This paper examines the circulation of Ptolemaic silver in the closed monetary zone of Seleucid Coele Syria and Phoenicia. No new silver coinage entered the zone under Antiochus III and Seleucus IV, though hoards were deposited in the Transjordan and eastern Judah in the early years of Antiochus IV. Trade between Phoenicia and Egypt is excluded as an explanatory factor, but the patterns are consistent with Josephus’ account of the dowry of Cleopatra I and Tobiad tax farming. In the 160s BCE fresh Ptolemaic silver began to enter the closed monetary zone, with the earliest finds in Judah, Samaria, and “southern Palestine.” This new influx, like the didrachms “of an uncertain era,” may represent a subsidy from Ptolemy VI to the Maccabees and other dissidents from Seleucid rule.

Alongside a critique of a new analysis of Josephus’ long account of Antiochus VII Sidetes’ siege of Jerusalem in his Antiquities, this paper presents new archaeological support for the conclusion that, at the time of the siege, the “First Wall” enclosed the Southwestern Hill of the city. Further examination of the stratigraphic summaries of the Hellenistic fortification system at the Giv‘ati Parking Lot proposes that the system constituted part of the western city-wall for the City of David hill. The addition of a lower glacis to the wall was made in advance of Sidetes’ siege. In other words, in addition to the “First Wall” protecting the western side of an expanded Jerusalem, John Hyrcanus also reinforced the City of David’s wall, as an additional barrier to the Seleucid forces. Later, after the high priest’s capitulation to Sidetes (132 BC) and the king’s death in Media (129 BC), Hyrcanus again reinforced the same fortification with an upper glacis, which never was tested. 

Despite Josephus’ detailed description of Herod’s palace built on the Southwestern Hill of Jerusalem in Bellum Judaicum, book 5, only scant archaeological remains from its substructure were revealed so far, and only few scholars have attempted reconstructing its plan and decoration. A group of monumental Ionic columns, alongside a sculpted head of a lion, found in the Southwestern Hill in the vicinity of the supposed location of the palace, seems to have originated from the palace complex, attesting to its grandeur and unique character. Combining this evidence with Josephus’ description and our vast knowledge of Herod’s palatial architecture, based on excavated palace remains in other sites, such as Jericho, Herodium, Masada, Caesarea Maritima and Machaerus, allows us to present a clearer picture of the main palace of this great builder. 

This article examines the motifs on the coins struck in Judaea under the auspices of local Roman governors (prefects and procurators) between the dismissal of the ethnarch, Herod Archelaus, in 6 CE and the eve of the First Jewish Revolt which broke out in 66 CE. Although the governors were only designated by the title procurator from the mid-first century onwards, this series of coins is conventionally referred to as “procuratorial.” All are bronzes minted in Jerusalem in a single denomination, generally identified as the prutah, and bear aniconic motifs. Because they carry year dates, we know that these coins were issued fairly sporadically and the possible reasons for this are reviewed. The coin types are analysed and their respective origins and meanings identified. An attempt is made to assess the extent to which their motifs support the picture presented in the literary sources of the changing political climate in both in Judaea and Rome over the period in which these coins were minted. 

The monumental burial complex known as the “Tombs of the Kings” is regarded by scholars as the burial plot of Queen Helena of Adiabene and her family, who lived in Jerusalem in the firstcentury CE. In this paper we reconsider the original purpose of the two large ritual baths in the burial compound, based on the location of the site relative to its surroundings. The scholarship assumes that ritual baths situated next to tombs were intended for use by participants in funerals or memorial ceremonies. In this paper we suggest that in the case of the Tombs of the Kings, the adjacent baths were meant for purificationof pilgrims en route to Jerusalem, as can be understood from their geographical location.

This paper suggests to locate the training ground (campus) of the legio X Fretensis in the shallow valley north of the Damascus Gate, perhaps where once the siege camp of Titus was built. Topographically it is the most level ground around Jerusalem, hence fitting for a campus. Furthermore, the area was devoid of structures between 70 CE and the 4th century, except for two monuments erected by legionary forces and dedicated to the emperors: one monument definitely dedicated to Hadrian (upon his visit) and the other either to Hadrian or less likely to Antoninus Pius. Positioning the campus in this area neatly explains why it was empty for centuries and why the cemetery of Aelia Capitolina was pushed north of the line of the “Third Wall”.

From numismatic findings and recent excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem it emerges that the preparatory work on Aelia Capitolina started at the very beginning of Hadrian’ reign, most probably in the 120s, more than a decade before the Bar Kokhba war. The question then arises as how it happened that Eusebius mentions the founding of this colony as a consequence of the war. The answer lies both in the source he depends upon, possibly Ariston of Pella, and also in Eusebius’ own conception of Jewish history.

The colonia Aelia Capitolina, founded by Hadrian instead of Jerusalem, was certainly established only after summer 130, as a letter of the emperor to Hierapolis shows, which was written at this time in Jerusalem. One can conjecture who was settled in the colonia at that time, but concrete evidence is hardly to be found in the epigraphic tradition. The territory of the colonia might have been quite large, but cannot be determined in detail. The Roman character of the new city is most evident in the inscriptions, the vast majority of which are written in Latin. The name Aelia is still used for the city well into the Christian era.

This note examines again the overall significance of Jerusalem within the Bar Kokhba revolt. It does so firstly by suggesting a better way to read our texts: Cassius Dio (69.12.1–4) wrote in a partially thematic way, and Eusebius (HE 4.6.1–4) merged several sources together, so that there is no real difference between the two texts in terms of the sequence of the revolt and the establishment of the colony Aelia Capitolina. Secondly, the examination of other sources, different types of evidence and several traditions, may suggest that the Roman reconstruction works in the city did not finish before the revolt, but in fact were halted by it, even without assuming that the rebels actually controlled Jerusalem.

In the third year of his fight against Rome (134/135 CE), Bar Kokhba minted coins with the slogan “leḥerut Yerushalayim: For the freedom of Jerusalem”. In this paper, I argue that what was meant by this expression was not the geographic place but a powerful idea: the worship center of the Jewish identity. Jerusalem as a slogan seems to be a metonymy for the temple, and the temple was the link between God and the Jews. By proclaiming the necessity to liberate Jerusalem, Bar Kokhba actually tried to regroup all the Jews under his banner, exploiting the theocratic ideals and the eschatological hopes of the time. However, the documents found in the desert reveal that this propagandist expectancy was not universally shared by his own troops. For the political needs of the leader, “Jerusalem” was probably the best slogan possible, but it appears to have meant little in real life, even perhaps in the eyes of Bar Kokhba himself. 

The article is dedicated to a Byzantine—Early Islamic ring decorated with a representation of the Resurrection scene, recently discovered in salvage excavations in Jerusalem, at the Givati Parking Lot site. Well-dated stratified context of the find, first of its kind discovered in archaeological excavationns, enables to confirm the traditional dating of similar rings kept in the museums’ collections and to discuss their possible function in early Christian pilgrimage practice.