Appendix IV

APPENDIX IV
THE JEWISH SHEKEL AND COINS OF THE REBELLION
THE extant coins with old Hebrew writing may be arranged in three groups: (1) The coins of the Asmonean high priests and princes which are furnished with names, and therefore are most easily determined; (2) the silver shekel and half-shekel: (3) the “Coins of Freedom,” which with manifold variations celebrate the emancipation (geulla or cheruth) of Israel or Jerusalem or Sion. The most perfect agreement prevails among numismatists with reference to the first group: a pretty general agreement also prevails with reference to the second, because they are assigned by the majority of numismatists to the times of Simon the Maccabee. Most diverse are the views entertained with reference to the third group. Since the placing and determining of the first group is relatively easy and certain, it will be found that we have already communicated all that is necessary regarding it in our historical exposition. A more special investigation is required in reference to the coins of the second and third groups. It must be shown by a systematic examination of all the particulars, that with regard to the third group a much higher degree of certainty may be reached than in regard to the second, that therefore the measure of the present consensus stands in inverse ratio to the degree of scientific certainty attainable.
1. THE SHEKEL
LITERATURE
ECKHEL, Doctrina Numorum veterum, iii. 455 sqq.
CAVEDONI, Biblische Numismatik, transl. by Werhof, i. 18 ff., ii. 10 ff.
DE SAULOY, Recherches sur la Numismatique Judäique, 1854, p. 17 sqq.
EWALD, Gottinger “Nachrichten,” 1855, p. 109 ff.
LEVY, Geschichte der jüdischen Münzen, 1862, p. 39 ff.
MADDEN, History of Jewish Coinage, 1864, p. 43 sqq.
DE SAULCY, Revue Numismatique, 1864, p. 370 sq.
CAVEDONI in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. 1867, pp. 9-18.
REICHARDT in the Wiener Numismatischen Monatsheften, ed. G. Egger, Bd. ii. 1866, p. 137 ff.
DE SAULCY, Revue archéologique, nouv. sér. vol. xxiii. 1872, p. l sqq.
MERZBACHER, De siclis nummis antiquissimis Judaeorum, Berl. 1873.
MADDEN, Numismatic Chronicle, 1874, p. 281 sqq.
LEWIS, Numismatic Chronicle, 1876, p. 322 (Shekel of the year V.).
MERZBACHER in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. iii. 1876, pp. 141 ff., 183 ff., Bd. v. 1878, pp. 151 ff., 292 ff.
MADDEN, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 67-71, where the material is most fully given.
REINACH, “Actes et conférences de la société des études juives,” 1877 (Supplement to Revue des études juives, 1887), p. cciii sqq. Separate reprint, Les monnaies juives, Paris 1887, p. 42 sqq.
The silver shekel and half-shekel are equal in weight to the Greek tetradrachmae and the double drachmae minted in the Phoenician towns, and afford us a point of connection for estimating the values of Phoenician-Hebrew coins.[1603] The superscription runs ירושלם קדשה or ירושלים הקדושה, on the other side שקל ישראל (shekel of Israel); on the half-shekels: חצי השקל (half-shekel), The whole as well as the half-shekels have, besides the indication of the weight, a number, usually accompanied with an שנת = ש, a year; e.g. שב=year II. There are extant examples of both coins from the years א, ב, ד נ (I., II., III., IV.); of the whole shekel there is also an example of שה, year V. As might be expected, we have no portrait profiles, but only simple symbols, the significance of which is still doubtful (a cup and branch of lilies?).—Since upon those coins of the “holy Jerusalem” there is no trace of any personal name, it is extremely difficult to determine their age. But it should first of all be laid down as certain that they cannot have been minted between B.C. 135 and A.D. 66. For the Asmoneans, since John Hyrcanus, B.C. 135, minted coins bearing their own names, as did also Herod and his sons. It is also clear that these coins could not have been struck under the Roman procurators, for they presuppose the political independence of Jerusalem. They can therefore be assigned only to the time before B.C. 135 or after A.D. 66. Under the latter alternative they can be referred only to the period of the war A.D. 66-70; for from the time of the Hadrian war, A.D. 132-135, we have coins of quite another sort. Ewald was the first (Göttinger “Nachrichten,” 1855, p. 109 ff.) to argue in favour of the years 66-70 as the date of the minting of the shekels; and in the first edition of this work, p. 365 f., I adopted his view. Among numismatists, however, this theory is now maintained only by Theód. Reinach (1887) and Imhoof-Blumer (in epistolary correspondence with myself). All the others declare this impossible, in consequence of the antiquated style, and almost unanimously place these shekels in the time of Simon the Maccabee, B.C. 142-135. De Saulcy puts them even farther back, assigning them first of all, in Recherches sur la Numismatique Judaïque, 1854, to the time of Alexander the Great, subsequently, in the Étude chronologique des livres d’Esdras et de Néhémie, 1868 (which has not been accessible to me), and in the Revue archéologique, 1872, to the time of Ezra.—In determining this question we must take into account: (1) Palaeographical, (2) Historical, (3) Numismatical arguments.
[1603] Compare on the value of the shekel, especially: Brandis, Das Münz-, Mass- und Gewichtswesen in Vorderasien (1866), pp. 55 ff., 94 ff., 102 ff.; Hultsch, Grisckische und römische Metrologie (2 Bearbeit. 1882), pp. 466 ff., 602 ff.; Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. v. 1878, pp. 161 ff., 171 ff., 173 f.; Rëvillout, “Note sur les plus anciennes monnaies hébraiques” (Annuaire de la Société française de Numismatique, t. viii. 1884, pp. 113-146 [revised reprint from the Revue Égyptologique]).
1. We may set aside, first of all, the palaeographical, because they scarcely yield any result. The character of the writing is the so-called Phoenician or old Hebraic. But this writing for monumental purposes, such as inscriptions and coins, changed so little during the period coming under consideration, that from this nothing can be gained to help in determining our question. The character of the writing on the coins fits equally the assigning of them to the Maccabean age and to a very much later period, as, upon inquiry, Euting also has assured me, one of the highest authorities on Semitic palaeography.
2. On historical grounds the shekel can hardly have been minted in the Persian and Greek age prior to the winning of Jewish independence by Simon the Maccabee. For according to all that we know, the Jews did not, either in the Persian or in the Greek age, possess such a degree of political independence as is assumed in an autonomous minting of money of their own. This would have been distinctly impossible in the age of Alexander, from the fact that under him in Phoenicia only royal money was minted (so, e.g., in Ascalon, Ptolemais, Damascus; see Div. II. vol. i. pp. 74, 91, 97).[1604] All the more perfectly do they now seem to suit the time of Simon the Maccabee. Under him “the yoke of the heathen was taken away from Israel,” and expression was given to this fact by the introduction of a native reckoning of their own, according to the years of Simon (1Ma_13:41-42; compare also p. 256). May it not be just this era that is meant on the shekels? This is indeed what is assumed by most numismatists. But on nearer consideration certain not inconsiderable difficulties arise. The era of Simon begins in the year 170 of the Seleucid era=B.C. 143-142 (1Ma_13:41 f.); but Simon did not die before the year 177 of the Seleucid era=B.C. 136-135 (1Ma_16:14). One should therefore expect on the shekels the year numbers I.-VII., whereas even of the year V. we have only one example, but no single example for any later years. Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, v. 292 if., has therefore made the attempt to place the era of Simon about two years later. That this expedient is quite inadmissible, I think I have succeeded in proving on page 259. It would also involve this further consequence, that the minting of the shekels in a very remarkable manner was suddenly broken off with Simon, and in their place immediately under Simon’s successor, John Hyrcanus, a minting of quite another kind was introduced, bearing the name of the reigning high priest. If this be not impossible, it is at least very singular. On the other hand, the hypothesis that the shekels were minted during the period of the rebellion A.D. 66-70, is beset by no kind of historical difficulties. It must therefore have the preference, if no numismatic considerations tell against it.
[1604] Againat placing the shekel in the time of Ezra or Alexander the Great, see especially the comprehensive treatise of Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numiematik, Bd. v. 1878, p. 151 ff.
3. The decision from the numismatic standpoint is difficult for this reason, that the minting is of a rude or at least peculiar description, and therefore hard to classify. This explains the fact that even experienced numismatists differ from one another in their judgments. Theód. Reinach has given no convincing proof for the date of A.D. 66-70 as adopted by him. By his publication Imhoof-Blumer has been driven to an examination of the facts of the case, which has led him to accept the theory of Reinach. The grounds which he has been good enough in correspondence to communicate to me are the following: “The small diameter of the shekel and half-shekel, and their border, do hot correspond to the Syrian and Phoenician mintings of the middle of the second century before Christ nearly so well as to the silver coins minted in those districts bearing the images of Nero, Agrippina, and Vespasian, of which there are many tolerably thick examples of about 14 and 7 grs. in weight. Upon a question of style no result can be drawn from the extremely slovenly and rude types referred to, but merely on a question of technology, and in this respect they have no resemblance to the broad coins of the Syrian kings Antichus VI., Tryphon, Antiochus VII.,” etc. Against this theory may be quoted the opinions of all other numismatists of the time, who pronounce it impossible, on account of the ancient appearance of the shekels, that they can be assigned to so late an age. Also it has been emphatically declared against the above statement, e.g. by Sallet in an admirable communication which he has made to me, that the prevailing view must be maintained. “The antique character of the coins is so clearly stamped, the thickness of the piece of metal so thoroughly in accordance with the antique coins minted long before Christ, the stamp and the writing are of so decidedly antique a character, that the coins must be placed in the time of the Maccabees.” They are “distinctly distinguishable “ from the coins of the later rebellion. In presence of this diversity of opinion among the best authorities, no one not an expert can do anything but conclude with the confession: adhuc sub judice lis est.
2. THE COINS OF THE REBELLION
LITERATURE
EOKHEL, Doctrina Numorum, veterum, iii. 464-474.
MIONNET, Description de médailles antiques, v. 555-562, Suppl. viii. 378; Planches, xxvii.-xxviii.
Trésor de Numimatique (edited by Lenormant, 1849), pp. 118-123, pl. lvii.-lix.
CAVEDONI, Biblische Numismatik, transl. by Werlhof, i. 18-51.
DE SAULCY, Recherches sur la Numismatique Judaïque, 1854, pp. 151-170, pl. x.-xv.
EWALD, Göttinger “Nachrichten,” 1855, pp. 109-122; Gött, gel. Anzeigen, 1862, p. 841 ff. (review of Levy’s work).
DE VOGÜÉ, Revue Numismatique, 1860, pp. 280-292 (Eleazar coins)
LEVY, Geschichte der jüdischen Munzen (1862), pp. 83-131.
MADDEN, History of Jewish Coinage (1864), pp. 154-182, 198-210.
CAVEDONI in Grote’a Münzstudien, v. 1867, pp. 29-37.
DE SAULCY, Revue Numismatique, 1865, pp. 29-55.
GARRUCCI, Dissertazioni archeologiche, ii, 1865, pp. 31-39.
MADDEN, Numismatic Chronicle, 1866, pp. 36-65.
DE SAULCY, Numismatic Chronicle, 1871, pp. 250-253.
MERZBACHER, “Untersuchungen über althebräische Münzen” (Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. iv. 1877, pp. 350-365).
DE SAULCY, Mélanges de Numismatique, ii. 1877, pp. 87-92.
SALLET, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. v. 1878, pp. 110-114.
RENAN, L’église chrétienne (1879), pp. 546-551.
MADDEN, Coins of the Jews (1881), pp. 188-206, 230-246.
STICKEL, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palaestina-Vereins, vii. 1884, pp. 212, 214.
GRÄTZ, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1887, pp. 145-176 (English translation in Numismatic Chronicle, 1888).
REINACH (THÉOD.), Revue des études juives, t. xv. 1887, pp. 56-61.
REINACH (THÉOD.), Actes et conférences de la société des études juives, 1887 (Suppl. to Revue des études juives, 1887), pp. cciii-ccxvi.—In separate reprint (Les monnaies juives, Paris 1887), pp. 42-67.
GRÄTZ, Revue des études juives, t. xvi. 1888, pp. 161-169; t. xviii. 1889, pp. 301-304.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. 4 Aufl. (1888), pp. 819-841.
REINACH (THÉOD.), Revue des études juives, t. xvii. 1888, pp. 42-45; t. xviii. 1889, pp. 304-306.
The coins of the rebellion belong to the following varieties. The material is adequately presented by De Saulcy, Recherches sur la Numismatique, 1854; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, 1864; Numismatic Chronicle, 1875; Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numis∙atik, iv. 1887; most fully in Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881.
1. Ligullath Zion, the Deliverance of Zion.
Obv. לנאלת ציון ligullath Zion.
Rev. שנת ארבע, year IV.
or, שנת ארבע חצי, year IV., a half.
or, שנת ארבע רביע, year IV., a quarter.
All these are copper coins of various sizes, with Jewish emblems.
See De Saulcy, Recherches sur la Numismatique, p. 20; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 11 f.; Ewald, Göttinger Nachrichten, 1855, p. 114; Levy, Geschichte, p. 44; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, p. 47; Garrucci, Dissertazioni, ii. 32, 38; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1866, pp. 48-63 (very complete in reference to the date, against Garrucci); Merzbacher, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, i. 222, iv. 364; Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 71 sq.
2. Chêruth Zion, the Emancipation of Zion.
Obv. חרות ציון, chêruth Zion.
Rev. שנת שתים, year II.
or, שנת שלוש year III.
Small copper coins with Jewish emblems of which numerous examples are extant (Sallet, Zeitschrift, v. 110).
See De Saulcy, Recherches, p. 154; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 53 f.; Ewald, Gött. Nach. 1855, p. 114; Levy, Geschichte, p. 100; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, p. 180; De Saulcy, Revue Numismatique, 1865, p. 29 sq.; Garrucci, Dissertazioni, ii. 38; Merzbacher, Zeitschrift, i. 223, iv. 364 f.; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, p. 320 sq.; Coins of the Jews, p. 206.
3. Year I. ligullath Israel, of the Emancipation of Israel.
Obv. אלעזר הכהן, Eleasar the priest.
Rev. שנת אחת לגאלת ישראל, year I. ligullath Israel.
Obv. אלעזר הכהן, Eleasar the priest.
Rev. שמעון Simon.
Obv. ירושלם, Jerusalem.
Rev. שנת אחת לגאלת ישראל, year I. ligullath Israel
Obv. שמעון נשיא ישראל, Simon prince of Israel.
Rev. שנת אחת לגאלת ישראל, year I. ligullath Israel.
These are some of them silver, some of them copper, coins of various sizes and of various types. That they all belong to the same period is proved from the date “Year I. ligullath Israel,” which is common to all the three. But the coins bearing the names of Eleasar and Simon cannot be separated from the other Eleasar coins.
See De Saulcy, Recherches, pp. 158-160, 165-168; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 55-59; Ewald, Göttinger Nachr. 1855, p. 119 ff.; De Vogüé, Revue Num. 1860, p. 280 ff. (Eleasar coins communicated for the first time by De Voguë); Levy, Geschichte, pp. 88-92, 97-99; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 161-166, 174-178; De Saulcy, Revue Num. 1865, p. 29 sq.; Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. 29 ff.; Garrucci, ii. 37 sq.; Merzbacher, Zeitschrift, i. 229-232, iv. 350-353; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 313-320; Coins of the Jews, pp. 198-206; Sallet, Zeitschrift, v. 110 ff.; Reinach, Revue des études juives, xv. 58 sq. (on the Simon-Eleasar coins).
4. Year II. lechêruth Israel, the Freedom of Israel.
Obv. שמעון, Simon.
Rev. ש׳׳ב לחרות ישראל, year II. lechêruth Israel.
Obv. ירושלם, Jerusalem.
Rev. ש׳׳ב לחרות ישראל, year II. lechêruth Israel.
The latter kind are found rarely, the former very frequently, in silver and copper, of various sizes and of various types. In regard to some it is still discernible that they had been made out of Roman coins of Vespasian and Trajan (Sallet, Zeitschrift, v. 110-114).
See De Saulcy, Recherches, pp. 168-170; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 59 ff.; Ewald, Göttinger Nachr. 1855, p. 119 ff., Levy, Geschichte, pp. 93-96, 105-108; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 166-174, 207 sq. ; De Saulcy, Revue Num. 1865, 29 sq.; Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. 30 ff.; Garrucci, ii. 34; Merzbacher, Zeitschrift, i. 232-236, iv. 353-356; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 329-333; Coins of the Jews, pp. 241-246; Sallet’s Zeitschrift, v. 110-114.
5. Lechêruth Jerushalem, the Freedom of Jerusalem.
Obv. שמעון, Simon.
Rev. לחרות ירושלם, lechêruth Jerushalem.
Silver and copper coins of various sizes and with various types. Many are stamped upon Roman coins, especially upon those of Trajan.
See De Saulcy, Recherches, pp. 160-165; Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 56-59; Ewald, Göttinger Nachr. 1885, p. 119 ff.; Levy, Geschichte, pp. 93-96, 105-108; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 166-174, 203-210; De Saulcy, Revue Num. 1865, p. 29 sqq.; Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. 30 ff.; Garrucci, ii. 33 sq.; Merzbacher, Zeitschrift, i. 236 f., iv. 357-363; Madden, Numismatic Chronicle, 1875, pp. 321-328; Coins of the Jews, pp. 233-241; Sallet, Zeitschrift, v. 110-114.
The three last-named classes (Year I. ligullath Israel, year II. lechêruth Israel, lechêruth Jerushalem without date) are to be assigned with great probability, the last two indeed with certainty, to the period of the rebellion of Bar-Cochba. In regard to the last class this is admitted by all. The original Roman minting discernible upon many of them, which gives the figure of the Jewish temple, proves that they were struck not earlier than the times of Trajan. But only one period is conceivable in which this minting can have taken place: that of the rebellion under Hadrian. Yet even among the coins of our fourth class, those of the “Year II. lechêruth Israel,” some examples are met with which are stamped upon coins of Vespasian and Trajan (Sallet, Zeitschrift, v. 110-114). The same therefore applies to them as to those bearing the device “lechêruth Jerushalem.” It will, however, be readily admitted that those results hold not only for the copies stamped upon imperial coins, but also for others with similar superscriptions and of similar types, for the production of which imperial coins were not employed. For it is a singularly arbitrary proceeding to divide among different periods coins of precisely the same impression, only for this reason that on some an original Roman stamp can be traced, while it is not discernible on the others (so. Levy, who divides the coins of our fourth as well as of our fifth class between the first and the second revolutions).—While, therefore, these two classes certainly belong to the time of Bar-Cochba, those of “Year I. ligullath Israel” may be assigned at least with great probability to the same period. For it is admitted by all competent numismatists that they are in style extremely similar to, quite the same, indeed, as the others.[1605] The rabbinical tradition also speaks generally of “coins of Bencosiba,” מעות כוזביות or מטבע בן כוזיבא.[1606]
[1605] See especially, De Saulcy, Revue Num. 1865, p. 29 sqq., and Sallet, Zeitschrift für Numismatik, v. 110 ff.: “To me, as a numismatist, it was never doubtful that De Saulcy’s view was right, that, in spite of all arguments to the contrary, all these denarius-like coins, and the tetra-drachms as well, must unquestionably have belonged to one period. In the numismatics of antiquity it is without example, and impossible that coins perfectly like one another in style, yea, precisely the same as one another, should be sixty years apart.—Also, Merzbacher says, although he adopts the partition declared by Sallet impossible, Zeitschrift für Num. i. 223 f.: “They are little distinguished from one another in style and material, since only a few divergences in type can be pointed out, and therefore should not be too far separated in time from one another.”
[1606] Tosephta Maasi scheni, i. 5; Jer. Maaser sheni, i. 2; bab. Baba kamma, 97b; in Levy, Geschichte, p. 127 ff.; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, p. 329 sq.; Coins of the Jews, p. 311 sqq.
The great variety of mintings within a few years, which has been the principal reason for numismatists dividing the coins between the time of the Vespasian and that of the Hadrianic war, is not on closer examination incapable of explanation. During the first year two leaders of the rebellion, “Eleazar the Priest” and “Simon the Prince,” minted coins. In the second year Simon seems to have secured to himself the sole sovereignty. Thus it can be easily understood that on the coins of the first year he distinguished himself from the priest by the title of “prince,” whereas during the second year he no longer found this necessary.[1607] Besides Simon and Eleaaar the city of Jerusalem also minted coins, and that indeed during the first as well as the second year ; but these coins are very rare. Finally, Simon, besides the coins dated according to the era of the freedom of Israel, also stamped some coins without date in commemoration of “the freedom of Jerusalem.” Their great variety therefore presents no ground for assigning a portion of them to the time of the war of Vespasian.
[1607] There is a remarkable coin bearing the inscription, Obv. אלעזר הכהן, Rev. שמעון. De Vogüé regarded it as the work of a forger, who combined the fronts of an Eleasar and a Simon coin with one another. According to Friedländer’s and Sallet’s opinion, however, its genuineness is indisputable (Zeitschrift für Numismatique, iv. 350, v. 111, note; Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 201). Yet more remarkable is a coin published by Reinach in Revue des études juives, xv. 56-61, the inscription of which is indeed defective, but has been restored with tolerable certainty as follows:—
Obv. שנת אחת לגאלת ישראל.
Rev. ש׳׳ב לחרות ישראל.
This coin also Beinach declares to be undoubtedly genuine. According to his subtle explanation we have in both coins to recognise monnaies hybrides, i.e. coins on which, in consequence of an error in the minting, the inscriptions of two different coins were combined with one another. Such “bastards” are not seldom found among the Roman consular coins.
In the history of numismatics the classification of our coins has passed through five different stages. 1. The older numismatists, Eckhel, Mionnet, and even Cavedoni, Biblische Num. i., put all the kinds together, so far as they were known, along with the shekel coins in the time of Simon the Maccabee. Only one French scholar of the last century, Henrion, recognised the fact that they belonged to the time of Bar-Cochba (see Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 472). But his voice sounded unheard, although even then some copies stamped upon imperial coins were known, which had to be of necessity assigned to the age of Bar-Cochba (Eckhel, iii. 473).—2. De Saulcy in his Recherches sur la Numismatique Judaïque, 1854, not only essentially enriched the material, but also gave expression to the correct view that all three kinds belonged to the time of Bar-Cochba. He was followed by Cavedoni, Biblische Num. ii, and Ewald. The latter also assigned to the same period the Eleasar coins first communicated by De Vogüé in 1860 (History of Israel, viii. 291).—3. An unfortunate confusion was caused by Levy in 1862 in consequence of his arbitrary division of the coins between the time of Vespasian and that of Hadrian. He assigned to the earlier period not only all coins of “Year I. ligullath Israel,” but also the greater part of those of the “Year II. lechêruth Israel” and “lechêruth Jerushalem.” But some individual examples of the last two classes are met with in the time of Hadrian, and thus coins of a precisely similar stamp are separated by a period of sixty years. Those who issued coins during the age of Vespasian were the well-known leader of the Zealots, Eleasar, then Simon bar-Giora, and the scribe Simon, son of Gamaliel, upon whom the later Jewish legends bestowed the title of Nasi. On the baselessness of this legend see Div. II. vol. i. p. 183 ff. Neither could Eleasar nor Simon bar-Giora have struck the coins of years I. and II. of freedom, since they did not become party leaders until the later days of the rebellion; Simon bar-Giora only in the third year (Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 12); Eleasar even later, and only for a short time (see above, p. 235). Notwithstanding the more than weak foundation of these hypotheses, Levy obtained at first ardent supporters in Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, 1864, and Cavedoni in Grote’s Münzstudien, v. Madden’s work of 1864 is consequently in those parts extremely ill-suited to afford a clear summary of the history. Also Renan was influenced by Levy, inasmuch as he inclines to ascribe only the superimposition of the stamp to the age of Bar-Cochba (L’église chrétienne, p. 546 sq.). Levy’s and Madden’s views were decidedly combated by Ewald, Gött. gel. Anz. 1862, p. 841 ff., and De Saulcy, Revue Num. 1865, who held fast by their earlier judgments. Yet even De Saulcy so far paid tribute to the Jewish legends as to understand by “Simon the Prince” the younger Simon, son of Gamaliel, grandson of the earlier one of that name, whose title of Nasi, however, stands historically on as weak a foundation, as in the case of his grandfather.—4. A change for the better, however, was made by Merzbacher when he, although still influenced by Levy, abandoned his arbitrary separation of the coins of our fourth and fifth classes. He put all coins of “Year I. ligullath Israel” and all those of “Year II. lecêruth Israel” into the Vespasian age, and all those with “lechêruth Jerushalem” into the age of Hadrian. All the Simon coins of the age of Vespasian, whether with or without the title Nasi, he ascribed to Simon, son of Gamaliel. But even before him Garrucci had come one step nearer the truth when he ascribed to the Hadrianic period both the coins of the “Year II. lechêruth Israel,” and those with “lechêruth Jerushalem,” and assigned to the age of Vespasian only those of “Year I. ligullath Israel.” His arguments also soon made an impression upon Madden (Numismatic Chronicle, 1866, p. 63 sq.), who in his later works (Numismatic Chronicle, 1875; Coins of the Jews, 1881) actually adopted the arrangement of Garrucci. In consequence of this, Madden’s masterpiece of 1881 marks an important advance upon the History of 1864, not only in regard to the wealth of material, but also in respect of its incomparably superior arrangement.—5. The researches of Merzbacher, Garrucci, and Madden gradually unravelled the confusion wrought by Levy, and led step by step back again to the original simple views of De Saulcy. Sallet and Reinach have returned completely to these earlier views, for reasons that have been stated above. Although on other points De Saulcy is not always happy in his historical combinations, his numismatical sense has in this particular guided him aright.—Whether the weight of the arguments by which modern numismatists have been constrained to return step by step to De Saulcy’s view will survive all attacks the future alone can show. An attempt to produce embarrassment anew has been made by Grätz (Monatsschrift, 1887, p. 145 ff.; Revue des études juives, xvi. 161 sqq., xviii. 301 sq.; Geschichte der Juden, iii. 4 Aufl. 1888, p. 819 ff.). There is scarcely any danger of such an attempt succeeding, for any one who has even a moderate appreciation of scientific method must regard Grätz’s speculations as a tissue of groundless surmises. Compare in opposition to him. Reinach, Revue des ëtudes juives, xvii. 42-45, xviii. 304-306.
In regard to the small copper coins communicated under No. 2, with the superscription חרות ציון, chêruth Zion, years II. and III., a much greater agreement prevails than in regard to the coins of our third, fourth, and fifth classes. With almost perfect unanimity they are ascribed to the period of the war of Vespasian. This is the opinion not only of De Saulcy, who assigns to the Vespasian period only those coins, but also of Ewald, who places the shekels along with them, and of Levy, Garrucci, and Madden, who join with them a more or less considerable portion of our Bar-Cochbe coins. This latter view is indeed indefensible, because these coins differ from the others essentially in style, so that Merzbacher renounces the attempt to fix their age (Zeitschrift für Numismatique, i. 223, iv. 364 f.). But if all the coins of our third, fourth, and fifth classes are placed in the time of Bar-Cochba, it will become probable, owing to the diversity of style, that the coins of the years II. and III. chêruth Zion belong to the time of Vespasian. In this case also De Saulcy has hit upon the right explanation.
It is of the utmost importance to determine the coins of the year IV., לגאלת ציון, ligullath Zion, communicated under No. 1. Many, on account of the admitted antiquity of their style, class them along with the shekel coins. So De Saulcy, Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatique, ii.; Ewald, Levy, Madden, 1864. Yet it is just their style which leads Garrucci to separate them from the shekels, and to place them in the time of Vespasian (Dissertazioni, ii. 32); and Madden, after he had, in complete contradiction to Garrucci, maintained their conteraporariness with the shekels (Num. Chron. 1866, pp. 48-63), at last only holds so far to that opinion that their reference to the Seleucidean period seems to some extent proved (Coins of the Jews, p. 73), while even Merzbacher is of opinion that they were not of the same period as the shekels (Zeitschrift, i. 222 f.), and are therefore to be reckoned only as ancient coins of an uncertain age (Zeitschrift, iv. 364). It is thus difficult to arrive at any decided judgment upon these matters.