Talk:Bar Kokhba revolt coinage

Controversy?

User:Oncenawhile has recently added a section titled "Controversy" which suggests that the Bar Kochba coins are a forgery. This section is based on a single source. Published in 1909. I have failed to find a single recent source to corroborate such a claim in all the multitude of sources that deal with the subject. Modern, academic, peer-reviewed publications do repeatedly discuss the coins, but nowhere is it suggested that the coins are as a whole a forgery. This "controversy" appears to be nothing of the sort, and as it is based on a single 100-year old source, predating numerous professional excavations which have repeatedly uncovered the abovementioned coins in dateable stratefied contexts, this seems like a clear cut case of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I would very much like to delete this section, please voice your opinion. Poliocretes (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Poliocretes is wrong to dismiss this so lightly. CR Conder was a highly respected academic with many published works in the field. The reason that Policretes was unable to find scholars who refute Conder's assessment is because there has been limited further scholarly work on the specific question of the overall authenticity. Leo Mildenberg is the most respected recent scholar in this field, and none of his works tackle in such detail the question of overall authenticity.

For a theory to be WP:FRINGE, there must be a wide consensus against it. That is not the case here - silence is not consensus. And Conder is not alone - as Conder writes "Munk and Kenan regard this theory [of Bar Kokhba minting coins] as unsound. It was advocated by de Saulcy ("Numismatique Judaique," 1854, pp. 157-70) and by Madden ("Jewish Coinage," 1864, pp. 154-210)."

As to the question of why there has been silence, IMHO that is because the points Conder makes are difficult to argue with. Consider his key statements (taken word for word from the sources):

• The copper ones bear blundered imitations of genuine inscriptions from coins of Simon the Hasmonaean.
• They have been struck on much defaced Roman coins of Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, and Trajan, but more probably in the nineteenth century than in the second century. [i.e. because they were overstruck, it is impossible to scientifically date them]
• The forgery of Jewish coins is still common in Palestine, and the forgers did not foresee that the remains of the original legend on a coin would be read by the trained eye of some European specialist, while they thought that the worn surface of the coin would show its antiquity, but that its value would be much higher if it was regarded as being Jewish.
• Bar Cocheba [has been] conjectured to have been also named Simon — of which there is no proof at all. The latter assumption was necessitated by the fact that some of the coins used by the forgers were as late as the reigns of Domitian and Trajan. [i.e. they couldn't have related to Simon Bar Giora, so scholars assumed that the name Simon on later coins must relate to Bar Kokhba, even though they had no proof what his first name was]
• It may, however, be remarked that if the Jews, in 135 a.d., struck any coins at all, the lettering is not likely to have been in the same characters used about 139 b.c, but would have been in those used at the time, that is to say, practically in square Hebrew.
• We may regard these coins, therefore, as forged imitations of those of Simon the Hasmonaean
• There is no allusion to any coins of Bar Cocheba in the Mishnah, and certain passages in the Aramaic commentaries which are supposed to support this theory seem to have been ill translated, and belong to later ages. Thus in the Tosiphta (after 500 a.d.) a passage referring to "second tithes " appears to say that they are "not to be redeemed by coins of persecution not current, or not engraved. How is this to be understood ? When they have false coins, even coins of Jerusalem, they must not redeem with them . . . yet they might redeem with coins of former kings." This statement, at most, indicates the existence of forged Jewish coins in our sixth century. Again, in the Jerusalem Talmud — a little earlier — the passage on which the above is a comment runs : "Coins of persecution, or of a son of falsehood [Ben Koziba, that is, " a forger "], cannot be used for release. Depreciated coin, according to the decision of a case by Rabbi Ime, is to be thrown into the Salt Sea." A third passage, yet later, reads : " They durst not release with coins not current, as for instance false coins of Jerusalem, or of former kings." The last passage quoted by scholars is equally indefinite: "They wanted to retain denarii of adriana Turiyina, coins for Jerusalem."^ This passage might, however, have been in the mind of a later Jewish coiner when he used coins of Trajan. It does not clearly refer, any more than the other passages, to Bar Cocheba.

Interested in further views and any relevant sources editors are able to bring. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As you are very well aware, Oncenawhile, your humble opinion is immaterial, as is your call for people to "consider" Conder's statements. Both constitute Original Research and both merely reflect the fact that the "controversy" you're alluding to simply does not exist in modern scholarly debate. You admit that respected scholars do not tackle the issue of authenticity, thereby proving precisely my point - there is no "controversy". You've just invented it. Respected scholars do not waste their time on finds whose very veracity is in doubt, or they risk losing their "respected" status. The fact that there are those who devote themselves to the study of these coins, yet your only source is 100 years old (!!!), predating extensive archaeological research at sites linked to the revolt, shows how flimsy these claims of "controversy" are. If there was an issue with authenticity, it would be discussed. Extensively. It isn't/

Allow me to remind you of certain passages in Wikipedia's WP:UNDUE guidelines:

• "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" - your "controversy" fails this miserably.
• "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article" - That's more like it. One outdated source, 100 years old.
• "if you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included"
• "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."

Two more pertinent points from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:

• "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" - It is not my job, nor anyone else's, to find sources that counter your single outdated source. If this "controversy" you espouse had any merit or modern relevance, you would have no problem providing additional references.
• "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources."

Conder may have been a fine scholar, but a century has passed and modern research supports no suggestion of this controversy whatsoever. This is unbecoming of an attempt to build a credible encyclopedia. Poliocretes (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Poliocretes, your post above relies on your own WP:OR, namely your statement that "The fact that there are those who devote themselves to the study of these coins shows how flimsy these claims of "controversy" are"

Your attempt to paint the views of Conder, Munk and Kenan as insignificant has no basis at all.

When making your key statement, you are ignoring the fact that religion and nationalism are two common reasons for scholars to devote themselves to topics which may or may not have a historical basis without questioning it. These coins have both those elements.

I suggest we request a WP:3O.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, done. Poliocretes (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi -- I am coming here from WP:3O. I think a good way to start resolving this would be to provide a list of any available sources supporting each point of view. There are currently only two sources in the article, and we need more than that to make a determination of how widely held each of the views are. Could you each please provide a list of reliable sources (please keep commentary on them very brief). Once we have the sources in front of us, we can figure out what to do from there. Thanks! ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added some sources in the Further Reading section of the article. From what I have been able to find, it does not seem that reliable sources support the notion that the coins are a forgery. The sources that are currently used as references within the article are not of the same caliber as the sources I have presented there. I would suggest re-writing the article, using the types of sources I have provided. There are plenty of other high-quality sources available if you search Google books for "Bar Kochba revolt coinage" or "Bar Kochba revolt coins". Oncenawhile -- are you aware of any other sources besides the one you have presented that claim that the coins are forgeries? Could you please share them? Thank you. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mesoderm, thanks for your help here. There are a number of sources which question the attribution of these coins, for example:

• Conder, as detailed above
• Munk, as quoted by Conder above
• Kenan, as quoted by Conder above
• Wolf Wirgin, in a number of scholarly works, see e.g. here
• Alice Muehsam in "Coin and Temple"

Have you or Policretes found any articles which attempt to prove that these coins should definitely be attributed to bar kokhba?

The sources in the article are more "tertiary" on this topic, in that they take the attribution as a given and do not analyze it. We mustn't ignore the issue of confirmation bias in light of the well known phenomenon of Historiography_and_nationalism#Nationalism_and_ancient_history, which may or may not be influencing many scholars in this field. But If we were really dealing with an "earth is flat"-type situation, surely we would be able to find the equivalent of Galileo and Copernicus. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read these new sources you provide? I fear you will find that they do not support your assertion that the coins are a forgery. Their criticism of the coins is far more nuanced than the theory you are so adamant in pushing. Even the limited view google books allows of Muehsam's "Coin and Temple" includes the following sentence: "A much better explanation had been found almost a hundred years ago by Derenbourg; according to this theory Bar Kokhba had issued the coins "For the freedom of Jerusalem" after he had lost possession of Jerusalem". And yet you would claim that Meuhsam questions the overall veracity of the coins? You will find that neither does Wirgin, were you to rely on something other than a letter to an editor. Spare us the talk of bias and nationalism, or are you alone immune to them? Theories and accusations are no substitute for proper referencing. Poliocretes (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Policretes, please see below:

• Wolf Wirgin p142 - "Even though the conventional identification of the supposed "Bar Kochba" coins sounds attractive, the weight of evidence on the coins themselves points in an entirely different direction. An understanding of the ancient techniques of restriking coins in terms of designers' ingenuity, skill and historical setting leads to some surprising answers to numismatic puzzlers. The subject may seem formidable, but actually it is not very complicateed if we follow it step by step from the ground up."
• Wolf Wirgin p120-121 - "This gives us an approximately 170-year time span within which we can properly expect the large amounts of coins and their variations to have come into existence, rather than the short three and a half years of Bar Kochba's uprising. Since coin designs were timeless and were repeated again and again, it is of course impossible to establish the minting time for most of the individual coins or types. But there are exceptions, namely those specimens which were overstruck and have left-over underlying coin patterns. By uncovering the nature of the all-important coin overstrikings, we hope to open new vistas to the numismatist. In our effort to put the "freedom" coins against a historical background far different from the revolutionary period in which modern numismatists have set them, we look to the Agrippa coins for further clues."
• Alice Muehsam p50 - "Whether Bar Kokhba was in Jerusalem at all is doubtful, according to the literary sources; but these all agree that he was not there in the third year of the revolt. Thus from the historical point of view the dated coins seem to fit quite well into the first two years - or more exactly one and a half - of the First Revolt. Whether they were actually issued at that time remains a matter of conjecture, as is the case unfortunately with Jewish numismatics throughout."
• Alice Muehsam p66 - "The Jewish silver coins with a tetrastyle facade on the obverse, equivalent to the Greek tetradrachms, have been each and all attributed to Bar Kokhba, the leader of the revolt of the Jews under Emperor Hadrian. This attribution has been questioned in the present study, and a new attribution offered. Art-historically the design of the coins can be dated more or less anywhere in the first century AD, prior to the destruction of the Temple in ad 70. The closest agreement in the design's strict frontality and compactness of composition is found on Augustan coins; but since we are here dealing with a provincial issue, allowance should be made for a divergence in time, and a later date can be assumed with equal rights. In accordance with the archaeological findings, the historical background, and the numismatic evidence provided through our "Catalogue", the coins of Year One and Year Two were apparently issued in the initial years of the Jewish War AD 66-70, i.e. AD 66-68, and the undated coins at a later time, by Bar Kokhba."
• Siegfried Mandel (in Commentary Magazine) - "Bar Kochba was not in the coin minting business; he had a sizable war on his hands"

Your statements re "your assertion that the coins are a forgery" / "questions the overall veracity" were wrong - you are not even reading what I am writing. My words were "question the attribution" - that is very different. You have still not found any authors who prove the attribution - although I have found some for you. The coins were first attributed to Bar Kokhba in Moritz Abraham Levy in 1862 and Frederic Madden in 1864 - see below:

• From the introduction to the 1967 publication of Frederic William Madden's book - "Madden's chapter IX, "Money Struck during the Second Revolt of the Jews," lists only those coins of "Simon Bar Cochab" which were overstruck on coins of the Roman emperors from Vespasian onwards, and which could not therefore fit in any way into Madden's scheme of the "Simon" or "Eleazar" coins allegedly of the First Revolt. He notes, of course, that some of the coins of Bar Cochab "appear to have been struck from the same stamp as those of Simon son of Gioras." His attribution of these coins to Bar Kochba follows that of Levy. The original group attributed to Bar Kochba numbered 10 silver pieces and one bronze piece in Madden's book of 1864; in 1881 they had grown to 43, including the tetradrachm with the star."

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added a description of this in to the article. Poliocretes, I hope you will find this fair and balanced, but if not I would be grateful for your further contributions. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the new paragraph. Poliocretes (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also OK with it. One suggestion I would make, however, is to add page numbers to the citations to make it easier for people to verify the information. Anyway, cheers to both of you for working this out. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Mesoderm thanks for your help on this Oncenawhile (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)