SAMARIA. Series with personal names and miscellaneous letters. Jeroboam, circa mid 4th century BCE. Mʿh = Obol (Silver, 10 mm, 0.45 g, 11 h). Satrap seated right on diphros, wearing Persian dress and testing arrow; to right, 𐡉𐡓𐡁𐡏𐡌 (YRBʿM in Aramaic). Rev. Two female figures with long hair and pleated robes standing opposite one another; the figure on the left raises her right hand to her mouth, while the figure on the right holds an indistinct object in her right hand; both within a flat-roofed rectangular shrine shown in left half-perspective, its visible left exterior wall decorated with a horizontal palm frond; all within a circular incuse. CSC 153. Hendin -. Jeselsohn 71. Meshorer & Qedar 45. NH -. Shoshana -. Sofaer 103. Wyssmann p. 259, MQ 45.l (this coin). Very rare and nicely toned. Very fine.



Apart from his coins, Jeroboam remains historically elusive. The name is Hebrew and is attested in the Israelite-Jewish onomasticon from the early first millennium BCE onward. Its interpretation is disputed: proposed meanings include 'the people contend,' 'the people multiply,' or, if ʿAm is understood not as 'people' but as a divine name, 'ʿAm fights for us.'

Gitler, Johananoff, and Tal date the Jeroboam in question to the period after 353 BCE on the basis of the so-called profile eyes on some of his coins. Stylistic dating, however, is always problematic, especially when it is used with such precision and tied to Attic coinage, whose own chronology is not always secure. Nevertheless, the iconography of Jeroboam’s coins offers several important clues. Most relevant for the present coin is its close connection with the coinage of Datames, the Achaemenid satrap of Cilicia and Cappadocia (384-361/0 BCE): the satrap examining an arrow on our coin is borrowed from a stater from Tarsos of Datames belonging to Casabonne Series 2. This connection is further supported by CSC 152, which adopts the reverse type of Datames’ staters belonging to Casabonne Series 3.

A broad dating of Jeroboam to the middle of the fourth century BCE therefore appears plausible; a somewhat earlier date, perhaps in the second quarter of the fourth century BCE, should also be considered possible.