The transformation of the Jewish coinage during the First Jewish War against Rome was singular in its quest of advancing the quality and appeal of the Jewish coinage. It was a testament to the strength and firmness of the revolution and was to underline the credibility of the new government. Coin dies, especially for the higher value issues were cut with a high level of precision and as a rule were not used in consecutive years. Though propaganda value was undoubtedly important, it was not subservient to the qualitative objectives of the mint.

The same cannot be said for the coinage of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Here, messaging was the mint’s primary aim. Motif changes are, and should be, carefully studied, but are often still not understood. The process of coin production was secondary. Hence, there was a falloff in quality and also in the methodology of production. The pressures of the war, the revolt of a non-existent state and probable lack of a substantial war chest, played in role in how Shimon Bar Kokhba’s mints would operate.

Hence dies were not easily discarded. When a die was still useful it could be coupled with a die from a subsequent year and even of a different coin design. Still and all, these ‘hybrid’ coins are relatively rare, the norm being, that coins of each year were struck with their own particular dies.

We find three types of hybrids for the coins of Bar Kokhba.

1. The rarest – A dated obverse and a dated reverse of different years are paired. (Fig. 1)
2. An undated die combined with a dated die in a previous year is later paired with a dated die of the subsequent year. (Fig. 2)
3. Neither die is dated, but the individual dies are known through die links (or historical evidence) to have been used in different years. (Fig 3)

Fig. 1 

    Fig. 3      Fig. 2 (same reverse die)

Hendin (Guide to Biblical Coins – 5^th ed., 2021, pp. 350 – 351) introduces a 4^th type of Hybrid, where the die links do not specifically match up with different years, but where the design type was otherwise utilized in a particular year. (Fig. 4) It is not clear though, that these are actually hybrids.

Fig. 4

Yaakov Meshorer (Treasury of Jewish Coins, 2001, pp. 153) generally agrees with Hendin, stating “All of the denarii bearing the name of Eleazar the priest are hybrids”. In discussing the hybrid denarii of the second year, he explains, “were struck only because their dies from the first year had been preserved, and no new dies bearing his name were made later on”. But then he immediately qualifies that assertion, stating, “perhaps with the exception of a single one from the beginning of the second year….on which said inscription begins at the bottom right, has not yet been found on a denarii struck in the first year.”

It would appear that Meshorer’s statement that no new dies of the original format were made after the first year is speculative, as Mildenberg lists five new Eleazar dies, with the majority of them not sharing an obverse year one die at all. In fact, Mildenberg simply attributes them as year two coins; though to be fair, he does not categorize hybrid coins at all.

Turning to the bronze, we find hybrids for the medium and small denominations. In all cases, the design of one die is changed by shortening the inscription, if only by a bit. According to the Mildenberg tables, it is the obverse that is shortened on the small denomination. Both the obverse and reverse are shortened on the medium denominations. The medium denominations were struck as two types, the palm branch in wreath / lyre, and the vine leaf / palm tree.

Of particular note is this die set of the bronze medium denomination (Fig. 5.) Meshorer mentions it in his catalog (TJC, pp. 250 #257) as a hybrid. However, the larger numismatic community which can usually be counted on to point out hybrids (as they are likely to fetch higher values on the market), has neglected to mention that this die is a hybrid. In fact, it is the only known die pair for the vine leaf / palm tree bronze to be a hybrid, pairing a year two obverse with a reverse already used with a year one die. This reverse was produced later in year one, substituting the lengthy “Simon Prince of Israel” inscription for the simple three letters S M A, abbreviating the name of Simon. Sometime during year two another change was made, when a decision was taken to expand the abbreviation to the full five letter name of Shimon. This also demonstrates that the minters were not averse to making design changes mid-year.

 Fig. 5

This coin thus establishes that the S M A design was likely created at the end of year one. Although there is precedent in the silver coinage for a coin to carry two dates as a hybrid (Fig. 1), this peculiarity exists for only two die sets (utilizing the same reverse) whose coins were struck in limited numbers. In our case, it is unlikely that they continued using year one obverse dies in year two, especially since this was a mass issue and a plethora of year two dies were produced. It is more logical that the decision to shorten the legend of these coins was taken sometime during year one, at which point the new dies were produced. A year one die was then paired with this reverse and struck.

Similarly with the denarii we find the newly debuted three letter S M A legend coupled with the Eleazar reverse which was introduced in year one. Indeed, the first instance of this S M A die (Mild. O3) was a pairing with a definite year one Eleazar die (Mild. O1), and so although not dated on either side, may also have been produced at the end of year one. The subsequent die sets of the S M A / Eleazar issues, should also be reconsidered, as they may have been entirely produced at the end of year one or the beginning of year two, and may not be hybrids at all. We note that none of the subsequent Eleazar reverses (after Mild. O1) were ever paired with a dated year one die, suggesting that these later coins may not have been hybrids and were engraved and struck entirely at the beginning of year two. As mentioned above, Meshorer states in regard to another Eleazer die not linked to year one (TJC pp. 153) “…one can perhaps conclude from this that if Eleazar was indeed dismissed from his office, this occurred at the start of the second year”.

To enlarge hit Ctrl and the "+" key.

Most browsers will remember your preference for the next time. This works on most websites.

Some of the most popular coins of ancient Judaea and the surrounding areas are those of King Agrippa I. His numismatic issues are suitable for all collectors - from the most common $30 - $40 average prutah depicting three grains and the royal umbrella, to very rare portrait coins which in high grade can easily climb into the five figures.

Agrippa I was the grandson of Herod, by his son Aristobulus. He lived from 11/10 B.C.E. until 44 C.E. and died suddenly under suspicious circumstances (probably poisoning). Agrippa ruled from 37 to 44 C.E.. His original areas of dominion were the Northern territories of Antipas, given to him by Caligula. Eventually emperor Claudius  also bequeathed the province of Judaea to him. Agrippa had proved his loyalty to both Roman Emperors, by enduring imprisonment because of his support for the former emperor, and by advocating and helping bring about the reign of the latter.

In many ways Agrippa was a far better politician and people-person than his famous grandfather Herod the Great. He was unstintingly loyal to Rome as a client king. Yet, at the same time his policies promoted the well being of Judea and he was well loved by its people. The ancient Jewish writings (Mishna & Talmud) generally portray him in a very positive light.

Though, Josephus depicts him as possibly flamboyant, irresponsible and adventurous, if true, his reign proves otherwise. We see a king who took his responsibilities seriously, as he did his religion, and as one who grew and matured into a capable and respected leader. Numismatically, he maintained the Jewish tradition striking coins devoid of graven images on the issue (royal umbrella/grain stalks prutah) struck in Jerusalem. However, since Agrippa did rule over territories largely inhabited by gentiles, other coins more reflective of typical Roman provincial coinage were struck there. Those coins are much rarer, but often bear portraits of Agrippa himself. In one way however, these coins differ from typical Roman coinage. Instead of stressing the local cult or local gods, they bear motifs related to the Imperial family, the king's own family or his relationship with Rome.

A midrash [Vayikra Raba 3:5&91; (Circa. 5th Century collection of Jewish stories and teachings) which wishes to teach us the value of the charity given by the poor, also casts light on the character of King Agrippa. 

Here goes the story:

King Agrippas wished to offer up a thousand burnt offerings in one day.

He sent to tell the High Priest: ‘Let no man other than myself offer sacrifices today!’

There came a poor man with two turtle-doves in his hand, and he said to the High Priest: ‘Sacrifice these.’

Said he: ‘The king commanded me, saying, "Let no man other than myself offer sacrifices this day."’

Said he: ‘My lord the High Priest, I catch four [doves&91; every day; two I offer up, and with the other two I sustain myself. If you do not offer them up, you cut off my means of sustenance.’

The priest took them and offered them up.

In a dream it was revealed to Agrippas: ‘The sacrifice of a poor man preceded yours.’

So he sent to the High Priest, saying: ‘Did I not command you thus: "Let no one but me offer sacrifices this day"?

‘Said [the High Priest&91; to him: ‘Your Majesty, a poor man came with two turtle-doves in his hand,

and said to me: "I catch four birds every day; I sacrifice two, and from the other two I support myself. If you will not offer them up you will cut off my means of sustenance." Should I not have offered them up?’

Said [King Agrippas&91; to him: ‘You were right in doing as you did.’

While we do not have a direct portrait coin, coins struck by the Persian empire during that period certainly do exist. The most common archaic Persian coin is the Persian Siglos. A gold coin of the same size and similar design, but heavier, is called the Daric. The daric is mentioned in the Bible as the coin "Darkemon."

The Persian Siglos was minted in Lydia a province of Persian, while the governmental seat of the vast Persian empire was in the east. For the most part these Lydian, Persian coins did not circulate in a significant way in the east or in Shushan the capital of Persia (in spite of the claims of some entrepreneurial coin dealers), though they did circulate in the Western Persian Empire. Trade in Shushan for the most part would have taken place with precious metals or through barter. Still the Lydian, Persian coins paid homage to the great King at Shushan, and the Siglos, which was struck (in slightly varying varieties) over a period of 200 years did bear an image of a Persian King going forth in battle. The king though, is generic in form, and does not depict any specific ruler. All the coin designs were similar but they did change somewhat as time went on. Thus the initial issue is thought to depict/represent Darius I while later issues would represent Xerxes (Achashveirosh) and other later kings.

In a sense, even without the royal portrait, these coins were ahead of their time, in that they depicted the king altogether. For the most part, in the early stage of coinage (7th - 5th centuries) only dieties and national symbols were featured on coins. Conversely, although the incuse punch was a feature of early coinage that was largely abandoned by the 4th Century, the Siglos was consistently minted until its final days with the simple reverse of an incuse punch. Thus, while virtually all cultures were already striking sophisticated two sided coins, the Lydians persistently stuck to the one sided coins of the "Great King".

As far as depictions of other officials: There were actually many coins struck within the Persian empire, mainly Cilicia, that did strike coins of secondary rulers, usually satraps (even Judaea did!) But, it is difficult to pinpoint who a particular non-godlike figure on a coin was meant to be, and the issues we do know of (i.e. Mazaios, Balakros etc.), do not point to Mordechai. So while it is possible that some coin depicts the Viceroy Mordechai, it is impossible to say so with certainty.

Nevertheless, for those building a growing coin collection, the coins of Persia, Caria, Cilicia.... provide an intriguing series of coinage for collecting and study and are tied to the Bible as well.

Coinage as currency was not invented until the 7th Century B.C.E. For centuries and millenia trade generally conducted using a barter system. The barter system was based on the value of goods vis-a-vis the materials they were exchanged for. During this early period precious metals were also exchanged as a commodity, based on weight. Coins in essence were a sophisticated way of assigning a predetermined value to precious metals, so that their weights and value would be standardized,negating the necessity of weighing.

It is for this reason that the earliest of coinages were produced of precious metals ONLY. Even the first bronze coinages which represented low monetary values employed massive coins or hunks of metal. The concept of fiduciary coinage, whereby a small almost valueless piece of metal could be assigned a worth based on a governments or minting authorities say so, had not yet arrived.

As trade in currency spread, a need for smaller denominations came about. Since there was not yet fiduciary coinage, how could small change be made? After all trading was done with true metal value. The answer is that it was literally made very, very small. According to the Talmud an obol had a value of 32 prutot, based on the value of its silver content. A quarter obol (usually about 6mm in diameter and weight of about 1/8th gram!) was thus worth only 8 prutot. INDEED the coins were tiny, but they HAD to be, in order to maintain the correct value.

Of course this currency system was not practical and it did not last longer (in Judaea) than about one and a half centuries until the early 3rd Century B.C.E. when bronze coinages started gaining currency (pun intended). During that earlier time, shoppers sure had to be careful, ESPECIALLY if they had big hands.

Answer: This is a very good question but a very broad question. Since it is quite worthy of an answer I shall attempt to do so. I do want to emphasize though, that my reply is subjective and my opinion only.

You probably already realize that all Bar Kochba coins were struck over previously minted coins. Silver and bronze underwent different methods of preparation. To remove the existing motifs and inscriptions the silver was hammered down and also hammered on the rims whereas the bronze, not being of precious metal, was filed down.

Collectors generally look for different features on these coins and their value is propelled by both fascination and rarity.

When looking at the Bar Kochba silver coins (Sela and Zuz), because they were only hammered, most coins will show at least slight remains of the understrike (e.g. the coin that the Bar Kockba mint overstruck). Being that this is typically the case, sharpness and eye appeal will be the key determinants of value for these coins.

The rarer types in the silver are the ones that are complete; that is, they have full legends and motifs, and do not show any remnants of the understrike at all. These coins will fetch a high premium. The other type which commands a premium with collectors, is where the understrike can be clearly identified. Enough will remain of either the portrait or the legend or both, to allow for identification of the coin. In very rare cases I have been able to accurately identify the exact type, even as far as the date the understrike was minted. Identifiable understrikes will command somewhat of a premium, but how much of a premium will be controlled by two factors.

1. How rare is the underlying emperor? Thus a Nerva understrike will command a considerable premium over a Trajan understrike (the most common).

2. How clear is the portrait or the legend? The more that can be seen the better. Of course, if much of the portrait or legend is visible, but most of the Bar Kochba addition to the coin is obliterated, this too can lower coin value. Eye appeal always matters.

Another thing to consider is whether the coins are dated. Undated coins are far more common and a coin with a date should command a premium of about ten percent. The great majority of dated coins are of year two (133/134 C.E.) If the date is year one, you are holding a VERY valuable treasure and each coin would need serious evaluation of its merits and flaws. Coins that have hybrid dies (a combination of year one and year two) can also be quite valuable.

One must also be cognizant of unusual types. For instance the most common reverses on the silver zuz are the juglet and palm branch, large palm branch, and the lyre. Other types or variations are rare and will cost substantially more. You can read books, peruse coin catalogs and view the coins at coins shows to get an idea of what is common and what is unusual.

Unlike the silver issues which were hammered, the bronze issues were filed down. This was due to the fact that the bronze metal unlike the silver was not precious and there was little concern about a minor loss of metal. Oftentimes the original file marks can still be seen on the coins. Because the bronze coins were filed, the understrike is rarely seen. Sometimes minor evidence of overstriking can be seen, but only very infrequently can one accurately attribute the underlying type.

There are coins with varying degrees of rarity, from the large Abu Jara to the common palm tree / grape vine type. Crude varieties are also much more common with the Bar Kochba bronze especially for the latter type.

David Hendin's "Guide to Biblical Coins" is a good place to start to learn about Bar Kochba coinage. Advanced collectors will want to own "The Coinage of the Bar Kochba War" by Leo Mildenberg which is a die by die study. The book is out of print but still availble at various booksellers. Hendin's book provides values which are based on Fine and Very Fine grades for the bronze coins. One must bear in mind that these are for typical specimens in this grade and were also current only at the time the book was compiled and published. Coins with full inscriptions, perfect centering and striking appearance can fetch several multiples of the listed prices, while coins that are off center and have surface problems may fetch far less. In general a good rule of thumb is to buy the highest quality specimen you can afford rather than multiples of poor quality coins. That is, unless you are collecting by type and do not plan to sell them.

One final note: There have been many high quality forgeries produced over the last few years of Bar Kochba coins, so it is important to buy from reliable sources. Should you be tempted to pick up a "bargain", make sure that the seller accepts returns and keep all receipts should the coin turn out to be not right.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.