Approximately 160 coins were discovered in the Jordan Valley. They date back to the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (104-76 BCE) during the Hasmonean period. The Hasmonean dynasty was the ruling dynasty in Judea and survived for 103 years before it was supplanted by the Herodian dynasty in 37 BCE. https://arkeonews.net/archaeologists-unearthed-a-rare-hoard-of-hasmonean-coins-in-jordan-valley/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean_dynasty
The coins are apparently all of the prutah size. (Using the plural: Apparently all the coins are prutot.) The news article linked in the O.P. (along with other news reports I've read), state that the coins are dated year 25 of Jannaeus' reign. There is only one coin type dated year 25, and that is Hendin 6191, which is indeed a prutah type that matches the 4 enlarged-view coins shown in the bottom of the O.P. top photo. Are they "widow's mites"? Many would say 'yes'. But I would say, 'probably not'. Here is why: The 'prutah' is not the smallest size bronze coin that circulated in the days of Jesus' ministry. The smallest was the 'lepton' (plural = 'lepta'). The original Greek word used in Scripture to identify the small coin which the widow gave was leptos. (This is true in both Mark 12:42 and Luke 21:2.) See the CLOSE connection between 'lepton' and 'leptos'? Further, Mark 12:42 elaborates on the 'leptos' by adding that it took 2 of that size of coin to make the next larger coin. (It took two lepta to make one 'prutah' (because a lepton is a half-prutah)). All of that is to say this: Based on the Greek language text and on the content of Mark's elaboration, I strongly suspect the widow gave two 'lepta', not two 'prutot'. And it therefore follows, I would hold that a true "mite" would be a 'lepton', not a 'prutah'. If you are familiar with the Greek New Testament's telling of the narrative of that widow giving all she had, you also know that the "mite = lepton" theory rubs shoulders with the question of whether a full 'prutah' was equal to a full 'quadrans'. I'm almost late for an appointment so I cannot get into that, but I think you know my bottom-line on that, too. Two more quick thoughts: As encrusted as some of the coins are in the top photo, I'm not sure if they really yet know for sure that "all" of the coins are dated year 25. The news article linked in the O.P. (and some other news reports I've read) state that the coin type itself is "rare". But it is actually quite common, and is rated as such by David Hendin and also by Oliver Hoover. (But finding that many coins together is indeed an awesome find and a rare occurrence!)
