Chapter 5: A Hoard of Solidi of Heraclius

D. Ben-Ami, Y. Tchekhanovets, 2020, Jerusalem: Givati Parking Lot II (IAA Reports 66) chapter 5 A HoArd of Solidi of HerAclius GAbrielA bijovsky IntroductIon A hoard of 264 gold coins was discovered buried below the stone collapse in the westernmost room (L1772) of the southern wing of the large Byzantine Building 1821, which was deliberately destroyed by fire in the seventh century (Fig. 5.1; see Chapter 2).1 The position of the coins on the ground indicates that they were originally arranged in rows, and were most likely wrapped in a cloth or in a purse, which was not preserved (Fig. 5.2: see also Figs. 2.45–2.47). The excavators suggest that the coins were stored on a shelf affixed to the northern wall of the room, which had collapsed at the same time the building was destroyed. The hoard not only provides an absolute date for this event, but Fig. 5.1. Location of the hoard in Building 1821; looking north. 1 A coin dated to the fifth century CE was found in the same locus as the hoard (see Chapter 4: Cat. No. 37). 184 GABRIELA BIJOVSKY Fig. 5.2. Hoard in situ. due to its particular characteristics, it constitutes a unique numismatic find in the annals of archaeological excavations in Israel. the hoard All the 264 gold coins in the hoard are solidi of the emperor Heraclius (610–641 CE). The solidus (Greek νόμισμα, nomisma) was introduced by Constantine I in 312 to replace the Roman aureus, and became the basic unit of coinage of the Byzantine empire.2 The coins in the hoard are in mint condition, they are not clipped, and they bear neither graffiti nor any other sign of prolonged use. It seems likely that they were never distributed or dispersed. These coins resemble the first series of Heraclius issued during the years 610–613 CE (Grierson 1959:145, Class Ib; DOC 2/1:245, No. 3). On the obverse of this series, Heraclius is depicted as a young man with a short beard; the legend reads: dNhERÄCLI³S PP ÄVC. The reverse shows a cross on three steps bearing the inscription: VICTORIÄ ÄV£³Δ. The exergue reads: CONOB, the abbreviation of Con(stantinople) ob(riziacus)— “fine gold from Constantinople”. However, while the coins in the Givati hoard all belong to this first series, they are a variant that differs in several features from the prototype (Fig. 5.3). The last letter C of the obverse legend is inclined and is followed by a small dot to its right. A short, curved stroke of dots is visible on the upper left side of the emperor’s crown. The reverse inscription ends with the officina letter Δ, unknown in the original series (Grierson 1959:145), and a tiny star is attached to the exergue inscription: CONOB∗. The obverse inscription of our solidi shows the name AERACLIVS (with an Ä instead of the common ‘h’), which seems to be a 2 The solidus weighs 24 Greek carats, the equivalent of c. 4.55 g of gold per coin. CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS 185 Fig. 5.3. A solidus from the Givati Hoard (right) and its protype (left). misspelling based on Latin phonetics.3 As far as I know, this variant has not been published elsewhere. All the exceptional features described above appear in the same place on every coin of the hoard. A meticulous examination confirmed that all 264 coins in the hoard are identical, that is, they were produced with the same pair of dies. To the best of my knowledge, this phenomenon has no parallel in hoards from the southern Levant or elsewhere.4 We selected 41 coins from the hoard for X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer surface analysis to determine their metal composition.5 The results show a uniform composition deviation, clearly indicating that all the coins were produced from the same load of gold. The mintmark, fabric and style of these coins seem to suggest that this series was issued by the imperial mint of Constantinople. Indeed, the style of the bust die appears standard to this mint and is even better executed than many other official dies of the same general type. Furthermore, Grierson’s Class Ib—to which our issue is related—presents 3 According to Leah Di Segni, the forms Aeraclius and Haeraclius are known only from Latin inscriptions. Following the rules of transliteration of Greek names and words into Latin, ΗΡΑΚΛΙΟΣ would have been spelled HRACLIUS (Di Segni, pers. comm., May 9, 2010). 4 The closest comparison I know of is cited by Hendy (1985:342): the hoard from the Casa delle Vestali in Rome, which contained 397 solidi and included 345 of Anthemius, of which 334 were all struck from the same pair of dies. 5 The metallurgic analysis was performed by Sariel Shalev and Sana Shilstein of the Weitzmann Institute, Reḥovot, using XRF instrument NITON XL3TM 900 Series in the precision metals mode with an 8 mm diameter beam. The coins form a homogeneous compositional group. Gold content (Au) is 97.5% with a standard deviation of 0.25% (minimal value 97.1%, maximal value 97.7%). In other words, the gold contents are practically identical for all the samples. Silver contents (Ag) vary from 1.55% up to 1.77% with a standard deviation of 0.05%; the average concentration of silver is 1.641(7). Copper contents (Cu) vary from 0.33% up to 0.68% with a standard deviation of 0.06%; the average concentration of copper is 0.495(9). The coins also contain lead (Pb, 0.09 ÷ 0.12%) without any other metals. These figures are in accordance with the alloy standard for gold coinage of Constantinople during the mid-sixth–seventh centuries, namely 97–99% for gold and c. 1.46% for silver (Morrisson et al. 1985:122–124, 206). For a more detailed description of the analysis, see Bijovsky 2010. 186 GABRIELA BIJOVSKY a variety of portrait styles indicating that mints other than Constantinople may have been involved in this issue (Grierson 1959:145). Despite the fact that all the coins are of the same variant, are all die-linked (using the standard 6 o’clock die axis) and do not seem to have been in use, 239 coins are below the standard weight of the solidus (4.55 g), ranging between 4.33 g and 4.50 g (Fig. 5.4). Moreover, the lightest solidus in the hoard, which weighs 3.97 g, shows no signs of mutilation or wear, and is only slightly smaller than the rest. Most intriguing is the presence in the hoard of 22 coins that are above the regular standard, three of them by a significant amount: 4.67 g, 4.68 g and 4.69 g, the others ranging between 4.56 g and 4.63 g. This waste of gold is in complete contradiction to any monetary common sense. Who would be interested in striking gold coins that contain more precious metal than required by the standard?6 There are two possible explanations for the deviations in weight frequency at Givati. While the conventional view is that gold coins were always struck al pezzo (each piece to a particular weight), it may be that in certain circumstances they were struck al marco (Hendy 1985:329). In other words, 72 solidi were struck from a pound of gold, with less relevance 12 11 10 9 No. of coins 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 3.9 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Weights Fig. 5.4. Weight frequency of the coins in the hoard. 6 Overweight pieces were noticed by Hahn in a group of solidi and fractions of Justin II, Tiberius II and Maurice Tiberius found in Rafah. He attributed them to the mint of Alexandria and explained the deviations as the result of careless control and low circulation of the heavier specimens (Hahn 2003–2006:105). This comparison strengthens the assumption that such deviations could have taken place far from the metropolitan mint. CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS 187 given to the individual weight of each piece.7 This theory, however, is not in accordance with the strict system of monetary supervision that characterized the Byzantine empire (Hendy 1985:316–368).8 It is hard to believe that the official mint of Constantinople would have tolerated imperial solidi being officially struck without control of an accurate weight standard. A second, more plausible explanation for the deviations in weight is that such an al marco operation took place at a more distant location using an official pair of dies from Constantinople, perhaps an exceptional limited issue, struck under very special and hasty circumstances at a temporary mint. The combination of the unique characteristics mentioned so far: the complete homogeneity due to the fact that all the pieces belong to a single type of solidus of a hitherto unknown variant; the use of the same pair of dies (as evident from the results of the die analysis); the fine mint condition of the coins; the uniform metallurgical composition; and the irregular weight frequency suggesting an al marco minting operation––all indicate that the Givati hoard should be considered a special consignment of gold cash dispatched from its place of production directly to its place of deposition in Jerusalem. According to Hendy, hoards characterized by heavy concentrations of coins struck from the same pair, or from a limited number of dies, or that contain coins from a single officina, “probably tend to have derived at no great distance from bodies of coins dispatched from the mint in purses” (Hendy 1985:342). Consequently, the attribution of the Givati solidus to a temporary mint located in Jerusalem is reasonable. the MInt of JerusaleM A number of scholars have suggested that an imperial mint functioned temporarily in Jerusalem during c. 608–615 CE, producing gold solidi and bronze folles (Hendy 1985:415; Meshorer 1988; Metlich 1994–1999; Bendall 2003). While the attribution of the bronze coins is quite certain, that of the gold is considered doubtful by some (Foss 2008:8). A follis with the mintmark IEPOCOS or IC NIKA was minted during the Persian siege of Jerusalem, between May and October 614 (Bendall 2003:313, Type 1).9 In addition, Bendall also attributes to the Jerusalem mint the issue of a solidus of Phocas dated to 7 This possibility was suggested to me by Bruno Callegher, to whom I am indebted. The production and distribution of coinage was in the hands of the sacrae largitiones, or central finance bureau, which was concerned with revenue and expenditure in coin and precious metals (Kent 1956:198–199). Among other tasks, this department controlled the mints, the gold mines, precious metals, and the state factories of arms. It was also responsible for the collection of a number of taxes in gold from senators, merchants and craftsmen (Kent 1956:194–195), and for the distribution of periodical donatives in gold and silver to the troops (Kent 1956:192–193; Hendy 1985:175–176; Jones 1986:427–437). 8 9 The mint of issue of these bronze coins is widely accepted; there is, however, no full consensus concerning their date. Those who consider that the Persian siege of Jerusalem lasted too short a time for the striking of local coinage, suggest that the date on the coins refers to the fourth indictional year, namely 630/631. If this is the case, then the type probably commemorates the return of the True Cross by Heraclius (for further details, see http://www.acsearch.info/record.html?id=8191). 188 GABRIELA BIJOVSKY 608/609 (Bendall 2003:313, Type 2). He raises the possibility that two additional types of Heraclius solidi with the ending reverse legend IΠ, dated to 610–613 (Bendall 2003: Type 3, Fig. 7) and c. 613–616 respectively (Bendall 2003: Type 4, with Heraclius Constantine), may be connected to Jerusalem or to another temporary eastern mint. During this time (608–615 CE), and especially after the capture of Antioch by the Persians in 611 and until 613, the presence of a Byzantine military garrison in Jerusalem could explain the operation of a temporary mint in order to pay the troops and emphasize Byzantine sovereignty over the city. Some scholars believe it was Bonosus, the new comes Orientis appointed by Phocas in 608 or 609, who established a mint for the use of his army during his visit to Jerusalem (Hendy 1985:415–416; Olster 1993:113; Greatrex and Lieu 2002:187, and n. 49; Bendall 2003:309). Given the fact that Antioch surrendered to the Persians in 610, Emesa and Apamea in 611 and Damascus in 613, Jerusalem remained the only major Byzantine stronghold in the region capable of coin production.10 In 611, Heraclius personally took over command of the eastern front. He combined forces in Syria with his brother Theodore and his nephew Nicetas, but in 613 they were defeated by the Persians. The Byzantine army withdrew from Cappadocia and Cilicia and the emperor returned to Constantinople, while it seems that Nicetas moved toward Palestine. It is likely that Jerusalem served as Nicetas’ headquarters between 611 and 613 (Bendall 2003:311– 312),11 and thus, under these historical circumstances, Jerusalem remains the best candidate for the production of exceptional emergency coinage. In his discussion of the pattern of temporary military mints, Bendall attributes a number of extremely rare solidi showing minor variants from the standard Constantinople type to a few ‘ephemeral’ (military?) mints connected with Heraclius’ campaigns in the East. In his opinion, these coins—usually in excellent condition—resemble official issues in style and their fine epigraphy, but are all of eastern origin, produced by short-lived mints operating in times of instability and warfare. The imperial busts of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine on the earliest of these issues date to the years 613–616 (Bendall 2003:317– 320, Type 4, Figs. 13–16) and therefore postdate our type. In that case, the solidus from Givati should be considered a predecessor of these rare issues. The gold used to strike the coins in the Givati hoard may have come from the reserves taken by an imperial military expedition, as noted in the treatise of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus.12 The single pair of dies was presumably copied from a solidus of the 10 Alexandria fell to the Persians in 619, but the local style is quite different and no solidus dated to 610–613 has so far been attributed to this mint (DOC 2/1:332:186–187). 11 A number of sources attribute to Nicetas the salvaging of the sacred sponge and the spear that pierced Christ’s side, during the fall of Jerusalem in 614 (Greatrex and Lieu 2002:191–192; Bendall 2003:312). 12 The treatise is comprised of three texts dealing with the details of organization of imperial expeditions. It consists mainly of lists of equipment for the imperial baggage-train by a range of imperial officials, military and civilian, and the equipment for the imperial household. Text C clearly specifies cash for the expenses of the expedition, for largesse to officers and soldiers, and sacks of gold coins for other expenditures. The three texts are actually the preface to the first section of the De Ceremoniis of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, dated to the end of the tenth century (Haldon 1990). CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS 189 series dated 610–613 from Constantinople, by an engraver who, based on the misspelling of the obverse inscription, must have been familiar with the Latin version of the name Heraclius. Such a prototype solidus could have reached Jerusalem together with the Byzantine garrison between 610 and 613. All the details that differentiate our new variant from the original series (DOC 2/1:245, No. 3) are additions to the dies and could have been easily inserted: the detail on the crown on the obverse, the officina Δ and the star at the end of the exergue CONOB on the reverse. We believe that these details were purposely intended to distinguish between the new variant and the official issue minted at the same time in Constantinople. the cIrcuMstances of the deposItIon of the hoard As noted above, the coins were not discovered in a container, although the in-situ photographs of the discovery (Fig. 5.2; see also Chapter 2: Figs. 2.45–2.47) clearly show the coins arranged in rows indicating they were originally wrapped in a cloth or purse. It is difficult to determine if the sum of 264 solidi in the hoard was equivalent to any specific amount in pounds of gold or other rate of exchange.13 In total, the hoard weighs 1157.45 g, or 3.57 pounds.14 It could be suggested that the original purse was equal to four pounds (approximately 289 solidi), and that the 25 missing coins were removed before its concealment. Another possibility is that the full amount of coins in the hoard simply represents the total raw material—gold—that was available to strike the coins, and the specific number of solidi (or the total weight of the hoard) is insignificant. The location of the hoard within the large, impressive Building 1821 does not seem to be a random occurrence. Gold coinage, unlike bronze, was not intended for ordinary use, but was designed primarily to fulfill imperial needs such as redistributing revenues by means of ordinary and extraordinary payments of salaries and largesse (for administration and army), and for collecting income through taxation. The presence of such an amount of ‘fresh’ gold coins suggests that this structure fulfilled an administrative function, as such a hoard could not have been the property of a private individual. It was imperial money in the hands of an official authority, intended for public needs. Although it has been said that “…no hoard can ever have within it ideas of why it was buried or why it was never recovered” (Reece 1988:261), the Givati hoard presents several features that tell us quite explicitly the story of its concealment. The uniform date and the character of the hoard reveal that it was an ‘emergency hoard’ concealed at a time of imminent danger, siege or war. Such hoards usually reflect the coinage in circulation at the time of their deposition. 13 In terms of quantity, the closest parallel is a hoard from Parma containing 265 gold coins, mainly solidi, dated to 395–400 CE (LRC:288). 14 Based on a pound equivalent to 324 g. However, using the value of 326 g as suggested by Suchodolski (1981) following his discussion of the Szikáncs hoard, the Givati hoard equaled 3.55 pounds. 190 GABRIELA BIJOVSKY The seventh century in the southern Levant was a period characterized by turbulent events that threatened the stability of the Byzantine empire: the Persian conquest and occupation (c. 610–630) and then the Muslim conquest in c. 640 that definitively changed the course of history of the region. These two events led to a dramatic increase in the number of gold hoards concealed in the region, all of them presenting similar numismatic characteristics in terms of composition, die links and chronology (Noeske 2000:81–83, 89; Bijovsky 2002:180–183, Fig. 11; Foss 2004:13). Specifically, Grierson argues that coins of his Class I of Heraclius, dating from October 610 to January 613, are extremely common due to the high proportion of hoards buried during the Persian and Avar invasions in the early years of Heraclius’ reign (Grierson 1959:142). The homogeneous date of the coins in the Givati hoard establishes a connection between the circumstances of the deposition and the events related to the Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614.15 The fact that no later coin type of Heraclius is included in the hoard emphasizes this chronology. Bearing in mind this historical framework, the possibility that the coins were struck for an intention other than paying military salaries—such as part of a tribute to the Persians—should also be taken into consideration.16 Until the discovery of the Givati hoard, gold-coin finds in Jerusalem dating to the time of the Persian conquest were extremely meager. A hoard of five coins: three tremisses of Maurice Tiberius and two solidi of Phocas, dating to 603–607, were found in excavations at the Citadel (Amiran and Eitan 1970:15; Ariel 1982:316, Nos. 279–283), and a solidus of Phocas, dating to 607–610, sealed the context of a mass bone burial (Tomb 10) in a cemetery in Mamilla, which, according to the excavators, may be the remains of Christians massacred by the Persians in the Pool of Mamilla in 614 (Reich 1993:109; Avni 2010). A few years ago, a hoard containing 36 Constantinian,Valentinian and Byzantine solidi and pieces of jewelry was uncovered in the ‘Ofel excavations in Jerusalem and related by the excavators to the Persian invasion (Mazar 2013). As there seems to be an incongruity between the detailed historical sources describing the Persian conquest of Jerusalem, and the meager archaeological finds from the field (Avni 2010), the Givati hoard sheds new light on seventh-century gold hoards in the region, and also contributes crucial new archaeological evidence from that time. The innovations noted in the coins of the Givati hoard, however, are outstanding, with no known parallels in Byzantine numismatics. In addition, the combination of the numismatic features and the historical circumstances of the deposition of the hoard provides solid evidence for the existence of a temporary mint in Jerusalem that functioned during the first years of Heraclius’ reign. 15 For a concise historical introduction to this period, see Foss 2004. According to a later synaxarion, the hegoumenos of the Saint Sabas Monastery paid 1200 gold pieces (presumably solidi) to ransom twenty men and women (for references, see Greatrex and Lieu 2002:193 and n. 87). 16 191 CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS the catalogue (Table 5.1) The 264 coins are solidi of the same type, variant and date. Thus, the catalogue is ordered according to weight, from the heaviest to the lightest; the description of the obverse and reverse is common for all the coins. table 5.1. catalogue Heraclius, solidus, mint of Jerusalem, c. 611–614 CE Obv.: dNhERÄCLI-³S PP ÄVC• Bust of Heraclius facing, with short beard, wearing cuirass and draped; on head crown with pendilia and central medallion with cross; in right hand cross on globe. Rev.: VICTORIÄ ÄV£³Δ Cross on three steps. In exergue: CONOB* Cat. No. Weight (g) Diam. Axis Notes IAA No. 1 4.69 20 ↓ 2 4.68 20 ↓ Misstruck. Rev. l. margin: VICTO 123872 3 4.67 20 ↓ Misstruck. Obv. l. margin: ERACLI. Rev. l. margin: CO 123987 4 4.63 22 ↓ 5 4.61 20 ↓ Misstruck. Obv. l. margin: CLI. 123820 6 4.6 22 ↓ Rev.: upper step is worn 123780 7 4.6 21 ↓ Obv. l. upper margin: LI 123898 8 4.6 21 ↓ 9 4.6 20 ↓ 123900 123826 123965 Misstruck. Obv.: on chest, PP 123986 10 4.59 21 ↓ 123816 11 4.59 20 ↓ 123837 12 4.59 21 ↓ 13 4.59 20 ↓ 14 4.58 22 ↓ 123990 15 4.57 21 ↓ 123810 123839 Misstruck 123950 Obv. Rev. 192 GABRIELA BIJOVSKY Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No. Weight (g) Diam. Axis Notes IAA No. 16 4.57 21 ↓ Misstruck 123817 17 4.57 20 ↓ Misstruck 123836 18 4.57 21 ↓ 19 4.56 21 ↓ 20 4.56 21 ↓ 123785 21 4.56 20 ↓ 123827 22 4.56 20 ↓ 124014 23 4.55 21 ↓ 123891 24 4.55 21 ↓ 123905 25 4.55 21 ↓ 123945 26 4.54 21 ↓ 27 4.54 22 ↓ 123815 28 4.54 21 ↓ 123842 29 4.53 21 ↓ 123781 28 4.54 21 ↓ 123842 29 4.53 21 ↓ 123781 30 4.53 21 ↓ 123786 31 4.53 21 ↓ 123830 32 4.53 21 ↓ 123840 33 4.53 20 ↓ 123911 34 4.53 22 ↓ 123948 35 4.53 22 ↓ 36 4.53 20 ↓ 37 4.52 21 ↓ 38 4.52 22 ↓ Large flan 123916 39 4.52 21 ↓ Worn margins 123984 40 4.52 20 ↓ 41 4.51 20 ↓ Misstruck. Obv. margin: LI 123808 42 4.51 20 ↓ Misstruck 123874 43 4.51 20 ↓ 44 4.51 21 ↓ 45 4.51 21 ↓ 123971 46 4.51 20 ↓ 123995 47 4.5 20 ↓ 123782 48 4.5 20 ↓ 123835 49 4.5 20 ↓ 50 4.5 21 ↓ 51 4.5 21 ↓ 52 4.5 20 ↓ Misstruck. Rev. in margin: VICT 123915 53 4.5 20 ↓ Misstruck. Worn margins 123955 54 4.49 21 ↓ 123882 Misstruck Misstruck. Obv. margin: CLI. Rev. margin: VI Worn 123783 123799 123998 124030 123791 124007 123949 Worn borders in obv. Misstruck. Obv. upper margin: ACL 123969 123851 123853 123896 123865 Obv. Rev. 193 CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No. Weight (g) Diam. Axis Notes IAA No. 55 4.49 21 ↓ Large flan 56 4.49 21 ↓ 57 4.49 20 ↓ 58 4.49 22 ↓ 123963 59 4.49 21 ↓ 123968 60 4.49 20 ↓ 123973 61 4.49 20 ↓ 124017 62 4.49 20 ↓ 124019 63 4.49 20 ↓ 124031 64 4.48 20×22 ↓ 123802 65 4.48 21 ↓ 123804 66 4.48 20 ↓ 123886 67 4.48 20 ↓ 123887 68 4.48 21 ↓ 123895 69 4.48 21 ↓ 123906 70 4.48 21 ↓ 71 4.48 20 ↓ 123942 72 4.48 20 ↓ 123953 73 4.48 21 ↓ 74 4.48 20 ↓ 75 4.47 22 ↓ 76 4.47 21 ↓ 77 4.47 21 ↓ 78 4.47 20 ↓ 79 4.47 21 ↓ 123892 80 4.47 20 ↓ 123934 81 4.47 21 ↓ 123935 82 4.47 21 ↓ 123979 83 4.47 20 ↓ 124023 84 4.46 21 ↓ 123797 85 4.46 21 ↓ 86 4.46 22 ↓ 123800 87 4.46 20 ↓ 123821 88 4.46 20 ↓ 123889 123927 123932 Worn margins Partially worn Misstruck. Obv.: dN 123960 123939 123966 124027 123806 Misstruck. Obv. margin: CLI 123807 Misstruck 123834 123814 Misstruck. Rev. lower margin: C 123798 Obv. Rev. 194 GABRIELA BIJOVSKY Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No. Weight (g) Diam. Axis Notes IAA No. 89 4.46 20 ↓ Misstruck. Obv. upper margin: CLI 123899 90 4.46 20 ↓ Worn margins 123985 91 4.46 20 ↓ 92 4.45 21 ↓ Misstruck 123774 93 4.45 20 ↓ Misstruck 123823 94 4.45 21×23 ↓ Misstruck 123885 95 4.45 21 ↓ 96 4.45 20 ↓ 98 4.45 20 ↓ 123982 99 4.45 20 ↓ 124006 100 4.45 20 ↓ 124018 97 4.45 20 ↓ 124035 101 4.44 21 ↓ 123809 102 4.44 20 ↓ 103 4.44 20 ↓ 104 4.44 20 ↓ 105 4.44 21 ↓ 106 4.44 21 ↓ 123959 107 4.44 20 ↓ 123983 108 4.44 20 ↓ 109 4.43 20 ↓ 110 4.43 21 ↓ 124020 123909 Misstruck 123961 123833 Misstruck. Rev. lower margin: CONO 123847 123879 Misstruck 123923 124012 Misstruck. Obv. upper l. margin: RACLI 123796 123812 111 4.43 20 ↓ 123890 112 4.43 22 ↓ 123902 113 4.43 22 ↓ 114 4.43 20 ↓ 123925 115 4.43 20 ↓ 124008 116 4.42 21 ↓ 123789 117 4.42 21 ↓ 123813 118 4.42 21 ↓ 123852 119 4.42 20 ↓ 123861 120 4.42 20 ↓ 123904 121 4.42 21 ↓ 123918 Worn margins 123924 122 4.42 20 ↓ Worn margins 123943 123 4.42 20 ↓ Worn margins 123992 124 4.42 20 ↓ 125 4.41 20 ↓ 126 4.41 21 ↓ 127 4.4 21 ↓ 123773 128 4.4 20 ↓ 123870 129 4.4 21 ↓ 130 4.4 21 ↓ 124024 123876 Misstruck. Rev. l. margin: CTO 123958 123933 Misstruck 123937 Obv. Rev. 195 CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No. Weight (g) Diam. Axis Notes IAA No. 131 4.4 20 ↓ 124033 132 4.39 21 ↓ 123857 133 4.39 20 ↓ 134 4.39 20 ↓ 135 4.39 21 ↓ 136 4.39 19 ↓ 137 4.39 20 ↓ Misstruck. Obv. upper r. margin: AVC 123877 123907 123936 Misstruck. Below: CON 123994 124015 138 4.38 22 ↓ 123778 139 4.38 20 ↓ 123831 140 4.38 20 ↓ Misstruck 123878 141 4.38 21 ↓ Misstruck. Lower margin: CONO 123903 142 4.38 20 ↓ 124000 143 4.37 21 ↓ 123828 144 4.37 21 ↓ 123843 145 4.37 21 ↓ 123846 146 4.37 20 ↓ 123875 147 4.37 21 ↓ 123919 148 4.37 20 ↓ 123931 149 4.37 22 ↓ 123989 150 4.37 20 ↓ 124011 151 4.36 21 ↓ 123793 152 4.36 20 ↓ 123858 153 4.36 21 ↓ 123893 154 4.36 20 ↓ 123920 155 4.36 21 ↓ 123938 156 4.36 20 ↓ 123941 157 4.36 20 ↓ 158 4.35 22 ↓ 124010 Worn borders of dots 123790 159 4.35 21 ↓ 123811 160 4.35 21 ↓ 123819 161 4.35 21 ↓ 123838 162 4.35 21 ↓ 163 4.35 21 ↓ 164 4.35 22 ↓ 123854 Worn borders 123888 123894 165 4.35 21 ↓ 123962 166 4.35 20 ↓ 123975 167 4.34 20 ↓ 123844 168 4.34 21 ↓ 123850 Obv. Rev. 196 GABRIELA BIJOVSKY Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No. Weight (g) Diam. Axis 169 170 Notes IAA No. 4.34 20 ↓ 123873 4.34 21 ↓ 123880 171 4.34 20 ↓ 123913 172 4.34 20 ↓ 123930 173 4.34 21 ↓ 123970 174 4.34 20 ↓ 123978 175 4.34 20 ↓ 123997 176 4.34 20 ↓ 124003 177 4.33 22 ↓ 123784 178 4.33 21 ↓ 123803 179 4.33 20 ↓ 123849 180 4.33 20 ↓ 123922 181 4.33 20 ↓ 182 4.33 20 ↓ 123954 183 4.33 20 ↓ 124036 184 4.32 21 ↓ 185 4.32 21 ↓ 123901 186 4.32 20 ↓ 123988 187 4.32 20 ↓ 124029 188 4.31 20 ↓ 123805 189 4.31 21 ↓ 123848 Worn margins Misstruck. Obv. upper margin: PA’ 123952 123855 190 4.31 20 ↓ 123946 191 4.31 20 ↓ 124022 192 4.3 21 ↓ 123801 193 4.3 21 ↓ 194 4.3 20 ↓ 195 4.3 21 ↓ 123947 196 4.3 21 ↓ 123964 197 4.3 20 ↓ 123993 198 4.3 20 ↓ 124013 199 4.3 20 ↓ 124026 200 4.29 20 ↓ 123908 201 4.29 21 ↓ 202 4.29 22 ↓ 123825 Worn margins 123912 123910 Obv. l. margins worn 123940 203 4.29 20 ↓ 124001 204 4.29 20 ↓ 124005 205 4.28 20 ↓ 123795 206 4.28 20 ↓ 123829 207 4.28 20 ↓ 123921 208 4.28 21 ↓ 123929 Obv. Rev. 197 CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No. Weight (g) Diam. Axis Notes IAA No. 209 4.28 20 ↓ 210 4.28 20 ↓ 124034 211 4.27 21 ↓ 123976 212 4.26 20 ↓ 213 4.26 20 ↓ 123866 214 4.26 20 ↓ 123928 215 4.26 20 ↓ 123944 216 4.26 21 ↓ 123956 217 4.26 20 ↓ 124021 218 4.25 20 ↓ 123868 219 4.25 21 ↓ 123967 220 4.25 21 ↓ 123991 221 4.24 20 ↓ 123980 222 4.24 20 ↓ 124004 223 4.23 21 ↓ 224 4.23 21 ↓ 123787 225 4.23 21 ↓ 123788 226 4.23 20 ↓ 123999 227 4.23 20 ↓ 124025 228 4.23 20 ↓ 124032 229 4.22 21 ↓ 230 4.22 21 ↓ 231 4.22 20 ↓ 123860 232 4.21 20 ↓ 123863 233 4.21 20 ↓ 123914 234 4.2 20 ↓ 123818 235 4.2 21 ↓ 123883 236 4.2 20 ↓ 124002 237 4.2 20 ↓ 124016 238 4.19 20 ↓ 123792 239 4.19 20 ↓ 123867 240 4.19 22 ↓ 123957 241 4.19 21 ↓ 123977 242 4.19 20 ↓ 243 4.18 20 ↓ Misstruck. Obv. upper margin: ACLI 123845 244 4.17 20 ↓ Misstruck. Obv. in margin: LI. Rev. in l. margin: VI 123881 245 4.17 20 ↓ 123951 Misstruck. Rev. lower margin: C Misstruck. Rev. lower l. margin: VICTO 123856 123776 123794 Misstruck 123841 123996 123926 Obv. Rev. 198 GABRIELA BIJOVSKY Table 5.1 (cont.) Cat. No. Weight (g) Diam. Axis Notes IAA No. 246 4.17 23 ↓ Worn margins 123972 247 4.17 21 ↓ 123981 248 4.17 20 ↓ 124009 249 4.16 21 ↓ 123777 250 4.16 21 ↓ 123884 251 4.16 20 ↓ 123974 252 4.15 21 ↓ 123779 253 4.15 20 ↓ 123859 254 4.15 20 ↓ 255 4.14 20 ↓ 256 4.13 19 ↓ 123822 257 4.13 20 ↓ 123864 258 4.13 20 ↓ 124028 259 4.12 20 ↓ 260 4.12 20 ↓ 261 4.1 22 ↓ 262 4.1 20 ↓ 263 4.09 22 ↓ 264 3.97 20 ↓ 123862 Misstruck. Obv. margin: RACL Misstruck. Obv. upper margin: CLI. Rev. lower margin: CO 123832 123869 123897 Misstruck. Obv. margin: LI 123824 123871 Worn margins 123917 123775 Obv. Rev. CHAPTER 5: A HOARD OF SOLIDI OF HERACLIUS 199 r eferences Amiran R. and Eitan A. 1970. Excavations in the Courtyard of the Citadel, Jerusalem, 1968–1969 (Preliminary Report). IEJ 20:9–17. Ariel D.T. 1982. A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem (until the End of Byzantine Period). LA 32:273–326. Avni G. 2010. The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem (614 C.E.): An Archaeological Assessment. BASOR 357:35–48. Bendall S. 2003. The Byzantine Coinage of the Mint of Jerusalem. RN 159:307–322. Bijovsky G. 2002. A Hoard of Byzantine Solidi from Bet She’an in the Umayyad Period. RN 158:161–222. Bijovsky G. 2010. A Single Die Solidi Hoard of Heraclius from Jerusalem. In Mélanges Cécile Morrisson (Travaux et Mémoires 16). Paris. Pp. 55–92. DOC 2: P. Grierson. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection 2: Phocas to Theodosius III, 602–717. Washington, D.C. 1968. Foss C. 2004. The Persian Near East (602–630 AD) and Its Coinage. In H. Pottier. Le monnayage de la Syrie sous l’occupation perse (610–630) (Cahiers Ernest-Babelon 9). Paris. Pp. 7–18. Foss C. 2008. Arab-Byzantine Coins: An Introduction, with a Catalogue of the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection Publications 12). Washington, D.C. Greatrex G. and Lieu S.N.C. 2002. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars II: AD 363– 630. A Narrative Sourcebook. London–New York. Grierson P. 1959. Solidi of Phocas and Heraclius: The Chronological Framework. NC 19 (6th series):131–154. Hahn W. 2003–2006. Byzantine Gold Coins of Tiberius II and Maurice (578–602) of Uncertain Mint Attribution in the Light of Palestinian Hoard Evidence. INJ 15:97–106. Haldon J.F. 1990. Constantine Porphyrogenitus: Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae XXVIII). Vienna. Hendy M.F. 1985. Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300–1450. Cambridge. Jones A.H.M. 1986. The Later Roman Empire 284–602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey. Oxford (First edition 1964). Kent J.P.C. 1956. Gold Coinage in the Later Roman Empire. In R.A.G. Carson and C.H.V. Sutherland eds. Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly. Oxford. Pp. 190–204. LRC: P. Grierson and M. Mays. Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and the Whittemore Collection: From Arcadius and Honorius to the Accession of Anastasius. Washington, D.C. 1992. Mazar E. 2013. The Discovery of the Menorah Treasure at the Foot of the Temple Mount: In Honor of the State of Israel, that Chose the Seven-Branched Menorah as its National Symbol. Jerusalem. Meshorer Y. 1988. Byzantine Coins from Jerusalem. In D. Jacoby and Y. Tsafrir eds. Jews, Samaritans and Christians in Byzantine Palestine. Jerusalem. Pp. 24–26 (Hebrew). Metlich M.A. 1994–1999. Another Heraclius Follis from Jerusalem. INJ 13:118. 200 GABRIELA BIJOVSKY Morrisson C., Brenot C., Callu J.-P., Barrandon J.-N., Poirier J. and Halleux R. 1985. L’or monnayé I: Purification et altérations de Rome à Byzance (Cahiers Ernest-Babelon 2). Paris. Noeske H.-C. 2000. Münzfunde aus Ägypten 1: Die Münzfunde des ägyptischen Pilgerzentrums Abu Mina und die Vergleichsfunde aus den Dioecesen Aegyptus und Oriens vom 4.–8. Jh. n. Chr.: Prolegomenza zu einer Geschichte des spätrömischen Münzumlaufs in Ägypten und Syrien (Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 12). Berlin. Olster D.M. 1993. The Politics of Usurpation in the Seventh Century: Rhetoric and Revolution in Byzantium. Amsterdam. Reece R. 1988. Interpreting Roman Hoards. World Archaeology 20/2:261–269. Reich R. 1993. The Cemetery in the Mamilla Area of Jerusalem. Qadmoniot 103–104:103–109 (Hebrew). Suchodolski S. 1981. Encore le poids de la livre romaine: Reconstruction du poids de l’unité pondérale d’après les monnaies. In C. Carcassone and T. Hackens eds. Statistique et Numismatique (Table ronde organisée par le Centre de mathématique sociale de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales de Paris et le Séminaire de numismatique Marcel Hoc de l’Université catholique de Louvain, Paris, 17–19 sept. 1979) (Pact 5). Strasbourg. Pp. 122–130.