StephenGoranson wrote:The purpose of my Jan 9 note was to pass along information: reason to question whether some coins reported as if from Qumran were actually not from Qumran.
OK. The citation of the following craftily had me thinking otherwise. "...the latest date is 118 of the Tyrene era, that is, 9/8 BCE. The hoard, in three
different pots, must have been hidden between then and 1 BCE/1 CE."
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
StephenGoranson wrote:The 2009 book cited by spin ("New Perspectives on the Roman Coinage....") proposed that the Qumran silver hoard might have been deposited as late as the third century.
This proposal contradicts the findings of de Vaux, Seyrig, and Spijkerman. The proposal also contradicts the findings of Robert Donceel. (These four knew how to recognize Roman coins.)
Personally, I'm not too interested in or committed to his third century dating, though it makes reasonable sense if you feel like reading it. My interest is in the availability of denarii in Palestine earlier in the first century. In another paper Lonnqvist concludes "The inspection of the Syro-Palestinian hoarding evidence from the first century B.C. to the first century A.D. is also unequivocal in showing that no Roman denarii appear in any of the hoards [in Judea and the Decapolis] prior to the 60s A.D." ["The Date of Introduction of Denarii to Roman Judaea and the Decapolis Region", ARAM, 23 (2011) 307-318]
Roger, the hoard I referred to was the three vessels with silver coins found at Qumran, with the latest dated coin from 9/8 BCE. I replied that a publication that claimed the hoard included much later coins was unreliable. For example, coins of Trajan, with an image of Trajan and the name of Trajan on them would not have escaped the notice of de Vaux and Seyrig and Spijkerman and Donceel. Evidently Qumran coins were mixed up with other (non-Qumran) coins in Amman and then misreported.
The somewhat later 'Isfiye (Mt. Carmel) hoard may be interesting to compare, as these could be--perhaps withheld--temple payments.
Roger Pearse wrote:How many hoards are we discussing? Of what dates?
As explained there were three small vessels found at Qumran. They were found in the same general location (room 120 in the western building at Qumran). They contained 223, 185 & 151 coins and the coin selection was homogeneous across all three vessels. However, two "pots" were buried to the right on entering room 120 (entry is from the south), the third against the north wall of the room and de Vaux discovered the third two days after the others. If they were all part of the same hoard, it is strange that they were not all buried together. The third was held in a vessel different from the other two: de Vaux calls it a "juglet" and notes that its neck was too small to receive the coins so a hole was made in its side. The consistency of the coins suggests that all coins were buried at approximately the same time, but the location of burial difference of containers suggest two separate deposits. Kenneth Lonnqvist has identified a Roman countermark on one of the Tyrian tetradrachmas which supplies a starting point for considering the date of the deposit, 52/53 CE.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Caution might be worth suggesting when it comes to K. L.'s interpretation of Qumran coins and Qumran archaeology, spinian recommendation notwithstanding. Does any numismatist or archaeologist agree with either one?
There is no recommendation involved in citing a scholar's published analysis. If you have criticism regarding that published analysis I'd like to hear it.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
This discussion ("The Coins of Herod: A Modern Analysis and Die Classification", edited by Donald Tzvi Ariel, Jean-Philippe Fontanille, Brill, 2011, p.35) looks interesting:
spin wrote:There is no recommendation involved in citing a scholar's published analysis. If you have criticism regarding that published analysis I'd like to hear it.
There is certainly recommendation involved in citing a single scholar only. Do you have evidence that he represents the consensus of scholarship?
Roger Pearse wrote:Thank you both. Of course a single scholar's opinion is nothing; we want the consensus.
There is no matter of opinion. Either the coins in locus 120 at Qumran were buried in the same context or they weren't. They weren't. That fact needs explanation. And either the relevant Tyrian tetradrachm has a Roman countermark dating to 52/53 CE or it doesn't. Lonnqvist having seen the coin says it does. You can go to Amman and verify it or prove him wrong. Not opinions.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
