The Coins Minted in Gamla: An Alternative Analysis.pdf

IAA 56 GAMLA III The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989 Finds and Studies Part 1 Danny Syon IAA Reports, No. 56 Gamla III The Shmarya GuTmann excavaTIonS 1976–1989 FIndS and STudIeS ParT 1 danny Syon With contributions by Shua Amorai-Stark, Yoav Arbel, Chaim Ben-David, Baruch Brandl, Deborah Cassuto, Carol Cope, Yoav Farhi, Rafael Frankel, Nimrod Getzov, Patrick Geyer, Shimon Gibson, Malka Hershkovitz, Andrew E. Holley, Shimon Ilani, Ruth Jackson-Tal, Omri Lernau, Nili Liphschitz, Jodi Magness, Orna NagarHillman, Matthew Ponting, Ronny Reich, Aharon Shemesh, Guy D. Stiebel and Herbert J. Wagner ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY JERUSALEM 2014 IAA Reports Publications of the Israel Antiquities Authority Editor-in-Chief: Judith Ben-Michael Series Editor: Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz Volume and Production Editor: Lori Lender Production Coordinator: Lori Lender Front Cover: View of Gamla, looking west (photographer: Danny Syon) Back Cover: Poppies blooming in the Western Quarter; in the background—Nahal Daliyyot, looking east (photographer: Danny Syon) Cover Design, Production, Layout and Typesetting: Hagar Maimon Illustrations: Natalya Zak Printing: Art Plus Ltd., Jerusalem Copyright © 2014, The Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem POB 586, Jerusalem, 91004 ISBN 978-965-406-503-0 www.antiquities.org.il Gamla—before the excavations (drawing by D. Ben-Ami). 220 000 219 800 219 600 iv la m a lG h.a An cie nt Tr a il Na 257 800 Byzantine Cemetery Roman Ramp Tower Cisterns 0 22 Area A Area N 0 25 Synagogue Area G Area BA Hasmonean Quarter Aque Eastern Quarter Cit Area P duct Area B 257 600 all yW Area M Area H 250 Cemetery? ‘Basilica’ Area S Area K Area T Cistern Area R Western Quarter 257 400 220 t iyyo l Dal Nah. a 200 m 0 Topographic map. Area P Ridge Area N Area D Round Tower Area L Area B ‘Basilica’ Area B77 Area F Area RN Area S Area A Cistern Area E Synagogue Area H Hasmonean Quarter Area C Western Quarter Area R Olive-Oil Press and Miqveh Area G Area K 300m Area M Eastern Quarter Area T Area T 0 General site plan of Gamla, showing the major areas. 40 m v conTenTS ParT 1 ABBREVIATIONS viii FOREWORD ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION—A HISTORY OF GAMLA Danny Syon 1 CHAPTER 2: ARROWHEADS AND PROJECTILE POINTS Jodi Magness 21 CHAPTER 3: STONE PROJECTILES AND THE USE OF ARTILLERY IN THE SIEGE OF GAMLA Andrew E. Holley 35 CHAPTER 4: MILITARY EQUIPMENT Guy D. Stiebel 57 CHAPTER 5: COINS Danny Syon 109 Matthew Ponting 224 CHAPTER 6: THE COINS MINTED IN GAMLA: AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Yoav Arbel 233 CHAPTER 7: ROMAN–BYZANTINE PERIOD SETTLEMENTS NEAR GAMLA Chaim Ben-David 239 Appendix: Compositional Analysis of the Gamla Jewish War Coin vi ParT 2 ABBREVIATIONS FOREWORD CHAPTER 8: GLASS VESSELS Ruth Jackson-Tal CHAPTER 9: SOFT LIMESTONE VESSELS Shimon Gibson CHAPTER 10: A STONE SCALE-WEIGHT Ronny Reich CHAPTER 11: MILLS AND QUERNS Rafael Frankel and Danny Syon CHAPTER 12: JEWELRY Shua Amorai-Stark and Malka Herskovitz CHAPTER 13: MISCELLANEOUS SMALL FINDS: METAL AND GLASS Ruth Jackson-Tal CHAPTER 14: METAL WEIGHTS Orna Nagar-Hillman CHAPTER 15: A BRONZE PENDANT IN THE SHAPE OF HORUS THE CHILD (HARPOKRATES) Yoav Farhi CHAPTER 16: WORKED BONE ARTIFACTS Yoav Farhi CHAPTER 17: TEXTILE PRODUCTION IMPLEMENTS Deborah Cassuto CHAPTER 18: SEALS, SEAL IMPRESSIONS AND A VIOLIN FIGURINE Nimrod Getzov CHAPTER 19: THREE “HYKSOS” SCARABS Baruch Brandl CHAPTER 20: STUDY OF A MIDDLE-BRONZE SICKLE-SWORD Herbert J. Wagner and Danny Syon CHAPTER 21: THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE NON-FERROUS METALWORK Matthew Ponting CHAPTER 22: COMPOSITION OF FRESCO AND SECCO PIGMENTS Shimon Ilani CHAPTER 23: BUTCHERING PATTERNS Carol Cope vii CHAPTER 24: FISH REMAINS Omri Lernau and Aharon Shemesh CHAPTER 25: POLLEN ANALYSIS Patrick Geyer CHAPTER 26: ARCHAEOBOTANICAL REMAINS Nili Liphschitz viii abbrevIaTIonS AJA AJN ASOR ‘Atiqot (HS) BAIAS BAR British S. BAR Int. S. BASOR BCH BJPES ESI IAA Reports IEJ INJ INR JRA JRA Supp. S. JSOT JSP LA NEAEHL ORL PEQ PWRE QDAP RN SBF American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Numismatics American Schools of Oriental Research Hebrew Series Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society British Archaeological Reports (British Series) British Archaeological Reports (International Series) Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society Excavations and Surveys in Israel Israel Antiquities Authority Reports Israel Exploration Journal Israel Numismatic Journal Israel Numismatic Research Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Judea and Samaria Publications Liber Annuus E. Stern and A. Lewinson-Gilboa eds. The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1–4. Jerusalem 1993 Winkelmann F. Das Kastell Pfünz. In E. Fabricius, F. Hettner and O. von Sarwey eds. Der obergermanisch-raetische Limes des Roemerreiches B VII Nr. 73. Heidelberg. 1901. Palestine Exploration Quarterly Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine Revue Numismatique Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Chapter 6 The coInS mInTed In Gamla: an alTernaTIve analySIS yoav arbel IntroduCtIon This chapter offers a new perspective for the study of a unique group of bronze coins found at Gamla. As the only known Jewish currency from the Jewish War to have been struck outside Jerusalem, the coins provide a rare insight into the conditions and motivations of the Jewish rebels in the Golan, independent of the testimony of Josephus. The motif and inscription that appear on the coins support the notion of religiousideological convictions being the primary cause for the revolt. Yet, the actual circumstances in which the coins were minted remain obscure. Based on an examination of the events in Galilee and Golan between January and September 67 CE, this study challenges the accepted dating of the coins to the one-month period of Vespasian’s siege, and proposes instead an association with the earlier, longer and unresolved blockade of Gamla by the Herodian ruler Agrippa II. the Gamla CoIns As commander of Galilee, Josephus was familiar with Gamla and its people and involved in the town’s preparations for the war. However, his records are biased against the rebels and lack information about the conditions in the town during its final months. As no inscriptions or written documents came to light at the site, the bronze coins (Fig. 6.1), which, in all likelihood, were struck in the city sometime in the year 67 CE, represent the only existing testimony to the state of mind of the local Jewish rebels. Seven of the nine coins known to date were recovered at Gamla, the eighth was found at Sartaba-Alexandrion in the Jordan Valley, presumably brought by a refugee or traveler from Gamla (see Chapter 5) and an additional coin surfaced in the antiquities trade. The coins measure 21–24 mm in diameter and weigh about 12 g. A chalice encircled by coarse, makeshift script, probably the work of unskilled engravers, appears on the obverse. The inscription, which seems to include both Paleo-Hebrew and ‘square’ Aramaic letters, is unclear. A tentative reading suggested the word LG’LT (To the Redemption of).1 The message presumably continues on the reverse side with the partial inscription YRŠLM HQ[DŠH] (Holy Jerusalem). It should be noted that in a recent re-examination of the inscription, Farhi (2003–2006) suggests the intriguing option that ‘in Gamla’ (BGML’), rather than ‘To the Redemption of’, should be read on the obverse. Due to the coarseness of the letters, such an option cannot be ruled out solely on epigraphic grounds. Yet, this would be the first and only example of any town other than Jerusalem appearing on an independent Jewish coin dated to the Second Temple period.2 The appearance of the chalice (see below), whose resemblance to the image on the Jerusalem sheqels cannot be coincidental, also seems to support the traditional reading. Still, Farhi’s suggestion deserves further consideration and it might be said that the ‘jury is still out’ on this matter (Pfann 2006). Roth (1962:40) believes that the archaic script would have been considered more ‘patriotic’. In a similar vein, Meshorer (1967:48) suggested that the Hasmonean princes used the symbol of the chalice to link symbolically their own monarchy to the biblical kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The first-century CE rebels may have desired a similar link, adding the Hasmoneans to an ideological–historical sequence that ended with themselves. Fig. 6.1. The ‘Gamla’ coin. 234 YOAV ARBEL The chalice is in all likelihood a rough reproduction of a similar image from the fine silver sheqels struck by the rebel government in Jerusalem. It probably represented a ritual object from the Temple that was familiar to pilgrims from religious ceremonies (Roth 1962:42, Romanoff 1971:23, Meshorer 2001). A complete imitation of the silver sheqel would have depicted a branch with pomegranates on the reverse, also an item of profound religious significance related to the Temple and a common contemporary symbol in Jewish art (Avigad 1962, 1983:99–103, 111, 113–115, 154–160; Yadin 1966; Avi-Yonah 1981:274; Sussman 1982:45). Perhaps, the relative complexity of the motif exceeded the skills of local engravers. Style and quality of execution notwithstanding, the connection between the Gamla coins and Jerusalem—and through it, the ideological background of the war—seems well established. We are left with the question concerning the historical background to the minting of this unique provincial coin. CIrCumstanCes and date of Issue of the Gamla CoIn There are no Jerusalem rebel issues among the approximately 6300 coins recovered from Gamla. This correlates with a general pattern of poor representation of rebel coins in Galilee and Golan. About 60 coins are known, many of them not from controlled excavations (above, Chapter 5; Shivtiel and Zissu 2009–2010). As an example, merely one Jerusalem rebel coin was found, in the course of a survey conducted at the central Galilean rebel stronghold of Yodefat, where Josephus fought his last battle on the Jewish side (Berman 1962). None surfaced in the more recent large-scale excavations there. The relative rarity of Jerusalem issues indicates that commerce in Galilee during its year of rebellion did not depend on currency flow from Jerusalem. The coin must have had some commercial significance (see below) but it seems that its true importance was in its symbolic value. Gutmann (1994:149) considers the coins a “nationalpolitical message and a statement of defiance.” Syon and Yavor (2001:32) suggest that the coins show that “even in the most difficult conditions…the defenders of Gamla remembered the original objective of the revolt: the liberation of the land, foremost Jerusalem, from the Roman yoke.” Meshorer (1986:225) writes, “during the harsh siege of Gamala, the minting of those coins was…a token of national pride to encourage the warriors on the walls.” If indeed the coins were intended as ideological encouragement, when and in under what circumstances would they be most likely to cause the desired effect? The answers to these questions require an assessment of Gamla’s relatively brief but meaningful part in the revolt, which can generally be divided into three phases: 1. Approximately six months of tense freedom, during which frequent clashes occurred with Helleno-Roman populations3 in the region and domestic disputes raged between supporters and opponents of the revolt (roughly the summer and winter of 66 CE). 2. The blockade by the forces of Agrippa II (late winter of 66 CE to spring or early summer of 67). 3. The Roman attack, siege and final destruction (September–October 67 CE). Syon (2004) and Meshorer (1982) generally accept Gutmann’s suggestion (pers. comm.) that the coins be dated to the last phase—the final month-long Roman siege. Meshorer (1982:130) contextualizes the Gamla coins with coins minted in Jerusalem to provide ‘ideological encouragement’ during Herod’s siege of the Hasmoneans (37 BCE), Titus’ siege during the Jewish War, the Persian siege of the Byzantines (614 CE) and Saladin’s siege of the Crusaders (1187 CE). The similarities are obvious but Meshorer overlooks several important elements that set Gamla apart from the other examples: 1. Jerusalem was a political center with an established administration and readily accessible technical facilities for minting coins during both the classical and medieval periods. Gamla had never before minted coins. Time and guidance were needed to learn the technology, even for the production of a crude specimen. 2. Jerusalem’s tradition of minting currency dated back to Persian times; the use of coins to spread ideological and political messages would have been a natural move. Gamla had no such tradition. Its leadership neither dealt with currency production nor had experience in devising and distributing administrative-backed propaganda. Initiative and execution do not necessarily depend on prior tradition and experience. However, circumstances were desperate in the town’s final weeks under the CHAPTER 6: THE COINS MINTED IN GAMLA: AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS conditions of the tight Roman siege. There is no reason to doubt Josephus’ description, gathered from his own observations from the high vantage points of the Roman positions and probably also from the testimony of captives: The people of Gamla…considered with themselves that they had now no hopes of any terms of accommodation, and reflecting upon it that they could not get away, and that their provisions began already to be short, they were exceedingly cast down, and their courage failed them; yet they did not neglect what might be for their preservation, so far as they were able, but the most courageous men among them guarded those parts of the wall that were beaten down while the more infirm did the same to the rest of the wall…and as the Romans raised their banks and attempted to get into the city a second time, a great many of them fled out of the city through impracticable valleys, where no guards were placed as also through subterranean caverns; while those that were afraid of being caught, and for that reason stayed in the city, perished for want of food; for that food they had was brought together from all quarters and reserved for the fighting men. And these were the hard circumstances the people of Gamla were in (War 4.1.7 [49–53]). While this is certainly not an ideal atmosphere for administrative initiatives and new investments in workshops, resources and training, it could be argued that these were precisely the conditions in which the ideological encouragement on the coins would have had their strongest effect. Yet, the following considerations suggest otherwise: 1. The second battle was imminent and to be fought after Gamla’s topographic advantage and the fortifications had been proven ineffective. The escape of many from the town and the attempt of Gamla’s rebel leader and some of his men to break out immediately upon the second Roman attack (War 4.1.9 [66]) prove that the besieged had no illusions regarding the possibility of the town being saved. If so, it is difficult to imagine what difference any propaganda could have been expected to make and what purpose the innovative minting of ideological currency would have served. 2. The Jews who remained behind were either unable to flee, too committed to the town or placed their faith in divine intervention. In other words, these people would have needed no further encouragement. 235 3. The effective circulation of coins and their ideological messages would have demanded a reasonable degree of commercial activity. With the most basic foodstuffs appropriated for the war effort and people left to starve, such activity in Gamla’s final month would surely have been minimal and would not have necessitated the issue of a new coin. The final siege thus seems an unlikely time for the minting of the Gamla coins. An earlier date providing more favorable circumstances must found. This study proposes that the coins would have had the most political, spiritual and even economic impact during the seven months of an apparent blockade laid over Gamla by Rome’s Herodian vassal Agrippa II. the Gamla CoIn and aGrIppa’s BloCkade The early months of the war were a troubled period for the Galilee and the Golan. Agrippa’s loyalists, HellenoRoman populations, anti-Roman rebels and various other factions all had different interests to promote and defend before the inevitable Roman offensive decided the future of the region. The most significant source for events during that period is Josephus’ Life, with additional details in his War. There are discrepancies between the two sources (Kokkinos 1998:327, n. 208) and the chronology is problematic, but a tentative sequence of events with relevance to Gamla may be reconstructed. In the early days of the revolt, Gamla appears as one of the northern towns torn between rebels and Roman loyalists. The militant factions were evidently strong and popular in Gamla. When Varus, a high official in King Agrippa II’s government,4 attacked the Jews of Ecbatana, a town in neighboring Batanea, many in Gamla were outraged and demanded retaliation (Life 11). Violence was prevented through the persuasion of Philip, son of Jacimus, a more senior official of the king, who reached Gamla after a narrow escape from the rebels in Jerusalem. Philip then worked to leave Gamla out of the revolt. His initial efforts apparently met with some success (Life 11), but we later read that Agrippa was forced to send military units under an officer named Aequus Modius to conquer the city (Life 24). Nothing is said earlier of Philip losing control over the city and the episode may be anachronistic (Mason 2001:76, n. 551), but what is significant here is Josephus’ report that “those who had been sent 236 YOAV ARBEL were insufficient to encircle the fortress, by setting up watches in the open terrain they were able to besiege Gamla” (Life 24). In other words, Modius placed a blockade over Gamla, presumably roadblocks, patrols and guard positions aimed at curtailing access to the town (Mason 2001:76, n. 552). A later account describes Philip’s departure from Gamla (Life 35), and the apparently swift and violent takeover by the rebels: Joseph, the son of a female physician…excited a great many young men to join with [the rebels]. He also insolently addressed himself to the principal persons at Gamla, and persuaded them to revolt from the king, and take up arms, and gave them hopes that they should, by his means, recover their liberty…and those that would not acquiesce in what they have resolved on, they slew (Life 37). The takeover was complete and among the victims were several notables, including Chares, a member of Philip’s family (Life 37).5 The rebels were in full control when Gamla appealed to Josephus, as commander of Galilee, for additional troops and manpower to build the city wall. Josephus accepted their request and included Gamla in a list of Galilean settlements he fortified in anticipation of the Roman campaign (Life 37; War 2.20.6 [573–574]). Agrippa then sent Philip back to Gamla, now a fully established rebel stronghold, with orders to escort certain persons out of the city, presumably members of Philip’s own family and other affiliates of the king. Philip was evidently unable to complete his mission, as two of his female relatives are reported to have been the only survivors of Vespasian’s subsequent siege (War 4.1.10 [81]). This episode may have been followed by the implementation of the blockade by Agrippa’s forces reported in War 4.1.2 [10] that is probably related directly to the enigmatic report of Modius’ blockade in Life 24. Chronological details notwithstanding, such a blockade would fit well into the circumstances of the tumultuous early months of the revolt in Galilee. With his limited forces overstretched, Agrippa may not have had sufficient strength to lay a full siege over the city. The town’s importance dictated that he direct against it whatever effort he could muster. Several factors suggest a link between the minting of the Gamla coins and the period of the blockade: 1. The fact that only Gamla is known to have minted its own currency merits consideration. Galilee’s chief rebel stronghold, Yodefat, withstood 40 days of siege and continuous fighting. At that time, the war was still at its earliest stages. There had been no previous defeats and hope for success had not yet been lost. Josephus, an educated member of the Jerusalem aristocracy now officiating as Yodefat’s commander, knew the Jerusalem issues and was surely aware of the potential of coins in spreading ideological messages. If ideological coins were to be used as spiritual reinforcements under fire, they should have been struck at Yodefat. Yet, no local mint is known from this town or any other siege site of the war. It seems, therefore, that particular conditions in Gamla, rather than the event of the siege, form the background to the minting of the coins. 2. Following the rebel takeover, Gamla’s commanders appealed to Josephus for more fighters. However, the large number of arrivals in later months caused the defenders to reverse their earlier policy and oppose additional entries (War 4.1.2 [10]). While some of those refugees probably originated in the afore-mentioned Ecbatana (Life 11), most of those who filled the city must have come from the defeated towns of Galilee. The arrival of masses of Galilean refugees, which must have preceded Agrippa’s blockade, and their reports of disaster elsewhere would have had a demoralizing effect on the defenders, which the rebel leadership had to address. The introduction of the highly symbolic coin at this point may have been aimed at countering the negative psychological effect through a reminder of the religious and ideological reasons behind the revolt against Rome. 3. Philip’s surviving family members who remained in Gamla and other opponents of the revolt may have continued to advocate surrender even after the rebel takeover. The Romans may have counted on their influence when sending Agrippa to beseech surrender in front of the Gamla wall prior to their initial attack (War 4.1.3 [14]). A similar tactic was attempted several times in Jerusalem, with Josephus as the speaker, where the internal Jewish divisions were well known. The minting and circulation of a coin reminiscent of the Jerusalem sheqel could have assisted the rebel factions in the struggle for public support. 4. While the blockade failed to subdue the town, it must have compromised its supply lines, reduced its commercial contacts with Galilee, Judea and CHAPTER 6: THE COINS MINTED IN GAMLA: AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS neighboring territories and curtailed the cash flow to and from the city. In addition to its ideological role, the Gamla coin may have also addressed a temporary shortage in exchange currency. Still, as already mentioned, only 7 of the approximately 6300 coins retrieved at Gamla were local rebel issues. If these coins were so useful in terms of both publicity and commerce, one would expect a wider distribution. Two explanations may be suggested for this paucity in coins: 1. The maximal period in which minting took place is likely to have lasted no more than a few weeks or a month. Evidence for that, apart from the small number of specimens and the issues that have already been discussed, is the appearance of the chalice. The motif imitates an image from silver issues minted no earlier than the winter of 66–67 CE, either seen and copied from real coins or described as an idea by someone who had seen them in the capital. The commercial incentive may have existed during this relatively brief time but would not have been major. 2. The coarseness of the coins indicates that the presumably local workers had no previous experience in the production of currency. The lack of skill may have resulted in slow production and frequent failures in the initial stages, shortening further the minting time range. These factors would have limited the volume of coins that could be struck. Although more rebel issues may surface if excavations resume at the site, statistical logic denies the option of wide distribution. The Gamla coins were never intended to be mass-produced by a stable government for mainly commercial purposes. They were part of an emergency issue, minted over a brief period and addressed specific and short-lived historical circumstances. After circumstances changed radically with the Roman arrival at the wall of Gamla, there was no longer a need for, nor were there conditions for, further production. 237 ConClusIons Both the general political situation in Galilee during the first year of the revolt and the circumstances within the town of Gamla support a dating of the Gamla coins to the period of Agrippa’s blockade, probably sometime between February and August of 67 CE. The coins would have been useless during the system collapse caused by Vespasian’s siege, but could have served as a valuable publicity asset while the domestic dispute between the war and peace factions remained unsettled. Commercial activity during that time, even if limited, would have ensured that the coins circulated. Yet, the implications of the Gamla coins surpass their immediate function. These coins may be the only record offering us a glimpse into the ideology that guided the provincial rebel authority, distant and detached from the provisional government in Jerusalem, whose interests did not always coincide with those of the official leadership in the capital. Other than the coins, all we have is the testimony of Josephus, whose reliability and accuracy demand constant scrutiny. The difference between a date in the last month of the town’s existence and an alternative time earlier in the war is not merely a chronological technicality. The coins fit the strategic plan of a local institution with distinct political, economic and ideological purposes, as opposed to being a haphazard act of propaganda carried out by desperate warlords hoping to hold out one more day. Beyond being a means of encouragement against the might of Rome, they also served Gamla’s rebel faction as an important propaganda devise in the turbulent domestic conflicts that marred the months of short-lived freedom. The symbols, script and very existence of the Gamla coins reflect the profound ideological reasoning of the Jewish rebels responsible for their production. This was not a local fight instigated by local grievances. Be the exact date of minting what it may, Gutmann was probably correct in what he saw as the fundamental implication of the Gamla coin: that the Jewish rebels were fighting for Gamla, with Jerusalem etched in their minds. 238 YOAV ARBEL notes 1 The use of the word ‘redemption’ rather than ‘freedom’ on coins of the revolt has been discussed by several scholars; see Kanael 1953, Meshorer 1982, Hengel 1989, Goodblatt 2001. 2 The Herodian coins of Tiberias and the ‘Neronias’ coins of Sepphoris were minted with a clear orientation to Roman rule. They cannot be classified as independent political– ideological Jewish symbols. 3 The term ‘Helleno-Roman’ aims to address the nature of the populations of urban centers of that period. Terms such as pagan exclude significant Jewish and Samaritan populations. The term ‘Syrian’ is vague both geographically and culturally. On the other hand, while the multi-ethnic population precludes use of a single characterizing term, the cities incorporated both planning, architecture and artistic motifs that were the outcome of long-term interbreeding between the cultures of Greece, the Hellenistic states and Rome; the Hellenistic-Roman religion was certainly dominant both visually and statistically. 4 This Varus, possibly of a certain degree of royal lineage, is also mentioned in War 2.18.6 [481–483], though there his name is the more locally sounding Noarus, a version that is probably closer to the original. Josephus describes him as an ambitious and rather ruthless official, whose provocation of the Jews should be seen in the context of his own political maneuvers (Mason 2001:52–54, nn. 291, 305). 5 Not to be confused with Chares, one of Gamla’s two rebel commanders, who died during the Roman siege. See Mason 2001:92, n.780. r eferenCes AJC 2: Y. Meshorer. Ancient Jewish Coinage 2: Herod the Great through Bar Cochba. Dix Hills, N.Y. 1982. Avigad N. 1962. A Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley. IEJ 12:1–12. Avigad N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville. Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine: Selected Studies. Jerusalem. Berman A. 1962. A Numismatic Survey at Yodefat. Israel Numismatic Bulletin 2:42–43. Farhi Y. 2003–2006. The Bronze Coins Minted at Gamla Reconsidered. INJ 15:69–76. Goodblatt D.M. 2001. Ancient Zionism? The Zion Coins of the First Revolt and Their Background (International Rennert Guest Lecture Series 8). Ramat Gan. Gutmann S. 1994. Gamla—A City in Rebellion. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Hengel M. 1989. The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. Edinburgh. Kanael B. 1953. The Historical Background of the Coins “Year Four…of the Redemption of Zion.” BASOR 129:18– 20. Kokkinos N. 1998. The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Suppl. S. 30). Sheffield. Mason S. ed. 2001. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary 9: Life of Josephus. Leiden–Boston–Köln. Meshorer Y. 1967. Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period. Tel Aviv. Meshorer Y. 1986. Siege Coins of Judaea. In I.A. Carradice ed. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Numismatics, London, Sept. 1986 (International Association of Professional Numismatists 11) London. Pp. 223–229. Pfann S. 2006. Dated Bronze Coinage of the Sabbatical Years of Release and the First Jewish City Coin. BAIAS 24:101–113. Romanoff P. 1971. Jewish Symbols on Ancient Jewish Coins. New York. Roth C. 1962. The Historical Implications of the Jewish Coinage of the First Revolt. IEJ 12:33–46. Shivtiel Y., Zissu B. and Eshel H. 2009–2010. The Distribution of Coins of the Jewish War against Rome in Galilee and Phoenicia. INJ 17:77–87. Sussman V. 1982. Ornamented Jewish Oil Lamps from the Destruction of the Second Temple through the Bar-Kochba Revolt. Warminster. Syon D. 2004. Tyre and Gamla: A Study in the Monetary Influence of Southern Phoenicia on Galilee and the Golan in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Syon D. and Yavor Z. 2001. Gamla—Old and New. Qadmoniot 121:2–33 (Hebrew). TJC: Y. Meshorer. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba. Jerusalem–Nyack, N.Y. 2001. Yadin Y. 1966. Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand. New York.