THE COINS OF DOR. 



The issuing of coins at Dor' does not seem to have begun until 

 after the "liberation"" of the city by Pompey in 64-63 B. C. It 

 is from this date that the city dates its era\ That the attril)ution 

 to Dor of a coin issued by Trypho (who was imprisoned there 139-8 

 B. C) was erroneous, has been demonstrated by Babelon*. On the 

 basis of a duplicate of this coin and a more careful reading, lie has 

 shown that it should be read LA' A2K, instead of AfiP.IE.K.A/. 



The form of the ethnic on the coins is either AfiPITON or 

 AfiPEITfiN'; one coin, owing to a dittography, has AOFIFITON. 

 The other forms of the name which have been recorded are the 

 result of errors of reading or of transcription^ Under Trajan, 

 Hadrian and Antoninus Pius we find the title AOPtroiv lEPa ACYAos 

 AYTONojuos NAYAPXIC or merely AOPA IEPA^ With these high- 



' Hill, Cafg. of Greek Coins of Phoenicia, pp. LXXIV flf., 113-117 : Babe- 

 Ion, Les Perses Achemenides, pp. CLXIXf., 205-7 ; de Saulcy, Terre Sainte, 

 pp. 142-148 ; Head, Historia Nuviorum, p. 792. 



'^ Josephus, Ant. XIV, 4:4; B.J. I. 7:7; seep. 74 above. 



^ Hill, p. LXXIV ; Head, p. 792 : Babelon, p. CLXX ; Ideler, Handbuch 

 der Chronologie, I, p. 459 ; de Saulcy, pp. 143 f., 405 ; Eckhel, Doctr. Num. 

 Vet. Ill, pp. 362 ff.; Schiir., G.J.V. II, p. 140. Kubitschek (Archdologisch- 

 epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Osterreich-Ungarn, XIII, 1890, p. 209) places 

 the era between 63 and 59 B. C, and denies that Dor dated from Pompey. 

 In his article " Aera " in Pauly-Wissowa's Real-Enz. I, p. 649 f., however, 

 Kubitschek is undecided as to the date. — On the basis of a doubtful read- 

 ing, de Saulcy (p. 144) supposes that a single coin of Vespasian is dated 

 according to the ei'a of Gabinius. But in this he works on the mistaken 

 presumption that Gabinius restored Dor (see above, p. 76). In like manner 

 Kubitschek (Archdologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Osterreich- 

 Ungarn, XIII, 1890, p. 209) and Hill (p. LXXV) have failed to perceive that 

 Adora in Idumea is the city meant in the passages Jos., A7it. XIV, 5:3; 

 B.J. I, 8:4. 



•» Rois de Syrie (1890), pp. CXXXIX f., 137. 



^ The L before the date has usually been supposed to be an Egyptian 

 character. It is more probably a fragmentar}^ and specialized form of the 

 E of ET0T2, (see Head, p. LXXXVII). 



6 Hill, Z. c. 



' These are, of course, equivalent forms. 



8 Babelon, Les Perses Achem., p. CLXX ; Hill, p. LXXV. 



« Hill, I. c. ; Head, p. 792. 



