, the early and late coinages at Qumran, we can observe that in the Hasmonean period the coinage of Antiochus VII (138-129 BC) is relatively speaking more signifi cant than the more numerous coins of J. Hyrcanus or Herod the Great.

57 Aerts et al. 2000.58 Aerts et al. 2000, p. 117.59 See de Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996, p. xvi. These fi nds were fi rst discussed in November 2002: see I.

Magen and Y. Peleg, ‘Important New Findings at Qumran’, Qumran 1st Int’l Congress, p. 5. See Hirschfeld 2003. Murphy’s assertion (2002, p. 316) that Qumran had a ‘more closed economy’ is refuted by the number of coins and the traded goods at Qumran, which are often not found even on larger and historically better known sites in Israel.


Tables 6 and 7: Histograms of coin issues under each ruler, by annual loss of coins per 1000. Coin losses on vertical scale to left. Names of Roman emperors refer to coinage of the Roman praefecti and procuratores serving under them.60

If the assumption that the coinage of A. Jannaeus was minted, circulated and lost during his rule is correct, then its original volume was enormous. However, the size of the coinages of procurator Festus (year of mint AD 59) and the First Jewish Revolt were greater.

These tables show three distinctive levels of annual loss: low (0.1-0.5), medium (c.0.8-1.2) and high (c.6.0-7.0). These may be connected to the original amount of coinage in circulation, and refl ect increases or decreases in coinage circulating or economic activity (assuming that it was always effected in liquid cash) at the site, or the general availability of coinage. From the time of Herod Archelaus (4 BC- AD 6) to the Tiberian prefects the use, circulation and loss of

60Augustus = Coponius, AD 6-9, M. Ambibulus, AD 9-12. Tiberius = Valerius Gratus, AD 15-17/18 or 15-26 and Pontius Pilate, AD 17/18-36 or 26-36; Claudius = Antonius Felix, AD 52-59 (minting in AD 54); Nero = Porcius Festus, AD 59-62 (minting in AD 59).


coins at Qumran was uniform, and this agrees relatively well with our present understanding of the archaeology of Qumran in Period II.61

The 6 bronze coins of Mattathias Antigonus (40-37 BC) are relatively speaking nearly as signifi cant as the 50 coins from the early prefects. However, the assumption that the coinage of A. Jannaeus remained in circulation after his death (Table 7), possibly until 37 BC, reduces its signifi cance (longer circulation and perhaps posthumous minting) to around 1.0, which is identical with the general loss trend in the ‘medium’ group.

The most important implications from these calculations concern the 2nd century BC coinages of Antiochus VII and J. Hyrcanus I, and the coinage of Herod the Great. The contemporary 2nd century BC coins of Hyrcanus I and Antiochus VII are more signifi cant than the Roman provincial coinage, for instance, under Claudius. We see this as evidence that the coins of Hyrcanus I were used with the late Seleucid coins in the late 2nd century BC.

The most puzzling period is the time of Herod the Great. The annual loss of coins is roughly a third or a quarter of the other major periods. We have no evidence from other major sites in Israel, e.g. Masada, that the coinage of Herod would not have been available or that it would have been scarce. Hence, the explanation must be other than economic. The difference is not explained by Magness’ theory62 that Qumran was abandoned for one winter, for a one-year break in the Herodian period would not have had such an effect on the coin evidence, which suggests that the unusual circumstances lasted at least a decade or more. A likely reason for the possible gap will be suggested later in this paper.

The minting of Roman coinage which started in AD 59 under P. Festus evidently continued over several years63 (to judge from the number of dies used and the huge numbers of surviving coins), and may even have continued with the same dies after Festus died in offi ce in AD 62. This would reduce the annual loss to 2-3 on our scale and make it comparable with the other high output periods, so that the actual difference between the periods would not be great.

The beginning of the Hasmonean coinage and of occupation at QumranThe new chronology of the Hasmonean coinage was established in 2001 by Meshorer.64 A

hoard from Galilee with terminal coins about 110 BC, 65 and the excavations at the Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim (destroyed according to Josephus, Ant. 13: 255-256, in 113-111 BC) with terminal coins of 113 BC, proved that the ‘YHWHNN’ coins were not minted by John (Yehohanan) Hyrcanus II (63-40 BC) but in the 2nd century BC by John Hyrcanus I (135-104 BC). The beginning of the coinage of Hyrcanus I was placed by Meshorer in 128/127 BC and associated with the king’s improved situation under Demetrius II. This new attribution left Hyrcanus II with no coins at all. Salome Alexander is not known to have minted in her own name either, but she may have continued minting some of the series started by her husband Alexander Jannaeus after 76 BC.66 Judas Aristobulus (104-103 BC) did not mint coins either (cf. Magness 2002, p. 50), although this is claimed, for instance, in the Qumran coin lists in 1994, 1996 and 2003.

The view that the Hasmonean coinage began under John Hyrcanus I in c.130 BC means that 14 bronzes can now be attributed to Hyrcanus I (12 with a question mark), to which we

61 De Vaux 1973, p. 24.62 Magness 2002, p. 69.63 AJC 2, p. 183; TJC, p. 175.64 See the discussion in AJC 1, pp. 38-41; elaborated in TJC, pp. 25-6.65 A late Hellenistic hoard of approximately 700 coins, in the possession of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

See TJC, p. 26.66 TJC, pp. 31, 42.


may add nine Seleucid silver and bronze stray fi nds.67 The new dating means that de Vaux was right to date the foundation of the Graeco-Roman Qumran to the 2nd century BC. As will become clear, occupation at Qumran probably started at the latest around 150-130 BC, as was suggested by de Vaux, and by M. and K. Lönnqvist in 2002. Consequently, contrary to what Magness implies, the high number of coins of A. Jannaeus (103-76 BC) is not conclusive support of a fi rst century date for the foundation of Qumran. However, here the usefulness of the Hasmonean coinage ends for chronological purposes, as no earlier Jewish rulers issued coins.

The circulation of the Hasmonean and the Herodian coinage at QumranMagness writes (pp. 58, 64-65) of the Hasmonean and Herodian coins from Qumran as

follows: ‘If de Vaux’s Period Ia exists, the currently available evidence suggests that it should be dated to the early 1st century BCE instead of to c.130-100 BCE. De Vaux placed the beginning of Period Ib no later than the reign of Alexander Jannaeus because he found 143 coins of that king. However, these only provide a terminus post quem for the beginning of the settlement, and in fact, the coins of Alexander Jannaeus are known to have remained in circulation at least until the time of Herod the Great. This and the apparent absence of 2nd century pottery types suggest that the sectarian settlement was established later than de Vaux thought.’68

Magness (p. 67) thus clearly downdated the circulation of the coinage of Alexander Jannaeus by at least half a century into the reign of Herod, who, she claims, minted relatively few coins. Similarly, Hirschfeld (p. 54): ‘We must abandon two more of de Vaux’s assumptions. The fi rst of these is the idea of a thirty-year gap in settlement at Qumran. On the basis of the numismatic fi nds at Qumran, several scholars have already shown that the gap did not exceed a few years or did not exist at all’.

These claims are unsubstantiated. Magness and Hirschfeld do not warn their readers that the numismatic conclusions are their own and do not represent the views of mainstream numismatic research; their numismatic discussion is from the beginning marred by highly speculative interpretations presented as facts. Let us now examine their claims.

Herod is known to have minted at least 24-25 main bronze coin types (with variations) in 37-4 BC. Nineteen of these belong to the so-called undated series.69 Some are certainly rare, but Herod’s main coinages, which provided the bulk of Herodian currency in circulation, such as the Diadem/table, Anchor/double cornucopia, Inscription/anchor, and Single cornucopia/eagle types, were minted in large quantities.70 There is thus no evidence that Herod minted relatively few coins and so allowed continued circulation of Hasmonean coinage during his reign, as Magness claimed. Moreover Herod’s coinage differed from the Hasmonean in imitating Roman coinage and being issued in several denominations.

There is little to support the notion that the coinage of A. Jannaeus would have been allowed to circulate throughout the rule of Herod the Great or even later, as Magness asserts. On p. 225 in her book she notes fi nds of coins of Jannaeus from a Herodian house in Area E in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, as reported by the excavator N. Avigad. I. Shachar has also suggested that the coins of Jannaeus may have remained in circulation after 76 BC, citing

67 Hirschfeld 2004, p. 55, mentions 11 coins of John Hyrcanus I; Magness 2002, p. 50, claims that there is just one coin.

68 There are 13 Hellenistic oil lamps from Qumran, which we shall discuss elsewhere.69 TJC, pp. 61-72, 221-4. The undated coins have recently been discussed by Ariel 2002, pp. 99-124.70 Statistics from AJC 2, p. 12; TJC, p. 61, and Ariel 2002, p. 103, Table 2; pp. 112-13, p. 115, Table 7; p. 117, Table

8. The fi nds are, for instance, from Caesarea Maritima, Aphek-Antipatris, Jericho (Tulul Abu el-’Alaiq), Gamla, Jerusalem in general and Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem.


examples from the excavations at Horvat Mazad, Givat Hamatos (Jerusalem) and Khirbet Shema.71 But again these are stray fi nds from archaeological contexts that are not closely dated or not datable at all, and have relatively little evidential value. Those from Givat Hamatos are from a mid 1st century AD context, while at Khirbet Shema fi nds Jannaeus’ coins appear with Roman coins of the 4th century AD. Finds of old coins even in late Roman contexts are not rare and need no explanation, as Shachar himself noted. Therefore the attempt by Shachar, Avigad and Magness to use for chronological purposes the relative wear of coins in otherwise hard-to-date archaeological contexts, or the presence/absence of certain coin types, is precarious to say the least. It is hardly surprising, for example, that the coins of Jannaeus who ruled for 37 years are found in more worn condition than the coins of short-lived rulers.

Finds of Hasmonean coins east of the Jordan River show their wide geographical distribution. But the lack of hoard evidence makes the dating of the lifespan of Jannaeus’ coins diffi cult. The majority of hoards of the period are composed of coins of one issue alone, like the Jaffa hoard of A. Jannaeus,72 and the hoards provide no clear indication of continued circulation down to the Herodian period.73 There is no problem with accepting that the coinage of A. Jannaeus circulated later in the Hasmonean period. But downdating its circulation to the rule of Herod the Great is another matter.

The belief that the coinage of Jannaeus would have been allowed to circulate throughout Herod’s reign or later is not supported in any of the major numismatic works (cf. TJC, pp. 61-72, 221-4). It seems that Herod started minting his three dated series of large bronze coins in c.40-37 BC to compete with and fi nally to oust the coins of the last Hasmonean kings still in circulation.74 His initial striking of dated coins may have been intended to show his adversaries that a new rule had been inaugurated. Dating perhaps became unnecessary once Herod had consolidated his power and the Hasmonean coins had been withdrawn from circulation. This being the case, it is hard to see why Herod would have tried to keep Jannaeus’ coins in circulation, while at the same time fi ghting against the Hasmonaeans’ strong social and economic infl uence.

Herod the Great depicted on his coins many designs copied from both Hasmonean75 and Roman coinages, a trend common in antiquity. However, there is a clear distinction between reproduction of popular coin images and toleration of the continued circulation of the coins of previous rulers.76 It is also true that some ancient Jewish coins with a single-year date were minted over a period of several years, possibly even by succeeding rulers.77 The coinage of A. Jannaeus may belong to this category,78 but it is very diffi cult to substantiate the case since the coins have no names, titles or monograms directly identifying the issuing authority.

Another inconsistent chronological argument used by Magness79 is that the Herodian coin total from Qumran shows that the site’s occupation was uninterrupted throughout Herod’s rule 37-4 BC, since some of his coins were found at the site. Yet she uses the ‘small’ number of 2nd century BC coins (in fact about 50% more than the coins of Herod the Great) as evidence that occupation did not start then.

71 Shachar 2004, esp. p. 11. We thank D.T. Ariel for information and discussion on the subject. 72 Kindler 1954, pp. 170-85.73 See AJC 2, p. 46.74 See AJC 2, p. 11.75 See, AJC 2, p. 22; TJC, pp. 61-7176 Cf. Ariel 2002, p. 109.77 Such coins include the single coin type of Porcius Festus in AD 59, discussed above. Also the three ears of corn-

canopy series of Agrippa II that started in AD 66/67 as a contribution to the First Jewish Revolt. We do not know how many years minting continued, but it covered at least 2-3 years.

78 For Salome Alexandra, see AJC 1, p. 81; TJC, pp. 27, 42. The problem is also discussed by Ariel 2002, p. 109.79 Magness 2002, p. 68.


It is virtually impossible to deduce from ancient site fi nd records how long coins remained in circulation; usually at best only the date of a coin’s production can be identifi ed, rarely anything more that could give us a clear perception of how long it remained in circulation or when it was lost. The loss and recovery (ancient and modern) of coins at sites also depend to a large extent on the metal of the coin, its denomination, and various archaeological conditions, such as the excavation technique and the level of documentation (which at Qumran was, as we know, insuffi cient). Magness (2002, p. 10) does not recognize the implications of the principle that the time of minting, use and loss of coins in antiquity may often be different. Finally, de Vaux’s argument, followed by Magness and Hirschfeld, that single bronze coins from mixed layers, dumps or other dubious archaeological contexts can be used to give absolute dates for sequences of occupation and activities or their absence is also diffi cult to understand from a numismatic point of view.80

The fact that we have 16 coins (not 10) minted by Herod the Great at Qumran can be seen in two ways. In Magness’ chronology, the occupation of Qumran started c.100 BC without de Vaux’s period Ia, which Magness says does not exist. Instead, Magness introduces a new periodization between Period Ib and Period II by using a supposed earthquake, subdividing it into a pre-phase of 100-50 BC-31 BC and a post-phase of 31 BC to 9/8 BC-4 BC. We have shown elsewhere that there was indeed a gap in the Herodian occupation at Qumran as de Vaux originally suggested, but one apparently caused by a fl ood, and not directly by an earthquake, for which there is no geo-archaeological evidence.81

As shown in Tables 6 and 7, the Herodian coin total is too small for normal site activities at Qumran, meaning that they must have been seriously disrupted between 37-4 BC. The coins must have ended up in their archaeological contexts before the Herodian catastrophe, during the last years of Herod’s rule, or in the post-catastrophe rebuilding of Qumran after his death. That they may be late is indicated by the fact that they appear not to have included any of the earliest dated coins. De Vaux thought that the coins of Herod were probably later than the destruction and believed that they could have been lost after re-occupation of the site; he did not believe that they proved uninterrupted occupation of the site.82 However, the coinage of Herod the Great cannot have circulated in Judaea offi cially after AD 6 when it was declared obsolete by the Roman authorities, recalled and melted down to produce Roman coins.83

Both Magness and Hirschfeld seem convinced that scholars have shown on the basis of the Qumran coins that there was little or no gap in the occupation at Qumran in the late 1st century BC.84 But we know of no such studies. We are ready to correct ourselves should any be found, but we doubt if the interpretation of Qumran coins could bring about any such new revelations, as the statistical analysis presented in this paper have indicated (Tables 2-7).

We can only say here that the relative proportion of coins recovered from Qumran in the early Herodian period is not ‘normal’. The environmental evidence (n. 81 above) shows that Qumran was inhabited at least c.37-33 BC, but the geo-archaeological evidence does not allow the lower date to be fi xed. It does, however, point to a long gap in occupation, and this explains the abnormal Herodian coin profi le. The Nabataean coins may indicate when Qumran was again in use; those which we have identifi ed were minted about the time when Herod the Great died or a few years later (5 BC- AD 3), which agrees quite well also with the burial date of the Qumran silver hoards discussed below.

80 Magness, ibid; Hirschfeld 2004, p. 143.81 Lönnqvist and Lönnqvist 2004; Lönnqvist and Lönnqvist 2006.82 1973, p. 2483 We know this from the chemical analysis performed on a series of coins of the fi rst Roman provincial coinage

done at the Geological Survey of Israel (Jerusalem) in 1993-94 by one of the authors of this paper. See Lönnqvist 2003, especially p. 56.

84 See Hirschfeld 2004, p. 54. Hirschfeld refers here only to Magness.


The Tyrian silver coinage and the question of the temple tax at QumranIn other sections Magness (pp. 191-2) and Murphy (pp. 231, 311-15, 354, 420, 451) discuss

at length the hoards of Tyrian tetradrachms and didrachms at Qumran. Magness concludes that they may have been used for paying the Jerusalem temple tax: ‘the overwhelming number of Tyrian tetradrachmas in this hoard is suggestive of a deliberate selection of the coins contributed by the members of the community. This brings us back to the matter of the temple tax’. Murphy understands the Tyrian silver at Qumran as ‘a census collection or Temple tax’ collection, either for Jerusalem or for Qumran itself. In addition, Murphy believed that the priests at Qumran also supervised or ‘held a tax collection post’, converting Qumran thereby into a regional tax centre. The conjectural nature of these statements is clear. Hirschfeld on the other hand believed it unlikely that the Tyrian coins found at Qumran were part of a shipment of temple tax money to Jerusalem.85

Although we know that Jews used the Tyrian silver coins to pay their temple tax to Jerusalem in the Hellenistic-Roman period, hardly any numismatists would today agree with the view of L. Kadman, based on a study of the well-known Isfi yeh hoard in 1962,86 that Tyre started minting its famous autonomous silver coinage in the late 2nd century BC only for this purpose. Most of the early Tyrian silver coins did not even circulate in Judaea at that time, but are mainly found in Syria and Lebanon.87 Again, the Tyrian coinage was the only prolifi c silver currency in this part of the Roman Empire, produced continuously from the 2nd century BC until the mid 1st century AD. Egypt had a closed monetary system and the silver minted there in the Roman period hardly ever circulated outside its borders. The Nabataeans had their own debased silver currency up to the 2nd century AD, but its volume did not make it suitable for needs outside its area of origin. Roman provincial debased tetradrachms were minted in Antioch in the 1st century AD, but their circulation was north of Roman Judaea. Hence there would have been little scope for a ‘deliberate selection’ of Tyrian coins for the Qumran silver hoards. The presence of Tyrian silver coins in Palestinian hoards is adequately explained by their availability and the high quality of their silver, which satisfi ed the specifi cally Jewish religious need for pure silver coins.

None of the Hasmonean or Herodian rulers minted silver coins, but this is not a direct refl ection of their limited political and economic power.88 For example, Herod left in his will 10 million pieces of ‘coined silver’ to Augustus and to his wife 5 million pieces.89 Given that Herod did not mint precious metal coins, and given the absence of Roman silver coins at this time from Judaea, we might guess that these pieces were Tyrian. Meshorer’s suggestion (Magness, p. 207) that Herod the Great ‘licensed’ the minting of Tyrian tetradrachms to the Jerusalem mint from c.9 BC to AD 65/66 remains controversial. If the monogram KP or KAP90 (KPATOΣ or KAPTOΣ, ‘power, authority’?) found on the later Tyrian silver signifi ed the permission of the Roman administration, it may explain the situation up to the late Herodian period (4 BC - AD 6). However, in the post AD 6 period when Judaea was placed under direct military rule by a Roman praefectus, it is diffi cult to see how the monogram could have represented Imperial permission, because the junior offi cers who governed Roman Judaea in AD 6-66 were directly supervised by the Imperial authority of senatorial rank in Syria.

85 Hirschfeld 2004, p. 143.86 See Kadman 1962. For discussion, see AJC 2, pp. 7-9; TJC 73-8; Baldus 1987, p. 140. Murphy 2002, p. 311,

indicates that the coins in the Isfi yeh hoard prove that Qumran was not abandoned at all in the Herodian period. This is fi ction since the two things are unconnected.

87 Meshorer, AJC 2, p. 7.88 See AJC 2, pp. 6, 8-9. In TJC, pp. 72-8, Meshorer maintained his assumption that the Tyrian tetradrachms and

didrachms from 18 BC onwards were at least partly minted in Jerusalem.89 Josephus, War I, 646; Ant. XVII, 190.90 TJC, p. 76.


Permission to coin in the Roman empire was in general requested by non-Roman local koina, cities, client-kings, or other communities.91 It is diffi cult to see why the Roman subordinates who governed Judaea would have had to advertise on their coins that they minted them with the permission of their superiors who ruled Syria-Palestine as a whole. Had the Romans in the fi rst place wanted to transfer the minting of the Tyrian coinage to Jerusalem, it would presumably not have required any particular permission. This tells against the views that Herod was involved in the minting of Tyrian silver, and that the monogram KP or KAP could have represented Imperial permission of the sort that has been suggested.

When the Roman Empire expanded east in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, the circulation of the Roman Imperial silver denarii increased enormously, at least geographically. We know that the Roman monetary system was offi cially enforced in Syria-Palestine in AD 6 (see for example The New Testament, Matthew 22:19-21: denarius) when the denarii system became current. But, at the same time we have no clear information on how the volume of the Roman denarii coinage developed in the area. A coinage offi cially enforced as an accounting unit may well not have been generally available in a specifi c region, as we know, for instance, from ‘Babatha’s archives’ of the 2nd century found at the Dead Sea and discussed below.

This is also clear from the archaeological excavations and surveys of numerous sites in Israel where Roman denarii and aurei are seldom present in contexts before the latter half of the 1st century AD. The reason for this was clearly Nero’s coinage reforms of c.AD 59/60-66 which led to the major eastern silver coinages (Egypt, Syria, Tyre, Cappadocia etc.) being taken over by the Romans and partly recoined into Roman imperial denarii following the years of fi nancial crises in Rome starting in AD 60-64. From this time onwards Roman imperial silver became more frequent also in the East.

Some views on ancient coinage vs economic activity and tradeArchaeologists all too often take at face value the raw numbers of coins in lists from

excavations. Some even claim major changes in site activities on the basis of changes in the total number of coins recovered, without recognising that coins will have been issued over various lengths of time and under very different political and economic circumstances.92

Hirschfeld93 represents an fairly old-fashioned positivistic view according to which the ‘coins are an indication of an economic life; not fi nding them would be an indication of a lack thereof”. However, coins were not the only indicator of wealth and economic activity in ancient times; trade and other economic activity were also possible through credit and other arrangements.94

In general, our understanding of monetization in the east in the Roman imperial period is still only partial. We know from the will and Res Gestae of Augustus that wealth was commonly stored in the form of commodities such as cloths, ornaments, furniture, works of art etc., in addition to bullion or coin.95 Physical coinage would have been prevalent in the Imperial period in large cities and other commercial centres, but would have played a lesser role in the rural areas. On the fringes, for instance, the limes of which the province of Judaea was part, people at times had to survive without moneyed wealth.

91 RPC I, p. 2. 92 See the illuminating discussion in Casey 1986, p. 88. Hirschfeld’s (2004, p. 143) source for the Qumran coins is

Murphy 2002, Table 12, pp. 305-6. In her coin profi le of Qumran, Murphy lumped together the individual coins of the silver hoards and the stray fi nds into a table and index, leading the reader to believe that the silver coins actually circulated at Qumran like the bronze. Ordinary stray fi nds and hoard coins should not be mixed. Murphy’s Table 12 is impossible to use and understand, not least because its identifi cations are based on research no later than the late 1960s.

93 Hirschfeld 2004, p. 143; Hirschfeld 1993a; Hirschfeld 1993b.94 Howgego 1992.95 Millar 1977, pp. 144-5.


Hirschfeld96 fails to note that economic activity and trade in antiquity were often conducted by means such as bank drafts, credit and debit accounts and even convertible cheques, which did not involve use of physical coins. As we know from Hellenistic Athens and Hellenistic Egypt, quite large enterprises could conduct even international trade without coinage, for example by using maritime or bottomry loans. Money appeared only on paper as accounting units whereas the rest was done in commodities.97 Economic activity was also possible through loans or on the security of landed property in the Roman period (also mentioned in the Judaean Babatha’s archives, for which see below). Moreover trade was often conducted throughout the Roman period in barter.

The system of barter, paying, trading and taxing in kind, did not change from the 1st to the 2nd century AD in Roman Judaea. We know this from fi nancial documents discovered in the Judaean Desert, for instance ‘Babatha’s archives’ dating from before c. AD 130. These Greek papyri98 tell us vividly how family-owned enterprises in the Dead Sea area had been run for generations, how the Judaean (or Nabatean) royal domains in the area of ‘Ein Gedi apparently came into Roman hands, and how the valuation of goods in terms of coinage was common in the Roman period (although trade was done by barter), and, interestingly, also how taxes and dues were paid in kind, possibly to be distributed for the upkeep of local Roman garrisons.99 This all constitutes an important background to the Qumran economy.

Roman coinage in the east constituted throughout the 1st century AD at many places a system of reckoning and tariffi ng (without the need for coins to be physically present). We know quite well how the system functioned from the famous 1st century AD customs inscription found at Palmyra, which stipulated the system for the Jews and the Syrians.100 There is nothing to suggest that contracts, deposits and loans would not often, although stipulated in coin denominations, have been paid in kind, bullion or some other way. A fi nal important fact is that the copper-based small change coins we tend to fi nd on archaeological excavations as site-fi nds or stray fi nds were never the chief means for monetary transactions in the Roman empire, although they were minted in huge quantities. Major economic transactions were always conducted in silver or gold coins, or in bullion. These are as a rule not found on excavations, which also distorts the picture.

The numismatic nature of the Qumran silver hoardsBefore discussing the fi nances and wealth at Qumran, it is important to note some features

of the Qumran silver hoards. It is fi rstly important to bear in mind that there was not one but three hoards of silver coins from Qumran. De Vaux mixed the three together without documenting their original compositions and later divided them into three lots for distribution to three different locations; this has of course frustrated their proper publication.101 ‘Hoards’ A, B and C contained 223, 185 and 153 silver coins respectively, a total of 561, according to H. Seyrig.102 We have information on the exact composition and latest coins for only the Jerusalem lot of 153 coins, the only one of the three to have been published.103 Modern contamination of the Qumran hoards is also possible, as denarii of Trajan (AD 98-117) were

96 2004, p. 143.97 Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1986, pp. 148-9.98 Goodman 1991.99 Goodman 1991, p. 173.100 See Cook 1903, no. 147, pp. 313-40; Dittenberg 1905, no. 629, p. 323ff. 101 Discussed in Lönnqvist and Lönnqvist 2002, pp. 144-5. Noted by Magness 2002, p. 188.102 Sharabani 1980, p. 274.103 See Sharabani 1980.


reported in the Amman lot.104 As we note on the last page of this paper, de Vaux may also have combined fi nds from small caches which may originally have contained silver coins, and mixed them with the contents of the large silver hoards from Qumran. Finally, one or more of the three original silver hoards may be from the 2nd century AD, and may therefore have nothing to do with the main occupation of the site; this remains to be seen.

Magness 2002 (p. 191) concluded that the silver coins of Qumran represented a savings hoard/hoards assembled piecemeal over a period of time from coinage then in circulation; she detected ‘a deliberate selection of the coins contributed by members of the community’. Two arguments, however, suggest that the Jerusalem lot was not a savings hoard. Firstly, 17 of the coins or 9% are damaged, whereas for ancient savings hoards people usually avoided damaged or under-weight specimens. (This is a further argument against the hoards representing a temple-tax, as sub-standard coins were not accepted for that purpose.) Secondly the Jerusalem lot of 153 coins included nine die-linked coins, including one group of 4 coins from the same die, suggesting that at least part of the group may have been kept together by the authorities immediately after minting, and paid out together at a later date. Coins in a normal savings hoard tend to contain very few die-linked coins since they were assembled from whatever coins happened to be in circulation. Die-linkage of this kind, however, occurs regularly in currency hoards, which are assemblages of coins withdrawn simultaneously from circulation and which may have contained many coins from the same batches from the mint.105 Compare, for example, the late 4th century BC ‘1989 Syria Hoard’, in which the many die-linked coins were considered to be the remnants of a payout made by the Egyptian satrapal treasury.106 The idea proposed by early numismatists that the Qumran coins were a gift107 or a pay-out is thus one possibility, but there are others.

The suggestion that the Tyrian silver was a currency hoard accords with the evidence of the three ceramic vessels in which the silver was buried, two of which are of a type otherwise unknown at Qumran.108 As we have suggested above, this may well indicate that the silver was sent in its ceramic containers to Qumran by an outside authority, and was not a gradual assemblage of coins that took place at the site itself. This also serves to cast doubt on the theory of Magness and Murphy that the published Tyrian silver coins represent separate tax payments made by private individuals to the Qumran authorities or assembled prior to dispatch to Jerusalem. It is, however, at least theoretically possible that the Jerusalem lot of coins consisted of several larger donations or contributions to the Qumran community made by private people (whether enrolled as members or not) that would have preserved the peculiar composition of the die-linked coinage.

As a fi nal effort to cement her view of the chronology of Qumran Magness (p. 58) agrees with de Vaux that the absence of Tyrian silver coins later than the latest coins recorded from the Qumran hoards (9/8 BC; later coins have been recorded in other regional hoards), and the presence of bronze coins of Archelaus (4 BC-AD 6) as site-fi nds at Qumran, show conclusively that Period II at Qumran started in 4-1 BC (Magness, p. 68). Generally speaking, the latest coin in a hoard is a good clue to its burial date, but there may have been particular reasons why later coins, though in existence, were not selected for hoarding. In any case, as we know

104 Donceel 1992, p. 559, n. 10. The existence of Trajanic denarii among the Qumran coins is not confi rmed by the Jordan Archaeological Museum in Amman. We thank Dr. Fawwaz Khrayshah (Director General, Department of Antiquities), and Director Ayda Naghawy for this information. We have begun study of the Amman lot and hope to publish it later.

105 Likely, but not always the case. See Carter and Petrillo-Serafi n 1982; Carter 1983; Carter 1978. 106 Van Alfen 2002, esp. p. 50.107 Discussed, for instance, in Hirschfeld 2004, p. 143.108 De Vaux 1956, p. 567 and Ariel 1993, p. 86, above n. 8.


neither the original composition of the Qumran silver hoards nor their terminal coins, it is impossible to draw from them any conclusion about the possible date of reoccupation at Qumran.

Finances and wealth at Qumran in the Roman period in view of coinageMagness 2002 (p.192) identifi es the silver coins from Qumran as ‘sectarian wealth’ that the

members, according to the Community Rule found at Qumran, are believed to have handed over to the community treasury when they were enrolled as full members. She believes that this was paid to Jerusalem as Temple tax. Every Jewish male over 20 years was according to Jewish religious laws obliged to pay a yearly tax of half a shekel (i.e. a didrachm or two Roman denarii) as a contribution to the upkeep of the Temple in Jerusalem.109 Magness calculates from the Jerusalem lot of 150 coins that Qumran at the time had 300 males over 20 years of age, which accords with calculations made elsewhere about the size of the Qumran population at its greatest extent.110 (In fact, the Jerusalem lot of 153 coins would equal the tax payment of 250 eligible tax payers, not 300, for it contained 102 tetradrachms and 48 didrachms, which is about 250 didrachms). However, if the Jerusalem lot of about 150 silver coins represents the temple tax payment of 300 people, what are we to say of the 400 silver coins presently kept in Amman? If they were simultaneous payments, should we add something in the range of 500-800 more people to Qumran and conclude that nearly 1000 males aged 20 or more inhabited Qumran at its peak? Again, if the silver coins at Qumran were really destined for the Jerusalem temple as tax payments, how would Magness or Murphy explain the texts relating that the people at Qumran (assuming a relationship between the texts from the caves and the people of the settlement) distanced themselves from both Jerusalem and the ruling priestly class there which was considered to be corrupt and wicked? Why would the inhabitants of Qumran have paid the Jerusalem temple tax and supported a priestly institution that they believed was degenerate?

Moreover, if the silver coins found at Qumran were communal wealth, we would have to make the implausible assumption that all the people who knew of them were killed or did not return after the catastrophe that occurred in the late fi rst century BC. It is also diffi cult to explain why the keepers of this supposed common wealth at Qumran kept it in jars, of which two are of a type unknown in the ceramic corpus at Qumran.111 To us it seems, therefore, likely that the vessels came with the money in them from outside Qumran in the period c.9-3 BC period; they may have belonged to a single wealthy family. D.T. Ariel112 has also noted that hoards of Tyrian silver are common in the area.

Hirschfeld113 has argued that Qumran was owned by a wealthy Jerusalemite landowner or ‘city dweller’, and that the Tyrian silver coins from the Qumran hoards were his private fortune, or that they may have been a royal gift. We should remember in the light of the Qumran reports published in 1994-2003 (which Magness largely omitted from her 2002-2004 publications but some of which Hirschfeld discussed) that the people of the settlement in the Roman period were involved with the production and long-distance trade of various goods, i.e. they bought and sold merchandise, some of which was expensive. Here we agree

109 TJC, p. 73.110 Summarized in Lönnqvist and Lönnqvist 2002, p. 280, and based on different criteria, such as the amount of

water available and the number of skeletons in the Qumran cemetery.111 Mentioned in Ariel 2002, p. 86.112 Ibid.113 2004, p. 143.


with Hirschfeld regarding the importance of trade for Qumran. The presence of silver and bronze coins, weights and scales114 at Qumran should be seen in this context. The Qumran graves and the coins

The practice of including coins in burial offerings became popular in the Hellenistic period, but hardly ever occurs in Jewish burials, presumably because they could too easily be perceived as idolatry.115 De Vaux’s fi eld diaries (1994, 1996 and 2003) contain no information that coins were found in the Qumran graves. However, the graves were not well excavated and the general level of documentation is insuffi cient.116 The excavator does not usually provide any information on where exactly the burial gifts found were placed in the graves, and what their stratigraphical position, or position in relation to the corpses, were.117 It is quite possible that there were coins, although they are not mentioned in the reports.

Second, the unusual nature of the shaft graves, with complicated air-pockets for the body, the geographical and astronomical alignment of the bodies (in several cases the face turned east in the direction of the rising sun), which follows the structural orientation of the settlement, casts doubt on Taylor’s118 and Hirschfeld’s119 theory that they are those of poor people. A short spatial analysis of the distribution of coins at Qumran

When the coin fi nds are plotted on a chronological scale against their reported place of origin (locus) within the settlement plan of Qumran we can trace activities and built-up areas in various periods and get an approximate idea of the internal use of the site from the density of coin fi nds. Such graphs rarely occur in any detail in excavation reports, and Rohrhirsch et al. 1996, deserve thanks for producing them in the case of Qumran (pp. 159 ff. The page numbers below refer to this publication, unless otherwise stated). We have replotted them after correcting the misattributions and dating errors in de Vaux’s fi eld diary; this produces changed assessments for the beginning of the site’s occupation and the Herodian period.

In tracing the spatial distribution of the earliest Hasmonean coinage we combined the layers of John Hyrcanus I (135-104 BC, eight coins attributed, p. 169) and John Hyrcanus II (63-40 BC, six coins attributed, p. 171) into one density map since, as we have seen, all these coins belong to Hyrcanus I. That they belong together is also demonstrated by the fact that the coins in the two original maps provided by Rohrhirsch et al. came from totally different loci with no overlaps, a disjuncture of occupation which would be very strange indeed if they belonged to two succeeding rulers. The distribution of the nine Seleucid silver and bronze

114 Qumran has produced several stone weights, one of which is fragmentary (Inv. Nos 2115, 2124) but marked and inscribed, and seals of different kinds. In addition there is a possible scale (Inv. no. 1092). The objects were found in loci 61, 110 and 111. Cf. Murphy 2002, pp. 328, 354, 451, who claims that ‘the small number’ of these ‘hamper the theory’ of trade at Qumran. For Roman weights in Judaea, see Qedar 1988, and Meshorer 1986, p. 106. Published Roman weights from Israel normally have either the title of the offi cial responsible for controlling the weight (e.g. an agoranomos) or the Imperial issuing authority (e.g. the emperor) separated from each other in the inscription.

115 A well known Hellenistic and Roman tradition was to place a coin on the eye lid or in the mouth of the dead to pay the ferryman Charon for passage across the river Styx to Hades. This is apparently the very reason for the general absence of coins in Jewish burials. The only example we know of is the Tomb of Caiaphas in Jerusalem where a coin was found in the skull of a Jewish deceased, showing that it had been placed either on the eye lid or in the mouth: see Greenhut 2000, p. 222. For coins in Jewish burials, see Rahmani 1961, p. 119; Greenhut 1992, p. 71.

116 de Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996, pp. 82-4, 89-95.117 Murphy 2002, pp. 344, 360, says, for instance, that the Qumran graves ‘lack grave goods’ which shows that

she has not studied the fi eld diary and the inventory of fi nds from the graves. She also indicates erroneously that no proper palaeopathological studies have been done on the Qumran skeletal evidence.

118 Taylor 1999, pp. 312-13.119 Hirschfeld 2004, pp. 153, 161.


coins supports this conclusion. Rohrhirsch et al’s map on p. 169 appears to indicate that loci 7, 9, 19, 56, 77 and the area of Trench A had no activity under Hyrcanus I (although every space in use does not have to have coins). The Seleucid coinage (223-129 BC) is, however, found mostly in these loci or the neighbouring ones, which means that these parts of the settlement were in use at least under Hyrcanus I. According to the next map (p. 172), the coins attributed to Hyrcanus II (found in the enlargement to the northern precinct 132, 134) are mostly found in the same spaces or parts thereof as the Seleucid coins. This allows us to conclude that they were in use also under Hyrcanus I. Whether this would be de Vaux’s Period 1a or 1b is another matter. Still, six of the Seleucid coins are within de Vaux’s Period 1b enclosure, or slightly north-east of loci 9/10 in Trench A (the rest are in loci 77 and 56).

In this context one wonders why Qumran textual scholars still insist on saying that ‘none of these coins was found in the stratigraphical level associated with Period Ia (c.150-125 B.C.)’120 De Vaux’s fi eld diary (1994, 1996, 2003) shows clearly that there are coins in archaeological contexts of the 2nd century BC. We have no reason to assume that all 2nd century BC coins would have been old when lost. The spatial distribution of the Seleucid and the pre-Jannaeus coinage shows tentatively that the settlement may have comprised in the earliest period, at least from Hyrcanus I onwards, many parts of the main building, including loci 77, 71 and 56. Activity is recorded also in the South and North Trenches and in parts of the northern precinct (loci 132, 134). This is close to de Vaux’s period 1b enclosure (p. 6, Abbildung 5). If this area was built on and occupied in the time of Hyrcanus I (135-104 BC), when did the work actually begin at Qumran?121 The complicated settlement plan at Qumran with its geographical and astronomical orientations (see the references in n. 81 above) included the cemeteries as well, which was not the outcome of chance, but the result of long-term planning and engineering. It would not be far-fetched on this basis to suggest, with de Vaux, a foundation date for Qumran between 150-130 BC.

The spatial distribution of the coins of Herod the Great (37-4 BC, p. 171) and Herod Archelaus (4 BC-AD 6, p. 173) is very limited compared with those of the coinages of the early Hasmoneans and A. Jannaeus (p. 170). Herod I’s coins were found in the northern precinct (loci 118, 131-132, 134-135), in the most eastern or north-eastern parts of the main building bordering the eastern cemetery, and in some small loci around cistern 71. Trench A also yielded one coin of Herod and one of Archelaus. As we have shown, the difference between the Herodian and Hasmonean period is too big to be explained by the absence of people during a single winter or year. In the early Roman provincial period we again have large-scale activity around the settlement (pp. 174-7).

The year of destruction of the site and its use after the First Jewish RevoltDe Vaux, followed by Magness,122 Hirschfeld123 and other scholars assert that Qumran

was destroyed in ‘Year 3’ or AD 68/69, although there is no direct evidence for this. This conclusion was drawn from the First Jewish Revolt coins from Qumran none of which is known to be later than ‘Year 3’ or AD 68/69 (although about 10 % of the First Jewish Revolt coins from Qumran have still not been identifi ed by year). Small denomination bronze of

120 Murphy 2002, p. 309. De Vaux excavated Qumran by the so-called locus-stratum method which prevented him from recording the precise order and relationship of the stratigraphy. Much of the original stratigraphical information is irretrievably lost (J.B. Humbert, ‘De Vaux’s interpretation in perspective’, Qumran. 1st Int’l Congress, p. 4. Murphy’s interpretations probably derive from the fact that she has not taken account of de Vaux’s published fi eld notes.

121 The ‘Visualisierte Häufi gkeitsverteilungen’ in de Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996, e.g. on p. 165, implies that coinage at Qumran starts with Ptolemy II, but the coin concerned is from ‘Ein Feshkha, not Qumran (p. 121).

122 Magness 2002, p. 62.123 Hirschfeld 2002, p. 163. Hirschfeld mentions 78 First Jewish Revolt Coins.


‘Year 4’ (AD 69/70) is proportionately speaking less frequent than the ‘Year 2 and 3’ small value bronze coins. ‘Year 5’ (AD 70) coins of the First Jewish Revolt are extremely rare since minting occurred only during the last four months of the war and minting in bronze was soon halted. These are found only in extreme cases such as at Masada.124 Several coin hoards from Israel (Jericho 1874; St. Stephen’s Gate 1935, Siloam 1940 etc.)125 also contain mixed silver or bronze coins from the First Jewish Revolt years, for example, from ‘Years 1 to 3’, ‘Years 1 to 2’, ‘Years 1 to 4’ or only a single year.

For the history of the period we depend on what Josephus (War IV: 410-458) does or does not tell us. According to him, the remaining main Jewish strongholds in northern Judaea and all the Peraea were subdued in a pincer operation by Vespasian and Placidus and the legionary forces that advanced from the north in spring AD 68. The inhabitants from the north were driven south to Jericho where they hoped to fi nd refuge. Josephus specifi cally mentions that the battles in AD 68 took place up the river Jordan (hence the dead bodies got into the river and were carried down to the Dead Sea), and that the campaign which took place then in the area of the Dead Sea was on its eastern bank (War IV: 438-439). The choice of Jericho (War IV: 486) as a camp and operational site by the Romans in AD 68 had two goals. It was part of the strategy to surround and besiege Jerusalem. Secondly, Jericho commanded the major road and transport network between Caesarea, Apollonia or Neapolis and the roads and legionary camps on the eastern side of the Jordan river and the Dead Sea. Although the pin-pointing of the year of destruction of Qumran is of no great importance, our clear impression from the written sources is that the Romans did not invest any large-scale military effort in AD 68-70 on the western side of the Dead Sea in the Qumran area while they were advancing to Jerusalem. Josephus’ report is thus consistent with our assumption (see below), derived from the Qumran coinage, that Qumran was not destroyed in AD 68, but between AD 68-73.

The date of the city coins found and their places of origin (Ascalon, Caesarea and Dora) help us to understand what happened at Qumran and Masada and when. At Masada the single largest group of city coins was from Ascalon (89 coins), followed by Caesarea (23) and Dora (11), which together account for over 70% of the city coins found there.126

Before Jerusalem fell on the 9th of the month Av AD 70 some Jews managed to fl ee from Jerusalem to Masada.127 Shortly after that the Romans under Flavius Silva started extensive preparations against Masada, which included the construction of siege walls, various camps and the assault ramp. The fi nal assault on Masada came sometime between AD 72 and May AD 73 (War VII: 252-401).128 That the last fi rst century AD city coins (Ascalon) found at Qumran are not later than AD 73 is of considerable interest here (at Masada there are 2nd century AD coins, but they belong to other contexts). It appears from the coins that Masada was destroyed in AD 73. This is also indicated by the large number of quasi-autonomous bronze coins of Ascalon found at Masada with types Tyche/war-galley minted in Year 176 = AD 72/73. Two such coins were found at Qumran. Meshorer129 thought they predated the destruction of Masada. But it is unlikely that a wave of Jewish refugees reached Masada in that year from a place like Ascalon, for Masada must have been cut off by the Roman siege works of AD 72/73. It is much more likely that they were brought by the Roman soldiers themselves. In the area around Antioch, the three cities Ascalon, Caesarea and Dora (Dor)

124 See Meshorer 1989a, p. 75. Three silver shekels of ‘Year 5’ were found, but no bronze.125 See TJC, p. 133.126 See Meshorer 1989a, statistics on p. 80.127 As we have three ‘Year 5’ silver shekels struck in Jerusalem in AD 70 in a hoard at Masada. See Meshorer

1989a, pp. 74-5.128 Some discussion on the date, e.g. in Rhoads 1976, pp. 18, 118. The coinage found at Masada suggests AD 73

as the year of destruction (see AJC 2, 126; Meshorer 1989a, pp. 76-7).129 1989a, p. 77.


were the main bases for the Roman legionary forces in Syria.130 At Ascalon there were, for instance, imperial domains (Josephus, War III: 12) supervised by at least one Roman cohors and one ala of cavalry (cohors equitata?; vexillations of legionary units or auxilia?).131 These three cities were also largely pagan with relatively few Jews (who, according to Josephus, War II: 457, 477, had mostly been killed in AD 66). Josephus (War III: 12), relates that at Ascalon it was the Jews who were the besiegers and the besieged Romans had to fi ght hard to survive. In December AD 69 Titus camped there with his newly arrived legionary forces (Josephus, War IV: 668-669). Hence, there cannot have been any fl ood of Jewish refugees from Ascalon to either Qumran or Masada after AD 69 to explain the coinage of AD 72/73 at both sites. The siege of Ascalon by the Jews could well have motivated the city to participate in the military action against Masada as they had already played host to and probably also supplied recruits to the Roman detachments.

We should also expect to fi nd Roman legionary troops at Dora, which suddenly started minting pro-Roman coins under Titus and Vespasian in AD 68/69 in large quantities, apparently for the war. This is clearly indicated in Josephus (Vita 31), who hints that the citizens of Dora went over to the Roman side during the war.132 It is very likely that the fi rst century AD city coins at Qumran from Caesarea Maritima, Caesarea Panaeas and Dora were minted c.AD 68, since all the identifi ed examples from Qumran are dated either AD 67/68 or AD 68. The Roman imperial coins minted under Vespasian found at Qumran date to AD 70/71 or AD 72/73, i.e. none post-dates the destruction of Masada in AD 73. The three Judaea Capta coins found at Qumran were minted at Caesarea Maritima; two may antedate AD 73, which would leave only one coin at Qumran for the period AD 73-98. Thus the latest city coins and most of the early Roman Imperial coins found at Qumran and Masada are roughly contemporary with the transfer of massive numbers of Roman troops to the Dead Sea area and the battle at Masada in AD 73, and this seems a satisfactory explanation for the fl ood of city coins from Ascalon, Dora and Caesarea into Qumran and especially Masada in AD 72/73.

The three Judaea Capta coins (nos. 333 [AD 79-81], 595, 801) and the coin of Agrippa II (no. 639, AD 87/88; Titus/Nike) from Qumran deserve a short note of their own, not least because of their relative rarity (AJC 2, p. 95).133 Coins of Agrippa II (except for the canopy/three ears of corn issue) are almost never found in Judaea, and among the thousands of coins from Jerusalem there are only three specimens (1982). At Masada these coins are almost certainly connected to the Roman garrison posted at the site after AD 73, and the same probably applies to Qumran as well. The coin evidence thus seems to suggest a fi nal permanent occupation at Qumran at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (AD 72/73), and a Roman garrison perhaps in the 80s AD.

In tracing the history and possible use of Qumran after AD 66-73, Taylor and Hirschfeld claimed that the (Essene/Jewish?) occupation at Qumran continued between about AD 68 and 130 virtually without a break.134 In support of this Hirschfeld mentions that there are

130 See, e.g., Parker 2000.131 See also Lönnqvist 1994, p. 57. For Roman troops in Judaea in general, see Speidel 1983, p. 235. Clues are also

given in Josephus, War III: 64-69 where some of the locally recruited auxilia are mentioned. See also Josephus, War VII: 163 for ‘numerous scattered detachments of troops’.

132 For the coins see the basic work by Meshorer 1988, pp. 59-72. He notes (p. 61) the siding of the citizens of Dora with the Romans and we agree with this interpretation.

133 Meshorer 1989a: at Masada two coins of Agrippa II (nos 1308-1309) and fi ve Judaea Capta coins (nos 3662-3666) were found; rarity in Judaea noted on p. 72. Ariel 1982, pp. 322-3: only three coins of Agrippa II, and fi ve Judaea Capta coins were found in Jerusalem up to 1982.

134 J.E. Taylor, ‘Qumran in Period III’, Qumran. 1st Int’l Congress, p. 6. Hirschfeld 2004, pp. 163, 189, 238; on p. 238 he uses this as a chronological argument that Qumran cannot have been an Essene site.


altogether 29 coins from the period after the revolt. The total number of coins found at Qumran and minted after c.AD 70 is 38, but only 18 belong to the period c. AD 70-135 (all the others are much later or are not identifi ed at all) and this is not enough to suggest permanent occupation. Moreover, there is little clear information as to whether the post c.AD 73 coins were surface fi nds or excavated or related to structures: surface fi nds are, of course, much more ambiguous than stratifi ed fi nds and less useful for chronological purposes. A Roman garrison at Qumran in the AD 80s would, of course, mean that the Essene/Jewish habitation had ceased.

Among the 18 coins minted c. AD 70-135, it is worth mentioning a small cache of coins (not really a hoard) found in the bottom of a bowl in locus 29, the description of which differs in the coin listings in 1994, 1996 and 2003. De Vaux mentioned originally (1973, p. 45) 10 coins in the cache: fi ve Second Jewish Revolt bronze coins (‘Years 3-4’; nos 490-495), one Second Jewish Revolt silver denarius (no. 490; ‘Years 3-4’; cf. TJC 279, under-type of denarius of Trajan), one denarius of Vespasian (no. 486; AD 73) and three denarii of Trajan (nos 487-489; AD 103-111). This is repeated in de Vaux 1994, p. 302. De Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996, p. 47, state that all the coins are bronze. In Humbert, Chambon and Pfann 2003, p. 23, locus 29 is said to have yielded two Second Jewish Revolt bronze coins (‘Years 3-4’; nos 491-492), one Second Jewish Revolt denarius (no. 490), one denarius of Vespasian (no. 486; AD 73), two illegible coins (nos 493, 495; Second Jewish Revolt bronze), three denarii of Trajan (nos 487-489; AD 103-111), and a tenth unidentifi ed coin. Thus, of the total of 18 coins minted AD 70/71-135, nine or ten were from the single cache fi nd, and are not normal stray fi nds.

However, if the 1973, 1994 and 2003 lists of silver coins are correct, the reason for the intrusive denarii of Trajan in the two unpublished lots of silver coins transferred to Amman, which so surprised Donceel,135 may be that locus 29 was excavated on 21 March 1953 and locus 120 (with the three pots of silver) on 21 March 1955: the Trajanic coins from locus 29 may have ended up among the silver coins of locus 120.

What then is the importance of this late cache or purse? The fact that a small, low-value cache of a few coins was hidden in locus 29 apparently during the fi nal war in AD 132-135 does not imply any continued occupation of the site. Locus 29 is located in the entrance of the fortifi ed tower at Qumran (loci 9-11), the only fortifi ed structure on the site; it seems likely that the coins were lost or hidden in a purse by one of the Jewish insurgents hiding from the Romans in AD 132-135.

135 Donceel 1992, p. 559, n. 10.


APPENDIX : THE QUMRAN COIN CATALOGUE

The coins listed here are those from the Inventory of archaeological fi nds of Qumran produced by de Vaux and published in 1994 and 1996. In the 2003 publication some additions were made, which are taken into account in our catalogue. The Inventory contains information about 681 bronze coins (see p. [6] above) and 569 silver coins. The latter include the 561 coins from the three silver hoards, which have not been published, and so are not presented here. Thus, the coins listed below are the 681 bronze coins and the 8 silver coins found as stray fi nds from Qumran. As we have mentioned (n. 9 above), our catalogue does not include other survey fi nds and archaeological discoveries made after the French expedition to Qumran in the 1950s. The coins found later would not change the general picture presented here.

The order of the coins presented here is that of the loci in which the coins were originally found. De Vaux’s and Spijkerman’s identifi cations of Jewish coins were made according to Reifenberg 1947, abbreviated here R. Since this is no longer used for coin identifi cations, whenever possible we have provided TJC numbers. Q. No. = Object Catalogue Number of the Qumran excavations, as given by the excavators (1994, 1996 and 2003). M. = Metal. L. = Excavation locus at Qumran, as defi ned by the excavators.

POSTSCRIPT

After this article went to press, the coins from Avigad’s excavations in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem (see p. [13 above]) were published by D.T. Ariel, ‘Chapter Eight, Coins’, in H. Geva, Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982. Volume III: Area E and Other Studies. Final Report (Israel Exploration Society; Jerusalem, 2006), pp. 192-217, esp. 192-3. More than half of the 696 coins of Jannaeus found in Area E, and discussed by Ariel, seem to belong to TJC group L (called ‘probably Jannaeus’ (102 coins) and ‘possibly Jannaeus’ (279 coins); 315 coins are ‘defi nite’ Jannaeus). According to Meshorer (TJC, pp. 40, 210), TJC group L is a group of light prutot (0.3-1.0 g) with an Aramaic inscription instead of Hebrew. The coins are probably imitations which retained the old coin designs and dates in the post-78 BC period when they may have been minted by someone other than Alexander Jannaeus. Ariel persuasively suggests that the reason for the presence of these coins in this context is that they are from dispersed hoards. If this is so, then the same is probably true of the coins called ‘defi nite’ Jannaeus, which will thus not be of much value as evidence for the circulation of Jannaeus’ coins in the Herodian period. In any case, imitations minted and circulating after 78 BC do not show that the bulk of Jannaeus’ coins circulated after that date. Another problem with the dating of this context is that the ceramics from Area E only provide relative dates (as is usually the case), and cannot be used to date precisely the coins themselves or their circulation, as the excavators seem to believe.


ABBREVIATIONS

AJC = Y. Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, vol. I: Persian period through Hasmoneans, and vol. II: Herod the Great through Bar Cochba (New York/Jerusalem, 1982). DSD= Dead Sea Discoveries. IAA = Israel Antiquities Authority, JerusalemIEJ = Israel Exploration Journal. LA= Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Liber Annuus. NEAEHL= The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 1. Abila-Elusa. Ed. Ephraim Stern. Jerusalem 1993NTOA, SA = Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, Series Archaeologica. Qumran, 1st Int’l Congress = Qumran, the Site of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Archaeological Interpretations and Debates, The First International Congress on the Archaeology of Qumran, November 17-19, 2002 (Brown University Congress Volume; Brill, Leiden, 2006)PEQ = Palestine Exploration QuarterlyRB = Revue BibliqueR.= A. Reifenberg, Ancient Jewish Coins (Jerusalem, 1947)SBF = Studium Biblicum Fransiscanum, JerusalemTJC = Y. Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins (New York/Jerusalem, 2001)

Aerts et al. 2000 = A. Aerts, K. Janssens, B. Velde, F. Adams and H. Wouters, ‘Analysis of the composition of glass objects from Qumrân, Israel, and comparison with other Roman glass from western Europe’, in Marie-Dominique Nenna (ed.) La route de Verre. Ateliers primaires et secondaires du second millénaire av. J.-C. au Moyen Âge. Travaux de la Maison de L’Orient Méditerranéen, no. 33 (Paris), pp. 113-21Ariel 1982 = D.T. Ariel, ‘A Survey of coins fi nds in Jerusalem’, LA 33, pp. 272-326Ariel 1993 = D.T. Ariel in A. Sussmann and R. Peled (eds), Scrolls from the Dead Sea. An exhibition of scrolls and archaeological artifacts from the collections of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Library of Congress (Washington, 1993), pp. 86-9Ariel 2002 = D. T. Ariel, ‘The Jerusalem Mint of Herod the Great: a Relative Chronology’, INJ 14 (2000-2002), pp. 99-124Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1986 = M.M. Austin and P. Vidal-Naquet, Economic & Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction (USA, 1986)Baldus 1987 = H.R. Baldus, ‘Syria’, in A.M. Burnett and M.H. Crawford (eds), The Coinage of the Roman World in the Late Republic. Proceedings of a colloquium held at the British Museum in September 1985 (BAR International Series 326), pp. 121-51Broshi and Eshel 1999 = M. Broshi and H. Eshel, ‘Residential Caves at Qumran’, DSD 6, pp. 328-48Carter 1978 = G.F. Carter, ’Chemical Composition of Copper-Based Roman Coins. Augustan Quadrantes, ca. 9-4 B.C.’, in G.F. Carter (ed.) Advances in Chemistry Series 171. Archaeological Chemistry II. Based on a symposium sponsored at the 175th meeting of the American Chemical Society, Chicago, IL, August 31-September 1, 1977 (Washington DC), pp. 347-77Carter 1983 = G.F. Carter, ’A simplifi ed method for calculating the original number of dies from die link statistics’, ANSMN 28, pp. 195-206Carter and Petrillo-Sarafi n 1982 = G. F. Carter and P. Petrillo-Serafi n, ’Die-link studies and the number of dies of Augustan Quadrantes, ca. 5 B.C.’ ProcINC 9. Bern, September 1979. Ed. T. Hackens and R. Weiller. Association Internationale des Numismates Professionales, Publication No 6. (Cultura Wetteren, 1982), pp. 289-307Casey 1986 = J. Casey, Understanding Ancient Coins (London)Cook 1903 = G.A. Cook, A Text-book of North-Semitic Inscriptions, Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish (Oxford, 1903), no. 147, pp. 313-40De Vaux 1953 = R. de Vaux, ‘Fouille de Khirbet Qumrân. Rapport préliminaire’, RB 60, pp. 93-4 De Vaux 1954 = R. de Vaux, ’Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân. Rapport préliminaire sur le deuxième campagne’, RB 61, pp. 229-31


De Vaux 1956 = R. de Vaux, ’Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân. Rapport préliminaire sur les 3e, 4e et 5e campagnes’, RB 63, pp. 565-9De Vaux 1961 = R. de Vaux, L’Archéologie et les Manuscrits de la Mer Morte. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1959 (Oxford) pp. 3-37De Vaux 1973 = R. de Vaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1959. Revised edition in English translation (Oxford).De Vaux 1994 = R. de Vaux (ed. J.-B. Humbert and A. Chambon), Fouilles de Khirbet Qumrân et de Aïn Feshkha. Album de photographies. Répertoire du fonds photographique. Synthèse des notes de chantier du Père Roland de Vaux OP (NTOA, SA 1; Fribourg)De Vaux, Rohrhirsch and Hofmeir 1996 = R. de Vaux, F. Rohrhirsch and B. Hofmeir, Die Ausgrabungen von Qumran und En Feschcha. Die Grabungstagebücher (NTOA, SA 1A; Göttingen)Dittenberg 1905 = W. Dittenberg, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, Supplementum Sylloges Inscriptionum Graecarum, Volumen Alterum (Leipzig. Reprint, Hildesheim, 1970)Donceel 1992 = R. Donceel, ‘Reprise des travaux de publications des Fouilles au Khirbet Qumrân’, RB 99, pp. 557-73Donceel and Donceel-Voûte 1994 = R. Donceel and P. Donceel-Voûte, ‘The Archaeology of Khirbet Qumran’, in M.O. Wise, N. Golb, J.J. Collins and D.G. Pardee (eds), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site. Present Realities and Future Prospects. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 722 (New York), pp. 1-38Goodman 1991 = M. Goodman, ‘Babatha’s story (Y. Yadin. The documents from the Bar Kokhba period in the Cave of the Letters: Greek papyri, 1989)’, JRS LXXXI, pp. 169-75Greenhut 1992 = Z. Greenhut, ‘The ‘Caiaphas’ tomb in north Talpiyot, Jerusalem’, Atiqot (English) XXI, pp. 63-71Greenhut 2000 = Z. Greenhut, ‘The Caiaphas tomb in North Talpiyot, Jerusalem’, in Hillel Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (Israel Exploration Society; Jerusalem), pp. 219-22Hirschfeld 1993a, ‘Deir, Khirbet Ed-’, NEAEHL 1 (Jerusalem), pp. 334-6Hirschfeld 1993b = Y. Hirschfeld, ‘Monasteries and churches in the Judaean desert in the Byzantine period’, Ancient Churches Revealed. Israel Exploration Society (Jerusalem), pp. 149-54Hirschfeld 2003 = Y. Hirschfeld, ‘Qumran: back to the beginning’ (review of Magness 2002), JRA 16, pp. 648-52Hirschfeld 2004 = Y. Hirschfeld, Qumran in context. Reassessing the archaeological evidence (Peabody, Massachusetts)Howgego 1992 = C. Howgego, ’The supply and use of money in the Roman world 200 B.C. to A.D. 300’, JRS LXXXII, pp. 1-31Humbert, Chambon and Pfann 2003 = J.-B. Humbert, A. Chambon and S. Pfann, The Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ein Feshkha. Synthesis of Roland de Vaux‘s Field Notes (NTOA, SA 1B; Fribourg)Kadman, Caesarea = L. Kadman, The Coins of Caesarea Maritima. Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium, Volume II. Israel Numismatic Society. Tel Aviv, 1957Kadman 1962 = L. Kadman, ’Temple dues and currency in ancient Palestine in the light of recently discovered coin-hoards’, Israel Numismatic Bulletin 1, pp. 9-11Kindler 1954 = A. Kindler, ‘The Jaffa Hoard of Jannaeus’, IEJ 4, pp. 170-85Lönnqvist 1994 = K.K.A Lönnqvist, ‘New vistas on the countermarked coins of the Roman prefects of Judaea’, INJ 12, pp. 56-70Lönnqvist 1997 = K.K.A Lönnqvist, ‘Re-attribution of the King Herod Agrippa I “Year 6” issue, the canopy and three ears of corn’, LA 47, pp. 429-40Lönnqvist 2000 = K.K.A Lönnqvist, ‘Pontius Pilate – an aqueduct builder? – recent fi ndings and new suggestions’, Klio 82, pp. 459-74Lönnqvist 2003 = K.K.A Lönnqvist, ‘A second investigation into the chemical composition of the Roman provincial (procuratorial) coinage of Judaea, AD 6-66’, Archaeometry 45, Part 1 (February 2003), pp. 45-60Lönnqvist and Lönnqvist 2002 = M. Lönnqvist and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran. The New Paradigm (Helsinki)Lönnqvist and Lönnqvist 2004 = M. Lönnqvist and K. Lönnqvist, ‘Spatial approach to the ruins of


Khirbet Qumran at the Dead Sea’, XXth ISPRS Congress, 12th-23rd July 2004, Istanbul, Turkey. Volumes of the International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. Volume XXXV, Part B, Proceedings, Commission 5 (Istanbul), pp. 558-63 Lönnqvist and Lönnqvist 2006 = M. Lönnqvist and K. Lönnqvist, ‘Reconstructing Palaeoenvironmental Phenomena and Geoarchaeological Processes at Qumran, Israel’, The Qumran Chronicle, vol. 13, pp. 1-40, 2006.Magness 2002 = J. Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Michigan)Magness 2004 = J. Magness, Debating Qumran Collected Essays on its Archaeology, in Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 4. Peeters, Leuven 2004.Meshorer 1975 = Y. Meshorer, Nabataean Coinage (Qedem 3. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem)Meshorer 1985 = Y. Meshorer, City-Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period (The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Jerusalem)Meshorer 1986 = Y. Meshorer, ‘A New Lead Weight’, The Israel Museum Journal 5 (Jerusalem), p. 106Meshorer 1988 = Y. Meshorer, ‘The Coins of Dora’, INJ 9, 1986-7 (1988), pp. 59-72Meshorer 1989a = Y. Meshorer, ‘The Coins of Masada’ in Y. Yadin and J. Naveh (eds), Masada I. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965. Final Reports. The Aramaic and Hebrew Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions. Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Jerusalem, 1989), pp. 70-132Meshorer 1989b = Y. Meshorer, The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina (The Israel Museum, Jerusalem; Tel Aviv)Meshorer 1993 = Y. Meshorer, ‘AJC, Addendum I’, INJ 11 (1990-1991. 1993), pp. 104-32Millar 1977 = F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC – AD 337) (London)Murphy 2002 = C.M. Murphy, Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls & in the Qumran Community. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, Vol. XL. Ed. F.G. Martínez (Leiden, Brill)Parker 2000 = S. Thomas Parker, ‘Roman legionary fortresses in the East’ in R.J. Brewer (ed.), Roman fortresses and their legions. Occasional Paper of the Society of Antiquaries of London, No. 20, Papers in honour of George C. Boon (Trowbridge), pp. 121-38Qedar 1988 = S. Qedar, ‘Two Lead Weights of Herod Antipas and Agrippa II and the Early History of Tiberias’, INJ 9, pp. 29-35Rahmani 1961 = L.Y. Rahmani, ‘Jewish rock-cut tombs in Jerusalem’, Atiqot (English) III, pp. 93-120Reifenberg 1947 = A. Reifenberg, Ancient Jewish Coins (Jerusalem)Rhoads 1976 = D.M. Rhoads, Israel in revolution 6-74 C.E. A political writing based on the writings of Josephus (Philadelphia, 1976) Shachar 2004 = I. Shachar, ‘The historical and numismatic signifi cance of Alexander Jannaeus’s later coinage as found in archaeological excavations’, PEQ 136, no. 1, pp. 5-33, esp. 11Sharabani 1980 = M. Sharabani, ‘Monnaies de Qumrân au Musée Rockefeller de Jérusalem’, RB 87, pp. 274-84Speidel 1983 = M.P. Speidel, ‘The Roman army in Judaea under the procurators’, Ancient Society 13/14 (Leuven)Spijkerman, Decapolis = A. Spijkerman, The Coins of the Decapolis and the Provincia Arabia (ed. Michele Piccirillo) (Studii Biblici Franciscani, Collectio Maior 25 (Jerusalem, 1978)Taylor 1999 = J.E. Taylor, ‘The cemeteries of Khirbet Qumran and women’s presence at the site’, DSD 6, pp. 312-13Van Alfen 2002 = P.G. van Alfen, ‘The “owls” from the 1989 Syria hoard, with a review of pre-Macedonian coinage in Egypt’, AJN 14, pp. 1-57

the numismatic chronology of qumran: fact and fiction

Documents