The Chronology and Tenure of Pontius Pilate, New Evidence for Re-dating the Period of Office. Judaea and Rome in Coins, 65 BCE - 135 CE. The Numismatic Circular, pp. 1-7. Kenneth Lönnqvist.

Judaea and Rome in Coins 65 BCE - 135 CE, An Apology Following the very successful international conference held at Spink in September 2010, the Proceedings were published without one of the papers that was delivered owing to the reservations of one of the editors. This was the paper of Dr Kenneth Lonnqvist of the University of Helsinki, Finland. The paper is published here in full and with the sincere and unreserved apologies of Spink, the publishers. The Chronology and Tenure of Pontius Pilate: New Evidence for Re-dating the Period of Office1 Dr. Kenneth Lönnqvist, University of Helsinki, Finland. Fig. 1. Roman bronze coin minted by Pontius Pilate in A.D. 29/30. Obv.: lituus (an augur’s staff used for divine forecasting), around inscription: TIBEPIOY KAICAPOC Rev.: Date in wreath: LIZ (“Year 17”= 30/31 A.D.). Coin credit: ©Trustees of the British Museum. These coins in general were associated with a Roman quadrans (weight ca. 1.5-2.5 grams, diameter 15-18 mm), a Greek lepton, a widow’s mite (Mk. 12:42, Lk. 12: 59) or a Jewish ‘prutah’. The coins are dated according to the year of rule of the Roman Emperor (name of Emperor), but do not carry the name of the Roman governor under whom they were minted. 1. Introduction This paper focuses mainly on the new archaeological, archaeometallurgical and numismatic evidence concerning the mandate period of Pontius Pilate. By and large, Pilate is perhaps the best known governor in the early Roman Empire, mainly because of his involvement with the New Testament events and the trial of Jesus Christ, which is central to Christian history. Because of this many portraits of this infamous Roman, from the point of view of what kind of a political figure and representative of Rome Pilate actually was, have been compiled up as they emerge from contemporary writings. Pilate’s period of office in Judaea has traditionally been dated 26-36 A.D., though this date can now be legitimately questioned in the light of the evidence presented here. In 2000-2003 when the preliminary results of the research affecting the chronology of Pilate (Lönnqvist 2000, 459-74; Lönnqvist 2003, 45-60) were in the process of being published for the first time, they triggered reactions from some renowned scholars in ancient history such as Alföldy (2002, 133) under the general heading of “once more on Pontius Pilate”. Unfortunately, this did not then lead to a more complete re-evaluation of Pilate’s chronology which is attempted here. For the reader not familiar with the primary sources of this period such as the early Roman provincial coinage of Judaea minted 6-66 A.D., which will be further discussed in this paper and which forms the basis of the hypothesis presented here, there are two general illustrations of coins minted by Valerius Gratus in A.D. 24/25 (Fig. 2) and Pontius Pilate in 29/30 A.D. (Fig. 1) accompanied by a description of the coin type from various sources. Due to his coinage, Pilate is without doubt also the most controversial figure of the thirteen or fourteen Roman governors who ruled Judaea in 6-66 A.D. However, it needs from the outset to be pointed out that it has often not been very well understood how ancient coinage worked within the framework of the Imperial administration and the context of the Roman provinces, and how this evidence may be used to illustrated Pilate’s governorship if at all. This has, for instance, led to some erroneous interpretations as to what Roman governors as a rule could or could not do (cf. Bond 1996; Carter 2003). Coins were, for example, not as many scholars still believe, objects that a Roman governor normally could mint for his own profit, advantage or pleasure. Had that been the case, each governor in the Roman Empire would have minted coins when he was dispatched to a province. More importantly, one needs to appreciate that the Judaean coins formed part of a coinage system that was centrally regulated from Rome and served a large population within a politically and geographically defined provincial area. We can, however, assume that a governor on certain occasions was able to choose coin designs, but he may necessarily not have been able to influence coin inscriptions or types of alloys used in a provincial coinage. In this attempt to build up a more comprehensive picture of Pilate in history and his chronology, from what is either known or can be deduced about this Roman, the following four groups of sources are presented, some of which are discussed in more detail below: i) Administrative history and governorships of the early Imperial period ii) The first Roman provincial coinage 6-66 A.D. (archaeometallurgy, coin types) iii) Historical texts of the period: Josephus and Roman historians iv) Epigraphic material and papyri from the area 2. Provincial rule and governorships in the early Roman Empire The focus of this section is to draw attention to the general Roman administrative and imperial context of Pilate’s tenure which has been surprisingly little discussed. Pilate’s tenure in Roman Judaea cannot be understood unless it is placed in its proper administrative context. It is a fact that Pilate’s long involvement in the Judaean affairs has been seen so far in a rather local and temporal perspective, without taking into account the full implications of the Roman administrative history of the period. We believe therefore, that an answer will present itself to the question of what was the prevailing system and hierarchy of governorships in the early Principate under the Emperor Tiberius. This means primarily the backgrounds and lengths of the tenures of the governors appointed to provinces. For instance, Alföldy in the above mentioned response to ours made in 2000 and 2003 to re-evaluate Pilate’s chronology, adduced the argument that they ‘do not believe’ that Pilate’s chronology should be changed. Without any direct evidence for the counter argument these views are scientifically not tenable and should now be discarded. The Emperor Tiberius’ practice of ruling provinces has been duly noted before by many prominent scholars but it does still deserve a brief word here (Schürer, Vermes, Millar 1973, 383, n. 132; Goodman 2008, passim; Brunt 1990, 76; Syme 1984, 1354-63; Griffin 1995, 45-7). It is widely known that the Emperor Tiberius kept some governors in provincial posts for exceptionally long periods while others, such as consular JANUARY 2014 1 commands, were left vacant. The Emperor even went as far as to appoint able men to provincial posts but, at the end of the day, never dispatched them. Some were kept in Rome until they died. Such appointees were, for instance, L. Aelius Lamia and L. Arruntius, who were appointed to Syria and Tarraconensis in 23 A.D. but were still in Rome in 33 A.D. (Tac. Ann. 6.27), thus with an expected tenure of about ten years minimum (Griffin 1995, 45-6). What really matters here is to appreciate that the long terms of provincial governors under Emperor Tiberius was not an anomaly that affected the lowest class of provincial governors, the junior officers only (praefecti and procuratores), but provincial tenures were extended on all administrative levels throughout the Roman Empire. It is very compelling evidence that at least 142 governors during Tiberius served as consular legates, proconsuls or prefects (procuratorial appointments) in provinces for six or more years, twice the average. (Syme 1984, 1354-63; Griffin 1995, 45-7; Brunt 1990, 75-7). Notably, half of these men served ten years or more, whereas four of them stayed in office for as much as 15 to 24 years. Most of these significant governorships were in the eastern Roman Empire (except for Upper Germany) in areas such as Dalmatia, Pannonia, Moesia, Judaea and Egypt. Interestingly, all the equestrian governors that served as praefecti under Tiberius for long periods were either in Egypt or neighbouring Judaea. Also, the equestrian prefect of Egypt, C. Galerius, who had the longest recorded tenure of office of a prefect, that of 15 years, served from the second half of the second decade into the 30s A.D., precisely as P. Pilate is assumed to have done in Judaea. C. Galerius’ contemporary long term of office in Egypt lends credibility to that Pilate’s tenure may have been extended to a comparable period, as is being presented in this paper. As for the reasons for this practice of extending governorships, Tiberius’ neglect of the state affairs in that he did not fill the vacancies of provincial governors was well-known to the Roman historians, and is extensively discussed, for instance, by Tacitus (Tac. Ann. 1.80 and 4.6), Suetonius (Suet. Tib. 41) and Josephus (Jos. Ant. 18.172-8). The ancient authors do not refrain from suggesting possible motives for this though it is less clear whether these actually were the real reasons for the long appointments. Tacitus says, for instance, that it was part of Tiberius’ character to prolong indefinitely military commands and to keep many able men to the end of their lives with the same armies and in the same administrations. Other motives were that the Emperor did not want to provoke new anxieties, and that he showed laxity in altering already approved permanent arrangements. He also continued to prefer previously appointed governors and favoured them over fresh appointments, thus preventing people plotting for his life. For Josephus (Jos. Ant. 18.172-6) the reason for the extended governorships was obvious: the Emperor had only the well-being of the provinces in mind: to him these were like wounded bodies swarming with blood-sucking flies likened to his opinion of governors. It was better to let the flies have their fill of blood once, than to continuously appoint new governors with a fresh appetite, an idea echoed also in Suetonius (Suet. Tib. 32). I do not think it is possible to arrive at any definite conclusion about the reasons for the extended governorships under Tiberius in this short address. According to the main textual sources on the subject (Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus), the Emperor had only the well-being of the provinces in mind when he kept the governors in place longer than the average term, thus portraying the Emperor as a virtuous person wanting to prevent the natural desire of governors to engage in extortions. However, in view of the recorded fact that many of the governors who actually did serve exceptionally long such as C. Silius, Pomponius Labeo, P. Pilate and C. Galerius, were later accused or prosecuted for provincial maladministration (Brunt 1990, 76), it presents an acute problem for accepting the case for the noble motives of the Emperor. The length of the tenure is in itself also quite useless as evidence for the capability of the men that were appointed. 2 NUMISMATIC CIRCULAR Whatever the reasons for the Emperor for depositing governors in the provinces were in the Tiberian period, it emerges that an extension of Pilate’s chronology from 26-36 A.D. to 17/1836/37 A.D. mentioned below, is very much in line with the records of the administrative history of the early Principate. 3. Governorships in the local context of early Roman Judaea under the Emperor Tiberius It is fortunate for history that there are two pieces of contemporary archaeological evidence from Pilate’s mandate period, in addition to numerous textual narrations. An inscription discovered in 1961 by the Italian expedition to Roman Caesarea verified for the first time Pilate’s historicity (Frova 1961). Secondly, it states that he governed Judaea under the title of praefectus Iudaeae. Governors up to, and including Pilate, were thus designated prefects. The Claudian period from 44 A.D. onwards saw the dispatching of procurators to Judaea. These two categories of imperial servants had a different background, and we do not actually know what rank the Judaean officials possessed, i.e. were they ducenarii or centenarii, or if the division into ducenarii and centenarii could even be traced back to the Augustan period (Speidel 1992, 87-106; Isaac 1998, 316-9). There were also other imperial procurators serving simultaneously in Judaea alongside the provincial procurator, such as Herennius Capito (Jos. Ant. 18.158), procurator of Jamnia and Volumnius who officiated earlier at King Herod’s court (Jos. War 1.538) and others as well (Sartre 2005, 57-8). These latter prefects or procurators could even command Roman troops and manage provincial finances, at least within a defined territory. But, we have no information as to how they were answerable to the provincial administration. Thirdly, the Caesarea inscription states that a temple/sanctuary called ‘Tiberium’, honouring the Emperor Tiberius, was either dedicated or rebuilt in Caesarea during the tenure of Pilate. Then, there is the coinage that the first Roman provincial administration of Judaea minted (6-66 A.D.), which will be discussed shortly. However, it is no convenience to scholarship that Pilate’s Caesarea inscription does not date his period of office, or, by the way, the Tiberium any closer, nor does it date the outward appearance of the Roman provincial coinage. The fact that the coins carry the name of the Roman Emperor and that they are dated according to the year of rule of the current Emperor mentioned in the coin legends, does not directly solve any of the chronological problems discussed as the attribution of a provincial coin to a particular Roman governor is directly linked to Josephus and the length of their tenures he provides. As noted below, there is uncertainty even as to the actual number of Roman governors. Furthermore, the Caesarea inscription and the coins are difficult to merge as evidence as the coins are all dated, whereas the inscription is not, and the inscription carries the name and title of the governor, but the coins do not. If we then consider the list of procuratorial governors in Judaea prior to A.D. 41, it is of crucial importance to remember that the reconstruction of the chain of governors is based on our only source, Josephus (War 2.117; Ant. 18.29-33; see also discussion in Schürer, Vermes, Millar 1973, 382-383 found in his later work Antiquities authored in A.D. 93-94). Josephus lists the order of the Roman governors starting from 6 A.D. as Coponius (A.D. 6-9), M. Ambibulus (called actually Ambibuchus, A.D. 912) and Annius Rufus (A.D. 12-15), who according to Josephus was recalled the same year the Emperor Augustus died, or in 14 A.D., but who may have been left in office until the next summer. The dates of the early governors are not given in any source, including Josephus, but have been recalculated according to years of rule of the Roman Emperor and the length of tenure of the two longest serving Tiberian appointees, Valerius Gratus and Pontius Pilate, to be discussed below. The very paucity of evidence regarding the early provincial rule in Judaea, has in general been taken to mean that the period up to, and including Emperor Tiberius, if we are to believe Tacitus, was uneventful and therefore deserved no particular mention (Tac. Hist. 5.9.2.: “sub Tiberio quies”, “under Tiberius all was quiet or peaceful”). Returning briefly to the list of governors starting with Coponius in A.D. 6 and his successors, Josephus mentions three prefects by name in the Augustan period (Jos. Ant. 18.31-32). He (Jos. Ant. 18.177) says further that Tiberius during his 22 years as Emperor sent altogether two men, Gratus and Pilate, to govern the Jewish nation. Strangely enough, when describing the first Roman governor appointed in the Tiberian period, Valerius Gratus, Josephus (Jos. Ant. 18.33) calls him mysteriously the fifth (see discussion, e.g. in Smallwood 1976, 144-80, especially 156). This fact raises numerous problems of detail. Gratus is traditionally considered to be number four and Pilate the fifth in line. The only reasonable interpretation of Josephus’ statement of Gratus being the fifth, is that the list of office-holders he had was incomplete; he can hardly have been ignorant of the fact that he knew only of three people in the Augustan period while naming Gratus as fifth, as the names of Gratus’ predecessors are found immediately above in the text. The thing previously mentioned that our only textual source on the chronology of the office-holders in Judaea, Josephus, also considered the period to be very unimportant, is perhaps reflected in the fact that the number of office-holders and their tenures must remain very uncertain (see, Schürer, Vermes, Millar 1973, 382-3). The discrepancies over Gratus being the fifth and falling short of the Augustan list, strongly suggests that there is a lacuna between Rufus and Gratus, and that the mandate periods of these governors can be challenged. For instance, lacunae are still being filled as demonstrated by the recent discovery of a military diploma from A.D. 90, adding a new governor, Titus Pomponius Bassus, to the list of governors of the province of Judaea (Cotton, Eck and Isaac 2003, 17-31). This only illustrates that there are probably more details to be discovered also for the earlier period. This all suggests to us that Josephus was not sure – or had no exact information – about the number of Roman governors who served in Judaea in A.D. 6-41. Consequently he was unable to name them all or to date their tenures precisely. This may also suggest that Josephus was probably not sure if Gratus was the fourth or the fifth appointee, or if Pilate was dismissed in 36 or 37 A.D. The fact that Josephus’ history in general becomes more detailed by the time of Pilate is not surprising as the historian was born ca. 37 A.D. As a growing Jewish youngster he must have learned from his family, friends and contemporaries first-hand accounts of what had happened in Judaea earlier, for instance, under Pilate’s rule. It is some sort of acceptable compromise that scholarship and sources agree that Pilate served as governor of Judaea for a minimum of ten years (26-36 A.D.). However, reading Josephus carefully reveals that Pilate had been appointed to serve in Judaea for much more than ten years. There is no evidence for that his period of office was in fact planned to end in 36 or 37 A.D., when it did. We know this from the strong evidence that Pilate’s normal term of office had not been terminated within the mandata that he had received from the Emperor Tiberius when the Syrian legate Vitellius arrived in Judaea towards the end of 36 A.D. Vitellius suspended Pilate from office and sent him to Rome either at the end of 36 A.D. or in the spring of 37 A.D., depending on how we interpret Josephus’ account (Jos. Ant. 18.89). Josephus claims in his statement that Pilate “hurried” to Rome but strangely he did not arrive there until April 37 A.D. According to Josephus, Pilate arrived to learn that Emperor Tiberius had passed away on March 16th 37 A.D. (Jos. Ant. 18.89). In the assumption that Pilate had immediately been dispatched by Vitellius to leave Judaea in 36 A.D., Josephus’ narrative implies that Pilate was en route to Rome from six to twelve months, which is simply not possible as pointed out below with respect to normal time of travel. As the Loeb editor of Josephus (Feldman 1981, 64-5, n. b) also points out, the description of Pilate’s governorship, lasting precisely ten years cannot be taken too literarily. This is easy to show also, with regard to travel in antiquity, as a sea voyage from Puteoli in Italy to Alexandria or Caesarea Maritima on a very light breeze lasted less than nine days (Lewis and Reinhold 1990, 112). A journey over land took a couple months at the most, disregarding that travel in antiquity was always a daunting ordeal with all the dangers and problems it entailed. Therefore, Josephus’ chronology of the end of Pilate’s tenure is certainly not accurate or precise. The events surrounding Pilate’s dismissal may actually have happened outside the normal Roman sailing season, indicating either that Pilate returned to Rome by land over Asia Minor in 36 A.D., or that Pilate de facto stayed on in Judaea after his suspension until March in 37 A.D. when the sailing season again began. This would explain why he arrived in Rome late in March or in April 37 A.D., assuming a normal sea voyage and assuming that Josephus was correct. The point is that if Josephus was so uncertain about when and how Pilate was sent to Rome, we should probably not take his word on the date when Pilate came to power too seriously either. The certain part is that Pilate was sent to Rome to stand trial for provincial maladministration. At the same time Vitellius appointed a deputy of his own staff to temporarily take over the administration in Judaea until an officially appointed governor was dispatched from Rome to Judaea. Pilate’s departure at an unknown date (around 36/37 A.D.) gave way to a time of crisis in the administration of Roman Judaea illustrated by the fact that one or two (depending on how we read Jos. Ant. 18.89 and 18.237, naming one Marcellus and one Marullus) otherwise unknown temporary governors were appointed between the time 36-41 A.D. Furthermore, the occurrence of a crisis in Judaea is perhaps also illustrated by the numismatic indication that a powerful Roman legionary detachment (double cohors or cohors millenaria) probably accompanied Vitellius to Judaea in 36/37 A.D., and apparently remained there (Lönnqvist 1993, 56-70). Although other sources are silent on this point, it purports to tell that Pilate left behind him a chaotic province that was becoming destabilized as a result of his irresponsible behaviour and misconduct. The Romans decided to counteract this by sending in fresh troops. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand why the Romans suddenly decided to reinforce the provincial garrison from the traditional 3000 troops to 4000. This new “Italian unit” features prominently in Acts 10 around A.D. 40. 4. New archaeometallurgical research of the first Roman provincial coinage in 6-66 A.D. As much of the conventional historical evidence for what happened in Roman Judaea was derived from ancient textual sources or modern typological research of the coinage of the period, a new research program consisting of a series of archaeometallurgical analyses was initiated in the late 1980s continuing through the 1990s by us. The prime aim was to find out the chemical and physical properties of the first Roman provincial coinage of Judaea and also to clarify what information could be gained of Emperor Augustus’ use of coin alloys in the provincial coinages. If possible, the aim was thereby to clarify the role of the Roman governors in planning, inaugurating and controlling Roman coinage in the provinces, and perhaps also to shed some new evidence on the chronology of the office-holders in Roman Judaea. Results regarding the production of Roman base metal coins and its relationship to metalwork are largely omitted from this discussion, as it has been dealt with elsewhere (Lönnqvist 2009, 232-45, 274-8). Surprisingly it became evident that the Roman provincial administration in Judaea attempted to produce a highly controlled standard tin-bronze alloy in most of the minting periods in 6-66 A.D. The main alloying elements observed in the early Roman provincial coinage of Judaea showed further clear evidence of a relatively high quality of control at the mint, which JANUARY 2014 3 strongly contrasts with the prevailing opinion that no exact alloying standards operated when base metal coinage was produced in the Hellenistic and Roman eras. This is certainly in opposition to the general economic development of the province of Judaea and the political history of the first century A.D. However, the long statistical series of dated coins analysed showed for the first time beyond any doubt that there also was a reduction of valuable components, especially the tin. This is an area that obviously needs to be further investigated as it could shed much new light on the economy of the province in the Roman period. It appears though that we may have here the evidence of a monetary inflation under the Judeo-Claudian dynasty in Judaea. To sum up the archaeometallurgical analysis, in most periods a leaded tin-bronze (tertiary alloy) was produced with Cu 78%, Pb 11% and Sn 10% (Coponius 6-9 A.D., Ambibulus 9-12 A.D., Felix 52-59 A.D. and Festus 59-62 A.D.), i.e. Augustan, Claudian and Neronian period. A second pure tin-bronze (binary alloy) with Cu 87%, Pb 0.2% and Sn 10%) was produced only in 17/18-31/32 A.D. under Emperor Tiberius. Since most provincial coinages minted in base metals – especially in Roman East – are infrequently dated or not dated at all, it is usually very difficult to have any statistically meaningful results of coin samples even if chemical analyses have been performed. The case of Roman Judaea in the early first century A.D. is thus very rare because the coins that exist are precisely dated, although minting was not in progress every calendar year or under each Roman governor. Consequently, knowing exactly when the coins were minted has made it now possible for the first time to have a glimpse of how the chemical contents of a whole Roman provincial coinage developed from one minting period to the other – at times even on a year-to-year basis – or from one Emperor to another. Many unprecedented results from an archaeometallurgical point of view, were actually gained, but as the ramifications of these have already been reported it will not be discussed here (Lönnqvist 2003). What remains is to discuss how the above presented raw data applies to the chronology of Pilate, the general evidence of the provincial coinage, the historical narratives and the epigraphic evidence. It is however impossible to discuss in length all the possible reasons, for instance, for the change of the coin alloys and for this we ask the kind understanding of the reader. The most likely suggestions can be presented and how they probably are related to the chronology of Pilate. 5. The evidence for re-dating Pontius Pilate’s period of office Summing up what is said above, the weighty arguments that favour an extension of Pilate’s ‘low chronology’ in addition to the previously discussed administrative framework, are the following: (A) the change of coin alloy in 17/18 A.D. is very likely to represent the arrival of Pilate on the scene. This happened so that a new and peculiar coin alloy was introduced in 17/18 A.D. to the area that the new Roman governor was responsible for minting in Judaea. This alloy also appears in Antioch in the Julio-Claudian period (Carter 1983, 26-27). Alternatively, the chemical composition of the alloy was intentionally changed due to practical reasons that the governor in Judaea exceptionally may have been responsible for (Lönnqvist, 2000, 459-74). The anomalies in the metallurgical composition started according to the dated coins in 17/18 A.D., and this led back to the historical question of Pilate’s alleged construction of a Roman aqueduct in Jerusalem with money stolen from the Jewish Temple treasury. Theoretically Gratus (governor in 15-26 A.D. according to the traditional chronology) could also have had access to this peculiar coin alloy, meaning that Gratus started his 4 NUMISMATIC CIRCULAR tenure minting coins from a tertiary alloy in 15 A.D. and this lasted until 17/18 A.D., but then the mint for some reason switched to a binary alloy. In the latter case, the chronological arrangements of the Roman office-holders would be left as they previously were believed to be. This possibility appears however to be quite remote and it certainly would leave unexplained many other aspects of the problem. The latest attempt we know of to maintain the traditional chronology of the Tiberian office-holders of Judaea, Valerius Gratus and Pontius Pilate, is a metallurgical analysis of coins done by Bower et alii in 20123, mainly using copper and lead isotopes for pin-pointing the possible ore sources of the various Biblical coinages minted in the first century B.C. and first century A.D. The fact that specific locations for the ore used to manufacture some of the coinages minted in Hellenistic and Roman Judaea can now be suggested more precisely, adds much valuable information, for instance, to the organization of mints and acquisition of metals by the local and later the Roman administration, or to the understanding of trade and commerce in the period. However, the use of different ore sources to produce the early Roman provincial coinage was already known because the different trace element profiles that the coins displayed already existed and thus these results could be anticipated. Another interesting thing is that the 2012 analysis confirms our previous conclusions about a pure tin-bronze or a low leadbronze being produced by the Tiberian prefects in Judaea starting in ca. 18 A.D. However, the archaeometrically documented change from a tertiary alloy to a binary alloy in 17/18 A.D. cannot have been accidental or due to the change of the ore source as the Bower et alii team seem to believe4, as the material used for the provincial coinage was not a metal that was procured from somewhere as such in the form it is discussed in this paper. The coin alloy was intentionally produced by professional people working at a Roman mint by mixing copper with prefabricated bars of tin and lead or mixing pure copper with tin and lead, or copper with tin. This observation has either nothing to do with new metal or ore sources possibly being introduced, which may have been the case, since we are not only talking about a different trace element profile of the coinage, but different major components of the alloy which were controlled by the ancients in the production of base metal coins. Whatever explanation is offered, the substitution of lead in the coin alloy must have been intentional due to established technical practices in ancient coin minting explained below. In our previous suggestion mentioned, the change may denote that lead was used for the construction of the infamous Roman aqueduct to Jerusalem, as mentioned by Josephus (Jos. War 2.175 and Ant. 18.60.), as lead would have been used in such a typically Roman project. Supposing this was the case, it would suggest that the construction of the aqueduct began ca. 17/18 A.D. as Pilate assumed office. The use of ready-made bars of tin and lead as described in Pliny’s Natural History Book 34 on metals and Roman metalwork (ed. Rackham 1956; Pliny, NH 34.95–8. argentarium (Sn:Pb = 1:1) and tertiary (Sn:Pb = 1:2)), to be added to aes (copper or possibly bronze) for the manufacture of copper alloys for various uses, must therefore have ceased in 17/18 A.D. when the new alloy in Judaea was introduced. The old alloy was replaced with the direct addition of new tin to a pure copper melt previously not in use. The extremely interesting question is that who was responsible for this, and why did it happen? In addition, the change of coin alloy also coincides with a new coin type introduced in 17/18 A.D. (B) featuring a palm branch which is of considerable importance (Fig. 2 below). Below is a specimen of this coin type, which remained unaltered in 17/1824/25 A.D., with exception of that the date was changed for a minting year. Fig. 2. Roman bronze coin minted by Valerius Gratus in 24/25 A.D. Obv.: inscription in wreath: TIB/KAI/CAP Rev.: Palm branch; in field, inscription and date: IOY IA/ IA (“Year 11”= 24/25 A.D.). Photo and credit: courtesy by David Hendin. In the Roman provincial coin iconography in Judaea in ca. 673 A.D. a palm tree, an upright palm branch, a laurel branch or crossed palm branches have been perceived as a ‘positive image, apparently portraying Judaea or being a diminutive thereof in the form of a ‘greeting’ to the provincials in Judaea. This coin type was used as an obverse or reverse type by every new Roman governor sent to Judaea on his first coin series minted. Adopting this view would indicate that Gratus started his term of office by minting a series with a laurel branch in Tiberius’ “Year 2” (Meshorer 2001 TJC Pl. 73, No. 316; 1982 AJC 2, Pl. 30, No. 8). Adopting a ‘low chronology’ for Pilate, would also signify that he started off his term of office with ‘well-wishes’ and an inoffensive coinage in 17/18 A.D., which continued to be minted in 18/19 A.D. and after a lapse again in 24/25 A.D. However, then in 29/30 A.D. Pilate’s coinage (Fig. 1) was suddenly radicalised with Roman pagan images which had never before been depicted on Jewish coins that circulated in the mainly Jewish dominated areas. More of this will be said in the following, as there is a good explanation for this development from a historical point of view. However adopting a ‘low chronology’ for Pilate and his early minting activities with ‘well-wishes’, would certainly portray him and his motives as governor in the early years of his rule in quite a different light than before. Others such as Hadley (1934) paid previously right attention to the coin types minted in 17/1824/25 A.D. as compared to the ones in 29/30-31/32 A.D., although for the wrong reasons. Furthermore, the meaning and appearance of some very rare countermarks on Gratus’ and Pilate’s coins (C) discussed preliminary elsewhere (Lönnqvist 1993, 68-70, Coin Catalogue) also coincide with the change of the chemical composition of the provincial coinage bronze alloy and the new coin type which appeared for the first time in 17/18 A.D. It is unclear how the people who countermarked the Roman provincial coinage of Judaea knew that there was a difference in the chemical composition of the coins they countermarked. The fact that the countermarks started no earlier than in 17/18 A.D. in what previously was thought to be in the middle of Gratus coin minting activity (assuming his chronology to be 15-26 A.D.), excluding Meshorer 2001 TJC Pl. 74, Nos. 325-6; 1982 AJC 2, Pl. 31, Nos. 15-6 that Gratus minted earlier, or any later coins than Pilate (31/32 A.D.), demonstrates that the people who were responsible for the countermarking knew exactly what kind of coins they were looking for. The only people who would have known that earlier and later coins were minted in a tertiary alloy and selected and countermarked coins in 17-32 A.D. in a binary alloy were, of course, the people at the provincial mint of Judaea who actually minted the coins and who would have had access to the official records. The coins themselves chosen to be countermarked were minted over a period of 15 years and they circulated normally prior to the countermarking that took place at the mint probably around 37-40 A.D. en masse on one single occasion. The only sensible explanation is that the countermarking happened in a military context, in connection with Pilate’s dismissal from office by the legionary unit that was entrusted by Vitellius with extraordinary powers and which arrived in Judaea in 36/37 A.D. to secure peace and remained there for years to come (Lönnqvist 1993, 62-7). This could also very well suggest that the countermarking in ca. 37 A.D. was targeting only coins minted by Pilate. In his new chronology presented in this paper, this suggestion is born out by the fact that all countermarked coins were clearly minted under Pilate. Although hundreds of different authorities over centuries regulated coinage and Greek Imperial countermarking, one certain thing is that countermarks almost always recalled coins from circulation, either validated or demonetized them, but usually turned them into something else than they were from the beginning (Howgego 1985, passim). Therefore, there is a good chance that the countermarks found in this interpretation exclusively on Pilate’s coinage and which apparently were done in ca. 37 A.D., may have been a response to his brutal regime. It may perhaps be viewed as an attempt by the Roman administration to restore public confidence also in Roman coinage and rule by recalling Pilate’s coins and countermarking them, including the especially offensive three series of coins minted in 29/30-31/32 A.D. with pagan symbols, and confining the further use of the coinage to the military, as exemplified by the use of a military countermark. This does make a lot of common sense with regard to the state of affairs that followed Pilate’s departure from the scene of history. 6. The imperial context of the coinage and tenure of Pontius Pilate Finally, as to the odd character of Pilate’s offensive coinage in 29/30-31/32 A.D., it has always intrigued scholars from early times (Stauffer 1950). That there is a relationship between the recorded events during Pilate’s term of office, his coinage and the dates suggested also in this paper is however unmistakable, although some connections remain difficult to prove (main portion in Jos. Ant. 18.35, 168-78). Connections to the unique nature of Pilate’s latter coins have often been sought from the governor’s assumed ‘anti-Semitic policy’ which in most explanations would have been inspired by the struggle of power which went on in Rome between the Emperor Tiberius and L. Aelius Seianus, the commander of the praetorian troops, during that particular time. In 17 A.D. Seianus became influential and started gaining power in Rome. In 19 A.D. there was, for instance, a mass expulsion of Jews from Rome (Jos. Ant. 18.83; Tac. Ann. 2.85; Suet. Tiber. 36; Dio Cass. 72.18.5a), the meaning of which is still being discussed. By 23 A.D. Seianus was virtually the ruler of Rome. In 31 A.D. his coup fell through when he was arrested and executed for treason by the Emperor Tiberius. Whether or not combining the events of 17/18 A.D. in the numismatic development of the province of Judaea with the rise of power of Seianus in Rome, we still cannot close our eyes to the fact that Pilate’s minting activity in 29-31/32 A.D. and the unprecedented coin types that were introduced to Judaea, and which must have been very offensive to the Jews, overlap perfectly with the peak of power of the usurper in Rome. The height of Seianus’ power fell in 29-31 A.D. (Cary and Scullard 1935, 353), which coincides exactly with Pilate’s last three yearly series of provocative coin types issued. Assuming that the contact between Seianus and Pilate indeed existed would also explain well why Pilate was sent to Judaea in 17/18 A.D. Placing the beginning of Pilate’s term of office to 17/18 A.D. would also explain many local events better, such as why Caiaphas was chosen High Priest at this very time, given the close relationship between Pilate and Caiaphas that is clearly indicated in the Gospels. It would further explain why Caiaphas officiated throughout Pilate’s long term of office until 37 A.D., as discussed in more detail below. Pilate’s career, the date of his dismissal from Judaea, and the date of the crucifixion of Christ is a recurring theme in the research literature of the 1930s to the 50s (Feldman ed. 1981, JANUARY 2014 5 417-8, of Jos. Ant. Vol. 9) such as Doyle 1941. However, accepting a ‘low chronology’ for Pilate would not compromise the traditional chronology of the events of the Gospels and the account of the crucifixion of Jesus, as our suggestion mainly deals with the date of accession of Pilate to office. The seeds of disbelief (D) concerning Pilate’s chronology and Josephus’ (Jos. Ant. 18.34-35) note of a rapid change of High Priests in Judaea under Gratus were planted by Eisler in 1931 (as discussed e.g. in Jos. Ant. 18.35, by Feldman) and picked up by Schwartz (1983, 325-45; 1992, 182-201) from an administrative-historical point of view. This suggestion supports very well the above historical and numismatic arguments that Pilate is likely to have been appointed governor of Judaea in 17/18 A.D. In Josephus’ account Gratus changed High Priests four times before being satisfied with his final choice. Assuming that the change of High Priests started soon after Gratus assumed office around 15 A.D. and that priests were replaced on average once a year or more often, would have ended Gratus’ tenure about 17/18 A.D. as Eisler and Schwartz suggested, when Joseph Caiaphas was elected. High Priest Caiaphas’, who presided over the Sanhedrin at the trial of Jesus Christ, was appointed in 17/18 A.D. and served until early 37 A.D. (Smallwood 1981, 159) when he too was deposed by legate Vitellius (Jos. Ant. 18.95). Josephus does not mention any particular reason for why Vitellius deposed Caiaphas from the sacred office of High Priest, but it may be assumed that this happened in connection with Pilate being relieved of his duties and sent to Rome. Smallwood (1981, 172) is probably right in her suggestion that Caiaphas may have been viewed as an unpopular tool of Pilate. And, as the two started off together, they probably shared the same fate to their end. Caiaphas’ role, possibly as Pilate’s first (and last) nominee in 17/18 A.D. rather than Gratus’, should also be considered in regard to what we read in the New Testament. As Pilate – in contrast to his predecessor Gratus – did not during his term of office interfere with the Jewish High Priesthood or the religious leadership in any other way, should mean that he must have been pleased with the appointment of Caiaphas to the post and regarded him as a suitable choice. This argument also supports the extension of Pilate’s chronology and that Josephus’ mention of the replacement of Pilate is to be dated to 37, not 36 A.D. If Caiaphas was regarded as an unpopular tool of Pilate who had to be disposed of, even more his offensive coinage must have been. 7. Discussion and conclusions The disclosure of governorships in the early Principate in the east under the Roman Emperor Tiberius discussed is hard evidence for that there are no historical or administrative objections for extending Pilate’s tenure even further. This makes a lot of sense if we think about what happened in neighbouring Syria and Egypt in this same period. In Egypt governor C. Galerius arrived in 16 A.D. and served for 15 years. In Pannonia and Moesia we have (see footnote 2) governors who served from 17 or 18 years up to 24 years, and so there is nothing peculiar about having Pilate in Judaea for 19 or 20 years. In the region we have therefore a clear pattern of unusually long serving prefects in both Roman Judaea and Egypt (15-20 years) under Tiberius. In Syria which was a senatorial province, the post of the legate was left vacant in 23 A.D., although L. Aelius Lamia had been appointed governor but was never dispatched. This gave Pilate in Judaea free hands to operate from 23 A.D. at least until 31/32 A.D. as there was no immediate threat of interference from the senatorial legate residing in Antioch. In Rome, the Emperor Tiberius had retired to Capri where he spent the rest of his life while Seianus ruled the capital. In the year 31 A.D., when Seianus was arrested and executed for treason, Pilate’s offensive coinage in Judaea ceases. Pilate’s unusual activities are certainly well recorded in the historical and 6 NUMISMATIC CIRCULAR numismatic record of Judaea, in addition to the numerous historical references. The question remains whether the opportunities made Pilate the thief, or were his endeavours part of an organized attempt from Rome to destabilize the Jewish province. According to the ancient authors Philo (Philo, Flac. 1) and Suetonius (Suet. Tib. 39, 61, 65) there was an empire-wide plan initiated by Seianus to annihilate the Jews and to get rid of the Emperor and his heirs that started in 17 A.D. Pilate’s treatment of his provincial subordinates was typical of what went on even in Rome (Jos., Ant. 18.65; Suet. Tib. 36; see also Leon 1960, 16-18). Pilate was eventually charged, according to the ancient authors, with all possible sorts of recklessness. One is thus finally left wondering what really happened in the Roman Empire at large in the turbulent period of ca. 19-32 A.D. and how this was reflected in the provincial sphere especially the east. It could well be that the long serving prefects of Egypt and Judaea who were initiated in 16-17/18 A.D. were also part of Emperor Tiberius’ grand plan to stabilise and secure the whole eastern frontier that dominated his rule (Sartre 2005, 57; Butcher 2003, 40-1), in the manner Commagene was placed under the jurisdiction of prefect Q. Servaeus (Sartre 2005, 75, 397, n. 23) in this period, all these men serving as praefecti. As the pacification and reorganizing of the eastern frontier was a priority of Tiberius, he sent in 17-19 A.D. his nephew and personal representative Germanicus on a special diplomatic mission entrusted with imperium maius to sort out the kingdom of Armenia (Bradley 1992, 521), alleviate the famine in Egypt (Edict of Germanicus in Select Papyri no. 211, apud Lewis and Reinhold 1990, 523), and to erect new tax laws at Palmyra in Syria, and to answer the petition made in 17 A.D. by the provinces of Syria and Judaea to diminish the tax burden (Tac. Ann. 2.42.5; Lönnqvist 2008 and 2009). But as long as Germanicus journeyed in the east in 17-19 A.D. on his special command with legionary troops (Tac., Ann. 2.43) a low profile was the key to surviving. The situation changed in 19 A.D. when Germanicus died under suspicious circumstances on route in Syria. The Syrian governor Cn. Calpurnius Piso (1719 A.D.) was accused of poisoning him (Tac., Ann. 2.69-73) and was recalled. He was replaced by C. Sentius Saturninus (19-21 A.D.). It is uncertain how long the latter served but after that the post of governor of Syria was left vacant, possibly due to that Tiberius’ heir died there, although this is not determined in the sources. The same year Germanicus died, the mass expulsion of Jews from Rome started. Tiberius’ further plans for the east were cut short by the death of his son Drusus in Rome in 23 A.D., apparently also as the result of poisoning (Suet., Tiberius 61). From this point on Seianus ruled Rome, and indeed the Empire, and the events escalated also in Judaea. What danger the Jews were in in 29-31 A.D. will without doubt remain a much debated topic also in the future. But the careful removal of individuals from power and influential men from provincial posts that were administratively connected to Judaea may have opened the doors for the oppressive rule and anti-Semitic policy of Pilate in Judaea. We consider it thus very likely that Pilate may have been an important piece in the bigger anti-Semitic jigsaw that was orchestrated from Rome, and that the events in Judaea are to be seen as a reflection of this and Pilate’s appointment as governor of Judaea in 17/18 A.D. as a ‘sleeper’ in anticipation of future events. Bibliography Alföldy, G., 2002. “Nochmals: Pontius Pilate und das Tiberium von Caesarea Maritima”, Scripta Classica Israelica 21, Yearbook of the Israeli Society for the Promotion of Classical Studies, 133-148. Bond, H., 1996. “The Coins of Pontius Pilate: Part of an Attempt to Provoke the People or to Integrate them into the Empire”, JSJ 27, 241-262. Bond, H., http://ecole.evansville.edu/articles/pilate.html. Bower, N.W., Hendin, D.B., Lundstrom, C.C., Epstein, M.S., Keller, A.T., Wagner, A.R., White, Z.R., 2012. “Biblical” bronze coins: new insights into their timing and attribution using copper and lead isotopes”, AAS, DOI 10.1007/s12520-012-0113-4, 1-12. (Springer Online). Brunt, P. A., 1990/2001. Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Butcher, K., 2003. Roman Syria and the Near East (Spain: The British Museum Press). Carter, G.F., 1983. “Chemical Composition of Copper-Based Roman Coins”, INJ 6-7, 22-38. Carter, W., 2003. Pontius Pilate, Portraits of a Roman Governor. Interfaces 1 (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, A Michael Glazier Book). Cary, M. and Scullard, H. H., 1984. A History of Rome Down to the Reign of Constantine, London 1935. Third reprinted edition. (Hong Kong: The Macmillan Press Ltd). Cotton, H. M., Eck, W. and Isaac, B., 2003. “A Newly Discovered Governor of Judaea in a Military Diploma from 90 CE”. Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology 2, 17-31. Doyle, A.D., 1941. “Pilate’s Career and the Date of the Crucifixion”, JThS 42, 190-193. Eisler, R., 1931. The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist: According to Flavius Josephus’ Recently Rediscovered ‘Capture of Jerusalem’ and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources. (London: Methuen & Company Limited). Frova, A., 1961. “L’inscrizione de Ponzio Pilato a Caesarea, Rendiconti dell’instituto Lombardo, Academia di Scienze e lettere estratto dai rendiconti, Classe di Lettere 95, 419-434. Goodman, M., 2008. Rome and Jerusalem. The Clash of Ancient Civilizations. Penguin Books. (St. Ives: Clays Ltd.). Griffin, M., 1995. “Tacitus, Tiberius and the Principate”, in Z. Yavetz., I. Malkin and Z.W. Rubinsohn (eds.), Leaders and masses in the Roman world: studies in honour of Zvi Yavetz, Mnemosyne Bibliotheca Classica Batava 139, Supplementum, Brill, 33-58. Hadley, P. L., 1934. “Pilate’s Arrival in Judaea”, JThS 35, 56-57. Howgego, C.J., 1985. Greek Imperial Countermarks, Studies in the Provincial Coinage of the Roman Empire. Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication No. 17. London. (Hampshire UK: Royal Numismatic Society). Isaac, B., 1998. “The Near East under Roman rule”. Supplements to Mnemosyne 177, Bibliotheca Classica Batava. Brill, 316-319. Leon, H. J., 1960. The Jews of Ancient Rome. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America). Lewis, N. and Reinhold, M., 1990. Roman Civilization Selected Readings, Vol. II, The Empire (New York: Columbia University Press). Lönnqvist, K.K.A., 1993. “New Vistas on the Countermarked Coins of the Roman Prefects of Judaea”, INJ 12, 56-70. Lönnqvist, K., 2000. “Pontius Pilate – An Aqueduct Builder? – Recent Findings and New Suggestions”, KLIO 82, 459-474. Lönnqvist, K. K. A., 2003. “A Second Investigation into the Chemical Composition of the Roman Provincial (Procuratorial) Coinage of Judaea, AD 6-66”, Archaeometry 45, 1, 45-60. Lönnqvist, K., 2008. The Tax Law of Palmyra and the Introduction of the Roman Monetary System to Syria – A Reevaluation, in Jebel Bishri in Context, Introduction to the Archaeological Studies and the Neighbourhood of Jebel Bishri in Central Syria, Proceedings of a Nordic Research Training Seminar in Syria, May 2004. Ed. M. Lönnqvist. BAR International Series 1817, 73-88. Lönnqvist, K. K. A., 2009. New Perspectives on the Roman Coinage on the Eastern Limes in the Late Republican and Roman Imperial Period (Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller). Meshorer, Y., 1982. Ancient Jewish Coinage, Volume II: Herod the Great through Bar Cochba. (New York: Amphora Books). Sartre, M., 2005. The Middle East under Rome. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press). Speidel, M. A., 1992. “Roman Army Pay Scales”, JRS 82, 87-106. Schürer, E., 1973. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), Vol. 1. A New English Version Revised and Edited by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd). Schwartz, D. R., 1983. “Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus’ Antiquities, Books XVIII-XX”, Zion 48 (1982/83), 325-345 [Hebrew]. Schwartz, D. R., 1992. “Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus’ Antiquities, Books 18-20”, in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 60 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 182-201. Smallwood, E.M., 1976. The Jews Under Roman Rule, From Pompey to Diocletian, A Study of Political Relations (Boston, Leiden: Brill academic Publishers, Inc.). Stauffer, E., 1950. “Zur Münzprägung und Judenpolitik des Pontius Pilatus”, La Nouvelle Clio, 494-514. Syme, R., 1984. Roman Papers III. Ed. A.R. Birley (Oxford, New York: Oxford Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press). Footnotes: 1. I want to thank the following persons for their significant contributions, suggestions and help: Mr. Philip Skingley at Spink, London, Adj. Prof. Minna Lönnqvist for comments and encouragement, Ms. Mikaela Lönnqvist, Curator David Hendin, Dr. Haim Gitler, Dr. Boaz Zissu, and Mrs. Carita Hoyer-Evatt and Mr. Chris Evatt. 2. At least the following long-serving governors need to be mentioned: C. Silius, 7 years, Upper Germany; P. Cornelius Dolabella, 6 years, Dalmatia; L. Munatius Plancus, 17/18 years, Pannonia; L. Volusius Saturninus, min. of 14-16 years, Dalmatia; Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus, 10 years, Upper Germany; L. Apronius, 6 years, Upper Germany; Pomponius Labeo, 8 years, Moesia; C. Poppaeus Sabinus, 24 years, Moesia; M. Junius Silanus, 6 years, Africa; P. Petronius, 6 years, Asia; V. Gratus, 11 years, Judaea; P. Pilate, 10 years (min.) Judaea; A. Avillius Flaccus, 6 years, Egypt; C. Galerius, 15 years, Egypt. 3. The 2012 Brower et alii investigation used multiple collector-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS) which is a so-called non-destructive acid swab method for analyzing the isotopes of the metal. Due to the limited space available here, the difference between destructive and non-destructive coin analyses cannot be discussed. But it needs to be pointed out that non-destructive analyses based on surface sampling can be much more unreliable as the surface concentration of metal is necessarily not representative of the coin as a whole, a fact known for long. 4. Bower et alii 2012, p. 10. JANUARY 2014 7