Herod Antipas is perhaps the most frequently recalled member of the Herodian dynasty. He is constantly evoked in Christian teaching, and comes to life in opera houses whenever the opera Salome reenacts the dance of his stepdaughter and the execution of John the Baptist (Mark 6:22–25). The tale of Antipas’ reluctant cruelty may seem far removed from a sober study of his coinage, but it is precisely because Antipas was ruler of Galilee during the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth that his coins are so prized by numismatists today.
In this monograph Aaron J. Kogon and Jean-Philippe Fontanille present the first book-length study of the coinage of Herod Antipas. At its heart is a die study of 788 specimens struck from 81 obverse and 222 reverse dies. Although all of Antipas’ 21 coin types have been known since 2006, when David Hendin published a previously unsuspected prutah, the close attention of Kogon and Fontanille has yielded new and interesting discoveries. The die study revealed that there are more dies with the issuer’s name than without it. In other words, the name of Herod the Tetrarch appears on the reverse of the coins, just as the issuing authority is normally named on the reverse of most Greek coins, but contrary to the presentation of Antipas’ coinage in the works of Yaʿakov Meshorer. Despite the superior quality of the die engraving of the coins struck at Tiberias, individual specimens almost never display all the features of the type. Fontanille’s technique of superposition of images and reconstitution of the original dies allows for a full appreciation of the artistry of these coins. Remarkably, Fontanille also uncovered new details of the largest denomination of year 37: a star above the name of Tiberias on the obverse, and a small double cornucopia flanking the stem of the palm branch on the reverse.
Antipas’ aniconism receives a nuanced discussion emphasizing the difficulty of knowing the actual beliefs of most Jews of the Herodian era. Although the authors are skeptical that coin types provoked strong negative reactions, they nevertheless conclude that Antipas’ choices showed respect for the sensibilities of his subjects, who probably included a significant number of religious Jews. The iconographic analyses of the types—almost all drawn from plant life—weave together botanical science, artistic comparanda from other media, and information about the economic and/or symbolic importance of each plant or plant part in the life of ancient Galilee.
The regnal dates on each of Antipas’ six coin issues allow for precise dating within the limits of our understanding of how regnal years were counted, a problem nicely elucidated in the chapter on chronology. Of these six issues, only two can be explained in terms of an historical event. The second issue, of regnal year 24, has long been associated with Antipas’ foundation of the city of Tiberias. Kogon and Fontanille demonstrate that this event should be dated between 19 and 20/1 CE. The sixth issue, honoring Caligula, represents an attempt to curry favor with the Roman emperor in the context of rivalry with Herod Agrippa I and is critical for dating the deposition of Antipas. The authors examine the controversial idea that Antipas’ third issue was a response to a coin issue of the Roman governor of Judea but reserve judgment, favoring the assumption that Antipas struck his coinage to fund particular projects.
Kogon and Fontanille’s metrological study confirms that Antipas’ four bronze denominations are related in the ratio 1:2:4:8. The weights do not conform to those of the Roman quadrans, semis, as, and dupondius, as was hypothesized by Meshorer. Nevertheless, the authors suggest that an equivalence to Roman coin denominations was likely from the perspective of a regional economy.
Another original contribution of the book is a comprehensive survey of the circulation of Antipas’ coinage based on a dossier of 181 coins from excavations. The results of this investigation are necessarily hedged about with caveats concerning selection bias, but it appears that Antipas’ coins usually stayed within the borders of his tetrarchy. Unsurprisingly, the finds are concentrated in Lower Galilee, the most urbanized part of the tetrarchy. Antipas’ coins also crossed the Sea of Galilee into Gaulanitis where they are actually better represented than the coins of Antipas’ half-brother Philip, tetrarch of Gaulanitis.
Even after the scholarly content of this work has been absorbed and digested, the practical utility of the die study will remain vital. Collector interest in the coins of Antipas has made them especially subject to forgery and tooling. The die study can help to detect dishonest coins. Comparison with the reconstituted original dies will expose coins that have been altered by tooling, and conversely good die matches may rehabilitate suspect coins.
Catharine Lorber