Hullabaloo over Coins from Qumran

[DCHindley]

Below is an extract from Catherine M Murphy, 'Numismatic Evidence' (sec 6.3 of Wealth in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Qumran Community, vol 40 of Studies of the texts of the Desert of Judah, 2002).

There are very serious differences between De Vaux's counts and those of others. It seems as many as 200 coins have simply "disappeared" and others (those damn imperial denarii) seem to just as mysteriously appear.

I have to wonder whether some of the "added" coins weren't there all along but ignored by De Vaux. The way he arbitrarily mixed coins in the three hoard jars and then just as arbitrarily reconstructed them to distribute to different museums, does not instill me with confidence.

https://books.google.com/books?id=fUPIG ... ds&f=false

[305] ...

Section 6.3 Numismatic Evidence

De Vaux recovered 1,234 coins from the Qumran site.50 Just under half of these comprised a hoard of silver tetradrachmas and didrachmas of Seleucid and autonomous Tyrian issue, with some silver Roman denarii, buried in three small pots under the floor of L120. A complete inventory of the coin hoard has never been published, but data from partial inventories prepared by Marcia Sharabani and Aida S. Arif are included in Table 12, “Coin issues re- covered from the Qumran plateau.”51 The remaining 673 pieces were mostly bronze coins ranging from the Seleucid period to the Second Jewish Revolt. De Vaux’s field notes indicate the condition, reign (if legible), and locus of each coin, although only minimal indications of the stratigraphic context are provided. These designations were adjusted by the time de Vaux delivered his Schweich lectures in 1959, although he revised coin counts for only some of the issues, leaving it unclear which coins had actually been redesignated.

[306]

Table 12.

Coin issues recovered from the Qumran plateau

Regnal Yrs.	Ruler	Denomination	No. Coins [A]	[No. Coins B]
223-187 B.C.E.	Antiochus III		1	{4}
175-164	Antiochus IV		0	[3]
162-150	Demetrius I all in coin hoard			33†
145-139	Demetrius II		1†	1†
139/8-129	Antiochus VII		5 (4†)	7? (6†)
137/6-126/5	Demetrius II-Antiochus VII all in coin hoard	Tetradrachmas		14†
137/6-126/5	Demetrius II-Antiochus VII all in coin hoard	Didrachmas		22†
223-129	Seleucid		2	1
135-104	John Hyrcanus I		10	1
104-103	Judas Aristobulus		1	1
103-76	Alexander Jannaeus		153	164
76-67	Salome Alexandra and Hyrcanus II		0	1
67, 63-40	Hyrcanus II		4	6
85/4-41	Roman denarii all in coin hoard			6†
40-37	Antigonus Mattathias		6	4
134-37	[Hasmonean]		5	0
37-4	Herod the Great		16	11
126-9/8	Tyre in excavation	Tetradrachmas	1†	1†
126-9/8	Tyre in excavation	Didrachmas		2†
126-9/8	Tyre in coin hoard	Tetradrachmas		102
126-9/8	Tyre in coin hoard	“mostly Tyrian Tetradrachmas”	[561†]	[336†]
126-9/8	Tyre in coin hoard	Didrachmas		48†
4 B CE. - 6 C.E.	Herod Archelaus		15	17
9 B.CE. - 4 C.E	Aretas IV		2
6-14 C.E.	Prefects under Augustus		10
14-37	Prefects under Tiberias		49
37-41	Prefects under Caligula		0
41-44	Agrippa I		84	81
44-54	Procurators under Claudius		8
54-68	Procurators under Nero		40	33
62-63	Antioch		1	2*(1†)
Jun-68	Procuratorial coins		5	60
1-100	Nabatean		2	4
66	Jewish Revolt, Year 1		0
67	Jewish Revolt, Year 2		34	85
[307]
68	Jewish Revolt, Year 3		2	5
66-?	Jewish Revolt. Year ?		59	6
Post-68 date or context	[Various]		38	{51}
?	[Illegible, lost or unknown]		119	{153}
?	Subtotal from Excavation		673	704
?	Subtotal from Hoard		561	561
	[Grand] Total		1,234	1,265

† Silver coins
* one coin found in Period III context

Table 12 includes two sets of coin counts. The numbers to the left [A] derive from de Vaux’s original designations for the excavation coins in his field notes. The numbers to the right reflect de Vaux’s redesignations of the excavation coins, the more precise identifications of some of the hoard coins by Sharabani and Arif, and the addition of thirty-one coins in subsequent decades by R. R. Williams (one bronze of Antiochus IV discovered in the compound), Auguste Spijkerman (twenty undesignated coins added to de Vaux’s list), and Eshel and Broshi (two of Alexander Jannaeus, one Herod the Great, two silver Tyrian tetradrachmas, two Agrippa I, one procuratorial coin, and two Jewish Revolt, Year Two, all excavated near the compound and dating to Periods lb—II).52 The subtotals in braces (e.g., {51}) can only be estimates because complete inventories of these issues have not been published.

Comments anyone? Is this the status quo? Why?

DCH (back to work)

[StephenGoranson]

No one else commented, so I'll try, though the subject is difficult, by cause of a lack (so far, but reportedly in preparation) of a reliable final report of the de Vaux Qumran dig. (Adding other post-1956 digs adds complexity.) Maybe publication of Henri Seyrig's list will help and the final report (including more pottery) will help. Maybe D. Mizzi's dissertation may help, if published.

Maybe W. Fields, DSS: A Full History v2 fc (though it focuses on scrolls more than archaeology--yet did propose *two* separate "cave one" caves) might help.


C. Murphy's list is not bad, given the resources available. But no publication so far (to my knowledge) has used all available information and remains. (More coins reportedly in Jerusalem; some publications lack Dr. Aida S. Arif, A Treasury of Classical and Islamic Coins: The Collection of Amman Museum, London, 1986; coins seen only by casts in Amman, etc.).


Some things are agreed. The silver hoard (or three silver hoards, if you prefer) totals 561 items. It might be possible to reconstruct, in part or whole. By the way, some of the scattering may have been out of the hands of de Vaux (d. 1971); Amman and Jerusalem may have made claims or received delivery (e.g. from museum displays). People and Golb-ian sockpuppets might note that in Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls on page 10 Golb wrote, "Since no coins of the reign of Herod the Great (40-4 BC) were found in the excavation..." But De Vaux did find coins of Herod the Great, and reported this plainly, for instance on pages 22-23 of Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Later digs found Herod coins, also.) Maybe read him before criticizing?


The Donceels in Methods of Investigation of the DSS... [full titles usually at Orion DSS Center bibliography online] (1994) 4-6 provide more information on coins and the noticed (already before Donceels) intrusive Trajan coins and proposed observation of damage by fire.


Jerzy Ciecielag in Qumran Chronicle 15.3-4 (2007) 175-82 made some approving remarks on some K. Lönnqvist publications (and no doubt K.L. knows many things about coins, mints, and dies--I disputed only (1) his silver hoard deposit proposal and (2) his and Minna L.'s proposal, following Cippora Klein [despite a published geological reply I supplied them, IIRC] that Qumran and marl caves were underwater for part of the 1st c. BCE) but writes of the ballyhooed (and intrustive?) countermarked coin (p. 180): "Unfortunately its photography does not allow its precise evaluation." Having seen it, I agree (already before I read this). And J.C. strongly questions the much later hoard deposit proposal. NB, K. Lönnqvist, Report of the Amman Lots... (2007) p. 2: "...all future suggestions and remarks to improve the information are warmly welcome."

Finally, since I tried to pass along some info on a difficult subject, I note that C. Murphy's book (pages 402-3) agrees with me and J.C. VanderKam and others that "Essenes" goes back, through various Greek spellings to a Hebrew self-designation attested in some Qumran mss, as described in my chapter now online (search by title if interested):

"Others and Intra-Jewish Polemic as Reflected in Qumran Texts" The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment v. 2 (Leiden, 1999) 534-51.

[StephenGoranson]

Also, reportedly 50 silver coins that had been on museum exhibit in the US were returned, and were eventually relocated. As Donceel noted, with those and the H. Seyrig list, the hoard might be reconstructed (in the final report?) and intrusions excluded. Further, the Qumran coins reportedly had been allotted *by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan* to museums in Jerusalem and Amman. As of the Six Day War, Amman had some of the coins, some mss, at least one scroll jar and at least one inkwell, and 3Q15, the Copper Scroll, etc.

[StephenGoranson]

Apparently, there was a misunderstanding of R. Donceel's Revue Biblique comment (in French; quoted in gospels and coins thread) on the hoard coins in K. Lönnqvist, Report of the Amman Lots... (2007) p. 10, where is it mistakenly referred to as : "...these coins were removed....It remains unclear what these 'removals' may in addition [to Trajan coins] may have consisted of...."
The 1992 New York conference, published 1994, pages 3-7 in English is (again) also clear that intrusive coins could--in future!--be removed.
Plainly Henri Seyrig (and many others) could recognise a coin of Trajan when he saw one. (The refinements probably involved Hasmonean and city coins, and maybe mints, rather than recognizing a Roman ruler and bust and name coin.)
The intrusion was noted as early as 1989, Donceel reports.
J. Ciecielag op. cit. page 181 responding to K. L.'s suggestion of silver hoard deposit during "the Parthian expedition here A.D. 215-217)" [note 36 ref to KL p. 33] "If so, why Qumran?....we deal here with an _ex silentio_ argument, which means low credibility. Even worse seems to be the issue of the fact that if the treasure was hidden by a Roman soldier....or someone else, it is difficult to comprehend why he had chosen the ruins of Qumran in particular...it had been deserted already under Domitian (the eighties of the 1st century AD) and nothing is known of Qumran playing any kind of role, be it military or civil one....."

[StephenGoranson]

Lönnqvist op. cit. page 10, On Donceel on intrusive coins: "After consultation with H. Seyrig, these coins were removed from the main accounting of the hoards of Qumran." But Henri Seyrig died in 1973, and Donceel did not become involved with the Qumran publication project until 1986 or 1987.

[StephenGoranson]

If the above observations are valid, it then follows that the Wikipedia Qumran article coin section was largely unreliable for several years. Lately someone has brought it a bit closer to reality, for example by citing a 2010 article in Dead Sea Discoveries that finds Lönnqvist claims on the Qumran silver coins unreliable. I tried to fix it several years ago, but someone kept replacing the unreliable claims (based, in part, on a misreading of Donceel). Now the article editing is limited to only some editors because of mideast political issues.

[Secret Alias]

These arguments all sound like things you guys made against Morton Smith. This idea that 'unscrupulous scholars' are always responsible for results that conflict or support conclusions which offend your inherited presuppositions says more about you than any of the evidence you've raised so far against Smith or Lönnqvist. It's actually quite disgusting. So you're going around 'waging battles' on Wikipedia? Whom do you suppose is opposing you? The Devil? Is Satan working through these people to bring down your faith? I really have never understood the underlying rationale for why Lönnqvist would be doing these sorts of things you're alleging. Is he in partnership with your adversary on Wikipedia? Who's next in this plot?

[DCHindley]

Stephen & SA,

Sorry to let this go for so long before responding.

The Qumran coin situation, while it may improve with publications of forthcoming reports etc., still comes across as poor documentation across the board. Especially in the early period, but alternately/also in the modern period. It is no wonder that Lönnqvist could not put together anything approaching a definitive list.

Whether one wants to pin the blame on de Vaux's purported sins of omission or the Jordanians' equally purported sins of inclusion, the situation seems rather confused as though we have alternate POV playing a Herculean game of "tug of war" with the archaeological evidence standing in as the rope. There are just too many parties, all supposed to be professionals, who are willing to grease the "enemy's" side of the evidence rope.

I think that something similar had happened with the "Jesus Family" tomb ossuary inscriptions and the "Caiphas" ossuary, where mysterious nails used to scratch the inscriptions on the chalk ossuaries were said to be present in-situ but lost or missing in reality. The cavalier attitude towards this kind of sloppy archaeology by some of the excavators when it is pointed out was actually unnerving.

The message comes across, at least to me, as "These matters (nails, late Roman era coins, etc) are so unimportant to our presuppositions that we have secretly cleaned up the evidence to remove 'outliers' and 'red herrings' in order to make it easier for casual readers who hold to our shared presuppositions to accept without feeling any pesky mental dissonance over it, the edifying results of our excavations."

Amen.

DCH <this is me, being "edified">

[StephenGoranson]

"Presuppositions"? Augustus Spijkerman and Henri Seyrig--two of the best experts alive--were invited by de Vaux to examine coins including silver coins hoarded at Qumran. These three (and others) agreed that the latest hoarded coin date was 9/8 BCE. Robert Donceel, who was not too shy to disagree with de Vaux, informed in French and English that there were non-Qumran coins mixed in the Amman museum. K. L. photographed some Amman silver coins and published in 2007 (misunderstanding Donceel) and 2009. Though the photos as published are not of superior quality, they suffice to show that, say, a disputed/intrustive coin of Trajan was quite well preserved, and would be an obvious identification to any coin expert. Ya'acov Meshorer, great numismatist, differed with de Vaux on, say, the date of destruction of Qumran, but wrote ("The Coins from Qumran," Israel Numismatic Journal 15 [2006] pages 20-21) "....This information leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the three jugs of Tyrian shekels were buried around 8 BCE, during King Herod's reign." Marcia Sharabani, who published Qumran coins at the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem (Revue Biblique [1980] page 275): "We can only say that the _terminus post quem_ of this hoard is the year 9/8 BCE." E.-M. Laperrousaz, an archaeologist at Qumran the season the hoard coins were found, often disagreed with de Vaux, but agreed (Qoumran, 1976, page 152) about the hoard date. J.T. Milik and F. M. Cross, Qumran diggers both, disagreed with de Vaux on a separate matter of dating, but their books--Dix ans de découvertes dans le désert de Juda (1957 p.66 n.2)/Ten years of discovery in the wilderness of Judea (1959 p. 102 n. 1) and Ancient Library of Qumran (1958 p. 44 n.15), respectively--agreed with de Vaux about the hoard date. Last but not least, in addition to those publications consulted before (Donald Ariel, Aida Sulayman Arif, J. Ciecielag, C. Murphy...) Bruno Callegher, "Note su Augustus Spijkerman numismatico (1920-1973)," Liber Annuus, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 64 (2014) pages 615-647 demonstrates that K. L. got some Qumran coin history wrong.

[DCHindley]

Stephen,

I do not mean to put off a response, but I feel that you are taking my suggestion that scholars often let their presuppositions lead their criticism relatively unchecked, as only applying to de Vaux. I think it also goes the other way, as I have noted apparent inconsistencies in the statements of Lönnqvist, who seems to inhabit the opposite side of the spectrum from yourself.

That being said, you stated that we should assume that Spijkerman and Seyrig should be taken as witnesses that no coins of Trajan were present, how can we know for sure that such coin(s) were not recovered, but de Vaux so convinced himself that they simply could not have been from the period of occupation of the site, that even did not even *show* them any such coins, if even present.

When you approvingly cite the authorities who suppose that the Trajan coins now among the hoard in Amman, Jordan, are intrusive, isn't that the same as suggesting that the Amman museum staff were careless in their handling of this evidence, which implies they were - well - influenced by their Muslim prejudices against anything related to Judaism?

We'll have a much better idea when the inventory of Seyrig is published, if ever. All that we know of it is completely anecdotal (rumor based). IMHO, the reason his inventory has never been published (admittedly posthumously), despite scores of numismatists capable - and presumably willing - to do so, is because it is incomplete, or the information contained would create more questions than it answers. In either case, it will likely never be published.

DCH