By David Hendin …..
Coins tell stories, but the stories are not always clear, especially when interpreted nearly 2,500 years later. This often leads to reappraisal or reattribution.
Here is the story of the reattribution of a group of five related coin types struck in Samaria, located in northern Israel, a region linked to Judea during the Persian and Hellenistic periods.
The first Samarian coin was published in 1893 by Ernest Babelon, who attributed it to the “dynasts of Gaza and other unknown Phoenician entities” (p. 50–51, No. 342; Pl. VIII, No. 17). Arnold Spaer published Samarian coins in 1979 but did not associate them directly with Samaria (“A Coin of Jeroboam?”, Israel Exploration Journal 29: 218). It wasn’t until 1982 that several examples were definitively published as Samarian coins by Ya’akov Meshorer in Ancient Jewish Coinage I. In 1991, Meshorer and Shraga Qedar collaborated on The Coinage of Samaria in the Fourth Century BCE, cataloging 106 types. By 1999, they published a second book, Samarian Coinage (MQ), identifying 224 coin types.
New discoveries continue to emerge, making Samarian coins a fruitful area for further study.
I served as one of the editors of Coins of the Holy Land: The Abraham and Marian Sofaer Collection at the American Numismatic Society and the Israel Museum (2013), where Wolfgang Fischer-Bossart cataloged 250 Samarian coins.
In a significant development, Dr. Mati Johananoff of the Tel Aviv University Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures recently revised the standard interpretation of the Aramaic name on five Samarian coins (MQ 13–17, Photos 1–5) in his article “From Bdyḥbl to Brochubelus: Commemorating a Son of Mazday on Samarian Coins?” (Swiss Numismatic Review 101, 2023: 7–22). These coins, traditionally linked to the ambiguous name BDYḤBL, are now believed to reference Brochubelus, the son of the Achaemenid official Mazaeus (Mazday), who was Satrap of Cilicia (c. 361–328 BCE). Leo Mildenberg noted that Mazaeus governed a vast region, including Transeuphratia [Beyond the River] and Cilicia, from the suppression of the Phoenician revolt around 345 BCE until Alexander’s conquest in 334 BCE.
Early Samarian coins often feature legends with names that may be linked to local minting authorities. Some of these names are documented in historical and archaeological sources, such as the Wadi ed-Daliyeh papyri, while others remain speculative.
One of those speculative names is BDYḤBL. Meshorer and Qedar acknowledged in MQ that they were “unable to find an identical name,” though they interpreted BDYḤBL as a personal name. However, no historical records confirm the existence of a figure by this name. This interpretation has persisted in various publications and auction catalogs.
Meshorer and Qedar also observed that the shapes of certain Aramaic letters, particularly daled and resh, were unclear, and epigrapher André Lemaire suggested the name might be read as BDWḤBL or BRWḤBL. Until recently, no historical figure could be associated with these readings.
A breakthrough came in 2005, when historian Hilmar Klinkott proposed a link between the name “Brochubelus” and coins from the 1968 Nablus Hoard. Klinkott noted that the name Brochubelus, son of Mazday, appeared only once in historical sources, in a reference by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus: “Brochubelus, son of Mazday, [was] a former praetor in Syria.” This remains the sole known reference to Brochubelus.
Johananoff emphasized that Klinkott’s proposal was the first to connect these coins to a recognizable historical figure, a link overlooked by previous researchers.
Numismatic evidence supporting this reattribution is compelling. Coins inscribed with BRWḤBL are among the most frequently found types in the Nablus 1968 Hoard, with 20 specimens recorded. Johananoff argues that this makes BRWḤBL, or Brochubelus, one of the most prominent names in the hoard, suggesting that Brochubelus was a significant figure during the period these coins were minted. He also notes that the presence of both Mazday and Brochubelus in the hoard strengthens the case that these coins belong to the same chronological period—the final two decades of the Persian era.
In addition, the iconography on these coins closely mirrors that of coins struck with Mazday’s name in Cilicia (Photo 7) and Sidon, as well as Samaria (Photo 8). Both sets of coins feature a seated Achaemenid king holding a flower and a scepter, along with a chariot scene. Johananoff concludes that the stylistic similarities support the hypothesis that Mazday and Brochubelus belong to the same period, and that Brochubelus, like his father, likely held a significant administrative position, which justified the appearance of his name on coinage.
Since the historical record for Brochubelus relies on a single reference by Curtius Rufus, Johananoff suggests that studying Mazday’s role as a well-documented satrap could shed light on Brochubelus’s likely responsibilities. Under Persian rule, Mazday governed extensive territories, including Cilicia and Transeuphratia. Coins minted under his authority in these regions offer insight into his administrative influence.
Johananoff proposes that Brochubelus, as Mazday’s son, may have been entrusted with specific responsibilities in Syria, potentially serving under his father. The striking of coins bearing Brochubelus’s name could indicate his role in local governance or delegated authority within Samaria, a territory under his father’s jurisdiction.
The reattribution of five Samarian coin types inscribed with BRWḤBL to Brochubelus (as opposed to the previous reading BDYḤBL) marks a significant advancement in Samarian numismatics. Johananoff’s identification of this connection, overlooked by earlier researchers, highlights the importance of Brochubelus in Samaria at the end of the Achaemenid period. The 20 coins featuring Brochubelus found in the Nablus Hoard attest to his local importance in Samaria during a time when responsibilities for the region shifted toward Cilicia.
Johananoff concludes that the coins minted in Brochubelus’s name align with historical sources and the established understanding of Mazday’s influence in the region.
It would be remiss to finish this article without mentioning Johananoff’s new book, which includes the Brochubelus attribution, as well as an upcoming major work on Samarian coins. Johananoff, along with Haim Gitler, David Jeselsohn, and Oren Tal, recently published The Jeselsohn Collection of Coins of the Holy Land, Volume I: Persian and Early Hellenistic Coinage (2024). The collection features remarkable specimens, all cataloged and illustrated with high-quality photographs. A forthcoming book, Corpus of Samarian Coins, is set to be published in 2025. Co-authored by Johananoff, Gitler, and Tal, it will update Meshorer and Qedar’s work, cataloging 341 Samarian coin types, 28 uncertain types, and 33 reattributions to other mints.
* * *
Further Reading
Gitler, Haim, and Oren Tal. The Nablus 1968 Hoard. American Numismatic Society. (2019)
Meshorer, Ya’akov, and Shraga Qedar. Samarian Coinage. Israel Numismatic Society. (1999)
Mildenberg, Leo. “Notes on the Coin Issues of Mazday”, Israel Numismatic Journal 11: 9-23.
* * *
