446 Jewish Shekels and Other Coins of Ancient Judea. 



people of Jerusalem, who liad torn down and destroyed a golden 

 eagle which he had placed over the chief entrance to the temple ; 

 the introduction of such a form being considered idolatrous, and 

 opposed to the ancient principles of Jewish law. My explana- 

 tion of that type would be, that as on the coinage of the Asmo- 

 nean or Maccabasan line of princes the types of the anchor and 

 the cornucopias (which were symbols belonging to the Syrian 

 princes of the Selucidaean dynasty) were adopted to express a 

 friendly alliance with the sovereign of Syria; so the eagle 

 (the emblem of Roman power) was used as a monetary type by 

 Herod, the Idumean usurper, to denote his close alliance with 

 Rome, without which he would have been unable to sustain his 

 usurpation of the right of the legitimate princes of the Asmo- 

 nean line. The same correspondent asks if I can explain the 

 tripod type on the coins of Herod. I presume he alludes to 

 the one engraved below. It is a burning altar, and is sup- 

 posed to have reference 

 to the re-consecration 

 of the Temple after its 

 splendid restoration in 

 the fifteenth year of his 

 reign. This view is 

 not borne out by the 

 date, year 3, though the 

 coins appear to be of that epoch. 



I may observe here that the two sons of Herod, Archelaus 

 and Antipas, preserved the name of their father Herod ; and 

 Antipas, who was denied the title of king by the Roman 

 Senate (or, more strictly speaking, the Roman emperor), but 

 received the title and powers of Ethnarch of Judgea — placed 

 no other name upon his coins than that of Herod, represented 

 by the initial letters of the name in Greek, as HPX2, and his 

 title of Ethnarch abbreviated as E©N. 



It should be stated, as a learned French numismatist has 

 observed, " Que le dernier mot n'as pas ete dit sur la numis- 

 matique Judaique." Indeed, the question is far from settled. 

 M. Lenormant, M. Longperier, M. Vogue, and many others, 

 are for removing most of the coins formerly attributed to the 

 first, second, third, and fourth years of the Maccaboean dynasty, 

 to an earlier period; Avhile Dr. Levy and others have since de- 

 clared for reinstating them. The question at issue is by no 

 means decided. " The last word has not yet been said." It 

 is at all events sufficiently clear that coins bearing the impress 

 of workmanship of evidently distinct epochs of art, cannot be 

 classed together as belonging to one historical period. In the 

 mean time, I have endeavoured to give such a general view of 

 the subject, from its earliest treatment by modern numismatists, 



