‘Atiqot 87, 2016
Late PtoLemaic assembLages of metaL artifacts and
bronze coins recovered off the coast of ‘atLit
ehud gaLiLi, danny syon, geraLd finkieLsztejn,
varda sussman and guy d. stiebeL1
The artifacts discussed in this article were
recovered from the Mediterranean coast, in
the northern bay of ‘Atlit (34º 56’ E, 32º 42.5’
N), which is 10 km south of Haifa (Figs. 1,
2).2 They were found between 50 and 300 m
offshore, scattered on the sea bottom at depths
of 1–9 m, above a dark clay matrix (paleo-soil)
that ills a trough located between a submerged
sandstone ridge and the shore (Fig. 3). The clay
and archaeological material are usually covered
by a 1–2 m thick layer of quartz sand, but
occasionally, waves and sea currents remove
the sand layer and expose the artifacts.
Underwater excavations and surveys in
‘Atlit’s North Bay have revealed numerous relics
of shipwrecks, cargoes, anchors and harbor
‘Akko
Mediterranean
Sea
Shiqmona
Haifa
Coast
the site
H
. Qastra
Carmel
Tel Kones
Cyprus
Arados
Paphos
Mediterranean
Sea
allim
N. G
‘Atlit North
Bay site
N. Megadim
N.
Tripoli
Beirut
Tyre
en
Or
Mount Carmel
‘Atlit
Gamla
N. Me‘arot
‘Atlit
Ashqelon
Apollonia
Maresha
Masada
Alexandria
0
300
km
0
Tel Dor
Fig. 1. Map of the eastern Mediterranean showing
the location of ‘Atlit and other sites mentioned in
this article.
5
km
Fig. 2. Location map showing the Carmel coast of
Israel.
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
rid
g
e
2
kur
kar
N. Oren
Su
bm
erg
ed
7
4
5
0
1
6
3
2
250
m
Fig. 3. Location of Hellenistic assemblages in ‘Atlit North Bay
(satellite photo from Google Earth).
installations, as well as submerged prehistoric
settlements, which existed in a period when sea
level was lower than today (Galili and Sharvit
1999b). These archaeological remains attest to
extensive maritime and coastal activity over
the last nine millennia. The earliest evidence
for open-sea navigation is provided by an Early
Bronze Age pottery vessel containing freshwater mollusks from the Nile River (Sharvit
et al. 2002). During the Middle Bronze Age,
around 4000 years ago, sea level reached its
present elevation, forming the morphology
of today’s coastline, with the two bays and
the headland between them. From the Middle
Bronze Age onward, the ‘Atlit North Bay
seems to have been almost continuously in use,
offering shelter for sea-going vessels and local
ishermen.
shiPwreck assembLages from the
heLLenistic Period
Among the shipwreck relics found in the North
Bay are numerous artifacts from the Hellenistic
period, which may be assigned to seven
assemblages according to their location, their
discovery circumstances and the nature of the
inds (Fig. 3).
Assemblage 1
During the late 1970s and 1980s, a cluster of
bronze artifacts was discovered in the North
Bay (Fig. 3:1; Raban 1992; Galili and Sharvit
1999b:99*, Fig. 196:13). The inds were
located in the general area where the bronze
coins of Assemblage 2 were later discovered
(Fig. 3:2). Raban suggested that all the artifacts
belonged to an assemblage from an Assyrianperiod shipwreck; Merhav (1996), on the other
hand, placed some of these inds in the late
Hellenistic period, on the basis of parallels
from that period. It seems that these artifacts
may be divided into two different assemblages:
one Assyrian, including an Assyrian-style
chair leg, duck-shaped weights and a bronze
handle in the shape of a lioness, and the other
Hellenistic, including a bronze furniture leg in
the shape of a goat’s leg, two inely designed
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
and decorated bronze handles of large vessels
and a horse bridle.
Assemblage 2
The artifacts were discovered at a depth of 3–5
m (Fig. 3:2) in the course of several separate
surveys during 1984–1985 (Galili and Sharvit
1999b: Fig. 196:15). The assemblage contains
bronze coins (Fig. 5), square lead scale weights
(Fig. 7:4, 5) and some additional metal objects.
Assemblage 3
Also during 1984–1985, a bronze horse bit (Fig.
12) was found at a depth of 7 m, some 170 m
northwest of Assemblage 2 (Fig. 3:3; Haifa
University Underwater Survey, unpublished
diving reports D180, D181, D213, D232, D233
and D235). Several folded rectangular lead
ishing sinkers were recovered near the horse bit.
Assemblage 4
During 1997–1999, additional Hellenisticperiod artifacts were recovered at a depth of
9 m, c. 250 m west–northwest of Assemblages
3
1 and 2 (Fig. 3:4; IAA unpublished diving
reports 13/99/5, 29/98/7, 30/97/46). These
indings consisted of four square lead weights
(Fig. 7:1, 2, 3, 6), two of which are decorated,
ifteen “pyramid”-shaped lead artifacts (Fig. 8)
and a decorated bronze oil lamp (Fig. 11).
Assemblage 5
Approximately 100 m southwest of Assemblage
2 and some 120 m offshore, a second-century
BCE bronze battering ram, with no associated
hull in the vicinity, was found at a depth of
3.5 m (Fig. 3:5; Galili and Sharvit 1999b: Fig.
196:29). When discovered, the remains of the
ship’s prow were still inserted in the ram and
a meter long wooden beam protruded from
it (Fig. 4). Fifteen ishing sinkers in the form
of tubes, two ring-shaped ishing sinkers (or
brailing rings) cast of lead, and three raw glass
chunks were found near the ram. The ram was
widely described and discussed in a volume
dedicated to that artifact alone, as well as in
additional publications (Casson and Steffy 1991;
Galili and Sharvit 1999b; Oron 2006).
Fig. 4. The ‘Atlit battering ram being hauled from the sea, with the elongated
wooden prow beam still attached.
4
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
Assemblage 6
Found 30–50 m northeast of the ram (Fig. 3:6;
Galili and Sharvit 1999b: Fig. 196:14; Haifa
University Underwater Survey, unpublished
diving report D 178), this assemblage consists
of a circular basalt millstone with remains of
iron and lead attachments, and a lead sling shot
(Fig. 13) bearing a thunderbolt motif.
Assemblage 7
This assemblage was found approximately
400 m northeast of the hoard of bronze coins,
some 100 m offshore, at a depth of 4–6 m (Fig.
3:7; Galili and Sharvit 1999b: Fig. 196:16).
Among the artifacts were several Ptolemaic
silver and bronze coins in a very poor state
of preservation, a lead measuring cup with
a handle, bronze handles of containers and
a rim fragment of a bronze vessel. Artifacts
associated with ship gear included four
elongated lead bars having a trapezoidal cross
section, possibly core castings of wooden
anchors or steering oars (Friedman, Galili and
Sharvit 2002), as well as a bronze tooth from
the end of a wooden anchor arm.
This article presents the Hellenistic-period
objects that constitute Assemblages 1–6,
including coins, weights and other objects,
mostly of metal. They are described together
in view of the possibility that several or all
of them may come from the same wreckage
event.
the Late PtoLemaic coins
Altogether, 81 coins were recovered from
Assemblage 2, all but one of them being bronze.
Three are completely unidentiiable and the
remaining 78 are all Late Ptolemaic (see below,
Catalogue of the Coins). The coins are in a very
poor state of preservation, due to damage from
corrosion and possibly also from wear. A silver
tetradrachm of Ptolemy VIII (145–116 BCE)
from the mint of Salamis, Cyprus (Fig. 5:78),
and a large, 27 mm Ptolemaic bronze coin,
its surviving details too worn to enable full
identiication (Coin No. 77; not illustrated),3
might in fact derive from Assemblage 7, rather
than the hoard discussed here.
It appears as though all the remaining 76
coins do, in fact, originate from the same ship.
When found, most of them were separate,
but there were a few groups of two or three
coins joined together by concretion. This may
indicate that when lost at sea, the coins were
kept together in a pocket or a purse made of
organic material (leather or linen), which
gradually disintegrated. The coins are all small
and bronze, and have a beveled edge. They can
be separated into two groups.
Group 1
This group consists of 67 coins (Nos. 1–67; Fig.
5:1, 6, 21). A central cavity (hole-centering)
is evident on 24 of them, and all are struck
on lans that were strip-cast, many showing
prominent lugs on opposing ends. The diameter
of the coins in this group ranges between 14
and 18 mm, and as seen in Fig. 6 (see below),
the majority falls within the 16–17 mm range.
The weight range is 1.81–6.20 g. On 19 coins,
the axis is upright; on the others, it cannot be
determined. Most are 2–3 mm thick.
Obverse: The grotesque head of Zeus-Ammon
can be discerned on ten coins, while on a further
ten, traces of the head can be observed.
Reverse: Two eagles facing left can be seen
on 25 coins. On ive other coins it cannot be
determined for certain whether there are one
or two eagles. The eagles have a long, snakelike neck. The inscriptions, if there were any,
have been obliterated on all coins. On one coin
(Fig. 5:1) and possibly on three others, a small
cornucopia can be seen in the left ield.
On only seven coins (Nos. 1–7; Fig. 5:1, 6)
can both the head of Zeus-Ammon and the two
eagles be clearly seen. However, based on the
overall range of dimensions, it can be reasonably
argued that all coins of this group are, in fact,
of the same type: Head of Zeus-Ammon r./two
eagles l.; hole-centering, beveled edge, and
ixed dies. The small cornucopia in the left ield
may or may not be common to all.
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
Group 2
This group consists of nine coins (Nos. 68–76;
Fig. 5:68). All have a central cavity, and stripcasting lugs are evident in only one instance
(Coin No. 72). The diameter range of the
group is 17–18 mm (ive coins and four coins
respectively), and the weight range is 3.29–5.48
g. The coins of this group are thin (1.0–1.5 mm)
and show signs of wear.
Obverse: On three coins, a normal head of Zeus
can be seen and on two further coins, traces of
a head.
Reverse: On six coins, two eagles can clearly
be made out. The inscription cannot be read on
any of the coins.
Both the obverse and reverse type can be
clearly seen on only one coin of this group
(Coin No. 70). However, once again, the
measurement statistics suggest that all nine
coins are of the same type: Head of Zeus/two
eagles l.; hole-centering.
7. IAA 102832. 0, 4.48 g, 16 mm.
8. IAA 102822. 0, 4.30 g, 17 mm.
9. IAA 102840. 0, 4.23 g, 16 mm.
10. IAA 102834. 1, 4.31 g, 16 mm. Central
cavity.
11, 12. As No. 4, with details of reverse mostly
obliterated.
11. IAA 102830. 0, 3.72 g, 16 mm.
12. IAA 102827. 3.22 g, 16 mm. Central cavity.
13–30. As No. 4, with details of obverse mostly
obliterated.
13. IAA 102818. 0, 6.20 g, 18 mm.
14. IAA 102837. 0, 4.33 g, 16 mm.
15. IAA 102820. 0, 4.84 g, 17 mm. Central
cavity.
1
cataLogue of the coins (Fig. 5)
All coins, except No. 78 are bronze. An asterisk
after the catalogue number indicates that the
coin is illustrated in Fig. 5. Not all coins were
assigned IAA registration numbers.
6
Group 1
Thick coins, beveled edge, strip-cast lans.
Grotesque head of Zeus-Ammon.
21
1–3. Obv. Head of Zeus-Ammon r.
Rev. Two eagles l. In ield l. cornucopia.
1.* IAA 102819. 0, 4.63 g, 16 mm. Small
cornucopia in left ield. Central cavity.
2. IAA 102824. 0, 4.72 g, 16 mm. Traces of
cornucopia. Central cavity.
3. IAA 102829. 0, 5.43 g, 17 mm. Traces of
cornucopia.
4–10. As No. 1, mint mark, if any, illegible.
4. IAA 102839. 0, 4.15 g, 16 mm. Central
cavity.
5. IAA 102836. 0, 3.47 g, 16 mm.
6.* IAA 102821. 0, 4.16 g, 16 mm.
5
68
78
0
1
Fig. 5. Coins from the hoard.
6
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
16. IAA 102817. 0, 4.41 g, 17 mm.
17. IAA 102838. 0, 3.25 g, 16 mm.
18. IAA 102828. 0, 4.45 g, 17 mm.
19. IAA 102833. 0, 4.67 g, 16 mm.
20. IAA 102825. 4.20 g, 16 mm. Central cavity.
21.* IAA 102816. 4.25 g, 17 mm.
22. IAA 102835. 2.90 g, 15 mm. Central cavity.
23. IAA 102823. 4.51 g, 16 mm.
24. IAA 102831. 0, 3.17 g, 17 mm. Central
cavity.
25. IAA 102807. 4.33 g, 17 mm.
26. IAA 102808. 2.39 g, 17 mm.
27. IAA 102841. 2.59 g, 16 mm.
28. IAA 102826. 5.64 g, 17 mm.
29. 4.37 g, 16 mm.
30. 3.68 g, 16 mm.
31–67. No details visible.
31. 3.29 g, 17 mm. Central cavity.
32. 5.19 g, 16 mm. Central cavity.
33. 5.00 g, 18 mm.
34. 2.92 g, 16 mm.
35. 2.40 g, 15 mm.
36. 5.88 g, 17 mm. Central cavity.
37. 4.22 g, 16 mm.
38. 1.81 g, 14 mm.
39. 4.10 g, 15 mm.
40. 4.40 g, 17 mm.
41. 4.02 g, 14 mm. Central cavity.
42. 1.94 g, 15 mm.
43. 4.43 g, 17 mm.
44. 3.00 g., 15 mm. Central cavity.
45. 4.25 g, 16 mm.
46. 4.86 g, 16 mm. Central cavity.
47. 4.02 g, 16 mm. Central cavity.
48. 4.94 g, 16 mm.
49. 4.57 g, 17 mm.
50. 3.67 g, 15 mm.
51. 5.18 g, 16 mm. Central cavity.
52. 4.40 g, 16 mm.
53. 3.98 g, 16 mm.
54. 5.29 g, 17 mm.
55. 4.29 g, 16 mm. Central cavity.
56. 2.89 g, 16 mm.
57. 4.36 g, 16 mm. Central cavity.
58. 3.40 g, 16 mm.
59. 3.58 g, 15 mm. Central cavity.
60. 4.82 g, 17 mm. Central cavity.
61. 4.90 g, 17 mm.
62. 4.55 g, 16 mm.
63. 4.31 g, 15 mm. Central cavity.
64. 4.67 g, 16 mm.
65. 4.75 g, 16 mm. Central cavity.
66. 4.04 g, 16 mm.
67. 3.96 g, 18 mm. Central cavity.
Group 2
Thin coins, beveled edge, central cavity.
68–73. Obv. Head of Zeus r.
Rev. Two eagles l.
68.* IAA 102812. 5.12 g, 18 mm.
69. IAA 102813. 0, 4.47 g., 17 mm.
70. IAA 102810. 0, 4.29 g, 18 mm.
71. IAA 102814. 4.08 g, 18 mm.
72. IAA 102815. 3.93 g, 17 mm.
73. 5.48 g, 17 mm. Traces only. The head is on
the lat side.
74. Obv. Head of Zeus r.
Rev. Obliterated.
IAA 102811. 4.24 g, 18 mm.
75, 76. No details visible.
75. 3.29 g, 17 mm.
76. 3.76 g, 17 mm.
Other Coins
77. Ptolemaic, second century BCE.
Obv. No details visible.
Rev. Two eagles l. (traces).
IAA 102809. 13.52 g, 27 mm.
Cf. Svoronos 1904: No. 1425 (joint reign of
Ptolemy VI and VIII, 170–164 BCE).
78.* Ptolemy VIII (146–116 BCE), Salamis.
Obv. Head of Ptolemy r.
Rev. Traces of inscription. Eagle with folded
wings l. To r. ΣA. To l. illegible letters.
IAA 102806. Þ, 0, 9.22 g, 24 mm.
Cf. Svoronos 1904: Nos. 1533, 1534.
7
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
chronoLogy of the coins
depiction of Zeus-Ammon and the two eagles
with the snake-like neck. Moreover, looking
closely at Gitler and Kushnir-Stein’s catalogue,
it can be seen that the features of at least ten
coins are much closer to our Group 1 (Table
1; Fig. 6); they have a “central drilling hole”
(i.e., central cavity) rather than a relief ringlet,
and most axes are upright.5 It is true that their
diameter range seems slightly larger, but this
is perhaps due to the fact that the coins were
measured across the lugs remaining after the
casting process, rather than across the circle,
adding 1–2 mm to the diameter.6 Reducing the
published diameters by those measures would
put this group squarely within the diameter
In an article discussing a type of Late Ptolemaic
bronze coin found with some regularity in
Israel, Gitler and Kushnir-Stein (1994–1999:47,
Type 2) convincingly argue that it was minted
in Paphos, Cyprus, by either Ptolemy IX or
Ptolemy X before 103 BCE, and arrived in
Israel with the troops of Ptolemy IX Lathyrus
in 103 BCE.4
This coin type is very similar to Group 1 in
our assemblage, except that it is larger, mostly
in the 19–21 mm range, and has a characteristic
relief ringlet in the center of either or both faces
of the coin. Otherwise it has the same grotesque
Table 1. Hole-Centered Coins from Akko, Ginnosar and Dor
(based on Gitler and Kushnir-Stein 1994–1999)
No.
Weight Diam.
(g)
(mm)
Axis
7
4.62
20
5
9
5.95
18
1
12
4.23
17
12
14
4.45
19
12
16
4.90
16–18
12
36
7.69
20
12
39
7.55
18–20
12
44
4.11
16–18
12
52
4.24
18
12
56
6.05
18
12
40
Provenance
Remarks
Mint mark: cornucopia
‘Akko
Illustrated; the hole centering is
visible in the photograph
Ginnosar
Dor
Illustrated
36
35
No. of Coins
30
25
20
18
15
10
5
8
3
2
0
14
15
16
Diameter (mm)
17
Fig. 6. Diameter frequency of coins in Group 1.
18
8
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
range of our Group 1. Most of these coins are not
illustrated, apparently for the same reason as in
the case of the hoard under discussion here: the
extremely bad state of their preservation. Thus,
it may be possible that several more coins from
that catalogue are similar to those in Group 1
from ‘Atlit.
It is therefore suggested that the aforementioned ten coins are, in fact, of the same type as
those in Group 1, and not of the type discussed
by Gitler and Kushnir-Stein (1994–1999). The
grotesque Zeus-Ammon head and the eagles
are characteristic of Cyprus, and the similarity
between Group 1 and their coins suggests either
a contemporaneous issue by a different mint
on Cyprus, or a different series, which in turn
raises the possibility that one series was issued
by Ptolemy IX, and the other, by Ptolemy X.
Returning to our hoard, it seems, thus, that
Group 1 can be assigned to either Ptolemy IX
or Ptolemy X, and to a Cypriot mint, likely in
Paphos. The single tetradrachm from Salamis
(Coin No. 78) is probably of Ptolemy VIII.
Though the tetradrachm and the coins of Group 1
argue for a Cypriot mint for Group 2 as well, this
cannot be determined with certainty. The coins
of Group 2, which are of better workmanship,
are a good match to Svoronos (1904), Nos. 1427
and 1428. This issue, attributed by Svoronos
to Alexandria under the joint reign of Ptolemy
VI and Ptolemy VIII (170–164 BCE), is most
likely a later issue, dated to the end of the
century.7 The tetradrachm seems to be an older
coin, and as stated above, may in fact belong to
Assemblage 7.
This conclusion might also bear on the state
of preservation of the coins. Though none of
the coins under discussion have been tested
metallurgically, a corroded coin discovered
at Ashqelon (Gitler and Kahanov 2002:262–
263, No. 47), that appears to be similar to the
type discussed by Gitler and Kushnir-Stein,
was found to be made of a highly leaded
alloy. Such alloys are prone to heavy surface
corrosion (Gitler and Kahanov 2002:263–264,
n. 5), which would explain the extremely poor
condition of most of these coins.
the square Lead scaLe weights
Six square scale weights were found: three
bear features characterizing weights from the
Hellenistic southern Levant (Weights 2, 4, 6);
two are plain, such as are common in the region
at that time period (Weights 1, 3); and one,
on the basis of its style and mass, belongs to
a different metrological system (Weight 5). In
the catalogue below and in Fig. 7, the weights
are listed in ascending order of net mass, a
neutral method of presentation. Each weight is
identiied by catalogue number, IAA inventory
number and excavation registration number, in
parentheses.
cataLogue of the scaLe weights (Fig. 7)
1. IAA 2000–1064 (30/97.46/3)
Form: Square.
Measurements: 2.8 × 2.3 × 0.8 cm; mass 46.5 g.
Face One: Plain; an arrow-like mark that may
have been created in the process of casting
(metal folded or with voids).
Face Two: Plain; a motif shaped like a chair
that may have been created during casting, as
on face one.
Side: Plain.
Preservation: Good; a chip seems to be missing
in one corner of face two, but this may represent
a law that occurred during the casting process.
2. IAA 2000-1065 (30/97.46/2)
Form: Square.
Measurements: 6.2 × 6.0 (obverse), 5.2 × 5.0
(reverse) × 0.8 cm; mass: 239.2 g.
Obverse: Raised frame of eggs and darts. In
the upper part of the weight, there is a date
written according to the Greek alphabetical
system, introduced by an L-shaped symbol:
L DS (dsÆ, delta, sigma). In the center, there
is a representation of a ship’s prow oriented
to the right, with a furled foresail (artemon;
Basch 1987:422, 454, Figs. 908, 1008, 1009)
separating the two letters of the date. There
is a large wedge (∠) in the lower right corner.
Between the base of the sigma and the top of the
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
9
2
1
3
5
4
6
0
2
Fig. 7. Lead scale weights.
upper branch of the wedge there are two parallel
oval elements, perhaps part of the foresail in a
full wind. Most details of the ship’s prow are
discernible: the stem post, upper battering ram
(proembolion; Basch 1987:388, Fig. 810),
tridentate battering ram (Basch 1987:388, Figs.
811, 812) and bulwark (Basch 1987:388, Figs.
810a, b).8
Reverse: Protruding lines of superimposed
+ and × create a symbol resembling a Union
Jack or a Basque lag. The transition between
the reverse and the sides is quite angular (as on
Weight 6).
Side: plain.
Preservation: Obverse is slightly eroded, with a
faint brown patina on the background surface.
Reverse is eroded (smoothed).
3. IAA 2000-1062 (29/98.7/1)
Form: Square.
Measurements: 5.7 × 5.5 × 0.8 cm; mass
241.0 g.
Face One: Plain.
Face Two: Plain.
Side: Plain.
Preservation: Very good.
10
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
4. IAA 2000-1066 (1985.D 242.S 22/58)
Form: Square, with a protrusion on the lower
edge.
Measurements (protrusion on lower edge
not included): 5.9 × 6.1 (obverse), 5.4 × 5.4
(reverse) × 0.7 cm; mass 244.4 g.
The protrusion on the lower edge may have
been an addition of lead meant to adjust the
weight according to the standard. It may not
necessarily have been meant as a proper lug.
Obverse: Irregular raised frame with rounded
proile. On the upper side of the weight, there
is a date according to the Greek alphabetical
system, introduced by the symbol L. The left
sign is ligatured with the L and looks like a
retrograde zeta (Û instead of Z), which it may
be; however, it is more likely an angular stigma
(~; see below). The middle sign looks like a
retrograde digamma (ìƒü); however, this is an
unlikely reading in the numeral system. It should
rather be seen as a slightly damaged koppa (;;
see below). Finally, only the vertical bar of the
sign to the right is clearly discernible, and it can
be only a R . So the date should be read: L Z;R
or L ~;R (zðrÆ or ~ðrÆ, zeta or stigma, koppa,
rho). In the lower left third of the weight, there
is a monogram, in which the letters a (alpha
with broken bar), retrograde G and N, P, T, F,
may be discernible (see Weight 5, below). In the
lower right corner, there is a large wedge (∠).
Reverse: Plain.
Side: Plain.
Preservation: Good. Slightly eroded (smoothed).
5. IAA 2000-1067 (1985.D 234.S 22/58)
Form: Square.
Measurements: 6.3 × 6.2 × 0.8–1.0 cm; mass
318.8 g.
Obverse: Three thick raised lines forming a
monogram looking like the letter N (Greek nu or
Latin N?). The middle line runs from below the
tip of the left vertical line to the middle of the right
one, and a bar set at the bottom of the N protrudes
to the right. However, when the weight is rotated
180 degrees, the middle line runs from the middle
of the left vertical line to just before the tip of the
right one, and the bar set above the N protrudes
to the left, so that the N appears to be inserted in
a retrograde G. Note that a bar protruding above
the N is also found in the monogram of Weight
4 (see above). Another possibility achieved after
rotating the weight 90 degrees, is the combination
of a Z (zeta) inside a non-retrograde G (gamma).
Reverse: Plain.
Side: Plain.
Preservation: Very good.
6. IAA 2000-1063 (30/97.46/1)
Form: Square, with protrusion on the lower
edge.
Measurements (protrusion on lower edge
not included): 8.0 × 7.8 (obverse), 6.5 × 6.5
(reverse) × 0.9 cm, mass: 504.0 g.
The protrusion on the lower edge may have
been an addition of lead meant to adjust the
weight according to the weight standard. It may
not have been meant as a proper lug.
Obverse: Raised frame with angular proile.
On the upper side of the weight, there is a date
according to the Greek alphabetical system,
introduced by the L-shaped symbol: L E;R
(eðrÆ, epsilon, koppa, rho). On the right side,
in its center, there is a sign resembling a small
tau (T), turned 90 degrees clockwise. In the
center, there is a protruding, roughly rounded
‘button’, lanked on both sides by the letter a
(alpha with broken bar). The ‘button’ seems an
addition, probably meant to adjust the weight
signiicantly (see reverse).
Reverse: Protruding lines of superimposed +
and ×, resembling a Union Jack or a Basque
lag. A very large thick protruding oval ‘button’
is situated in the center, where the lines cross.
It was perhaps meant to adjust the weight
signiicantly (see obverse).
Side: Plain.
Preservation: Very good.
discussion of the scaLe weights
Dating
Of the six square scale weights, only Nos. 2, 4,
and 6 are inscribed and dated. Although their
molds may have been engraved by different
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
hands, the three bear similarities, suggesting
they belong to the same series. All of them
exhibit the same pattern of design: the date on
the top, introduced by the symbol L and with
units, tens and hundreds from left to right; a
device located approximately in the center, and
the value of the weight located most probably
in the lower right part. Weights 2 and 4 are
linked by the wedge symbol (∠; see discussion
below). Weights 2 and 6 are linked by the
Union Jack reverse type. All these features are
commonly found on lead scale weights of the
southern Levant in the Hellenistic period. It
may be suggested that these three weights were
issued in the same city, which—on the basis of
the prow device in Weight 2—may have been a
maritime one.
The similarities between the three dated
weights conirm the date on the less clear
inscription on Weight 4. Considering the
homogeneity of the group, the sign on the left
can only be an “angular” stigma (~) or, less
likely, a retrograde zeta (Û).9 The sign in the
middle is a koppa in the form of a retrograde
rho (commonly used in the Hellenistic period
on weights) (;). The sign on the right can only
be a rho (P). Thus, in chronological order, the
dates would be: Year 195—Weight 6, Year 196
(with a stigma, rather than 197 with a zeta)—
Weight 4, and Year 204—Weight 2. Since the
Seleucid era began in October 312 BCE, the
dates are the equivalent of 118/7 BCE, 117/6
BCE (rather than 116/5 BCE) and 109/8 BCE
respectively.
Metrology
On weights found in the Southern Levant, the
value is almost never mentioned, although they
do display a device, a date and the name of the
agoranomos (Kushnir-Stein 1997; Finkielsztejn
1998a:33–38; 2003: passim; 2007).
The square scale weights from ‘Atlit can be
divided into four groups in ascending order of
their mass: (a) Weight 1 at 46.5 g; (b) Weights
2, 3 and 4, for which the masses are very
similar: 239.2, 241.0 and 244.4 g respectively;
(c) Weight 5 at 318.8 g; (d) Weight 6 at 504.0 g.
11
It should be taken into consideration that the
preservation conditions over the course of
the centuries variously affects the mass of
lead objects (Finkielsztejn 1998a:37–38, with
references, especially to Henri Seyrig’s works;
2003: passim; 2007). Moreover, variations
in the weight’s thickness may be a relevant
parameter inluencing the changes occurring in
the metal while exposed to the elements (in this
case, the sea). Therefore, it might be suggested
that the relative rate of decay of a thicker
artifact was comparatively reduced.
The above-mentioned stylistic links among
Weights 2, 4, and 6 lend credence to the
possibility that the original weight value of
Weight 6 was intentionally double that of
Weights 2 and 4. This may be corroborated by
the fact that the letter alpha appears twice on
Weight 6. One would expect the use of such a
letter to symbolize “one unit of the standard,”
and, indeed, it quite commonly indicated the
value of one mina. However, there are other
possible explanations as to why the letter alpha
is repeated. It could be simply a decorative
motif, or possibly, one alpha might represent
the number “1”, while the other, perhaps, the
initial of the name of the magistrate in charge of
the weights and measures, i.e., the agoranomos.
The weight standard in the second half of
the second century BCE Southern Levant
was the mina (mna`), at a supposed mass of
approximately 550–560 g (probably c. 566.8
g; see nn. 11 and 12), although some examples
do weigh about 504 g (Finkielsztejn 2015:76–
77). It appears that the origin of that standard
was a mina of Syria introduced to the area by
Antiochus IV (Finkielsztejn 2007; 2014; 2015;
forthcoming).
The meaning of the small sign shaped
like a T rotated 90 degrees clockwise, along
the right edge of Weight 6, is not certain. It
may have signiied “half,” with the intended
reading, “one half of two minas” (= one
mina), an occurrence not uncommon in Greek
metrology inscriptions, especially in the
Levant. Alternatively, the sign may be a tau,
an initial signifying tevtarton (tetarton, a
12
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
quarter), tetra- (tetra-, four), trith- (triti-,
one third) or tri- (tri-, three), relating to a
weight standard different from the standard
expressed by one of the two alphas (signifying
1, see above). The practice of relating to two
different standards on a single weight is known
elsewhere (see Dumont 1892; Finkielsztejn
2007). The word tevtarton (tetarton,
a quarter) is by far the most commonly
mentioned fraction on such weights. However,
a reference to a mina of 2016 g (504 g × 4)
is not likely, as “quadruple” minas are
exceptional for this period and geographical
area.10 Indeed, besides the “simple” mina,
only minas with a mass of double the regular
values, weighing about one kilogram (here it
would be 1008 g) were in use at the end of
the second century BCE, and may have been
the consequence of some sort of reform that is
yet to be understood (Seyrig 1946–48:74–75,
Tables I and II).
One last possible meaning for the rotated tau
on Weight 6 could be the symbol of the drachm
in retrograde presentation (a T rotated 90°
counterclockwise), as is common in the Aegean
and the eastern Mediterranean. This is supported
by Charles Doyen’s recent discovery that the
mina of the Southern Levant is equivalent to
(and most probably based upon) 128 Attic
drachms of 4.35 g (Doyen 2014:284–298), thus
providing a possible harmonization between
the Attic drachm and the various standards of
the Levant.11 Also in evidence in the Southern
Levant during the second century BCE, is a
mina of c. 500–510 g, which would have been
worth 116–118 Attic drachms (504.6–513.3 g;
see below).
Both Weights 2 and 4 bear a wedge sign,
which most certainly symbolized ‘one half’,
as evidenced elsewhere (for discussion and
parallels, see below). Weight 3 is devoid of any
inscription, but its size and weight matches that
of Weights 2 and 4. The mass of each of the
three weights, when doubled, reaches 478.4
g (239.2 × 2), 482 g (241 × 2) and 488.8 g
(244.4 × 2), i.e., about 3–5% less than the mass
of Weight 6. Weight 6, being thicker, may have
been less affected by corrosion than Weights
2, 3 and 4. Another explanation could be that
the two button-like protrusions, one on either
side of Weight 6, might have been added to
adjust the weight to one of the known weight
standards, which added up to slightly more than
500 g.
Although it should be mentioned that the
weight standard of the Phoenician mina used
in the cities of Tyre, Arados and Marathos in
the Hellenistic period (about 465 g) approached
in value the theoretical standard of Weights
2–4, the style of Weights 2 and 4 at least,
precludes such an interpretation. Moreover, the
masses of the three weights are consistently
higher than that of the Phoenician standard by
3–5% (Finkielsztejn 2007; 2015; Wolff and
Finkielsztejn 2009).
Weight 5 is different from the others, both
in appearance and mass (318.8 g). There is
no clear explanation concerning the symbol
or letter it bears. If it is indeed simply the
Greek letter N, it may represent “50” in the
Greek alphabetical numeral system, indicating
ifty times a standard of more-or-less 6.38 g
(depending on the degree and type of corrosion).
The latter value roughly recalls the weighing
system(s) used in northern Phoenicia (the area
of Byblos): a drachm of 3.6 g and a sheqel of
14.4 g (an intermediate standard of c. 7.2 g,
although unattested, is not unlikely). A sheqel
of slightly over 13 g was also used in Arados.
Weight 5, weighing 318.8 g, could be half
of a mina of about 643 g., also recognized in
northern Phoenicia or Syria.12 Of course, these
suggestions are only tentative, since the numerical
interpretation of the monogram is not certain.
Alternatively, it is perhaps relevant that
the value of Weight 5 approaches that of the
Roman libra (pound), which was 326–327.45 g
(Hultsch 1864:190, s.v. livtra, 3.a, with
references; 228, l. 25; 1882:706, Table XIII:A,
715, Table XXII; Seyrig 1946–48:74, Table
I, Seleucia, Nos. 15 and 16; Kushnir-Stein
1995:48–50). Finally, it may be that this artifact
originated in a different location in the eastern
Mediterranean (Cyprus?), but an inquiry into
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
such a possibility is beyond the scope of this
report.
No clear-cut conclusion can be reached
regarding the lighter mass of Weight 1 (46.5 g).
It may have been a fraction of a mina, but this
is conjectural, because, as is usually the case
on small denominations, there is no device that
helps locate its possible origin. The fractions
for this type of weight would be expected to
follow the progression of one, a half, a quarter,
one-eighth and one-sixteenth, etc., none of
which its the weighting system of the Southern
Levant mina (see above). On the other hand,
the mass of Weight 1 is one-sixteenth of
744 g, close to 752 g, which was a Phoenician
and Syrian standard (Finkielsztejn 2014; 2015).
Another possibility is that Weight 1 may be an
eighth of a local Roman litra, i.e. 372 g, for
376 g, evidenced in the Levant (Rahmani 1980;
1986; Finkielsztejn 2015).
The Wedge Symbol (∠) on the Scale Weights.—
As already suggested above, the wedge
appearing on Weights 2 and 4 most probably
signiies “half”. We know of only three other
examples of a similar sign on weights.13
1. On a weight from Tyre, double-dated 144 SE
and 106 (or 107) in the era of “the People of
Tyre,” i.e., 169 BCE (Reinhart Estate 1997:171,
No. 5550A; Finkielsztejn 2003:478–484), the
last line of the inscription displays an alpha
preceded by a wedge with symmetrical arms.
The weight’s mass is 750 g, placing the Tyrian
weight standard at either 1500 g, if the signs
are to be read “one half unit,” or 500 g, if they
signify “one unit and a half” (see the following
examples). It is noteworthy that the weight
mentioned in n. 9, is probably also Tyrian and
weighs 1497 g, i.e., the same mass.
2. On a weight from Tel Sos, bearing the name of
the city “Gaba” and dated to Year 218, probably
according to the Pompeian era starting in c. 63
BCE, corresponding to c. 155 CE (Siegelmann
1989), the sign of the wedge is more open,
with both arms symetrical (<). In this case, the
sign may have stood for something else rather
13
than “half”. The weight value seems to be
represented by the letter H, standing for “eight”
or “one eighth.” Although the expression
“hJmiovgdoon” (“half an eighth”, i.e., onesixteenth) may be seen on at least one weight
from Maresha (Finkielsztejn 2010a:177, 189),
such a meaning on the Tel Sos example seems
doubtful. Its mass being 212.3 g, the standard
would have been 13.27 g, a mass known for
a sheqel in Arados and perhaps Byblos in the
Hellenistic period (Finkielsztejn 2015:56, 74),
but not demonstrated to have been in use in
the mid-Roman period. The meaning of the
association of both signs, H and ∠, could also
be “eight and a half”, as suggested by Seyrig
regarding a weight attributed to Seleucia Pieria
(see next example).
It is also possible that the wedge on the Tel
Sos weight may have been something else
entirely, perhaps a badly engraved gamma
(G), the symbol for “ounce” in the RomanByzantine period. This would better it the
mass, which is the equivalent of eight 26.5 g
ounces. Countering this theory could be the
normally formed initial gamma that appears
in the name of the city Gaba on this same
weight. Nonetheless, the differing quality of
the engraving could be a relection of different
usages of the letter, i.e., in an oficial name as
opposed to a technical sign.
3. On a weight attributed by Seyrig to Seleucia
Pieria, and dated to the year 313 of the “Freedom
of Seleucia,” which corresponds to 204/5 CE,
the sign of the wedge also appears at the end of
the inscription. Seyrig interpreted it as meaning
“half,” suggesting a reading of “half a litra
of 10 ounces and a half” (Seyrig 1946–48:51,
52, 74, Pl. 4). No supporting evidence is given
for that suggestion. As the word “ounces” is
written in full, the wedge cannot represent that
unit itself.
In summary, despite the metrological problem
resulting from the state of preservation of the
weights under discussion, it seems quite safe to
suggest that the wedge sign appearing on them
means “half,” as on weights elsewhere.
14
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
Aspects of the Administration of Weights and
Measures
During the Hellenistic period in the Southern
Levant, the following data may have appeared
on lead scale weights: (1) the date; (2) the name
of the agoranomos, the magistrate responsible
for the accuracy of the measures based on the
accepted standards, with or without mention of
the ofice itself; (3) a device, generally centered
on the weight, but not necessarily; (4) the value
of the weight, based on a given standard—
mina, drachm or sheqel—for the Levant.
Not all elements of information necessarily
appeared, and, interestingly, the value of the
weight is generally missing. It would seem
that the customer was able to identify the
value of the weight by its size and appearance,
something possible mainly for a resident of the
city that produced the weight.
The name of the city never appears on the
weights from the Southern Levant, in contrast
to those of Antioch, Seleucia Pieria, and
Laodicea in Syria (Seyrig 1946–48), as well
as some Phoenician cities, which do mention
the city name.14 Although each city—polis or
Greek-styled town—would have had its local
administrative magistrates, or more speciically
in our case, agoranomos (see Finkielsztejn
1998a:34–37; 1999:55, 58–60; 2010b; 2012), it
seems that the system of weights and measures
was somehow uniied. This hypothesis is
based upon the similarity both in general
characteristics and in standard units among
these weights. Apparently, the agoranomos
would choose his own motif for the device,
much as the devices on amphora stamps were
chosen by the fabricant responsible for the
workshop, as in Rhodes or Knidos, or the
yearly comptroller (termed “pseudo-eponym”
by scholars, as opposed to the actual eponym,
whose name would date all documents written
during his term), as in Thasos and Sinope.
If our three dated weights were manufactured
in the same city, then clearly, each (yearly)
agoranomos chose a different device (presented
here in chronological order): on Weight 6, one
of the alphas may represent the initial of his
name or the title of his ofice; on Weight 4, a
monogram possibly represents the name of the
agoranomos himself; and on Weight 2, a ship’s
prow is depicted. At Maresha, agoranomoi also
chose different motifs: simply the name with the
patronymic—with or without a device, a simple
or double cornucopia, a star or rosette, two
piloi, a Macedonian shield, etc. (Finkielsztejn
1998a; 2010a: passim).
It should be noted that such observations
apply only for the second century BCE Levant.
Indeed, the earliest known weight is dated to
140 Seleucid Era (SE), which corresponds to
173/2 BCE (found at Maresha: Finkielsztejn
2010a:177–178, 184, 188). Interestingly
enough, no dated weight found in the Southern
Levant can be associated with Ptolemaic
administration.15
Among the devices used, ship’s prows
(and at times, the entire ship) were common
motifs. They may have represented a port city,
as is certainly the case for Tyre (Dunand and
Duru 1962: Pl. LX, 1, 2; Bordreuil and Gubel
1990:491–492, Fig. 9, A, B16), and probably
for the weight wrongly attributed to Dor (see
n. 14). More unpublished examples are known,
including one from Eliezer Oren’s excavations
in ‘Akko-Ptolemais (Finkielsztejn and Gatier,
forthcoming).
the PyramidaL and conicaL Lead
fishing sinkers
The ifteen lead artifacts of this group, although
previously categorized as scale weights in the
literature (until the publication of Galili, Rosen
and Sharvit 2010), differ in shape and function
from the square scale weights discussed above;
twelve (Nos. 1–12) are pyramidal in shape and
three (Nos. 13–15) are elongated cones (Figs.
8, 9; see Table 2, below).
Description (Fig. 8)
Of the pyramidal-shaped artifacts, eleven are
perforated just below the apex, their holes
non-symmetrical, measuring 1.0–3.5 mm in
diameter; only one (No. 4) is unperforated (see
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
1
2
3
5
6
7
0
1
Fig. 8. Lead pyramidal ishing sinkers.
4
8
15
16
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
9
11
10
13
12
14
15
0
1
Fig. 8. (cont.).
below). Regarding the mass of the pyramidal
artifacts, eleven (Nos. 1–10, 12) weigh between
155 and 166 g; No. 11, bearing a monogram,
weighs 136 g. These objects correspond to Type
L1.1.3 of Galili, Rosen and Sharvit (2010:88,
Fig. 38) and appear to have been cast in four
different molds (Table 2: Types A, B, C and D).
In particular, Nos. 1–8 are deinitely from a
single mold (A), as are Nos. 9 and 10 (B). On
the probable technique of molding this type of
weights, see Elayi 1991:35.
The square bases of seven of the pyramidal
objects are marked with a monogram or a device
(Nos. 1–4, 9–11), most probably molded. The
17
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
Table 2. Characteristics of the Pyramidal Lead Fishing Sinkers
No.
1
IAA No.
Shape
Mold
2000-1040
High pyramid A
Measurements
H × L × W (cm)
Base (device,
inscription,
form)
Apex (hole
or groove)
Weight Suggested
(g)
Weight
Standard (g)
5.80 × 2.35 × 2.35
Flower?
Hole
166
664
2
2000-1051
High pyramid A
5.70 × 2.35 × 2.35
Flower?
Hole
160
640
3
2000-1044
High pyramid A
5.65 × 2.35 × 2.30
Flower?
Hole
164
656
4
2000-1043
High pyramid A
5.70 × 2.40 × 2.30
Rhodian rose
No Hole
155
620
5
2000-1046
High pyramid A
5.80 × 2.35 × 2.30
No device
Hole
158
632
6
2000-1042
High pyramid A
5.70 × 2.30 × 2.25
No device?
Hole
158
632
7
2000-1041
High pyramid A
5.80 × 2.35 × 2.35
Melting hole
Hole
158
632
8
2000-1049
High pyramid A
5.70 × 2.40 × 2.35
Melting hole
Hole
161
644
9
2000-1048
Squat
pyramid
B
4.40 × 2.70 × 2.60
Sign of Tanit
Hole
166
664
10
2000-1045
Squat
pyramid
B
4.55 × 2.70 × 2.60
Rhodian rose
Hole
162
648
11
2000-1047
Pyramid
C
4.80 × 2.45 × 2.35
KRA( ?
Hole
136
544
12
2000-1050
Pyramid
C
5.20 × 2.50 × 2.40
No device
Hole
158
632
13
2000-1061
Conical
D
5.25 × 1.65 × 1.40
Convex with
melting hole
Two
grooves
40
640
14
2000-1052
Conical
D
4.25 × 1.90 × 1.75
Pyramidal
One
groove
40
640
15
2000-1053
Conical
D
4.90 × 2.40
(base diam.)
Circular with
frame
One
groove
71
568
base of No. 7 is marred by a melting hole and
it is therefore impossible to ascertain whether
it bore a device. That of No. 11 depicts a
monogram with the Greek letters R, A inserted
in a K (alpha, rho and kappa), maybe Kra( or
Kar( . Number 9 bears a stylized Sign of Tanit.
The device on Nos. 4 and 10 is most probably
an imitation of the Rhodian rose. A similar
lower may have been depicted on Nos. 1–3.
The three conical examples (Nos. 13–15)
are not perforated, but rather, have one or two
narrow grooves circumscribing the apex. They
correspond to Type L1.1.1 (“with groove”) of
Galili, Rosen and Sharvit (2010:88, Fig. 38), but
bear a strong similarity in their conical shape
to Type L1.1.2 (“with tail”), albeit without the
upper “tail” proper. Number 13 is an irregular
elongated cone with a convex base; No. 14 is
an irregular elongated cone with a protruding,
somewhat pyramidal base (this shape may
result from corrosion); No. 15 is a cone with
a concave proile and a wide circular base,
\
slightly thickened at the edge and with a small
depression in the center. The conical weights
are of a workmanship different from that of
the pyramidal artifacts and were made each
in a different mold. In addition, they are much
lighter in weight than the others (40, 40 and 71 g
respectively).
Function
Since these artifacts have a tying arrangement
at the apex, a perforation or a groove, they may
have been used either as sinkers for a “hookand-line” ishing system (Galili, Rosen and
Sharvit 2010:88–89, Types L1.1.3 and L1.1.2),
or as scale weights, similar in purpose to the
square scale weights presented above, but for
a different type of scale. The fact that No. 4
has no hole is presumably due to a law in the
manufacture of the object, as it cannot be hung
or attached in any way. How it came to be
included in the Assemblage 4 group is not clear:
(1) it may have been sold, through negligence,
18
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
together with a whole set, or less likely,
(2) these objects may have been cast on the
ship, and our particular item was not inished.
In studying such items originating in Lebanon
and Syria, Josette Elayi (Elayi 1991:31–35;
Elayi and Elayi 1997:77–114 [catalogue],
314–315 [discussion]) came to the conclusion
that they were scale weights for the following
reasons: (1) they were chronologically and
geographically well-deined; (2) some of the
features molded at their base appeared on actual
lead scale weights; (3) similar objects made of
bronze that were “most likely” scale weights
were found in Ibiza; and (4) nine such items
made of lead that were most probably scale
weights (i.e., with a coherent graduated scale
of mass values), were found with two bronze
scale pans in a tomb at Carthage (Elayi and
Elayi 1997:314–315). Elayi did not discuss the
possibility that the lead items may be ishing
sinkers, yet mentioned that some were reused
as such by modern ishermen (Elayi and Elayi
1997:314).
As demonstrated in Elayi’s second point,
some of the devices found on our pyramidal
objects also appear on actual scale weights.
For example, the stylized Sign of Tanit (No.
9) appears on both pyramidal sinkers and scale
weights attributed to the city of Arados.17
The inconsistency that is raised by Elayi’s
fourth point lies in the questionable need for
a tying system on weights aimed at being
used on scales using pans. Other conjectures
should be considered; for instance, the person
interred in the Carthage tomb may well have
been a merchant linked with the ish trade, or
an inspector responsible for the making of the
sinkers.
Two features—the molded devices and the
relatively uniform masses—indicate that the
manufacturing process of these pyramidal
artifacts was certainly regulated according to
the same rules that guided the manufacturing
of the actual scale weights. This may suggest
that the administration maintained control of
the quantity of lead circulating in a given area
or town by marking the lead objects, whatever
their shape and function. Yet, it appears that
quantity control was not entirely systematic,
neither for the (small) scale weights nor for
the pyramidal and conical artifacts, since some
seem to be devoid of any device.18
Nonetheless, in my (Finkielsztejn) opinion,
considering the marine context of the ‘Atlit
pyramidal and conical objects, it seems
plausible that they were used for ishing, rather
than as scale weights. In at least one more case,
a group of pyramidal artifacts of homogeneous
weights was found offshore: seven items found
near the mouth of the river Nahr el-Barid, north
of Tripoli (Lebanon). In that assemblage, six
items weigh between 176.64 and 185.08 g
(average 180.52 g), and one weighs 109.74 g
(Elayi 1991:31–35; Elayi and Elayi 1997: Nos.
144, 146, 176, 206, 209, 216, 251). These two
ind contexts, from ‘Atlit and Tripoli, indicate
that such items (1) could have been ishing
sinkers, (2) were used together as a group of
identical objects, and (3) probably did not
function as scale weights, as the majority of
objects in each group are uniform in weight
rather than of different denominations (contra
Elayi and Elayi 1997:314).
Decorated and inscribed ancient ishing
sinkers of various shapes and specialized
functions are commonly found in underwater
surveys along the Israeli coast (Galili, Rosen
and Sharvit 2002:190–192; 2010:88–94). Of
special note are those made of folded lead
sheets, with molded geometrical decorations,
marks or inscriptions (Galili, Rosen and
Sharvit 2010:88, 92–93, Type L2.3). A
similar folded lead sheet, uncovered in the
excavations of H. Qastra (Kh. Kafr Samir),
is decorated with a network of lines within a
frame, and bears a Greek name. The general
style of the object and the script date this ind
to the Hellenistic period (Gerald Finkielsztejn,
personal observation), and its indspot, in a
settlement approximately one kilometer from
the coast, makes its identiication as a ishing
sinker most plausible.
One may wonder why such common objects,
which functioned under the sea and were not
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
meant to be seen, frequently bore identifying
inscriptions or decorations obtained by casting
lead in an engraved mold. One possible
reason may have been, as mentioned above,
administrative control over the metal. For
instance, a fabricant’s device, identifying
the manufacturer of the folded sheet sinkers
or pyramidal/conical sinkers, could also be
appropriate for taxation purposes. Another
reason might have been statement of ownership
of the ishing gear or of the boat. As ishing
equipment is often left unguarded at sea, it is
important to mark it in order to prevent theft
(Galili, Rosen and Sharvit 2002), or simply to
enable the returning of equipment that must
inevitably get lost, due to tangled nets, broken
lines, bad weather, etc.19
To summarize, the ‘Atlit pyramidal and
conical artifacts most probably were used as
sinkers for long-line ishing, either in clusters,
holding several hooks at the bottom of the sea,
or in a number of single hook-and-line sets.
These functions were suggested by Galili, Rosen
and Sharvit (2002), regarding similar objects
recovered among some 1200 lead sinkers
of various types from a Roman shipwreck
assemblage off the Carmel coast approximately
10 km north of ‘Atlit. More recently, in a detailed
study of such pyramidal objects, Kletter (2013)
came to the same conclusion.20
Metrology
The weights of eleven out of the ifteen ‘Atlit
sinkers (Nos. 1–10, 12) range between 158
and 166 g (average 162 +/- 4 g, i.e., 2.5%),
indicating that they are deinitely based on one
and the same standard. Perhaps Nos. 13 and
14, which are approximately a quarter of the
weight of the other sinkers (40 × 4 = 160 g,
i.e., 1.3% less than the average), represent a
fraction of this same standard. Numbers 11
and 15, weighing 136 and 71 g respectively,
do not belong to the above series; however, as
the latter represents about half the mass of the
former (71 × 2 = 142 g), they could be related
to one another.
19
The ‘Atlit ishing sinkers may be compared
with 130 similar objects from the northern
Levant published by Elayi and Elayi (1997):
ive assemblages of known provenance and
a large group of unprovenanced pieces. The
distribution of the sampling by mass and by
height (Figs. 9, 10) shows that the homogenous
features displayed by the majority of the ‘Atlit
sinkers (eleven out of ifteen) is signiicant. On
the graph showing weight distribution (Fig. 9),
the group of eleven sinkers from ‘Atlit occupies
a unique position between two major clusters:
the 100–150 g block and the 165–200 g
block. On the graph showing height as the
representative factor (Fig. 10), it is evident that
over half the sinkers from ‘Atlit (Nos. 1–8) are
5.5–5.9 cm high, a module of pyramidal sinkers
that is relatively rare in the Levant as a whole,
but is present at all the northern Phoenician
sites that yielded these objects.
It would seem that the ‘Atlit ishing sinkers
had common production origins, and eleven of
them were probably made in three very similar
molds (Table 2: A, B, D). They also shared the
same deposition and post-deposition processes
on the sea bottom, resulting in similar states of
preservation. Although different in shape, Nos.
13 and 14 may also be included in the same
ishing-gear kit, their weight being one quarter
of the others. These sinkers were probably
intended for smaller hooks, much as modernday sinkers (as seen in ishing tackle stores),
graded by speciic weights and their fractions, in
accordance with the different-sized hooks.
Indeed, it is possible to estimate upon which
of the weight standards, among those known
in the Levant, the ishing sinkers may have
been based (for details and references, see
Finkielsztejn 2007; 2015). There is evidence
that in Syria and northern Phoenicia, a “heavy
mina” of c. 643 g was used (e.g., probably in the
area of Byblos; see n. 12), as well as “heavier
minas” of c. 700–800 g (Finkielsztejn 2014;
2015). In the Southern Levant, a “light Syrian”
mina of c. 550–560 g was used during the
Seleucid period, and perhaps also an additional,
20
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
Provenance
Unprovenanced
“Trouvaille A”
Tartous
Nahr el-Barid
Beirut
Amrit/Marathos
‘Atlit
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
Mass (g)
Fig. 9. Lead pyramidal ishing sinkers from the Levant: distribution by weight.
40
3.0–3.4 cm
35
3.5–3.9 cm
4.0–4.4 cm
30
4.5–4.9 cm
5.0–5.4 cm
25
Quantity
5.5–5.9 cm
6.0–6.4 cm
20
15
10
5
0
‘Atlit
Amrit/Marathos Beirut Nahr El-Barid
Tartous
“Trouvaille A”
Unprovenanced
Provenance
Fig. 10. Lead pyramidal ishing sinkers from the Levant: distribution by height.
300
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
even lighter standard, which was slightly above
500 g: see Weight 6, above, and n. 12.
Among the Levantine pyramidal artifacts
identiied as weights by Elayi and Elayi (1997),
combined with the sinkers from ‘Atlit, 30 may
be associated with a theoretical weight standard
ranging from 614 g to slightly less than 700 g
(of which they would be either a quarter, an
eighth or a sixteenth). These include Nos.
1–10 and 12–14 from ‘Atlit, which seem to
have been based on the lightest standard of
this series (i.e., a calculated standard of 620 to
664 g, reaching an average of c. 642 g), very
close to the above-mentioned “heavy mina” of
c. 643 g that was probably used in Byblos (see
n. 12). Of the collection published by Elayi and
Elayi (1997), 52 weights may be associated with
a “heavier mina,” weighing between 700 and
800 g (of which they would be a quarter, an
eighth, a sixteenth or a thirty-second part), and
33, with a very light mina, weighing between
400 and 500 g, used in Tyre (470 g, of which
they would be either a half or a quarter). Judging
by the devices at the bases of the sinkers, it
is unlikely that many (if any) of the weights
published by Elayi and Elayi (1997) were
actually produced in the Tyrian domain, where
the three commonly used devices on weights
were the closed or full-ledged (i.e., with a base
line) Sign of Tanit, the club and the palm-tree.
However, the standard used in Tyre was also
used in Arados and Marathos, at the border
between northern Phoenicia and Syria, where
the open Sign of Tanit (i.e., without a base line,
as on No. 9 from ‛Atlit), was sometimes used.
No examples from the ‘Atlit assemblage seem
to it those two “light” standards. Finally, the
Elayi and Elayi catalogue includes 30 pyramidal
sinkers weighing between 500 and 595 g, and
they may be associated with a “light Syrian”
mina, of which they would be fractions (either
a half, a quarter or an eighth). ‘Atlit sinker Nos.
11 and 15 would be respectively one-quarter
and one-eighth of that weight standard (i.e., a
calculated weight standard of 544 and 568 g
respectively, with an average of 556 g).21
21
To summarize, the grouping of ishing sinkers
according to mass seems secure and is borne
out by the evaluation of the pyramidal sinkers
from ‘Atlit: 13 of the 15 sinkers strongly relate
to a weight standard common in northern
Phoenicia (652.5 g), while the remaining two
examples strongly relate to a weight standard
common in the southern Levant (556.8 g). This
differentiation has a bearing on their dating (see
below).
Date and Origin
A Hellenistic-period date for these objects, as
suggested by their association with the coins
described above, seems to be supported by the
Rhodian rose stamped at the bottom of at least
two of the ishing sinkers (Nos. 4 and 10). The
motif also appears on examples studied by Elayi
and Elayi (1997:84, Pls. X:161, 162; XII:183),
who describe it as “une leur (de lotus?).” The
sinkers bearing the Rhodian rose need not be
attributed to Rhodes; rather, the motif was
imitated elsewhere, for example, as a device
on Cypriot and Tyrian amphora stamps dated
to the Hellenistic period (Finkielsztejn 1990,
II, 2:123*–124*, No. 449, found in Samaria;
Kawkabani 2003:96, No. 5).
The monogram on No. 11 also suggests a
Hellenistic-period date (for Greek letters or
words, see Elayi and Elayi 1997: Pls. X:156–
158; XIII:191, A? KA?). Such sinkers were dated
by J. Elayi to the end of the Persian/beginning
of the Hellenistic period, based on their ind
contexts in Berytus/Beirut and Amrit/Marathos
(Elayi and Elayi 1997:280); at ‘Atlit, on the
other hand, the association with Assemblage 1
can only date these monogrammed sinkers
generally to the Hellenistic period.
The ‘Atlit sinkers share common features with
pyramidal artifacts found in the northern part of
central Phoenicia (Elayi and Elayi 1997:284),
such as certain devices and their apparent
relation to the same weight standard. These
similarities, as well as general geographical
distribution, seem to preclude a Cypriot or a
more westerly origin in the Mediterranean, and
22
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
favor the same “northern” origin for the ‘Atlit
sinkers and the weights in central Phoenicia.22
The weight standards also assist in narrowing
the dating of the larger group of sinkers. The
Athenian reform of the value of the Attic
mina took place in the last years of the second
century BCE. Scale weights attributed to
northern Phoenicia and southern Syria based on
this new standard are dated by their inscriptions
to 106/5, 105/4 and 102/1 BCE. Therefore, the
main group of pyramidal sinkers appears to be
among the latest inds related to the assemblages
studied here. As for the standard of 556.8 g, on
which the masses of the two remaining sinkers
appear to be based, it was introduced into the
Levant by Antiochos IV and was still in use in
Maresha on the eve of that city’s conquest by
John Hyrcanus I, in 108/7 BCE. Since the two
sinkers represent a signiicant minority, they
may, perhaps, be earlier examples, still in use in
our assemblage (Finkielsztejn 2010a:175–176,
180–182, Table 8.1; 2014:70–71, 81–84, Tables
1, 4, 5; 2015:57–59, 83, 97–100).
the bronze LamP
The lamp was found approximately 350 m
offshore at a depth of 9 m, some 250 m west–
northwest of the coin concentration.
Description (Fig. 11)
Measurements: L 12.8 cm (receptacle 4.5 cm,
rear plaque 2.8 cm, nozzle 5.3 cm); W 5.2 cm;
H 3.5 cm.
The receptacle is round and deep, somewhat
lattened on top. It has a wide, concave disk
base and an elongated nozzle. For most of
its length, the nozzle is the full height of the
receptacle. It is gabled and ridged on top, and
rounded on the bottom, ending in a wide oval
wick hole with a lat-topped, laring rim. The
illing hole is surrounded by a low molded rim.
Worn hinges, which held the lid, were partially
preserved next to the rim at the back end of the
illing hole; the lid itself missing. At the back
of the lamp, a partially preserved strap handle
extends downward from the underside of the
rear projection at the top of the lamp, to midway
down the wall of the receptacle. This rear
projection is horizontal, on level with the top
of the receptacle and nozzle. At the point where
it joins the receptacle, the projection widens
and merges on either side into a protruding ring
with a depression in the center. The element
is clearly visible on the left, but only a worn
trace of its counterpart can be discerned on the
right. Upon the badly damaged free-standing
tip of the rear projection is a shallowly drilled
depression. Two pointed protrusions at the
center of the body are not identical. The one on
the right side is a cone resting on the shoulder,
while the larger one on the left is triangular in
shape and droops downward.
There are three holes that are the result of
wear caused by prolonged use or corrosion.
Two holes are situated on the nozzle, at its base
and on the right side. The third hole is on the left
wall of the receptacle; it had been mended with
lead, a lump of which was preserved within
the receptacle. Presumably, it was necessary
to close the hole in the receptacle in order to
prevent the oil from seeping out, whereas
the holes in the nozzle could be left open (or
perhaps simply occurred later). Within the
base there is a signature—of the lamp maker,
the workshop, or perhaps the owner himself. It
appears to be an abbreviation beginning with
the letter gamma.
Decorations
The nozzle is distinguished from the body by a
waist consisting of two oblique, narrow ridges
with rope-like indentations that become plain as
they taper toward the nozzle’s base and the rim.
On top of the nozzle, between the two ridges,
is a raised, elongated triangle. The lat strap of
the rear projection is crossed by two parallel,
ridged bars supporting a worn ornament.
Shipboard Use
It is very reasonable that a lamp made of
bronze would have been used on a sailing
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
0
23
1
Fig. 11. Bronze oil lamp.
vessel: bronze is more durable than pottery,
and the lidded illing hole would prevent
the oil from spilling out when the boat was
shaken by the waves. The fact that the lamp
was found worn and damaged is evidence of
extended usage; alternately, it might be the
result of post-deposition damage. The broken
free-standing ornament at its rear may well
bear witness to an attempt to drill a hole at
the back of the lamp, probably after the strap
handle was broken, in order to provide another
means of suspending it. The hinge was most
likely worn out as a result of frequent opening
and closing. The sealing of the hole in the side
24
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
with lead is additional evidence that the lamp
was a necessary item. All in all, it may be
assumed that, despite wear and tear, the sailors
maintained and used this expensive lamp for a
lengthy period of time.
Date
Bronze lamps such as this are rare, and the
chances of inding an exact parallel would seem
highly unlikely. Of special note, therefore, is a
seemingly identical lamp from the anchorage of
Dor, some 10 km south of ‘Atlit (Ambar-Armon
2007:187–188, Fig. 34). Comparison with
metal lamps in the British Museum indicates
a date in the last decades of the Hellenistic
period for our lamp, on the basis of the height
of the ornament at the rear, which does not
exceed the height of the receptacle (Bailey,
1996:7–8). Otherwise, dating of our lamp must
rely mainly on typological comparison (shape,
style and decoration) with pottery lamps, some
of which—it has often been suggested—were
fashioned after metal prototypes.
In general, the dating of the lamp within the
Hellenistic period is based on the following
features:
1. The elongated gabled nozzle, widening
slightly at the end, is typical of Eastern Greek
lamps made after the Ephesus-type lamps dated
from the second half of the second century
to the irst half of the irst century BCE (e.g.,
Bailey 1975: Pl. 86:Q468, Carpathos).
2. The two different side-pointed projections
appear on Egyptian pottery lamps (Bailey
1975: Pl.108:Q551EA, Q552EA), which date
from the second century into the irst century
BCE. Pointed projections were also popular on
contemporary lamps made in Pergamon.
3. Decorations in the form of triangles or
masks and other patterns and symbols on
the nozzle between the bands are common
on Ephesus lamps, such as those from
Carpathos, dated to the second half of the
second century to irst half of the irst century
BCE (Bailey 1975: Pl. 86:Q468), and from
Delos (Bruneau 1965: Pls. 15:2754, 2798;
18:3036). For similar decoration on other
Hellenistic lamps, see Sussman 2009: Figs.
29, 31.
4. A rope-patterned marked waist (Mlynarczyk
1997: Type E-Prime—Figs. 43; 51; 52; Type
F—Fig. 60) appears on most of the locally-made
Hellenistic oil lamps from the second century
BCE onward (Ambar-Arnon 2007:135, 502,
Type 25.1.4; Sussman 2009: Nos. 151–257).
5. The ornament at the rear of our lamp may
represent a free-standing leaf above a double
bar (Bailey 1975: Pl.115:Q613) or a palmette,
and is dated to the irst century BCE. The double
bar may be equivalent to the double strip which
encircled Knidian-type lamps (Bailey 1975:
Pls. 62–67; Sussman 2009: Figs. 14 [Knidian]
and 27, 28 [Tell Sandahanna/Maresha]). The
rings at the join between the receptacle and
the rear projection are a feature that appears on
other Hellenistic-period lamps, such as have
been found in Tel Aviv (Sussman 2006: Figs
1, 2 [bronze]) and at Tell Sandahanna (Bliss
and Macalister 1902:60, Fig. 26 [bronze] and
Pl. 63:5 [pottery]). They must have lanked
the hinge attaching the lid, as on the identical
lamp found at Dor (Ambar-Armon 2007: Fig.
34). The shape of the projection may possibly
be reconstructed to end in a “crown” with three
small points.
To summarize, all the aforementioned
comparisons point toward a date in the second
century or the beginning of the irst century
BCE for the ‘Atlit bronze lamp.
Origin
The possible origin of the ‘Atlit lamp can be
tentatively determined. Typologically, elements
that are common to the production of workshops
in Eastern Greece and Alexandria, Egypt
(Abdou Daoud 1998) have been identiied. The
ship, when it sunk, could have been on its way
southward to Egypt, or from Egypt northward.
‘Atlit could have been either a stopover port or
the main destination of the wrecked ship.
Although pottery lamps are very common
in the archaeological record of Israel, bronze
lamps from the Hellenistic period are relatively
rare and only few have been found. The lamp
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
found at Dor, with the lid still attached (AmbarArmon 2007: Fig. 34), may allow us speculate
that the Dor and the ‘Atlit lamps were made in
the same workshop. Other bronze lamps with
similar features, but much more elaborately
decorated and better preserved, were discovered
in Tel Aviv, and have been tentatively attributed
an Egyptian origin (Sussman 2006:45–46,
Figs. 1–3). At Tell Sandahanna, a bronze oil
lamp with a projection, a gabled nozzle and a
marked waist was found (Bliss and Macalister
1902:60–61, Fig. 26). Bronze lamps were also
found at Apollonia (Roll and Ayalon 1989: Fig.
79), Shekhem (Stern 1981: Fig. 6:1 and Pl.
61:1, a northern type), and in an Early Roman/
Hellenistic shipwreck off Ashqelon (Galili et
al. 2010: Fig. 19).
In conclusion, based on the general shape,
the parallels, and the ornamentation, it seems
likely that the ‘Atlit lamp was produced in
Egypt. Nonetheless, an Eastern Greek origin
cannot be ruled out.
the bronze horse bit
The complete bronze horse bit (see above,
Assemblage 3; Haifa University Underwater
Survey, unpublished diving report D232) was
discovered some 100 m west–northwest of the
Hellenistic ram studied by Casson and Steffy
(1991).
Description (Fig. 12)
Measurements: Overall: L 320 mm, W 167–
174 mm. Cheek pieces: L 174 mm (side A),
167 mm (side B); lateral loops diam. 16 mm,
th. 2–3 mm; central loops diam. 23 mm, th. 3
mm. Mouthpieces: L 91 mm (side A), 92 mm
(side B with right angle), diam. of body 11 mm.
Rein loops: diam. 32–35 mm, th. 4–5 mm.
The horse bit under discussion belongs to the
snafle type, consisting of a pair of cheek pieces
that are interlocked with a two-piece jointed
mouthpiece (Fig. 12). Interestingly, it appears
to exhibit no attrition wear, an indication that
the bit was probably never in use, and may have
formed part of the ship’s commercial cargo.
The Ω-shaped cheek pieces of the ‘Atlit horse
bit exhibit curved sidebars, with terminals
turned upward. The terminals are molded
into the shape of out-turning feet, bordered
by an elliptical bulbous feature. Three loops
are spaced along the crescent of each sidebar.
The two small lateral loops are for attaching
the bridle’s cheek straps. The central, not
fully closed loops are hooked onto the loops
at the ends of the two links that make up the
mouthpiece.
The interlocked links of the mouthpiece are
simple stout bars, each equipped with a loop
at each end. The loops of one link are set at a
right angle to each other, to enable interlocking
in a straight line with the second link, whose
Side A
Side B
0
25
4
Fig. 12. Bronze horse bit.
26
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
loops were cast simply in one plane. The bases
of the two interlocking loops each feature four
knobs, spaced at consistent intervals around
their circumference. These bumps acted as a
signiicantly less severe version of the Greek
spiked mouthpieces (‘hedgehogs’). There are
no rein hooks, and the reins were evidently
fastened to the two large loops interlocked with
the outer loops of the links.
Discussion and Parallels
…pulling at his mouth with the bit and spurring
and whipping him, by which behavior most
people think they make their horses brilliant. For
these people obtain a result quite contrary to their
intentions (Xenophon Eq. 10.1-2).
Bitting is used to gain control over the horse
and to direct it, although the relationship
between the rider and his mount appears to be
more crucial than the type of bit used (Bishop
1988:108; Hyland 1990:113ff). Two major
types of bits were employed in the classical
world: the snafle and the curb (Manning
1985:66–67; Hyland 1990:139–140; Dixon and
Southern 1992:63–65). The less severe device
used on the horse’s mouth was the snafle bit.23
It consists of solid or jointed bars that have
loops on both ends and its design shows that
the rider needed both hands in order to use it
(Manning 1985:66).
Although no exact parallel is known in or
outside of Israel, this horse bit appears to share
structural similarities with early Near Eastern
and, more importantly, Greek snafle bits. The
principal concept of curved sidebars with two
loops for attaching the bridle’s cheek straps
can be seen on Assyrian snafle bits (Anderson
1961: Pl. 38b) and later, on Asiatic and Persian
specimens (Anderson 1961: Pls. 34a-b, 35ac). Nonetheless, a closer parallel of crescentshaped cheek pieces may be found in a jointed
snafle bit supposedly from Achaea (Anderson
1961:56, Pl. 34c; Drews 2004: Fig. 4:11),
although it differs in featuring bridle loops that
are spaced along the inner curve of the cheek
piece, rein hooks and a spiked mouthpiece.24
The interlocked construction of the ‘Atlit bit
appears to fall under Xenophon’s category of
‘lexible’ bits (Xenophon Eq. 10.10), while he
ascribed the relatively lat mouthpiece to the
‘smooth’ rather than the ‘rough’ class of bits
(Eq. 6).
During the Hellenistic period, wealth was
measured in Syria and Palestine by the number
of horses owned. The Seleucids managed very
large herds of horses (Strabo Geog. 16.2.10),
and the Tobiah family had a stable suitable for
over 100 mounts (Tepper 1997:237, Fig. 7, with
further references therein; Netzer 1998). This
Ptolemaic architectural tradition is commonly
attested in underground hewn caves in the
Shephelah settlements (Tepper and Shahar
1989; Tepper 1997:238, Fig. 8). Note also a
mounted hunter, depicted on a wall painting
in a tomb at Maresha (Peters and Thiersch
1905:23–34).
Information regarding equine accessories
in Hellenistic Palestine is rather scant.
Archaeological excavations at Gamla uncovered
a copper-alloy halter ring, which was directly
associated with an equine skeleton.25 A pair of
iron spurs was uncovered in a room adjacent
to the location of the horse skeleton (Stiebel
2014:101, Nos. 112, 113, Fig. 4.26:112, 113).
Two cheek pieces of a snafle bit decorated
with grapevines, which are of clear Hellenistic
afinities, were uncovered in a shipwreck north
of Tel Kones (Galili and Sharvit 1999b:97*–
98*, Fig. 190).26
Evidence in the early Roman period is
more abundant. Riding equipment and several
harness accessories are known from Gamla
(Stiebel 2014:99–103, Nos. 110–124, Figs.
4.26, 4.27),27 Herodium (Stiebel 2003:237,
Nos. 148–149, Figs. 21–22), Masada (Stiebel
and Magness 2007:28–31, Pl. 30:1–10) and
Siege Camp F, west of Masada.28 In addition,
an iron specimen of a two-piece jointed snafle
bit was found in the city wall of Gamla (Stiebel
2014:99, No. 111, Fig. 4.26:111). Another
snafle bit, from the period between the two
Jewish revolts (73/74–132 CE), was found in
a large cave in the Judean Desert, situated in
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
the northern cliff of the Quruntul ridge, north
of Jericho.29 The object was described as “made
of a hinge… attached to two metal rings. Three
other rings… are attached to the small ring”
(Sion 2002, 1:79, Fig. 35:2; 2:63), and is in
fact part of a two-piece jointed snafle bit. The
link has a collar and a mushroom-like terminal,
which is identical to the construction of a bit
from Newstead, Scotland (Junkelmann 1992:
Abb. 7).30 The three lateral rings of the Judean
Desert specimen probably held the reins and
the bridle leather straps.31
0
27
1
Fig. 13. Lead sling shot.
Summary
The unique discovery of the complete bronze
horse bit from ‘Atlit adds a further link to the
chain of evidence regarding the popularity
and longevity of the snafle bit in general. The
Hellenistic date of the associated remains, i.e.,
late second century BCE, appears to accord
with the bit’s tradition of construction, while
future archaeo-metallurgic tests might assist in
establishing the origin of production.
been recovered from several Mediterranean
shipwrecks (Beltrame 2002:33–35), all dated
Roman contexts. Our example is the irst sling
shot to be recovered off the shore of Israel, and
it would appear, by association, to be part of the
Hellenistic assemblage (see below). It may be
an indication of the kind of weaponry carried
aboard or perhaps the remains of a past battle;
alternatively, it could be a remnant of cargo.
the Lead sLing shot
A single, almond-shaped lead sling shot (or
sling bullet), inscribed with what appears
to be a stylized thunderbolt, was found in
Assemblage 6 (Fig. 13). Unfortunately,
the condition of the object precludes any
speculation about its origin or exact date.
Mold-made, decorated and/or inscribed lead
sling shots are commonly found in all areas of
Greek or Hellenistic inluence, as the sling was
one of the commonest and cheapest weapons.
Among the motifs appearing on them, the
thunderbolt is probably the most frequent, and
many such objects have been found at various
sites in Israel.
Slings have been known to be associated
with ships in ancient times. The Roman ships
attacking the Balearic Islands were fortiied
above deck level by screens made of hide to
protect them against sling projectiles (Morgan
1969:229). Sling shots, both singly and in
hoards containing hundreds of such items, have
discussion and summary
Site Formation
Because of physical conditions of the
Mediterranean coast off Israel, the scarcity
of natural shelters and the occurrence of
unexpected storms, many ships have been
wrecked and washed ashore over the millennia.
Most of the wreckage events occurred in the
breaker zone, some 10–200 m offshore; for the
most part, the wooden hulls did not survive,
and the remaining heavy remnants were
concentrated in shallow waters close to the
shoreline. Hence, it seems that the majority of
the artifacts from underwater explorations in
‘Atlit North Bay originated from ships, which
were wrecked during storms while anchoring
in the bay or sailing along the Israeli coast.
Among these inds were the several Hellenistic
assemblages described above, which are
scattered over a relatively large area. Analyzing
the distribution and nature of the artifacts on the
28
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
sea bottom may shed light on the shipwrecks
involved, the circumstances and nature of the
wreckage events, the site formation and postdeposition processes.
The Hellenistic Assemblages and Their
Association
It should now be considered whether all the
Hellenistic artifacts from Assemblages 1, 2,
3, 5 and 6, discovered in shallower water, and
Assemblage 4, located in deeper water west–
northwest of them, are indeed associated. In
this regard, the distance between the battering
ram (Assemblage 5) and the coins (Assemblage
2) recovered some 100 m to the east–northeast
should be examined. Did all the artifacts come
from a single vessel, or do they represent
several separate wreckage events?
The similarity in standard of two of the
square scale weights found in the deepest
site (Weights 2, 6 in Assemblage 4) to one
of the weights found near shore (Weight 4
in Assemblage 2) suggests that these inds
may be related. Judging by the distribution
of the square scale weights and other objects
in Assemblages 2 and 4, as well as by the
dating of the various artifacts in these two
assemblages (and possibly in Assemblages 1
and 6, too), these inds may have originated in
the same wreckage event. It is probable that a
ship, or several ships, sheltering in the lee side
of the small island or the submerged kurkar
reef protecting the bay from the west, drifted
ashore during a western or southwestern storm.
Once in the breaker zone, the ship(s) may have
been grounded and crushed, the heavy metal
objects scattered on the sea bottom, and the
wooden parts washed ashore. The battering
ram (see below) could have drifted separately
with the prow and inally been deposited some
100 m southwest of Assemblage 2, where it
was eventually found.
It should be noted, however, that a spear
isherman has been claiming for almost 40
years that he salvaged the ram from a sunken
ship some distance offshore, at a water depth
of dozens of meters, and dragged it to shallow
waters. His story has never been veriied,
nor has it been investigated thoroughly.32 A
comprehensive study of the fouling organisms
and sediments attached to the ram, as compared
to the marine environment of the ‘Atlit bay,
where it was found, as well as future underwater
archaeological surveys, may shed light on this
enigma.
The Evidence of the Lead Scale Weights and
Fishing Sinkers
As far as the square scale weights are concerned,
Weight 1 is too small to allow conclusions
related to the Hellenistic ship. Weight 5
may have originated from a different area or
even belonged to a different wreck: its mass
possibly relates to a Roman weight standard
and its physical aspect is not known for the
Hellenistic period. However, Weights 2, 4, and
6, and probably 3, are deinitely Hellenistic
and southern Levantine. If the weights and
the ram belonged to the same vessel, or to the
same group of ships sailing together, they may
provide a proximate date for the wreckage
event. A terminus post quem of 109 BCE
(from the scale weights), or more probably
106/5 BCE (from the pyramidal ishing
sinkers), is proposed for the wreckage, a date
that matches the conclusions drawn from the
study of the coins.
Weighing equipment was commonly found
on ancient Mediterranean shipwrecks (Parker
1992). It can be speculated that the presence
of the scale weights indicates that the ship, or
one of the ships, carried Levantine merchants.
These merchants could have boarded the ship
in Cyprus or somewhere on the Levantine
coast. The latter is more likely considering that
a coastal city (Tyre?) probably produced the
scale weights, and plausibly, also the pyramidal
ishing sinkers. The sinkers could also have
been brought on board anywhere along the
Levantine coast. Here again, the question is
raised: did they reach the Southern Levant on
some previous voyage from Phoenicia, where
they most probably originate? Or did the ship
pass through Phoenicia directly before reaching
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
the ‘Atlit North Bay? In other words, did it sail
from Cyprus (probably Paphos) to Phoenicia
(e.g. the area of Byblos), and then down the
coast, to ‘Atlit?
Dating the Hellenistic Assemblages and Their
Possible Association with the Ptolemies and the
War of Scepters (103–101 BCE)
The dating of the construction and wreckage
of the ship is construed from the following
evidence: (1) square Weights 2, 4, 6 are dated to
118–109 BCE (see above); (2) the majority of
the ishing sinkers appear to date to the end of
the second century BCE, from 106 BCE at the
earliest; (3) the bronze oil lamp is dated to the
end of the second or the beginning of the irst
century BCE (see above); and (4) the deposition
of the coins is dated to 103–101 BCE, based
upon similar coins found elsewhere in Israel
in contexts related to Ptolemy IX Lathyrus’
invasion (see above). Thus, Ptolemy IX’s reign
may possibly be the date of the wreckage of
the ship that carried the coins and the weights.
Assuming that the lifespan of such a ship does
not exceed thirty years (Murray 1991:65, n.
50), it could have been built during the reign of
Ptolemy VIII (145–116 BCE).
The ‘Atlit ram has been dated to the reigns
of Ptolemy V or Ptolemy VI (203 to 145 BCE),
mainly on the basis of stylistic evidence (Murray
1991:65–66). Since the production of battering
rams consumed much material and labor, they
were consequently expensive, but also longlasting. The 43 year gap between the date
proposed for the ram and the latest possible date
of the wreckage of the ship carrying the coins,
can be reconciled by considering the possibility
that the ram was carried as cargo or was in
secondary use. Moreover, it should be kept in
mind that stylistic evidence is less secure than
artifactual evidence, so the ram could be of later
production than that suggested by Murray.
Judging from the archaeological evidence
(disregarding the isherman’s story), it is
possible that the Hellenistic artifacts in
Assemblages 1, 2, 4 and 6, and the ram
(Assemblage 5) belonged to a Ptolemaic ship
29
plying the coastal waters during the war of
103–102 BCE (Josephus, War I.86; Antiquities
XIII.324–355). Another possibility is that these
groups of artifacts belong to two, or more,
such ships that sheltered in ‘Atlit North Bay
simultaneously or on different occasions. It
is most likely that the ship/ships belonged to
the leet of Ptolemy IX Lathyrus, considering
that the bulk of the coin hoard, possibly all
of it, is Cypriot, as is apparently the battering
ram (Murray 1991). Another leet active at the
time was that of Ptolemy X Alexander, sent
from Egypt in pursuit of Lathyrus by Cleopatra
Thea, the mother of Ptolemy IX and Ptolemy
X. The bronze oil lamp, which could be of
Egyptian origin (see above), may suggest that
the ship/ships came from Egypt. However, its
characteristics may also indicate Greek origin.
Thus, the lamp cannot be used as a reliable
origin marker.
Josephus (Antiquities XIII.332) mentions
that Lathyrus landed initially at Sycaminum
(identiied with Tel Shiqmona/Tell es-Samak,
on the southern periphery of present-day Haifa).
Recent surveys at Tel Shiqmona have revealed
that the physical nature of this coast does not
offer proper shelter or anchorage facilities for
seagoing vessels (Galili and Sharvit 1999a;
Galili and Rosen 2008:1931; Galili 2009).
Thus, the ‘Atlit North Bay, protected from
the prevailing southwesterly winds, may have
provided the anchorage for vessels bound
for Sycaminum. Further support for this may
be found in a hoard of artifacts containing
a decorated bronze standard bearing an
inscription speciically mentioning Sycaminum
(Ullman and Galili 1994; Galili and Rosen
2008:1931; Galili 2009). Lathyrus may have
used this anchorage as well.
There can be no question that during the
many months of war, Lathyrus’ ships stopped at
several other ports as well. The large numbers
of such late Ptolemaic coins found at Dora/
Dor (Gitler and Kushnir-Stein 1994–1999,
passim) seem to prove this point. The city was
held, initially at least, by the Tyrant Zoilus,
who had contacts with Lathyrus (Josephus,
30
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
Ant. XIII.324–326, 334–335; War I.86). If
one is to believe the accounts of Josephus
(Ant. XIII.358), according to which Lathyrus
inally departed for Cyprus from Gaza, such
late Ptolemaic coins can be expected to turn up
south of Dor as well, and all the way to Gaza,
as illustrated for example by the coin from
Ashqelon (Gitler and Kahanov 2002).
Summary
The available archaeological evidence cannot
determine whether one is dealing with a
warship or a merchant vessel carrying the ram
as cargo. However, remains of the ship’s prow
were attached to the ram and protruded from it
when found (see Fig. 4), and it is not reasonable
to assume that this elongated wooden beam was
kept attached to the ram while being carried
onboard a merchant ship as a cargo. Similarly,
the lead sling shot may be associated with
military activities.
Thus the irst option of a warship wreckage
is more likely. Likewise, as attested by other
shipwrecks investigated off the Israeli coast,
many seagoing vessels—no matter what their
function—carried ishing gear to supplement the
food of crew and passengers (Galili, Rosen and
Sharvit 2002; 2010). If, indeed, this wrecked
ship was part of the above-mentioned military
campaign, the presence of both the series of scale
weights and ishing sinkers would most likely have
been linked to the supply activities surrounding
the Ptolemaic operation. The ship may later have
sunk while the leet headed south, toward Gaza
(see above), which Lathyrus conquered and used
as a base during the struggle which ensued.
notes
1
Responsibility for the various sections of this
article was divided among the authors: Ehud
Galili, the description of the site and the Hellenistic
assemblages (nn. 1, 2); Danny Syon, the coins
(nn. 3–7); Gerald Finkielsztejn, the scale weights
(nn. 8–15); Galili (typology, function and
terminology) and Finkielsztejn (function, symbols,
metrology, date, and origin), the ishing sinkers
(nn. 16–22); Varda Sussman, the bronze oil lamp;
Guy Stiebel, the bronze horse bit (nn. 23–31);
Galili and Syon, the sling shot; Galili, Syon and
Finkielsztejn, the inal discussion (n. 32).
2
The underwater survey was carried out from
1997 to 1999 on behalf of the IAA (Licence Nos.
G-30/1977, G-29/1998, G-13/1999), under the
direction of Ehud Galili, with the assistance of
Jacob Sharvit, Dani Moskovits and volunteer divers.
Photography was by Clara Amit (Figs. 5, 8, 12),
Zeev Radovan (Fig. 11), Mariana Salzberger (Fig. 7)
and Shelley Wachsmann (Fig. 4).
3
I [Syon] gratefully acknowledge the help of
Catharine Lorber with the identiication of coin Nos.
77 and 78.
4
A full historical discussion can be found in Gitler and
Kushnir-Stein 1994–1999, with further references.
The episode is detailed by Josephus Flavius, War
I.4.2. (86); Ant. XIII 13.12.1–13.13.3 (320–355).
5
As it turns out, Gitler and Kushnir-Stein’s article
went to press without some last minute corrections
regarding the axes. According to information
received from the authors, the following corrections
apply (catalogue number-axis): 24-11; 25-11; 26-11;
30-7; 33-11; 35-11; 46-11; 57-11; 60-11.
6
This was ascertained by measuring many of the
illustrated coins on the photograph. My [Syon] own
measurements are across the circle.
7
I [Syon] wish to thank Catharine Lorber for this
information.
8
My [Finkielsztejn] thanks to Zaraza Friedman for
the description of these elements of the ship.
9
In one unclear case, on the drawing of a 1497 g
weight, a sign similar to that on our Weight 4 has
been interpreted as an incomplete sigma (Elayi and
Elayi 1997:137, 178, 390; Fig. 22, No. 391). For
both examples, I [Finkielsztejn] prefer to accept
the identiication as a “squarish” stigma (ς) or, less
likely, a retrograde zeta(?). On Elayi and Elayi,
No. 391, the Phoenician letters are retrograde with
normal reading, including the word (“Year”),
while the Greek stigma or zeta (6 or 7), iota (10)
and sigma (200) give the year 216 or 217 CE. The
order of unit, tens and hundreds following the word
“Year” in Phoenician would be in accordance with
the Seleucid convention for Greek inscriptions on
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
weights, regarding the order of the numerals that
follow the symbol L for “Year.” In addition, Elayi
and Elayi No. 391 may bear a double dating, with
the second date in Year 30 (lambda) according to
the era of the “Freedom of Tyre” (which begins in
126/5 BCE). Thus, both Seleucid and Tyrian dates
would fall in the year 97/6 (stigma and lambda) or
96/5 (zeta) BCE. Unfortunately, other associated
signs are unclear and the weight is illegible today
(see Finkielsztejn 2015:87, 92).
10
I [Finkielsztejn] know of only one example, clearly
from Phoenicia (Münz Zentrum 1983: No. 5105;
Finkielsztejn 2015:88, 94, 96; Fig. 1:155). This 1935
g weight bears two Phoenician letters (obverse) and
possibly the number ‘20’ in Phoenician (on one lateral
side of that thick example; the date is legible when
one rotates the picture 90 degrees counterclockwise:
L enrV (155, probably in the Seleucid Era, i.e., 158
BCE). The device is a trident, probably the symbol
of a coastal city (Finkielsztejn 2015:94–96).
11
Doyen’s article appeared too late to be treated here,
but it has been analyzed in Part Two of my series,
“The Weight Standards of the Hellenistic Levant”
(Finkielsztejn 2015); for Part One, see Finkielsztein
2014.
12
Based on the now identiied use of the Attic
drachm of 4.35 g in the Southern Levant (Doyen
2014:284–298; see n. 11 above), it should be noted
that three times 4.35 g equals 13.05 g, which is the
weight of a sheqel attested in Arados. Since a mina
of 150 drachms (4.35 × 150 = 652.5.g) was used in
Athens at the very end of the second century BCE,
it would seem that 50 sheqels of 13.05 g (652.5 g)
are equivalent to 150 Attic drachms, or one Attic
mina. Doyen points out the equivalence of that value
to two Roman pounds (livtra) of 326.25 g. It is
most probable that these rarely used weights from
southern Syria and northern Phoenicia, the mass of
which is close to c. 643 g, were in fact corroded (by
only 1.5%) minas of 652.5 g (see Doyen 2014:295,
n. 76; Finkielsztejn 2014:70–71,73, 79, Fig. 6;
2015:57–58, 94, 97, 99).
13
The wedge appears on other types of documents,
where it is known to have different meanings (Ariel
et al. 1985:138–139; Finkielsztejn 1998b:90).
14
Note that the reading of the “Dora” weight, for
which Kushnir-Stein 1997:90 rightly corrected
the dating, was reexamined by Spaer (2000,
with reference to the editio princeps). He found
that, instead of DWRA, one should actually read
AGORA(nomou`nto~), i.e., when Dorotheos—the
name appearing on that weight—was acting as
agoranomos. This is a better match to the corpus
of weights from the Hellenistic Southern Levant,
where the name of the city never appears (except in
31
some Phoenician cities, e.g., Tyre, Marathos, Arados
and perhaps Gaza, identiied by local symbols,
monograms, or the full name, or for cities refounded
under a royal Seleucid name; Finkielsztejn 2003:473,
n. 31; 2007). I [Finkielsztejn] suggest reading the
word MNA (mna`; mina) in full at the bottom of the
“Dora” weight, which indeed weighs 512.5 g.
15
Even more intriguing is the fact that—as JeanYves Empereur, director of the Centre d’études
alexandrines, kindly informed me [Finkielsztejn]—
not a single lead (or bronze) scale weight was found
in the Ptolemaic layers of his excavations in the
city of Alexandria. Yet, written sources mention the
use of three different standards in Ptolemaic Egypt:
the “Egyptian mina”, the “Ptolemaic mina” and the
“Alexandrian mina”. Hultsch deduced that they
weighed respectively 437, 491.2, and 546 grams
(Hultsch 1864:196, index with references; 1882:643,
645, with references). Although the “Ptolemaic
mina” is very close to the mass of our Weights 2–4,
it seems highly unlikely that it was the standard upon
which they were based.
16
I [Finkielsztejn] agree with the Hellenistic dating
for this item, as corrected by Elayi and Elayi
1997:176–177.
17
See Elayi and Elayi 1997: passim; especially Pls.
XI:165, 166, 168, 170; XII:174, 175 (pyramidal
weights); XXII:316; XXVIII:379 (for the “Arados”
style). Note that the attribution of this design to
Arados is rejected by Josette Elayi, but accepted by
other scholars, including myself (see Finkielsztejn
2007). Such is the case for a similar design on the
Marathos weights. Elayi identiies these designs as the
representations of scales of two different types, one
type on the Arados weights and the other on weights
from nearby Marathos. Both Seyrig and Bordreuil,
on the other hand, identiied these designs as being
Phoenician monograms that include all the letters of
the names of Arados (Arwad) and Marathos (Marat),
respectively (for references see Finkielsztejn 2007:49,
with n. 37; 2015:56, with n. 4).
18
A parallel with Hellenistic loom weights made of
clay has been suggested, but few of those found in
Israel were stamped (Elayi and Elayi 1997:314). A
discussion of this comparison is beyond the scope of
this article.
19
I [Finkielsztejn] thank Aviva Schwarzfeld for the
latter sound suggestion.
20
Kletter (2013) deals in depth with the question of the
function of the pyramidal lead objects. Unfortunately,
his article, which was published some eight years after
I wrote the present contribution, came to my attention
too late to be fully discussed here.
21
It should be noted that the standard of the mina
of the Southern Levant is 556.8 g, which is based
32
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
upon 128 Attic drachm (4.35 g × 128 = 556.8 g). See
Doyen 2014:284–298.
22
A group of pyramidal weights was found during the
excavations at Dor. They were studied for publication
by Orna Nagar-Hillman, within the framework of an
M.A. thesis, directed by Ronny Reich (the University
of Haifa). I [Finkielsztejn] was kindly invited to
provide some expertise on the weights from Dor. The
values of these pyramidal weights, not available at
the time of completion of this article, may eventually
contribute to the comprehension of these artifacts
in all respects. In addition, such sinkers are found
isolated in various sites of Israel, such as ‘Akko (to
be published by myself) and Gamla (Nagar-Hillman
2016).
23
The curb bit was designed to obtain complete
control by inlicting sharp and severe pain to the
mount (Manning 1985:67; Hyland 1990:67). It is
described in the Mishnah, Kelim 11:5 and Tosefta,
Baba Mesia 4:6 ( אפרומביא,פרומביא, frumbija, a
loan word from the Greek forbeίαv).
24
For the history of the snafle-bit, see Drews
2004:94ff.
25
Mounts were led by chain—in Hebrew, = שיר
šeir (Mishnah, Shabbat 5:1; Tosefta, Shabbat 4:4;
Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 7a-b, 8b; Babylonian
Talmud, Shabbat 51b, 52a; 61b; 64a). In the popular
book about Gamla, the halter ring was incorrectly
described as a horse bit (Gutman 1994:117–118); see
now the inal report: Stiebel 2014:99, No. 110, Fig.
4.26:110.
26
IAA sub-site 10-14568/24120. I [Stiebel] thank
Ehud Galili for this information.
27
The Roman-period riding equipment in Gamla
includes bits, spurs, a halter and harness decorations
(pendants and phalerae). See Stiebel 2014:99–103.
28
The harness decorations (pendants and phalerae)
were uncovered in the excavations conducted in
1995 by Benny Arubas, Gideon Foerster, Haim
Goldfus and Jodi Magness (Goldfus and Arubas
2002), and will be published by Guy Stiebel.
29
Jebel Abu Saraj cliff, Cave VI/52 (‘Cave of the
Niche’). IAA survey of 1993–Southern section, Unit
1, No. 13.
30
Royal Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh, FRA 500.
31
The future analysis of the yet unstudied leather
scraps that were uncovered in the cave (Sion 2002,
2:62) may yield harness remains.
32
According to the isherman’s testimony, he hid the
battering ram at the spot where it was eventually
found, intending one day to sell it for scrap or to
smuggle it abroad (Robert Schomos, pers. comm.
2005).
references
Abdou Daoud D. 1998. Evidence for the Production
of Bronze in Alexandria. In J.-Y. Empereur
ed. Commerce et artisanat dans l’Alexandrie
hellénistique et romaine: Actes de la Table
Ronde organiseé par le CNRS, le Laboratoire de
Céramologie de Lyons et l’EFA, Athènes, 10–12
octobre 1988 (Actes du colloque d’Athènes, 11–
12 décembre 1988) (BCH Suppl. 33). Athens. Pp.
115–124.
Ambar-Armon E. 2007. Oil Lamps in the Land of
Israel during the Hellenistic Period in Light
of the Finds from the Maresha Excavations:
Conservatism and Tradition alongside Creativity
and Innovation (2 vols.). Ph.D. diss., BarIlan University. Ramat Gan (Hebrew; English
summary, pp. I–VI).
Anderson J.K. 1961. Ancient Greek Horsemanship.
Berkley–Los Angeles.
Ariel D.T., Sharon I., Gunneweg J. and Perlman I.
1985. A Group of Stamped Hellenistic Storage-Jar
Handles from Dor. IEJ 35:135–152.
Beltrame C. 2002. Vita di bordo in età romana. Rome.
Bailey D.M. 1975. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the
British Museum I: Greek, Hellenistic, and Early
Roman Pottery Lamps. London.
Bailey D.M. 1996. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the
British Museum IV: Lamps of Metal and Stone,
and Lampstands. London.
Basch L. 1987. Le musée imaginaire de la marine
antique (Institut hellénique pour la préservation de
la tradition nautique). Athens.
Bishop M.C. 1988. Cavalry Equipment of the
Roman Army in the First Century AD. In J.C.N.
Coulston ed. Military Equipment and the Identity
of Roman Soldiers (Proceedings of the Fourth
Roman Military Equipment Conference) (BAR
Int. S. 394). Oxford. Pp. 67–195.
Bliss F.J. and Macalister R.A.S. 1902. Excavations
in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900. London.
Bordreuil P. and Gubel E. eds. 1990. Bulletin
d’antiquités archéologiques du Levant inédits ou
méconnus VI. Syria 67:483–520.
Bruneau P. 1965. Les lampes (Exploration
archéologique de Délos XXVI) (2 vols). Paris.
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
Casson L. and Steffy J.R. eds. 1991. The Athlit Ram
(The Nautical Archaeology Series 3). College
Station, Tex.
Dixon K.R. and Southern P. 1992. The Roman
Cavalry: From the First to the Third Century AD.
London–New York.
Doyen C. 2014. Le système monétaire et pondéral
d’Antiochos IV. In C. Feyel and L. Graslin-Thomé
eds. Le projet politique d’Antiochos IV (Journées
d’études franco-allemandes, Nancy, 17–19 juin
2013) (Études anciennes 56; Études nancéennes
d’histoire grecque II). Nancy. Pp. 261–299.
Drews R. 2004. Early Riders: The Beginnings of
Mounted Warfare in Asia and Europe. New York–
London.
Dumont A. 1892. Monument métrologique découvert
à Naxos. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’épigraphie.
Paris. Pp. 120–125 (= Revue Archéologique 26,
1873:43–47).
Dunand M. and Duru R. 1962. Oumm el-‘Amed: Une
ville de l’époque hellénistique aux Échelles de Tyr
(Études et documents d’archéologie IV). Paris.
Elayi J. 1991. Quelques poids nord-ouest sémitiques
inédits. Semitica 40:31–38.
Elayi J. and Elayi A.G. 1997. Recherches sur les
poids phéniciens (Transeuphratène Suppl. 5).
Paris.
Finkielsztejn G. 1990. Amphores et timbres
d’amphores importés en Palestine à l’époque
hellénistique: Orientations de recherches et
premiers résultats (2 vols.) (Mémoires de
l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.
École biblique et archéologique française de
Jérusalem). Jerusalem (unpublished).
Finkielsztejn G. 1998a. More Evidence on John
Hyrcanus I’s Conquests: Lead Weights and
Rhodian Amphora Stamps. BAIAS 16:33–63.
Finkielsztejn G. 1998b. Timbres amphoriques du
Levant d’époque hellénistique. Transeuphratène
15:83–121.
Finkielsztejn G. 1999. A Standard of Volumes for
Liquids from Hellenistic Marisa. ‘Atiqot 38:51–
64.
Finkielsztejn G. 2003. Administration du Levant sud
sous les Séleucides: Remarques préliminaires. In
M. Sartre ed. La Syrie hellénistique (Actes du Ier
colloque de Tours, octobre 2000) (Topoi Suppl. 4).
Lyon. Pp. 465–484.
Finkielsztejn G. 2007. Poids de plomb inscrits du
Levant: Une réforme d’Antiochos IV? In M.
Sartre ed. Productions et échanges dans la Syrie
grecque et romaine (Actes du colloque de Tours,
juin 2003) (Topoi Suppl. 8). Lyon. Pp. 35–60.
Finkielsztejn G. 2010a. The Maresha Scale Weights:
Metrology, Administration and History. In
33
A. Kloner, E. Eshel, H.B. Korzakova and G.
Finkielsztejn. Maresha Excavations Final Report
III: Epigraphic Finds from the 1989–2000 Seasons
(IAA Reports 45). Jerusalem. Pp. 175–192.
Finkielsztejn G. 2010b. The Sekoma: A Volume
Standard for Liquids. In A. Kloner, E. Eshel,
H.B. Korzakova and G. Finkielsztejn. Maresha
Excavations Final Report III: Epigraphic Finds
from the 1989–2000 Seasons (IAA Reports 45).
Jerusalem. Pp. 193–203.
Finkielsztejn G. 2012. Témoignages sur les
agoranomes du Levant à l’époque hellénistique. In
L. Capdetrey and C. Hasenohr eds. Agoranomes et
édiles: Institutions des marchés antiques (Scripta
Antiqua 44). Bordeaux. Pp. 131–154.
Finkielsztejn G. 2014. The Weight Standards of the
Hellenistic Levant 1: The Evidence of the Syrian
Scale Weights. INR 9:61–94.
Finkielsztejn G. 2015. The Weight Standards of
the Hellenistic Levant 2: The Evidence of the
Phoenician Scale Weights. INR 10:55–103.
Finkielsztejn G. Forthcoming. The Weight Standards
of the Hellenistic Levant 3: The Evidence of the
Southern Levant Scale Weights. INR.
Finkielsztejn G. and Gatier P.-L. Forthcoming. Un
poids inscrit hellénistique à Ptolémaïs-Aké.
Friedman Z., Galili E. and Sharvit J. 2002. Lead
Weights for Balancing Wooden Gear of Hellenistic
Ships: Finds from the Carmel Coast, Israel. In
H. Tzalas ed. Tropis VII (Proceedings of the 7th
International Symposium on Ship Construction
in Antiquity, Pylos, August 1999). Athens. Pp.
345–359.
Galili E. 2009. Ancient Ports and Anchorages along
Israel’s Coastline in Light of Five Decades of
Marine and Coastal Archaeological Activity and
Excavation. Qadmoniot 137:2–21 (Hebrew).
Galili E. and Rosen B. 2008. Marine Archaeology.
NEAEHL 5. Jerusalem. Pp. 1925–1934.
Galili E., Rosen B. and Sharvit J. 2002. Fishing-Gear
Sinkers Recovered from an Underwater Wreckage
Site, off the Carmel Coast, Israel. IJNA 31:182–
201.
Galili E., Rosen B. and Sharvit J. 2010. Artifact
Assemblages from Two Roman Shipwrecks off
the Carmel Coast. ‘Atiqot 63:61–110.
Galili E. and Sharvit J. 1999a. Haifa, Underwater
Surveys. HA–ESI 110:15*–20*.
Galili E. and Sharvit J. 1999b. Underwater Survey in
the Mediterranean 1992–1996. ESI 19:96*–101*.
Galili E., Sussman V., Stiebel G. and Rosen B.
2010. A Hellenistic/Early Roman Shipwreck off
Ashkelon, Israel. IJNA 39:125–145.
Gitler H. and Kahanov Y. 2002. The Ascalon 1988
Hoard (CH 9.548)—A Periplus to Ascalon in
34
e. gaLiLi, d. syon, g. finkieLsztejn, v. sussman and g.d. stiebeL
the Late Hellenistic Period? In A. Meadows
and U. Wartenberg eds. Coin Hoards 9 (Royal
Numismatic Society Special Publications 35).
London. Pp. 259–268.
Gitler H. and Kushnir-Stein A. 1994–1999. The
Chronology of a Late Ptolemaic Bronze CoinType from Cyprus. INJ 13:46–53.
Goldfus H. and Arubas B. 2002. Excavations at the
Roman Siege Complex at Masada—1995. In P.
Freeman, J. Bennett, Z.T. Fiema and B. Hoffmann
eds. Limes XVIII (Proceedings of the XVIIIth
International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies
held in Amman, Jordan, September 2000) I (BAR
Int. S. 1084). Oxford. Pp. 207–214.
Gutman S. 1994. Gamla—A City in Rebellion. Tel
Aviv (Hebrew).
Hultsch F. ed. 1864. Metrologicorum scriptorum
reliquiae I. Leipzig.
Hultsch F. 1882. Griechische und römische
metrologie (2nd ed.). Berlin.
Hyland A. 1990. Equus: The Horse in the Roman
World. London.
Hyland A. 1992. The Roman Cavalry Horse and
Its Eficient Control. Journal of Roman Military
Equipment Studies 3:73–79.
Junkelmann M. 1992. Die Reiter Roms III: Zubehör,
Reitweise, Bewaffnung (Kulturgeschichte der
antiken Welt 53). Mainz am Rhein.
Kawkabani I. 2003. Les anses timbrées de Jahl elBahr. Archaeology and History in Lebanon 17:
95–99.
Kletter R. 2013. Pyramidal Lead Objects: Scale
Weights, Loom Weights, or Sinkers? Journal of
the Economic and Social History of the Orient
56:1–28.
Kushnir-Stein A. 1995. Two Inscribed Weights from
Banias. IEJ 45:48–51.
Kushnir-Stein A. 1997. On the Chronology of Some
Inscribed Lead Weights from Palestine. ZDPV
113:88–91.
Manning W.H. 1985. Catalogue of the RomanoBritish Iron Tools, Fittings, and Weapons in the
British Museum. London.
Merhav R. 1996. A Bronze Leg from a Piece of
Hellenistic Furniture—a Find from the Seabed
near ‘Atlit. Eretz-Israel 25:427–433 (Hebrew;
English summary, pp. 104*–105*).
Młynarczyk J. 1997. Alexandrian and AlexandriaInluenced Mould-Made Lamps of the Hellenistic
Period (BAR Int. S. 677). Oxford.
Morgan M.G. 1969. The Roman Conquest of the
Balearic Isles. California Studies in Classical
Antiquity 2:217–231.
Münz Zentrum 1983. Auktion XLIX: Gewichte aus
drei Jahrtausenden IV. Köln.
Murray W.M. 1991. The Provenience and Date:
The Evidence of the Symbols. In L. Casson and
J.R. Steffy eds. The Athlit Ram (The Nautical
Archaeology Series 3). College Station, Tex. Pp.
51–66.
Nagar-Hillman O. 2016. Metal Weights and Similar
Artifacts. In D. Syon. Gamla III, 2: The Shmarya
Gutmann Excavations 1976–1989; Finds and
Studies (IAA Reports 59). Jerusalem. Pp. 213–224.
Netzer E. 1998. The Enchanted Palace Built by
Hyrcanus the Tobiad in Transjordan. Qadmoniot
116:117–122 (Hebrew).
Oron A. 2006. The Athlit Ram Bronze Casting
Reconsidered:
Scientiic
and
Technical
Reexamination. JAS 33:63–76.
Parker A.J. 1992. Ancient Shipwrecks of the
Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces (BAR
Int. S. 580). Oxford.
Peters J.P. and Thiersch H. 1905. Painted Tombs in
the Necropolis of Marisa (Marêshah). London.
Raban A.1992. A Group of Objects from a Wreckage
Site at Athlit. Michmanim 6:31–53 (Hebrew;
English summary, pp. 41*–42*).
Rahmani L.Y. 1980. Miscellanea—Roman to
Medieval. ‘Atiqot (ES) 14:103–113.
Rahmani L.Y. 1986. A Late Roman Period Libra
Weight from Hanita. In M. Yedaya ed. The
Western Galilee Antiquities. Tel Aviv. Pp. 483–
484 (Hebrew).
Reinhart Estate 1997: The Philip Y. Reinhart Estate
of World and Ancient Coins, including Foreign
Currency and a Fine Selection of Antiquities,
June 3, 4, 1997 (Superior Stamp & Coin Auction
Catalog). Beverly Hills.
Roll I. and Ayalon E. 1989. Apollonia and Southern
Sharon: Model of a Coastal City and Its
Hinterland. Tel Aviv (Hebrew).
Seyrig H. 1946–48. Poids antiques de la Syrie et de
la Phénicie sous la domination grecque et romaine.
BMB 8:37–79.
Sharvit J., Galili E., Rosen B. and Brink E.C.M. van
den. 2002. Predynastic Maritime Trafic along the
Carmel Coast of Israel: A Submerged Find from
North Atlit Bay. In E.C.M. van den Brink and E.
Yannai eds. In Quest of Ancient Settlements and
Landscapes: Archaeological Studies in Honour of
Ram Gophna. Tel Aviv. Pp. 159–166.
Siegelmann A. 1989. Two Lead Weights from Tēl
Šoš (Tell Abū Šūše). ZDPV 105:123.
Sion O. 2002. Regions IV and VI: Survey and
Excavations of Caves along the Jebel Abu Saraj
Cliff. ‘Atiqot 41, 1:45–84 (Hebrew); 2:43–70
(English).
Spaer A. 2000. Dor—Ruler of the Seas and a Lead
Weight Attributed to It. The Celator 14/1:17–21.
Late PtoLemaic assembLages off the coast of ‘atLit
Stern E. 1981. Achaemenid Tombs at Shechem. EretzIsrael 15:312–330 (Hebrew; English summary, p.
86*).
Stiebel G.D. 2003. The Militaria from Herodium.
In G.C. Bottini, L. Di Segni and L.D. Chrupcała
eds. One Land—Many Cultures: Archaeological
Studies in Honor of Stanislao Loffreda OFM
(Collectio Maior 41). Jerusalem. Pp. 214–244.
Stiebel G.D. and Magness J. 2007. The Military
Equipment from Masada. In J. Aviram, G. Foerster,
E. Netzer and G.D. Stiebel eds. 2007. In Masada
VIII: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965,
Final Reports. Jerusalem. Pp. 1–94.
Stiebel G.D. 2014. Military Equipment. In D. Syon.
Gamla III, 1: The Shmarya Gutmann Excavations
1976–1989; Finds and Studies (IAA Reports 56).
Jerusalem. Pp. 57–107.
Strabo. Geography (H.L. Jones transl.; Loeb
Classical Library 241). London 1930.
Sussman V. 2006. A Unique Bronze Oil Lamp and
Bowl of the Hellenistic Period. IEJ 56.1:39–50.
Sussman V. 2009. Greek and Hellenistic Wheel- and
Mould-Made Closed Oil Lamps in the Holy Land:
35
Collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority
(BAR Int. S. 2015) Oxford.
Svoronos J.N. 1904. Ta Nomismata tou kratous tōn
Ptolemaiōn I–III. Athens.
Tepper Y. 1997. Stables in the Land of Israel in the
Roman and Byzantine Periods. In S. Dar and Z.
Safrai eds. The Village in Ancient Israel. Tel Aviv.
Pp. 229–274 (Hebrew).
Tepper Y. and Shahar Y. 1989. Underground Stables
in the Judean Shephelah. Niqrot Zurim 15:75–94
(Hebrew; English summary, p. 184).
Ullman L. and Galili E. 1994. A Greek Inscription
Mentioning ΣΥΚΑΜΙNWΝ Discovered off the
Carmel Coast. SCI 13:116–122.
Wolff S.R. and Finkielsztejn G. 2009. Two New
Hellenistic Lead Weights of the Tanit Series. In
J.D. Schloen ed. Exploring the Longue Durée:
Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Winona
Lake. Pp. 497–506.
Xenophon Eq. J.K. Anderson. Ancient Greek
Horsemanship, with a transl. of Xenophon’s Περὶ
ἱππικῆς. Berkeley 1961.
Gerald Finkielsztejn
Guy Stiebel