Additional comment
Lifshitz 1973–74: Attributed to Caesarea Maritima; BÉ 1976: Attributed to Laodicea.
CIIP III: Appears to have been misplaced in the storeroom of the IAA by 1993; present whereabouts unknown.
CIIP III: The weight was first published in 1971 in the archaeological report on the excavations in Ashdod by M. Dothan. According to the editors of the report, the inscription begins with ΑΓΟΡΑ|ΝΟΜΟΥΝ|Τ(ΟΣ), followed by “a number of letters that cannot be read” (Dothan 68). A few years later, B. Lifshitz came up with the reading of the entire text as: Ἀγορα|νομοῦν|το[ς] Ὤμ|βρ[ου ἔ]τ(ους) αρ´ (or αο´) | μητρο|πολη(τείας). This reading has been reproduced without alterations in a number of subsequent publications (SEG 26, 1666; BE 1976, 43). Lifshitz assigned the weight to Caesarea, which acquired the status of metropolis under Severns Alexander (222–235 CE); this, in turn, resulted in dating the item to the end of the third or beginning of the 4 c. CE. Attribution to Laodiceia in Syria was suggested by L. Robert (BE 1976, 43). The weight is currently unavailable for examination, having apparently been misplaced in the storeroom of the IAA. However, its photograph and, especially, the drawing of the inscribed side that the excavators provided (Dothan, pl. XXV,5 and fig. 30,7) would argue for a reappraisal of Lifshitz’ reading and dating. The drawing from the report is reproduced here. The first firm conclusion that can be made from it is that the weight belongs to the Hellenistic period. The four-bar sigma and the decoration of semicircles are familiar features on local weights of this period. Neither has been attested so far for the Roman period (A. Kushnir-Stein, Israel Numismatic Research 6, 2011, 35-59 at 54, 56). According to the drawing, ll. 3–5 have ΤΟΣ Α|ΡΙ[.]ΤΑΡ̣|Χ[..]ΤΟ, which can be read naturally as giving the name of the agoranomos as Aristarchos. As against this, one may have hard time in trying to reconcile the surviving letters with το[ς] Ὤμ|βρ[ου ἔ]τ(ους) αρ´ (or αο´) | μητρο suggested by Lifshitz. In order to conform to Lifshitz’ text, one has to read the final Α of l. 3 as Μ, then to read the first letter of 1.4 (Ρ) as Β (with no justification from either the drawing or the photograph), then to reconstruct the following iota (Ι) as Ρ (again without justification) and then to insert three more letters (ΟΥΕ) for which there is not enough space. The reading of l. 5 as μητρο involves ignoring the first letter, chi (Χ), given by the drawing and visible also on the photograph, as well as turning ΤΟ at the end of the line into ΤΡΟ. The text given by Lifshitz thus appears too forced to be true. Reading ll. 1–5 in a way suggested by the drawing, i.e. Ἀγορα|νομοῦν|τος Ἀ|ρι[σ]τάρ|χ[ου] would be a more appealing alternative. The meaning of the letters ΤΟ at the end of l. 5 and of the entire l. 6 is difficult to determine from either the drawing or the photograph. L. Di Segni (DGI) suggested reading them as a date [ἔ]το(υς) | ηορ´. (“year 178”). Counting from the Seleucid era (312 BCE), she arrived at 135/4 BCE (DGI 478). However, the placement of the date at the end of the inscription, as well as the use of the word ἔτους (instead of the sign ), would be highly unusual for the period in question. What we do have in this period, is the use of the article τοῦ before a patronymic (Kushnir-Stein 53f.). The reconstruction of the end of the inscription as a patronymic introduced by -rou thus appears to be a more likely, although possibly not definitive, solution.