Israel Numismatic Research Published by the Israel Numismatic Society Volume 6 2011 Contents 3 Jarosław BODZEK: Tiarate Heads on Samarian Coins 21 HAIM GITLER: The Earliest Coin of Judah 35 ALLA KUSHNIR-STEIN: Inscribed Hellenistic Weights of Palestine 61 DONALD T. ARIEL and OLIVER D. HOOVER: A New Coin of the Mint of Marisa 79 ROSA M. MOTTA: Zeus on Dora’s Coins 93 DAVID HENDIN, CRAIG LUNDSTROM, ZACHARY wHITE and NATHAN w. Bower: Preliminary Sequencing of Herod I’s Undated Coins Based on Alloy Changes over Time 105 JEAN-PHILIPPE FONTANILLE: Herod Philip: The First Jewish Portrait 121 Andrew M. BURNETT: Wife, Sister, or Daughter? 127 KENNETH MILLER: A First Jewish Revolt Prutah Overstrike 133 SHAI HENDLER AND LIONEL HOLLAND: Three Small Coins (minimi) from Caesarea Maritima 135 RAMI ARAV AND CARL SAVAGE: A Rare Aureus of Antoninus Pius at Bethsaida 139 NATHAN T. ELKINS: A Mid-Fourth Century Purse Hoard from the Roman Auxiliary Fort at Yotvata 147 ERMANNO A. ARSLAN: The L812 Trench Deposit inside the Synagogue and the Isolated Finds of Coins in Capernaum, Israel: A Comparison of the Two Groups 163 GABRIELA BIJOVSKY: From Carthage to the Holy Land: The ‘Palm Tree’ Nummus 175 NITZAN AMITAI-PREISS and L. ALEXANDER wOLFE: Amuletic Bronze Rings from the Arab-Byzantine Transitional Period 187 YOAV FARHI: A Fāṭimid Coin Die from Israel 191 REVIEW: Oliver D. Hoover, Andrew Meadows and Ute Wartenberg-Kagan (eds.), Coin Hoards. Vol. X. Greek Hoards. New York, 2010. (François de Callataÿ) 197 Abbreviations Zeus on Dora’s Coins ROSA M. MOTTA Christopher Newport University [email protected] Abstract Dora’s religious coin iconography focuses mainly on two figures: a female figure whose characteristics make her easily recognizable as Tyche/Fortuna, and a male portrait whose identification is not as straightforward. The head shows the markings of a mature Olympian god who recalls the features of both Zeus and Poseidon but presents none of these two gods’ attributes. The god has conventionally been identified with ‘Doros, son of Poseidon;’ we suggest, however, that the now familiar longhaired, long-bearded man portrayed on Dora’s coins is Zeus and propose calling him ‘Zeus Doros,’ i.e., Zeus from Dora. Gods were the symbols and guarantors of many aspects of life in ancient societies, and proper worship was therefore a matter of great importance for city authorities.1 Religious shrines and annual festivals marked the everyday lives of citizens, and mints depicted patron deities and their attributes on coins on a regular basis as a way to demonstrate religious piety (Klose 2005:125–133). In the Near East, where portraits of gods were regularly used on coins from the earliest introduction of coinage, coins with cult symbols were clearly utilized most often and continued to be so after the arrival of the Romans. The city of Dora, in fact, one of the first cities of the southern Levant to mint coins after the arrival of Pompey, issued cultic-type coins throughout its minting history from 64 BCE to 212 CE.2 The arrival of the Roman authorities in 63 BCE provided the impetus to initiate Dora’s new civic era marked on the city’s coins with ‘Year 1.’3 The city produced both semi-autonomous and imperial coins, with religious 1 I am deeply grateful to Arie Fichman for allowing me to use the coins of his collection and for his comments on some of the catalogue entries. Thanks also to Karl Majer for his technical assistance with the photographs, and to Donald T. Ariel and Haim Gitler. I also greatly appreciate the invaluable insights of Tyler Jo Smith and the assistance of Ayelet Gilboa and the Tel Dor staff. 2 For more on Dora’s Roman-period minting, see RPC I:660–661, Nos. 4752–4767; RPC II:295–296, Nos. 2088–2091. The Ptolemy V silver tetradrachm (205 BCE) allegedly minted at Dora under Ptolemy V (205 BCE) is the only evidence of any prior minting. The coin was analyzed in the author’s doctoral dissertation (Motta 2010:99–117). 3 For more on the early Roman-period issues of other mints in the area, see Gitler and Kushnir-Stein 2004; 2009. INR 6 (2011): 79–92 79 80 ROSA M. MOTTA iconography constantly present on the obverse of the semi-autonomous issues or on the reverse of coins with imperial portraits.4 There is no denying that the imperial images on Dora’s coins must have had a religious connotation to the people of that city.5 Imperial images in the eastern provinces were part of a symbolic system that considered rulers to be god-inspired and to have divine rights; at Dora, just as in any eastern city, Roman emperors were likely to be placed on the same footing as Olympian gods.6 When analyzing the iconography of Dora’s religious pantheon, however, the imagery focuses on two deities: a female figure, depicted in portraits or in full length, and a mature male god whose bust only is depicted. While all representations of the female figure have characteristics that make it easily recognizable as Tyche/Fortuna — the turreted crown, the cornucopia, the rudder, etc. — the male portrait is not as simply identifiable. The head shows the usual markings of a mature Olympian god, with long hair hanging freely and a thick, long beard that recalls the features of both Zeus (Leventi and Machaira in Zeus, LIMC:349–350, Nos. 154b, 157, 160; Pls. 3:1–2; 5–8; 4:9–12) and Poseidon (Simon in Poseidon, LIMC:446–479: Nos. 42, 50, 54; Pls. 3:3–4; 4:14–17). None of the expected attributes of these two gods — an eagle, lightning bolt or scepter for Zeus; a trident or dolphin for Poseidon — are present, making the identification of the figure problematic. While the god has conventionally been identified with ‘Doros, son of Poseidon,’ we suggest here that the now familiar longhaired, long-bearded man portrayed on Dora’s coins is Zeus and propose to call him ‘Zeus Doros,’ i.e., Zeus from Dora. The convention of calling the figure ‘Doros’ began in 1910, when Hill, in hisCatalogue of Greek Coins of Phoenicia, wrote that “Doros, son of Poseidon and eponymous founder of the city, was probably intended by the Poseidon-like deity represented on some of the coins” (BMC Phoen.:lxxiv). In earlier studies, however, Dora’s male god was simply identified as ‘Zeus.’ Seguin (1684) and Eckhel (1794: vol. 4 The term ‘quasi-autonomous’ has been used by numismatists to indicate coins struck in the Roman period but without imperial portrait. However, the title is controversial, as it indicates that cities were granted coining rights — something that puts “too much emphasis on connecting numismatics with historical events” (Butcher 1988:30). 5 According to Price (1985:248), people in the eastern provinces used their traditional symbolic system to depict their emperor “in the familiar terms of divine power,” and emperors were “set on a straightforward, equal footing with the Olympian gods” (Smith 1987:136). Cities, including Dora, portrayed Roman emperors on their coins because they were responding to a new fundamental shift in civic perspective caused by new political circumstances of the Roman presence (Heuchert 2005:44). The emperors portrayed on Dora’s coins are Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Septimius Severus, Geta and Caracalla. 6 Zanker 1983:21; Smith 1987:136. Although Smith’s study was based on the Sebasteion of Aphrodisias, where he found a “visual conception of the divine emperors,” one can only assume that the same is true of other cities of the Greek East. ZEUS ON DORA’S COINS 81 3, p. 362) referred to the coin image as “caput Jovis.”7 Rouvier (1901) also noted that the figure was the “tête laurée de Zeus,” (Rouvier 1901:125–131) following de Saulcy’s (1874) description as “tête laurée de Jupiter” and Sanclemente’s (1808) “caput Jovis laureatum” (de Saulcy 1874:142–148, 405). Rosenberger in 1975 and Meshorer in 1995 followed Hill’s convention of naming the figure ‘Doros’ (Rosenberger 1975:31–37; Meshorer 1995:335–365). The name has continued to be used for the classification of Dora’s coins in Roman Provincial Coinage and has been used for at least two archaeological finds at Tel Dor.8 Hill’s identification of the bearded figure on Dora’s coins with ‘Doros’ has no basis in any numismatic or archaeological sources. Literary mention of ‘Doros’ as son of Poseidon seem to have originated from Stephanus of Byzantium’s sixth century Ethnica, where Dora is said to have been founded by ‘Doros.’9 Eckhel also wrote in his Doctrina Numorum Veterum (1794) that Doros, son of Poseidon founded Dora (condita a Doro, Neptuni filio), but identified the image on Dora’s coins as Zeus (Eckhel 1794: vol. 3, p. 362). In another numismatic study of Dora’s coins, Sanclemente (1808) agreed that “Dora Phoeniciae erat urbs maritima, a Doro Neptuni filio condita,” but, as noted, wrote that the image on the obverse of Dora’s coin was “caput Jovis laureatum.”10 Hill’s cautious suggestion that the figure on Dora’s coins is “probably” intended as Doros, son of Poseidon was therefore a new approach to the interpretation of Dora’s male figure, mostly based on literary and not numismatic sources. 7 While describing the obverse of Trajan’s coins, Seguin (1684:309) wrote, “In aversa autem parte caput Iovis laureatum.” Eckhel (1794: vol. 3, pp. 362–363) identified the figure as “Typus: caput Jovis.” 8 RIC I:660–661; The identification of Zeus Doros on a glass pendant from Tel Dor (Stern 2006) is not secure, although the bearded old man’s features do in fact resemble those on Dora’s coins.