Romanization in Palestine: A study of urban development from Herod the Great to AD 70 9781841715476, 9781407325873

Citation preview

BAR S1180 2003

Romanization in Palestine A study of urban development from Herod the Great to AD 70

LEE: ROMANIZATION IN PALESTINE

Reuben Yat Tin Lee

BAR International Series 1180 2003 B A R

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1180 Romanization in Palestine © R Y T Lee and the Publisher 2003 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841715476 paperback ISBN 9781407325873 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841715476 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2003. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Preface

This monograph is a modified version of my M. Phil thesis submitted to the School of Archaeology, Classics and Oriental Studies in the University of Liverpool in 2003. Reassessing the meanings and characteristics of Romanization, this research aims at: 1. challenging the predominant views on ethnic changes and Roman cultural dominations; 2. exploring the Jewish perspectives on landscape as a means for criticizing the cultural and ethnic Romanization approaches, and; 3. investigating the political consequences of the Herodian building program and consequent relationship with the imperial government. ‘Romanization’ originally meant ‘to become Roman’. Studies of Romanization in provinces other than Palestine rely heavily on changes in material culture as the indicators of transformation of cultural and ethnic identities from ‘natives’ to ‘Romans’. Supported by numerous literary records, such phenomena did not occur in Palestine. Under Roman rule, the Jews were never assimilated to become Roman. Jews also did not show any desire to be self-Romanized. Moreover, no evidence suggests any intention of ethnic and cultural assimilation from the imperial government or the client kings. It has always been assumed that the imposition of ‘Roman architecture’ was a strong indicator of cultural and ethnic Romanization. However, the term ‘Roman architecture’ is uncritically used in architectural studies. Herodian buildings should not be simply classified as ‘Roman architecture’. The Herodian builders made use of local, Near Eastern, Eastern Mediterranean and Italian architectural elements and subsequently created hybrid architectural forms. Some Herodian structures were similar to those in Italy, but their perceived meanings in Palestine might not have been the same as in Italy, because the Jewish population in Palestine viewed them in terms of their local culture. It has been assumed that Palestinian Jews were so distinctive that they were immune from ethnic and cultural Romanization. But the phenomenon in Palestine might not have been a distinctive one; without the help of surviving literature, Palestine would be interpreted in a similar way to other Roman provinces. Therefore, ‘peoples’ in other provinces might not have ‘become Roman’ ethnically and culturally. The idea of ‘becoming Roman’ is a bias in research and a result of unbalanced data. Roman influence in Palestine is manifested most in the political aspect. The Herodian building program aimed at increasing control and surveillance on politics, economy, security and religion. Nevertheless, the Herodian attempt at exercising control should not be classified as ‘grand strategy’, because its objective was a local rather than an imperial one. Herod aimed at the immediate result of stabilizing his kingdom rather than incorporating the Jewish population into the Roman Empire. At the same time, the political order of the Roman Empire relied on the stability of the client kingdoms and the provinces. But the structure of the empire was not as tight as always assumed, because the empire comprised many self-governing political bodies, with Roman surveillance of their activities as a means of avoiding rebellions.

i

Acknowledgement

The Lord says: "I will make rivers flow on barren heights, and springs within the valleys. I will turn the desert into pools of water, and the parched ground into spring … so that people may see and know, may consider and understand, that the hand of the Lord has done this …." (Isaiah 41: 18-20) His unfailing love, abundant grace, faithful guidance and sufficient providence are the most important elements in finishing this thesis. This thesis may have provided some information about the historical period of Jesus Christ, but his footprints and presence with me are the most valuable things he has always reminded me since the beginning of this research. I am indebted to my supervisors, Dr Philip Freeman and Professor Alan Millard. They have given me lots of inspirations. Moreover, they have corrected many of my grammatical mistakes and written many references for funding. They have given me so many supports that are impossible to list them all here. I want to show gratitude for the constant care, encouragement and support from Miss Sandra Cheng Cheng Soh. I have to thank my deceased father who raised my interest and curiosity in the past. I owe a great deal to the care and financial support from my mother. I also thank my aunts in Vancouver, Canada, for their concern. I am grateful to the prayers of many sisters and brothers in Christ in different parts of the world. I would like to thank Mr Eric Lee, Mr Andy Piper and Dr Yue Ting Teng, who are my dear brothers in Christ in the Southampton Chinese Church, for their help in lending many books from the Hartley library in the University of Southampton. Furthermore, I am grateful to Mr Daniel Lau, a wonderful brother in Christ, who always brought many heavy books for me from Southampton to Liverpool. I thank Revd Dr Vincent Ooi (Southampton Chinese Gospel Church) for his books. I enjoyed the time of discussion with him. I also thank Revd Daniel Ng (Liverpool Chinese Gospel Church) for his reference for funding. Ms Pat Winker, Ms Pat Sweetingham and Professor Christopher Mee have offered many helps on administrative and a lot of other troublesome matters. Professor John Davis' classes on Hellenistic and Roman Republican history are extremely inspiring and useful. I also thank him for his unpublished article and his advice on some sections of my thesis. Dr Arthur Keaveney (University of Kent) and Dr Alan Greaves have given me some valuable comments on this thesis. I have to say thanks to Dr Sarah Pearce (University of Southampton) for her article, which was not published at that time. I would also like to thank Dr David Davison and Dr Rajka Makjanic for their editorial advice. Thanks to the travel grant from the Council for the British Research in the Levant and the research grant from the Faculty of Arts in the University of Liverpool, I was able to visit Israel and Jordan in September 2002. I am extremely grateful to the generous financial support from the Rt Revd Dr Michael Nazi-Ali (the Bishop of Rochester, Church of England), the Rt Revd Dr John Packer (the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, Church of England), the Sisters of Sion and the Spring Harvest Charitable Trust. Their support was extremely valuable in my financial hard time.

ii

Contents

Preface

i

Acknowledgement

ii

List of figures

iv

Abbreviations

vi

1. Introduction

1 2 2 3 4

An outline of the political history in early Roman Palestine Rome and regional governments The construction of the Herodian landscape Outline of this thesis

2. Deconstructing Romanization theories

6

3. Herodian constructions in different regions

11 11 21 23 26 28 30 32

Judaea Idumaea The coast Galilee Golan Perea Samaria

4. An anatomy of Herodian architecture

35 36 38 44 50 53

Urban planning Entertainment buildings Palaces Temples The creation of a hybrid landscape

5. Jewish perceptions of space

56 57 60 62

Purity and space Jewish-gentile relationships and space The continuity of Jewish identity

6. Urbanization as a means of political control

66 67 69 72 75 78

Administration The Herodian economy Security of the kingdom Religion The character of regional control

7. Conclusion

82

Bibliography

83

iii

List of figures

Figures 1. Herodian Palestine…………………………………. 5

26. Herodian streets in modern Jerusalem……………..36

2. Reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem……….12

27. Herodian streets in modern Jerusalem…………….36

3. Plan of the Temple in Jerusalem…………………..12

28. Reconstruction of the street layout of Jerusalem during the time of Herod the Great………………. 36

4. Plan of the Hebron enclosure (Haram El-khalil)…. 13 29. Plan of the theatre in Caesarea Maritima…………..39 5. Plan of the Mamre enclosure………………………13 30. Picture of the theatre in Caesarea Maritima………..39 6. Reconstruction of the Mamre enclosure…………...14 31. Plan of the theatre in Sepphoris……………………40 7. Antonia Fortress. The Jerusalem model in the Holy Land Hotel, Jerusalem…………………………….14

32. Plan of the theatre-Hippodrome in Jericho……….. 40 33. Plan of the amphitheatre-hippodrome in Caesarea Maritima…………………………………………..41

8. Jerusalem in the Late Second Temple Period ……. 15 9. Plan of Hykania……………………………………16 10. Isometric reconstruction of Upper Herodium……. 16

34. Picture of the amphitheatre-hippodrome in Caesarea Maritima…………………………………41

11. Palaces in Jericho………………………………… 17

35. Plan of the bathhouse in Ramat Hanadiv…………..42

12. Plan of the First Palace in Jericho………………....18

36. Italian style bathhouses in Herodian palaces ……...43

13. Plan of the Second Palace in Jericho……………... 18

37. Villa of Gregoriana at Tivoli……………………… 44

14. Plan of the Third Palace in Jericho……………….. 19

38. The view of the Dead Sea and Judaea Wilderness from the Northern Palace in Masada……………...44

15. Plan of Masada…………………………………… 20 39. Herodian Northern Palace in Masada……………...45 16. Augustus' mausoleum in Rome…………………... 21 40. Cross-section of the Northern Palace, Masada…….45 17. Plan of Caesarea Maritima………………………...24 41. Plan of Herodium…………………………………..46 18. Remains of the Augusteum in Caesarea Maritima.. 25 42. Villa of Capo di Sorrento…………………………..47 19. Plan of the promontory palace in Caesarea Maritima…………………………………………. 25

43. Villa at Sperlonga, Via Flacca……………………..47 44. The atrium in Upper Herodium……………………47

20. The central pool of the promontory palace in Caesarea Maritima………………………………..26

45. The atrium in the Villa di Settfinestre……………..47 21. Plan of the temples in Se'ia………………………. 29 46. The eastern triclinium in the Third Palace in Jericho…………………………………………..47

22. The Herodian castle (Qasr ar-Riyashi) near the thermal springs of Sayl al-Hidan………………….31

47. The Auditorium of Maecenas, Rome………………47 23. The Herodian fortress (Qasr ar-Riyashi) at the Anon gorge………………………………………. 31

48. Villa Imperiale, Pompeii…………………………...47

24. Plan of Sebaste……………………………………33

49. Roman villa, Nennig……………………………….47

25. Plan of the Augusteum in Sebaste…………………25

50. The triclinium in Villa di Arianna, Stabia…………47

iv

51. The Corinthian oeci in the First Herodian Palace, Jericho…………………………………………….48 52. The oeci at Casa del Labirinto, Pompeii…………..48 53. The oeci at House at Large Arrigo, Rome…………48 54. Patterns of mosaics common in Herodian Palestine…………………………………………...49 55. Robinson's Arch…………………………………...50 56. The amphitheatre in Pompeii……………………...50 57. Similarities between the Robinson's Arch and the amphitheatre in Pompeii………………………….51 58. Jacobson's proposal for the original position of the northern wall of the Temple Mount………………51 59. Jacobson's measurement of the angle at the south-east corner of the Temple Mount…………...51 60. Some examples of courtyards in Near Eastern temples……………………………………………..52 61. Fontuna Primigenia, Palestrina, Italy……………...53 62. Hercules Victor, Tivoli, Italy……………………...53 63. The symbolic relationship between God and people in the Jerusalem Temple…………………..57 64. Bentham's Panopticon……………………………..79 65. The view from a prisoner's cell towards the central inspection tower…………………………………..79

v

Abbreviation

AJ

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities

ADAJ

Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan

ANRW

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt

Apion

Josephus, Against Apion

AASOR

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BAR

Biblical Archaeology Review

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BiblArch

The Biblical Archaeologist

BJ

Josephus, Jewish War

Dio

Roman History

ErIsr

Eretz Israel

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

JC

Jerusalem Cathedra

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JRA

Journal of Roman Archaeology

JRA Suppl. Series

Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies

JSJ

Journal of the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period

Life

Josephus, Life

Nat Hist

Pliny the Elder, Natural History

NEAEHL

Stern, E (ed.) 1993. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem.

PEQ

Palestine Exploration Quarterly

SBLSP

Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

SHAJ

Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan

Tacitus Hist.

Tacitus, History

TRAC

Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference

ZDPV

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

vi

Introduction

The Herodian building program is diverse in its types and buildings’ distributions throughout Palestine. The rapid constructions of the Herodian Dynasty, especially during the reign of Herod the Great (37BC-AD4), imposed new and distinctive visual elements on the existing environment which was consequently transformed. The transformation of the landscape in Palestine had significant political consequence of the politics in the Late Second Temple Period. Jones (1937) has obviously treated the Herodian building program as a part of the early Roman history in the East. Schürer (1979) pointed out that each city in Herodian Palestine was associated with the political events of the client kingdom. Furthermore, as shown in this thesis, the building program influenced the day-to-day life of the population in Palestine, especially in their movements in between the new space produced by the Herodian urban planning as well as their mental images of cities and the Palestinian landscape. The impact of the building program was so vast that politics, society and culture became involved in different levels.

and subsequently created hybrid architectural forms. Although some Herodian structures, especially villas, were similar to those in Italy, their perceived meanings in Palestine might not have been the same as in Italy, given that the Jewish population in Palestine viewed them not in an Italian context but in terms of their local culture and tradition.

‘Romanization’ is always used in the discourse of the encounter between the Roman government and the provincial natives. Although the meaning of ‘Romanization’ is diverse in modern scholarship, it originally meant ‘to become Roman’. As summarized in Chapter 2, studies of Romanization in provinces other than Palestine rely heavily on changes in material culture as the indicators of transformation of cultural and ethnic identities from ‘natives’ to ‘Romans’. However, as numerous literary records attest, it is evident that such phenomena did not occur in Palestine. Under Roman rule, the Jews were never assimilated to become Roman. Moreover, no evidence suggests any of these intentions from the imperial government or the client kings. In addition, Jews also did not show any desire to be selfRomanized. Therefore, as argued in this thesis, although the Herodian building program was evidently a product of the increasingly intense contact between imperial Rome and Palestine, it was not a strategy aimed at ethnic and cultural assimilation.

The surviving literature from Jewish society, including the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the works of Josephus and Philo, and Rabbinic literature, undeniably provide valuable details that cannot be revealed simply through archaeology. The well-recorded early Roman Palestine is thus able to offer a comparative example or even answers to scholars investigating the Romanization in other provinces; but Palestine has always been overlooked by scholars researching on such topics. As indicated from the Palestinian Jews under the history of Roman rule, ‘peoples’ in other provinces might not have ethnically and culturally ‘become Roman’. The idea of ‘becoming Roman’ is a bias in research and a result of unbalanced sample in modern scholarship. If other ancient societies had similar quantities of surviving literature as Palestine, archaeologists today would pay more attention to the continuity of local ethnicity and culture than theories of assimilation.

It has been assumed that Palestinian Jews were so distinctive that they were immune from ethnic and cultural Romanization. But as Goodman (1998) argues, the phenomenon in Palestine might not have been a distinctive one; without the help of surviving literature, Palestine would be interpreted in a similar way to other Roman provinces. If ancient literature did not tell us of the strong ethnicity of the Jewish people, the large-scale Herodian building program would be interpreted by archaeologists as the evidence of an assimilation program more aggressive than those in other provinces; furthermore, we would believe that Jewish people in Palestine eventually became Roman.

Roman influence took place in Palestine but is most clearly manifested in the political aspect. As shown in Chapter 6, the Herodian building program aimed at increasing control and surveillance on politics, economy, security and religion. Through its co-operation with Rome, the client kingdom was safely kept as a part of the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, the Herodian attempt at exercising control should not be classified as ‘Grand Strategy’, given that its objective was a local rather than an imperial one. Herod aimed at an immediate result in stabilizing his kingdom rather than incorporating the Jewish population into the Roman Empire. But at the same time, the political stability of the Roman Empire relied on the secure politics of the client kingdoms and the provinces. The structure of the empire was not as tight as always assumed, because the empire comprised many

It has always been assumed that the imposition of ‘Roman architecture’ was a strong indicator of cultural and ethnic Romanization. However, the term ‘Roman architecture’ is uncritically used in research on architectural studies in the Roman Near East, but this concept is challenged and reassessed in this thesis. The Herodian building program took place under the rule of the Roman Empire. Through the interaction between the client kingdom and Rome, Italian technology and architectural styles started appearing in Palestine, but Herodian buildings should not be simply classified as ‘Roman architecture’. But, as shown in Chapter 4, the Herodian builders made use of local, Near Eastern, Eastern Mediterranean and Italian architectural elements

1

Caesarian general, formed a new alliance with Parthia who supported Antigonus as king and High Priest in Judaea. Phasael was captured and committed suicide, whereas Hyrcanus was badly wounded and so subsequently disqualified from the post of high priesthood which required physical perfection. Herod fled to Rome where the Senate appointed him king of Judaea and Samaria. By 37BC, the Parthians were driven out of Syria and Judaea by Antony. Herod arrived and ruled over Palestine. Herod’s participation in the conquest of Judaea and his marriage with Mariamme the Hasmonean gave him support as the ruler of Judaea. After Antony’s defeat at Actium in 31BC, Herod moved his support to Octavian, who subsequently confirmed Herod’s status and granted him extensive territory.

self-governing political bodies. Native populations still enjoyed a large degree of freedom, with Roman surveillance of their activities as a means of avoiding rebellions. This study is mainly an exercise of archaeological research in the light of literary evidence, particularly the New Testament and Josephus. Reassessing the meanings and characteristics of Romanization, this research aims at: 1. challenging the predominant views on ethnic changes and Roman cultural domination; 2. exploring the Jewish perspective of landscape as a means for criticizing the cultural and ethnic Romanization approaches, and; 3. investigating the political consequences of the Herodian building program as well as the consequent relationship with the imperial government.

After Herod’s death in 4BC, Rome divided Palestine among Herod’s heirs. Archelaus was promoted to ethnarch of Judaea, Samaria and Idumaea; Antipas was granted Perea and Galilee, but was exiled from Palestine in AD39; Philip was given Golan, Batanaea, Trachonitis, Auranitis and part of Zenodorus’ territory; Herod’s sister Salome possessed Jamnia, Azotus, Phasaelis and the palace at Ascalon. But in AD6 Archelaus was exiled to Gaul because Jews and Samaritans launched charges against him. His territory was added to the province of Syria and was under the administration of a procurator. Not until AD41 was the kingship of Judaea restored. Agrippa initially succeeded to the territory of Philip, who died in AD34. Claudius, Agrippa’s childhood friend, granted him Judaea as well. After Agrippa’s death in AD44, Agrippa II was appointed as client king and was granted the kingdom of Chalcis in AD53. Although Agrippa II did not rule over Judaea, he still retained responsibility for Jewish matters in the Jerusalem Temple, including the appointment of the High Priest. He was subsequently given Gaulanitis, Batanaea, Trachonitis and Auranitis. In AD54, Nero granted him parts of Galilee and Perea. His reign continued until his death around AD100.

An outline of the political history in early Roman Palestine Before any further discussions on the Herodian building program, it is important to write a brief historical outline of the political development of Palestine in the early Roman period. After Pompey’s campaign in the East between 66 to 64BC, Judaea fell into the hands of Rome. The late Roman Republic still allowed the Hasmoneans to rule Palestine, and they were treated like other states that were made tributary to Rome. Hyrcanus II was restored as High Priest and ethnarch. However, Aristobulous II and his sons, Alexander and Antigonus, continued to raise a series of rebellions which eventually failed. Gabinius imposed a new regime by confining Hyrcanus’ power to the Temple. However, in 49 BC, Hyrcanus and Herod the Great’s father Antipater supported Julius Caesar’s campaign in Egypt against Ptolemy. Hyrcanus’ status as High Priest and ethnarch was confirmed by Caesar, whereas Antipater was granted the title of epitropos, namely procurator, of Judaea along with Roman citizenship.

In AD66, the First Jewish Revolt began and the Temple was destroyed in AD70 when Jerusalem was attacked by Vespasian and Titus. After the fall of Jerusalem, surviving rebels escaped to a number of the Herodian fortresses; in AD74, the Jewish rebels in their last stronghold in Masada committed mass suicide.

Antipater appointed his sons Phasael and Herod to rule respectively over the tetrarchies of Jerusalem and Galilee. Herod expanded his power by executing bandits in Galilee and showing loyalty to Rome. After Julius Caesar was assassinated, Herod’s family stood at the side of Mark Antony in his political struggle with Octavian, the future Augustus. Herod was promised the role of the king of Judaea. After Antipater’s death, Phasael and Herod were appointed the tetrarchs of the whole of Judaea. Subsequently, Herod suppressed Antigonus’ invasion of Galilee.

Rome and regional governments Garnsey and Saller (1987: 20-40) claim that the Roman Empire, in both Rome and the provinces, was ruled over by a ‘government without bureaucracy’. In Rome, senators and equestrians, who were administrators at the top level of the Roman government, were especially amateurs. Permission or patronage from the emperor was the only way that an individual elite could enter the Senate (Millar 1977: 341). In the hands of a small group of elite, Roman politics remained ‘a quest for fame,

At the same time as these events, the political stability of Palestine was threatened by Parthia. Labienus, a former

2

important to explore the concepts of ‘landscape’ in recent scholarship and the approach this research takes.

power, and wealth conducted by individuals who also considered themselves responsible for maintaining or advancing the fortunes of their family’ (Levick 1985: 45; cf. Millar 1977: 276). These elites only spent part of their working lives in office and they had no special training or specialist expertise for their duties. Administrative professionals were confined to a small number of the emperor’s freeman or slave. In the reign of Severus (AD193-211), there were only 350 elite officials in Rome, Italy and the provinces; this small number of people did not necessarily require a strict bureaucratic system for effective division of labour (Garnsey & Saller 1987: 26). Each senator and equestrian was directly responsible to the emperor. The government in Rome was thus not a centralized institution with a strict hierarchy. In this thesis, the terms ‘imperial’ and ‘Roman’ government are used but the government in Rome comprised only a loose hierarchical structure under the emperor. No emperor was interested in introducing a well-organized bureaucratic system at any level in either Rome or provinces (Garnsey & Saller 1987: 39). The emperor was only concerned with order so that peoples in the provinces were subjugated to the empire and tax was collected without difficulties. As long as the provincial communities obeyed Rome, they retained a considerable degree of liberty (Lintott 1993: 22).

There are two approaches in the archaeological study of landscape, which Johnston (1988) classifies as ‘explicit’ and ‘inherent’. The ‘explicit’ approach distinguishes the ‘real’ from the ‘perceived’ in the landscape (ibid: 57). The landscape, equivalent to a physical environment, exists independently of people who live within it. Human perception subsequently serves as the link between human activities and the environment. This approach thus explains behaviour as a response to external causes (Layton & Ucko 1999: 2). But it is arbitrary in its assumption that another landscape exists apart from the one experienced by people. It is because in the eyes of the person who experiences the landscape, only the ‘perceived’ one exists, whereas the so called ‘real’ one, apparently a product of physical geography in modern scholarship, does not exist in the perceiver’s consciousness. This research thus adopts the ‘inherent’ approach which does not differentiate the real from the perceived landscape. The ‘inherent’ approach insists that a landscape is a ‘way of seeing’: landscape is read and meanings are created, and it takes landscape as “a cultural image, a pictorial way of representing, structuring or symbolizing surroundings” (Daniels & Cosgrove 1988: 1), and consequently the world is rationally ordered into a harmonious creation in people’s minds (Cosgrove 1989: 121). The landscape is thus experienced in both people’s subconscious and conscious practices which continuously alter the meanings of the landscape. The sense of a place is learnt in a subconscious action but human places would become particularly real through deliberate and conscious dramatization (Tuan 1977: 178). As Relph (1981: 49) points out, landscape can be understood as a cultural artefact that reflects people’s values and practices.

The term ‘client-king’ might be misleading as it overemphasizes the patron-client model between landlords and clients. Instead, the relationship between Rome and the client kingdoms was based on amicitia (friendship) and societas (alliance) (Braund 1984; Lintott 1993: 32). Rome realized that rulers were more aware of the local situations in subjugated lands than governors appointed from Rome. While Rome was able to annex native kingdoms with good reasons and put them under governors, what she intended was to maintain effective communication and diplomacy with the native kings. As Richardson (1976: 13) explains, the Senate would be happy to allow a native king to take control of the internal affairs in his realm, as long as the Senate’s members were not involved and he followed Roman interests. Rather than stressing the relationship between dominator and the dominated, Rome treated these kings as partners who would be able to provide support in terms of military forces, finance and the maintenance of regional security (Pearce 2002: 467). The effective rule of a native king would remove much of Rome’s worry about a particular part of the empire.

Ingold (1993: 157) goes even beyond the matter of the sense of place, claiming that the environment is incorporated into a human body through humans ‘dwelling’ there. According to Ingold (ibid: 171), the landscape is not a totality of the environment that people look at; instead “it is within the context of this attentive involvement in the landscape that the human imagination gets to work in fashioning ideas about it”. The landscape has already been shaped by human activities and agency which are the components in the formation of social structure (Cosgrove 1984; Tilley 1994: 23), but the process always continues and is never complete. Due to this phenomenological process of structuration, Tilley (1994: 23) regards the landscape as “both the medium for and outcome of action and previous histories of action”. When movements in space occur, space is interpreted and read.

The construction of the Herodian landscape The integration of the Herodian buildings into the landscape and more importantly the production of meanings of these buildings and the transformed landscape is the focus of this research. But before further discussion on the landscape in Herodian Palestine, it is

Rather than being imposed by a dominant meaning, landscape is not a smooth running system but comprises day-to-day struggles for meanings (Thomas 1993a: 29). As Thomas (1993b: 79) notices, “if movement in space is necessarily a hermeneutic act, then the particular forms 3

not only symbols of Herod’s pride, but also aimed at state needs. According to Netzer (ibid: 58-9),

which that movement takes will contribute to the creation of subjectivity.” Therefore, even within the same cultural group, variations in the perceptions of landscape occurred.

“There is no reason to doubt that behind many of his ventures lay the desire for fame and immortality, to be achieved at times by the choice of the project’s name, by the exterior design of the structure, and occasionally by the very construction itself. However, it seems that neither fame and immortality alone, nor monumentality for its own sake, nor the imitation of Hellenistic traditions were necessarily Herod’s top priority. He also sought to create structures that would serve specific needs, and considerable personal attention was paid to their usefulness and practicality. This approach was undoubtedly the result of the king’s strong sense of reality, which found expression both in the administration of foreign affairs and in the organization of his kingdom and its thriving economy.”

The new architecture of the Herodian building program did not simply superimpose a one-sided and dominant visual effect or set of cultural meanings on the landscape. Instead, the creation of meanings was a more dynamic process involving the active participation of both planners and viewers. Lefebrve (1991) identifies three types of space produced through meaningful actions by different actors: -

-

-

Conceived space: this means ‘spatial practices’ or the space the urban planners intend to create. The builders initially produce the physical form of the urban environment in accordance with their plan to create a place as ideal as possible. In Foucault’s (1977: 228) sense, this ‘conceived’ space is a way of controlling movement and of structuring space where discipline is exercised. Perceived space: is people’s everyday perceptions and imaginations of conceived space. In other words, it is the ‘representations of space’. The viewers do not participate in urban planning, and so they do not necessarily share the same view as the urban planners. Meanings of ‘conceived space’ are produced through people’s everyday life within the urban landscape. Meanings of space are thus socially produced rather than being passively imposed from above. Lived space: is the space where the ‘perceived space’ is produced or where people’s imaginations are acted out. Lefebrve calls it ‘spaces of representation’. Individuals are not entirely free from social influences when they are producing meanings of space. The ‘lived space’ is constructed through the individual’s socializing within a group (Tilley 1994: 16; Thomas 2001: 173).

It was people’s ritual lives in the Jerusalem Temple that created the meaning of Herod’s religious monument. Herod’s own villas were not only good to look at, but also good to live in and feel safe. Jewish commoners would mainly see these palaces as the seats of the governors where legal justifications took place, as in Jesus trial in Pilate’s praetorium (Matthew 27: 11-26; Mark 15: 1-15; Luke 23: 1-25; John 18: 19-40), Paul’s trial in Festus’ praetorium in Caesarea Maritima (Acts 24: 27) and Jesus’ parable of the persistent widow seeking justice (Luke 18: 1-8). Meanings in Herodian constructions were not only being ‘read’, but continued to develop when they became a part of people’s living landscape. Bodily experience in a social environment was thus an essential element in the production of space.

One of the central themes in the production of social meanings is the reading of space, but it is important to note that most architecture is not constructed simply to be read. Lefebrve’s identification of the ‘lived space’ is similar to Ingold’s concept of ‘dwelling’ in space mentioned above. As Lefebrve (1991: 143) states,

Outline of this thesis After this introduction, the thesis reviews the discourse on Romanization in modern scholarship, with a brief mention of research on Hellenization in Palestine. The strengths and weaknesses of these concepts are critically scrutinized with particular focus on the changes from an imperialist to a ‘post-colonial’ perspective on the issue of Romanization.

“ … space was produced before being read; nor was it produced in order to be read and grasped, but rather in order to be lived by people with bodies and lived in their own particular urban context. In short, “reading” follows production in all cases except those in which space is produced especially in order to be read.”

In Chapter 3, the distribution of the Herodian constructions in Palestine is examined. This chapter looks at the character and type of buildings in a particular region and shows how they were different from others. Each region was distinctive in the way that Herod’s selection of building types was affected.

Herodian architecture created magnificent visual impacts on the landscape, but more importantly, people’s everyday movements within and around the buildings transcended their meanings from visual to bodily ones. As Netzer (1981b) argues, many of these buildings were

In Chapter 4, the architectural styles of the Herodian building program are investigated. It has been assumed that Herod lavishly favoured ‘Hellenistic’ and ‘Roman’ forms of architecture, but this research argues that local 4

Romanization did not occur in Jewish society.

and Oriental forms were also used by Herodian builders. Theories of Romanization through cultural imposition are thus invalid. The cultural landscape in Palestine became more hybrid in form than simply Hellenized or Romanized.

In the penultimate chapter, the underlying political motives of the Herodian building program are explored. This research argues that Romanization only took place in a political form. Under the purpose of Herodian urbanization, control was exercised through modifications of space. Furthermore, the relationship between the Herodian building program and the political organization of the Roman Empire is investigated in order to access a new understanding of the character of Roman rule in the subjugated political units.

In Chapter 5, Jewish perceptions of the landscape are analysed. The culturally and ethnically Jewish perspectives are an indicator of the continuity of the Jewish cultural and ethnic identity. The evidence thus challenges the assumptions that the Jews were assimilated culturally under Roman rule. Instead, foreign architecture was appropriated by Jews into a Jewish context. Cultural Romanization was limited and ethnic

Fig. 1. Herodian Palestine.

5

Chapter 2 Deconstructing Romanization theories

has become the key work for subsequent research on Hellenistic Palestine.

In studies of the western provinces of the Roman Empire, many archaeologists believe that after the Roman intrusions the native population was increasingly assimilated through the changes in their culture and subsequently all walks of life. However, it is also recognized that the influence of Roman culture was not so obvious in the Greek East which continued to undergo Hellenization rather than the western form of Romanization. Scholars studying the Second Temple Period Palestine (539BC—AD70) tend to focus on the issue of Hellenization. It is thus important to explore the concept of Hellenizaton before any assessment of the Romanization theories. But both forms of cultural change have something in common: they both emphasize a core that exercised influences and peripheries that were influenced. In addition, a package including a list of elements transmitted from the superior core to the subordinated peripheries. These ideas are critically revealed in this chapter.

Hengel’s thesis has been challenged by a number of scholars. Bowersock (1990: 7) particularly argues that Hellenism in antiquity was confined only to language. Only in Late Antiquity was Hellenism related to paganism. According to Bowersock (ibid), “Hellenization is a useless barometer for accessing Greek culture. There is not even a word for it in classical and Byzantine Greek. Hellenism was a language and culture in which peoples of the most diverse kind could participate. … Hellenism, which is a genuine Greek word for Greek culture (Hellênismos), representing language, thought, mythology, and images that constituted an extraordinarily flexible medium of both cultural and religious expression. It was a medium not necessarily antithetical to both cultural and religious expression. On the contrary, it provided a new and more eloquent way of giving voice to them.”

As early as 1830s, Droysen (1936) used ‘Hellenism’ to describe the intrusion of Greek culture into the Oriental world. Following the foundation works of Lieberman (1962), Smith (1956), Tcherikover (1961), Hengel (1974) and Bickerman (1988), a large number of papers have been published on the aspect of Hellenism in Hellenistic Palestine. Nevertheless, many of them emphasize the one-sided influences of Hellenism on Judaism and Jewish culture. Supported by Hellenistic elements in Jewish and non-Jewish literature in this period as well as archaeological evidence, Hengel (1974) particularly emphasizes the Jewish quick and direct absorption of Hellenistic culture in many aspects of Jewish life from the third century BC onwards. In his ‘Hellenism and Judaism’, Hengel has assessed the substantial influences of Hellenism on Palestine in the Hellenistic period. In a later book (1989), he has pushed forward his argument, claiming that Hellenization continued into the age of Christ.

Bowersock thus challenges Hengel’s extension of Hellenism to many cultural aspects that were still predominantly local. Feldman (1986; 1994; 2002) further argued that the influence of Hellenism on Palestine was slight even in the aspect of languages. He acknowledges that the Jewish upper class knew the Greek language, which was not necessarily widespread. For example, Titus’ aim in employing Josephus was to use him to negotiate to the Jews in their native languages (Feldman 1986: 91). When Paul was speaking to the Jewish public, he spoke in Aramaic rather than Greek (ibid: 92; Acts 21: 40, 22: 2). Moreover, sarcophagi were usually inscribed with Greek words, but the letters were always crudely crafted (Feldman 1986: 88). Feldman’s oppositions have challenged the view of dominant influences from Greek, emphasizing the continuity of local culture. As Feldman (1986: 92-3; 2002: 313) argues, the common languages among Palestinian Jews were Aramaic and Hebrew but he has still overlooked the use of Greek language in Palestinian society. In particular, that Herod intended to attract more Diaspora Jews for pilgrimage increased the number of Greek-speaking Jews in Palestine. The early church comprised both Palestinian Jews and Greekspeaking Jews (Acts 6: 1). Since the Hellenistic period, Greek-speaking Jews might not have known Hebrew, which was the reason why the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek in Alexandria. Moreover, Peter and James, who were not highly educated people as the Pharisees and Sadducees, were able to compose their New Testament letters in Greek. Greek was thus not

Levine (1998: 17) points out that many scholars working on Hellenism and Hellenization always make two assumptions: 1. Hellenism involved Greek ideas and practices directly from Greece itself or from major Hellenistic urban centres such as Alexandria and Antioch, and; 2. Hellenism was a given phenomenon, either affirmed or denied by a society. In other words, it either existed or did not exist in a society. Notwithstanding the trend for a more complex process of Hellenization which included the natives’ selection and adaptation of Hellenistic culture, there is still an assumption that Hellenism was a ‘cultural package’ comprising a list of Greek elements such as politics, languages, architecture, sculpture, literature and religion. The elements within the list are discussed in detail by Hengel, and subsequently his ‘Hellenism and Judaism’ 6

current scholarship, she seems to have assumed what Roman material culture was and was not. As argued below, this assumption has oversimplified the origins of material culture and the lives of ancient people. Challenging the ‘myth’ of the ‘unromanized East’, another school argues that the Greek resistance to Roman culture has been overlooked (Alcock 2000: 222). There are still traces of Roman influences on the eastern provinces. The Roman influence in Palestine in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid ages was slight, given that Rome was still a small state without the power and interest to interfere in the intense conflicts among the Hellenistic kingdoms in the East. The political influence of Rome intruded into Palestine when the Hasmoneans’ sought for the help from the Roman Republic during its rivalry with the Seleucids. Later, Pompey’s campaign in the East represented a stage of intervention in the civic structure of the eastern cities. The rise of the Herodian dynasty represented a crucial stage in indirect Roman rule in Palestine through the creation of a client kingdom. The Roman political impact on the eastern provinces is obvious. For example, Alcock (1989; 1993) emphasized the heavy Roman domination and imperialism in mainland Greece, assessing the Roman heavy exploitation of Greek resources. Woolf (1994) also stressed the adoption of a Roman identity among the Greek population. However, in the studies of the Roman East, there are still no theories of Romanization as in those of the West.

confined to the Jewish upper class (Millard 2000: 117). Unlike Feldman’s claim of the slight influence of Greek on Palestinian society, Greek became an additional language, which coexisted with Aramaic and Hebrew (ibid). As Bowersock (1990) points out, the idea of Hellenization is a relatively modern invention, given that dominant influences from Greece did not exist in antiquity. There seems to be a lack of definition of Greek culture in Palestinian society, as no formal documents or other ancient literature have ever provided definite meanings of ‘Greekness’. Although many sanctuaries in the Near East were dedicated to Zeus, the ‘Zeus’ there might not have been referred to the one in Greek mythology. Instead, the name Zeus was borrowed and superimposed on the great gods of the Middle East. The gymnasium that triggered the Maccabean Revolt (167164BC) should be seen as a problem of paganism rather than Hellenism, given that it was the activities and meanings within the gymnasium that aroused the Jewish antagonism towards the Seleucids. The contrast thus should be between ‘paganism and Judaism’ rather than ‘Hellenism and Judaism’ (Millar 1993b: 353). Modern scholarship has assumed a ‘package’ of Hellenism that comprises certain elements that scholars identify as ‘Greek culture’. Nevertheless, the list might not have necessarily matched the one in the eyes of native population in the Near East in antiquity. If so, ‘Hellenism’ and ‘Hellenization’ is only a modern misconception of ancient culture.

Research on Romanization mainly focuses on the Roman West because the process of cultural change there is believed to be more obvious in the contrast of native and Roman cultures. The situation in the Roman East, however, was more complicated and ambiguous due to the deep-rooted and sophisticated cultures which prevailed there. Although the term ‘Romanization’ is employed by scholars, there is no ‘fixed’ meaning for it. ‘Romanization’ is always defined differently, and this discourse always guides the analysis and elaboration of archaeological data (Keay 2001: 122; Alcock 2001: 227). In general, there are three broad accounts of Romanization today. The first approach emphasizes Romanization as Roman imperial policy, aiming at assimilating natives into as Romans. The views of representatives of what has been called the ‘interventionist’ or ‘neo-orthodoxy’ school, such as Frere (1987) and Hanson (1997), actually differ little from those of the nineteenth and twentieth century scholars, who were influenced by British imperialism and used the British experience in India as comparative case to the Roman domination on Britain. Another school of thought, initiated by Millett (1990a; 1990b), explains cultural changes in the Roman provinces in terms of selfRomanization, claiming that Romanization was the result of native elites’ adoption of Roman culture as a symbol of power over non-elites. More recently, there has been a combination of both schools; the new theory suggests that both imperialist and local forces were at work simultaneously (Woolf 1995; Whittaker 1995b).

Discussing the Roman cultural influences on the eastern provinces, Woolf (1994: 116) identified two general schools in the study of the Roman East. The first believes that the influence of Roman culture on the Greek East was slight, given that the Roman East had already been dominated by Hellenistic culture long before the coming of Rome. For example, Sear (1982: 231) claims that architecture in the Eastern Empire remained Hellenistic and represented the “final development in an unbroken Hellenistic tradition”. Moreover, as stated above, many scholars studying the Jews in early Roman period still emphasize Hellenization rather than Romanization. ‘To be Roman’ is a strange idea in ancient Jewish studies, because it is always known that the Jewish sense of ethnicity was strong. The idea of ‘becoming Roman’ would be extremely strange and absent among first century BC and AD Jews. Jews were always Jewish ethnically and culturally, even though a large number of them were in Diaspora. In the second place, it is believed that Palestine, as a part of the Near East and Greek East, had already become a civilization that strongly resisted Roman culture. Otherwise, when Roman culture is discussed, there is always an indistinguishable use of ‘Hellenization’ and ‘Romanization’ (e.g. Meyers 1992: 88, Applebaum 1989: 158-9; Levine 1998: 26). Consequently, these two types of acculturation are always treated as the same as each other. Berlin’s (2002) recent article has employed the term ‘Romanization’ and ‘anti-Romanization’ in her analysis of the material culture in Galilee. However, following the trend in 7

natives see Romanization as a symbol of white colonial control in the past (Mattingly 1996). Colonialism means the direct rule of another state and exploitations through only a small number of local representatives. This view corresponds to the ‘self-Romanization’ theory which emphasizes that local elites were used by the Roman government to rule over native populations. The monopolist domination over others was not seen in the Roman Empire (Millett 1990a; 1990b). The Romans were not imperialists, and they did not have a strong intention to assimilate natives into Romans so as to build up a monopoly system and a homogenous world.

Although the new school of thought explores the role of local people in provinces, the imperial image of the Roman Empire is always assumed. Before British imperial expansion, research on Roman civilization focused mainly on changes of art. Only since then have the Romans been seen as imperialists (Freeman 1996; 1997a; 1997b; Hingley 1991; 1994; 1995; 1996). Archaeological practice and interpretation in the nineteenth century was gravely influenced by the contemporary notions of imperialism and colonialism (Trigger 1984; 1989: 110-47). Hingley (ibid) claims that both Mommsen and Haverfield analysed Roman expansions with reference to the imperialist colonialism of their times. Contrary to Hingley, Freeman (1996; 1997a; 1997b) stresses that Haverfield had said little about what we know today as Roman imperialism and the contemporary equation between the British imperialism and the Roman Empire. Instead, Freeman (1996; 1997a; 1997b: 10-12) emphasizes that it was the nineteenth century atmosphere as a whole rather than Haverfield which was the source of Roman imperial theory. Influenced by the Classical nature of the educational system in the nineteenth century, upper and upper-middle classes paid particular attention to the differences between the advanced Romans and the primitive natives in comparison to the European civilization and their colonies. Subsequently, the studies of classics and ancient history became an important preparation for service in the British colonies, given that the Roman imperialist example was seen to be useful in the application of governing a British colony. Moreover, Hingley (1995) also emphasizes that the Roman concept of gravitas fundamentally shaped the character of the English gentlemen. Thereafter, research on Romanization has concentrated on the connection between Romans and imperialism. To a certain extent, the Roman Empire had become, in Anderson’s (1983) term, an ‘imagined community’ created by the nineteenth century’s colonialists and imperialists.

The imperialist view derived from the nineteenth century European imperialist era is still maintained by some scholars today, whereas the self-Romanization theory originates from the post-colonial theories, particularly the work of Said (1978). After WWII, the decolonization of the former European colonies has been seen as parallel to the declining of the Roman Empire and thus strengthens the link between the Roman imperialist approach and consequently the post-colonial perspectives towards Roman imperialism. As Barrett (1997: 58) argues, our knowledge about the past is not greater than Mommsen’s and Haverfield’s; we are only looking at it from a different angle which makes sense to us. Therefore, the views held by nineteenth century imperialists were valid to them given that they were highly affected by contemporary political events, while in our postimperialist and post-colonial era, ‘Roman imperialism’ is always reinterpreted. But our new angle may also fade in the future. Although the post-imperialist view is more sophisticated, the shadow of imperialism can still be found among its champions (Freeman 1993). For example, Bartel (1980) and Dyson (1985a; 1985b) uncritically equate the modern colonial experience with Roman domination in provinces. Fincham (2001) even uses the weakness of the British government in its colonial campaign as an analogy to point out the weakness of Roman colonial rule. Although Dommelen (2001) points out the Romans’ weak intention of importing Roman material culture into Sardinia and the continuation of Punic culture there, he still stresses the imperialist attempt to assimilate the Sardinian locals as Romans. Millett (1990a; 1990b) suggests ‘selfRomanization’, but the political power of the Romans over their native others is always assumed in academic writing. Consequently, Roman culture is analysed as a symbol of Roman political power which was desired by local elite. The imperialist image of the Romans is thus deeply embedded in academic research.

Nevertheless, the question whether the Romans were imperialist or not is debatable, depending on the scholar’s definition of ‘imperialism’. Said (1993) analyses the relationship between imperialism and colonialism, claiming that imperialist motives and ideology for a large empire always provided reasons for practical colonial actions; therefore, Said believes that colonialism is the product of imperialism. In view of this, the Romans’ colonial occupation of the provinces was anyway triggered by imperialist motives. However, Webster (1996: 2-6) challenges the dominant idea of the Romans as imperialists by stressing that Romans were colonialists instead. Referring to Bernstein, she points out the concept of imperialism is mainly about systematic domination over others and is lavishly characterized by capitalist monopoly. As mentioned above, this view is emphasized in Alcock’s (1989; 1993) assessments of the Roman economic monopolistic system and its exploitation of Greece. Moreover, strongly affected by recent political events, perspectives on the Romanization in Africa are divided into two sides: the French look at the matter from an imperialist angle, while African

When scholars write about Romanization, they consciously or unconsciously fall into the act of categorization. The basic classification is Romans/ natives and native elite/ non-elite. The study of Romanization is always about the generalization of these groups and each group is always seen as a homogenous unit. The diversity of in-group identities and behaviours is always neglected. The term ‘Roman’ may be a confusing one. Gardner (1993: 1) concludes that there are 8

Nevertheless, non-elite houses and material culture are given little attention in archaeological research in Roman Britain. Therefore, the evidence shows that diverse behaviours existed within particular groups and classes. Individuals were active agents in acting out and changing culture (Boudieu 1977), but this aspect is always neglected in the tendency of wide-scale generalization in Roman archaeology.

two focuses on the meanings of ‘Roman’. The first is on the characteristics of Roman society and life among Roman communities, emphasizing Romanness rather than citizenship. The focus is thus similar to Romanization which emphasizes the assimilation of native populations as culturally and ethnically ‘Romans’. The second approach is to see Roman citizenship as a political phenomenon, respecting only on people’s relations to the state and its political authorities. The first focus is always emphasized in studies of Romanization, particularly the adoption of Roman culture which would eventually lead to the changes from provincial natives into not only culturally but also ethnically Romans.

Moreover, the term ‘Roman’ as an ethnic term is an extremely problematic one. As shown in later chapters, Rome had no intention to assimilate Jews into ethnical Romans. Rather than claiming to be ethnically Roman, peoples in the Near East still referred to their identities according to their ethnic origins such as Jews and Nabataeans. MacMullen (2000) equates the Romans with Italians, but it is evident that different ethnic groups coexisted in Italy. For example, Campania was an area of former Greek colonies which were distinct from the Latin area of central Italy. As Lomas (1995; 1998) shows, many cities in southern Italy retained their Greek identities and languages. For example, at Naples, Velia and Phegium, there was a continuity of Greek forms of civic life and Greek records persisted until the middle of the second century AD if not longer (1995: 111). Up to the third century AD, there was also a continuation of Greek magistracies including archon, demarchos, gymnasiachos and laukelarchos in these cities (ibid: 111). Furthermore, Laurence (1998) shows that Augustus’ division of Italy into different regions was influenced by landscape barriers. At the same time, these barriers also created different ethnic groups and identities in Italy. In view of this, the term Roman should not be referred as an ethnic identity. Instead, it was Roman citizenship rather than an ethnic Roman identity that Rome intended to promote. Roman citizenship was a political identity that was spread throughout Italy and the provinces at different stages. As Laurence (ibid: 103) states, “The concept of citizenship overrides and distances Romanness from ethnicity, since citizenship is reported as being granted to peoples identified by their ethnonyms to distinguish them”. Ethnic identities and Roman political identity overlapped and coexisted with each other without contradictions. This aspect is shown later in chapter 5. In other words, the distinction should be Roman citizen and non-citizens, rather than ethnically ‘Romans’ and nonassimilated ‘natives’.

Firstly, the problem of the cultural assimilation approach is revealed. Haüssler (1997) believes that natives were able to resist Roman culture because they could easily recognize their targeted objects. But when scholars employ the term ‘Romanization’, they always assume that they are aware of what Romans and Roman culture were (Barrett 1997: 51-2; Freeman 1993). Romanization is believed to be the adoption of a set of material culture and behaviour originating from Rome. Freeman (1993) challenges this notion by stressing that there was no specific classification of Roman cultural packages. Many of the items seen by scholars as ‘Roman’ actually came from other places. This aspect is shown in Chapter 3 to challenge the pre-conception of Roman elements of architecture in the Near East. Even if there were any objects that could be classified as ‘Roman’, the imperial government’s definition of ‘Roman material culture’ was not necessarily shared by natives, because Roman material culture was subject to a complex range of perceptions and definitions by different social groups (Woolf 1995: 341; Keay 2001). In this thesis, the term ‘Graeco-Roman culture’ is used to describe cultural elements commonly found in the Mediterranean world, although these elements were not necessarily perceived as culturally ‘Greek’ or ‘Roman’ by contemporary people in the Mediterranean world. The diversity among native elites, another factor which has to be considered, is evident. The one-sided account of elites’ desire for Roman culture is misleading, because archaeologists do not pay attention to the continuity of local culture (Dommelen 1997; Fincham 2000; Hingley 1997). While Millett (1990a; 1990b) emphasized the native appropriation of Roman culture as a demonstration of power, the basic assumption is that the exotic ‘Roman’ items were seen as prestigious objects. However, Hingley (1997: 95) criticizes Millett’s proposal by stressing the continuity of round houses in Roman Britain. Round houses are always interpreted as outdated objects in the Iron Age, and it is always believed that elites lived in sophisticated Roman villas. But there is evidence for the existence of round houses until the fourth century AD. Moreover, elites also used big round houses rather than villas to demonstrate their personal power over others. Apparently, not all elite members were interested in exotic culture. As Hingley (ibid: 95-6) points out, nonelites might also have used ‘Roman’ objects as a powerful symbol over those who were below them.

Our understanding of the relationships between the centre and peripheries is based on interpretations rather than evidence. The discourse on Romanization is complex. Keay (2001: 122) quotes Ronald Syme in saying that Romanization as a term is “ugly and vulgar, worse than that, anachronistic and misleading”. The term ‘Romanization’ thus does not necessarily provide new understanding about the Roman presence in the provinces, unless a proper balance is kept between Rome and provinces. This research thus emphasizes Palestine as both a part of the Roman Empire and a place of its own characteristics. The Herodian building program took place under the Roman rule. However, the culture in Palestine had become mixed with cultures of the 9

Mediterranean and the Near East, which gave birth to an increasingly culturally hybrid landscape (see Chapter 4). Palestine thus did not aggressively experience becoming more culturally ‘Roman’. Jewish ethnicity continued and the Jewish perceptions on the transformation of landscape were shaped by their ethnic and religious views (see Chapter 5). They did not become Roman in terms of ethnicity. Although some Jews, such as Herod Antipas and the Apostle Paul held Roman citizenship, this status was not widely promoted in the first century BC and AD Palestine. However, the building program resulted in the Herodian increased control of Palestine (see Chapter 6), which achieved the Roman aim of using native elites to stabilize the territories that the Roman government was unfamiliar with or reluctant to become embroiled. The Herodian successful control on the population in Palestine thus contributed to the stability of the Empire as a whole. Palestine was thus politically linked to the Roman Empire in political means. Romanization thus occurred only in politics.

10

Chapter 3 Herodian constructions in different regions

an entirely free hand in his building program. In the following sections, the construction of different regions in Palestine is analysed. But because some parts of Palestine are not as well investigated and researched as others, the amount and quality of information for different parts varies.

Compared with most of the contemporary constructions in Palestine, individual buildings built by Herod were large in scale. Trigger (1990: 119) claims that the principal of monumental architecture is “its scale and elaboration exceed the requirements of any practical functions that a building is intended to perform”. However, Netzer (1981b: 57) argues that all Herodian buildings, except the Temple Mount and Caesarea Maritima, were modest in scale and intended for practical needs. In Netzer’s sense, most Herodian buildings were not monumental in character. Ades (1996: 50), in contrast to Trigger, shows a different understanding of monumental architecture, arguing that, “monumental in the classical sense of the term commemorates a person, event or action in people’s mind should be classified as monumental architecture”. As shown below, many Herodian structures were used to commemorate important individuals. Even though some of them were not intended for commemoration, the sizes of these buildings were generally larger than already existing features in a city. They thus contrast with the preHerodian environment and must have become distinctive elements in the landscape.

Judaea Early Roman Judaea included the ancient land of Judah and the Philistine coast. The region stretched from the north of Jerusalem to Beersheba in the south, and from the Shephelah in the west to the Dead Sea in the east. Most cities on the former Philistine coast were mainly composed of gentiles and were granted polis status whereas the territory of Judah was predominantly Jewish. The only exception was Jerusalem which consisted of a mixed population drawn from different places. Acts 2: 911 tells us that many language groups stayed in the Holy City. They were either Diaspora Jews whose native languages were not Hebrew or Aramaic, or they were gentiles. Politically, the Jewish territory of Herodian Judaea comprised only the land of ancient Judah and Joppa on the coast. But due to the dominance of Jewish population, the Jewish religious atmosphere in Judah was exceptionally strong. The Herodian kings and provincial government thus did not construct any gentile temples and imperial cult centres in this ‘Holy Land’. Instead, many constructions were built for the sake of Jews.

Herodian buildings became landmarks that formed people’s images of a city. Lynch (1960) analyses the formation of mental maps of cities, concluding that people’s image of a city is always simplified and landmarks are always used as reference points for people’s awareness of their location and the general image of the topography. The Hippodamian street plan in ancient cities, as Ellis (1995: 93) points out, did not offer much help for navigation; as in many North American cities today which are also planned in rectangular grids, people might have found it difficult to reach certain locations except spots on the cardo and decumanus (ibid). Herodian buildings not only became new and distinctive landmarks people used to describe a city, but also people’s references for their relative locations and directions in the urban landscape. The construction of new cities and desert fortresses also changed people’s consciousness of a wider environment in Palestine. Not everyone had the knowledge of the precise positions of these places on a vast landscape, but people’s awareness of their existence became an additional element in their mental maps of a region and the whole of Palestine.

Monumental buildings Herod laid his hands on the focal point of Judaism by modifying the structure of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple was enlarged by over one-third of its previous size. Its height was also increased. A vast courtyard was created with a portico along each side (Figs. 2 & 3). Many gates were built for public access to the platform. All its walls were built with local masonry. On the southern side of the Temple Mount, a large number of Hellenistic pools, cisterns, channels and tombs were demolished to make way for a monumental staircase (Mazar 1978: 237). At the southern end of the western wall, a staircase set upon arches was erected to give access to the ground level of the Tyroposion Valley from the south-west corner of Temple platform (Figs. 55 & 57).Different areas of the Temple Mount platform were separated by courts (Fig. 3). These courts defined the differences amongst people in terms of purity and holiness. The outer most one was the Gentile Court. Within this, a stone wall defined the Temple precinct,

Herodian buildings were unevenly scattered among different parts of Palestine. However, almost every region experienced accelerating urbanization. Moreover, each region had its distinct type of building which might not have been constructed in neighbouring areas. The variation of buildings in each area was affected by its ethnic composition and religious atmosphere. In some regions, Herod was undeniably confronted by many constraints in his building projects. He thus did not have 11

Fig. 2. Reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, after Avigad (1993: 731).

Fig. 3. Plan of the Temple in Jerusalem, after Avigad (1993: 738).

12

The Jewish ancestors, the Jewish past, the Jewish bloodline and body were symbolically formed into one. When Jews thought about these monumental places, they were commemorating their religion and ancestors. Nevertheless, Herod’s interference at these Jewish places was an attempt to remind the Jewish people about the builders behind the houses of God and Israelite ancestors. Herod thus after all attempted to divert the Jewish divine and genealogical power into his own name and glory.

which only Jews might enter. Here the Women’s Court was outermost. Then, the Court of Israel and the Court of Priests followed. The innermost part of the Temple was the Holy of Holies which only the High Priests were allowed to enter. Herod well understood the importance of commemoration in Judaism. Therefore, apart from the Temple, he built an enclosure in Hebron (Fig. 4) to surround the Cave of Machpelah, the traditional burial place of Abraham and his descendents. Laid out symmetrically in two parallel rows, there are six cenotaphs dedicated to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Leah and Rebecca. The enclosure is 34 x 50m north-west and south-east. The masonry of the walls of the enclosure is strikingly similar to the walls of the Temple Mount. And yet the enclosure belonged to a class of funerary monuments common in Graeco-Roman Palestine (Jacobson 1981: 78). The graves are in the subterranean cavern beneath the monument; on the open platform, there are six commemorative memorials similar to the three pyramids on top of the burial of Queen Helena of Adiabene outside the wall of Jerusalem (ibid). Another Jewish monument was built in Mamre (Figs. 5 & 6). First century-Jews believed that it was the location of the tree where Abraham settled and was warned of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 13:18, 14:13, 18:1). Measuring 49 x 65m, the enclosure is even larger than the one at Hebron. Although a large part of the enclosure was rebuilt during Hadrian’s time, the original north wall still remains and its structure is similar to the walls of Hebron and the Jerusalem Temple.

Fig. 4. Plan of the Hebron enclosure (Haram El-khalil), after Jacobson (1981: 75).

By putting his hand on Jewish worship, Herod demonstrated that he had a share and power in Judaism. Herod’s act certainly aimed at pleasing the Jews and gaining their loyalty, as reflected by his speech to the Jewish public before the construction of the Temple took place (AJ 11: 380-87). Herod might have attempted to link himself with King Solomon who was the builder of the First Temple. The aim behind this was to show that he was as great as the Israelite king. Being the second focal points of Judaism, Hebron and Mamre were visually linked with the Jewish religious centre — the Temple. Looking at the two monuments outside Jerusalem, pilgrims would surely be reminded of Jerusalem Temple. The striking resemblance between the walls of these monuments was far more than accidental. Their similarity was sufficient to deliver the message that they were from the hands of the same builder. The two enclosures and the Temple thus formed a monumental group for Judaism. The Temple represented the authority of Yahweh. Its sanctity was determined by the direct and immediate link with God in two ways: 1. the Temple as a sacred place where God dwelt (Japhet 1998: 57-9); and 2. it was where God revealed himself to humanity (ibid; Pedaya 1998: 86). The monumental sites, like the bloodline and body of a Jew, could be traced back to their ancient ancestors. When Jews came into the enclosures, they were commemorating their ancestry.

Fig. 5. Plan of the Mamre enclosure, after Magen (1993a: 940).

13

Besides the Antonia Fortress, Herod also constructed walls as a part of the fortification of the city of Jerusalem (Fig. 8). The First Wall remained in the Herodian period, running from the west wall of the Temple Mount to Herod’s palace in the western part of the city. Then, it turned south and enclosed both the upper and lower city. Josephus (BJ 5: 142-5) ascribed the wall to the time of David and Solomon, but the existing First Wall seems to belong to the Hasmonean period. In the time of Hycranus I and Alexander Jannaeus, a new wall was erected along the line of the old Israelite wall. Herod built three towers north of his palace and named them Phasael, Hippicus and Mariamme. The Phasael Tower was exceptional in size (Geva 1993: 727). Geva believes that the three towers were arranged on the line of the First Wall with Hippicus in the west, Phasael in the middle and Mariamme in the east. Hippicus, according to Geva, played the most important role in the defence of Jerusalem because of its position at the edge of the city. In the Hellenistic period, this type of rectangular tower remained the norm, probably because of its cheapness and ease of manufacture (McNicoll 1997: 8). Josephus (BJ 5: 142-6) implies that there had been two walls in 37BC. The Second Wall, as generally agreed, ran along a line north of the First Wall and enclosed today’s Christian and Muslim quarters (Geva 1993: 736). There are different suggestions as to where the Second Wall ran precisely, but no definite conclusions have been drawn. The Third Wall, according to Josephus (BJ 5: 147), began at the Hippicus Tower, and continued north to the Tower of Psephinus. Then, it turned west to the Kidron Valley and turned south again to meet the wall at the Temple Mount.

Fig. 6. Reconstruction of the Mamre enclosure, after Magen (1993a: 940).

Fortifications On the one hand, Herod attempted to gain Jewish loyalty through his contribution to Judaism; on the other hand, he built a range of fortresses to deter possible Jewish rebellion and to establish military control over the population. Herod probably believed that Judaea as the Jewish ‘homeland’ would be the most possible root of riots, and this would explain why the number of Herodian fortresses in Judaea was greater than in Samaria, Perea and Galilee. Herod reused the foundations of the Hasmonean fortress at the north-western corner of the Temple Mount (Fig. 7). He re-named it after Mark Antony (BJ 1: 401; Tacitus, Hist 5: 11), and designed it to be a fortress combined with its earlier functions as palace and fortified place. According to Josephus (BJ 5: 149, 238-45), the fortress was erected on a high rock. There were towers at four corners with the south-eastern corner higher than the other three. Much of the fortress was excavated in the 1860s. The most remarkable feature discovered was the rectangular rock cut platform measuring 129 x 45m and rising a few metres above the ground. This pool was equated with the Struthion Pool mentioned by Josephus (BJ 5: 267). A great portion of the courtyard has been excavated and some stones have been in situ since 55BC (Ita of Sion 1968: 141). The actual size of the fortress on the rock is not certain. Vincent, Sister Marie-Aline and Avi-Yonah believe the fortress was an enormous courtyard building, extending out of the rock mass (Geva 1993: 742). Beneath the courtyard square lay the Struthion Pool for water supply. Excavations have also shown that there were huge water holes to carry winter rains into the big cistern below (Ita of Sion 1968: 141). Benoit (1976), however, believes that the fortress was smaller than has been suggested, claiming that its size was as the same as the rock mass.

Fig. 7. Antonia Fortress. The Jerusalem model in the Holy Land Hotel, Jerusalem. Photograph by the author.

14

Fig. 8 . Jerusalem in the Late Second Temple Period, after Geva (1993: 718). Fortresses were also built in other parts of Judaea. Alexandrium was a fortress located on the peak of a mountain in the eastern Samarian Hills north of the Jericho Valley. The height of the mountain upon which it sits rises about 700m above the base of the Jordan Valley. The fortress was probably built by Alexander Jannaeus and named after him. During Pompey’s

campaign in Palestine, Aristobulus based himself there and stopped Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem in 63BC (AJ 14: 48-53; BJ 1: 133-7). In 57BC, Gabinus besieged the fortress and destroyed it (AJ 16: 82-91; BJ 1: 1160-70), but it was later restored by Herod (AJ 16: 419; BJ 1: 308).

15

The upper palace of Herodium (Fig. 10) took the basic shape of a fortress. On top of a natural hill, Herod’s palace rises to 820m ft above sea level. Rising 30m above the bedrock, the cylindrical structure contained two concentric circular walls. The outer wall was 67m in diameter, and it was separated from the inner wall by a corridor. Inside the fortress, there were seven storeys of quarters with five of them above the ground. The entrance of the fortress was at the valley 60m below and at 167m along the north side of the mountain. Herodium was a fortress with a palace and residential quarter, but it was also a large military garrison.

Similar to Alexandrium, Masada (Fig. 16) was also built on top of a hill, but Herod saw it as a more reliable place than Alexandrium. It was the reason why he placed his family there when he went to meet Octavian in Actium (AJ 15: 184). Moreover, the hardly accessible fortress in the Judaean wilderness enabled him to escape from Cleopatra, when Mark Antony might have intended to transfer Herod’s territory to her (AJ 15: 92; BJ 1: 360). Masada was located on the border of Judaea and Idumaea. Herod built a circuit wall around the summit with 37 towers each 30m high. There are only two tracks accessible to the summit. But both of them were in defenceless positions, and so enemies would not be able to arrive at the top of the hill easily. This is why Titus had to build a besiege ramp to capture Masada in AD74 instead of using the narrow Snake Path. The steep slopes and towering cliffs formed a formidable defensive system. During the First Jewish Revolt, the fortress proved to be an effective place for defence and enabled the Zealots to hold out against Titus’ army for four years. At Hyrkania (Fig. 9), 14km south-east of Jerusalem, Herod reused the Hellenistic fortress and transformed it into a prison for political non-conformists (AJ 15: 366). The large cemetery 500m to the east, where Herodian pottery has been found, was for probably prisoner burials. Similar to other Herodian fortresses, the hill was levelled to create a large platform with three sides of rooms around a courtyard. Identical with other Herodian structures, aqueducts were built with ashlar masonry. Another fortress was built at Horbet Masad, which was north-west of Jerusalem on the road to Lydda. Excavations have not distinguished the development of the fortress in the Herodian period, but have confirmed that a new fortress was superimposed upon a Hellenistic fortification.

Fig. 10. Isometric reconstruction of Upper Herodium, after Netzer (1999b: 98).

Although Herod had different intentions for constructing each of the fortresses in Judaea, the similar distance from Herodium, Horbat Masad and Hyrkania to Jerusalem and their locations surrounding the Holy City indicate that they exercised both protection and surveillance on Jerusalem. In particular, Jerusalem was the stronghold of Judaism and Jewish nationalism as well as being an antiHerodian centre. Herod probably believed that the preHerodian fortresses of Hyrkania and Horbet Masad were not sufficient to guarantee local security. Therefore, Herodium might have been designed as an additional stronghold in this particularly turbulent region. But we should not over-estimate the effectiveness of these fortresses in protecting Jerusalem, given that they were a considerable distance from the city. They might have protected Jerusalem against external raiding, but there would be difficulties for armies to mobilize rapidly to Jerusalem if there were any riots within the city. The military responsibility of Jerusalem was shouldered by the Antonia Fortress. In addition to local security, fortresses, especially those combined a palace function, served as Herod’s refuge places when there was any threat. This aspect will be discussed in more detail below.

Fig. 9. Plan of Hykania, after Patrich (1993: 640).

16

Palaces

Compared with the relationship between Hyrkania, Horbet Masad, Herodium and Jerusalem, two fortresses near Jericho provided more effective protection and military support for Herod’s villas. The fortress of Kypros was located near the old Jerusalem road and only 3.5km south-west of Jericho. The ruins have been identified with Tel el-‘Aquaba. A large building was installed on the terraced summit of the site. Within the building, there was a small bathhouse with fragments of painting and marble ornamentations. At the south-east of the summit, a lower tower is preserved along with a bathhouse, wall paintings and a 6.2m² mosaic floor in the apodyterium. Corinthian column fragments indicate that the building might have been arranged around a peristyle. Dagon was also near Jericho and is identified with the unexcavated ruin of Jebel Qarantal. It was created on an artificially raised summit with cisterns and hydraulic paraphernalia, monumental walls and the remnants of Ionic columns. Although the fortress was Hasmonean in origin and there is no evidence that it was associated with Herod, we might expect that Herod used this fortress, given that it was adjacent to his Jericho palace. The function of these two fortresses as protection for Herod’s palaces was very clear, seeing that troops could be mobilized at a relatively rapid speed to Herod’s villas. These fortresses reflected that Herod showed great care of his agricultural possessions at Jericho, which might have provided him substantial funds for his building program.

Nielsen (1994: 181) identifies three classes of palaces built by Herod. The first type was the main palaces situated in important cities such as Jerusalem and Caesarea. Secondly, some palaces served mainly as places for recreation, such as the Winter Palace in Jericho and the Summer Palace in Herodium. The third type was palaces in desert fortresses which Herod newly built or took over from the Hasmoneans. Other than Nielsen’s categories, there is one other important function among Herod’s fortification in Judaea: they either protected Jerusalem from external raid, or combined their function with palaces as Herod’s residences or places of refuge. For example, Kypros and Dagon should be considered as a part of the security system of the Jericho region. As dwellings and places of refuge for Herod, extra security was added to his palaces. There was a group of three palaces in Jericho (Fig. 11). The First Jericho Palace (Fig. 12) was built around 35BC. It included a rectangular building occupying 87 x 46m. Inside the building, there was a large triclinium, dwelling, service room, a bathhouse and a ritual bath. Built around 25BC, the Second Palace (Fig. 13) overlay the old Hasmonean palace. There was a three-sided peristyle courtyard garden in the upper level, while the bathhouse and a fenced garden were located on a lower level. Two swimming pools, dated to the Hasmonean period, were joined into one. The Third Palace (Fig. 14) was built around 15BC and was the largest building in the Jericho

Fig. 11. Palaces in Jericho, after Netzer (1993: 682).

Second Palace

Third Palace

First Palace

17

palace complex. It was built along both sides of the Wadi Qelt, occupying an area of 3 hectares. The most distinctive element of the palace was the use of opus reticulatum and opus quadratum common in contemporary Italian architecture. The main room of the palace included a triclinium similar in plan to that of the First Palace. Two colonnades of the northern wing were built along the river. Josephus (BJ 1: 407) indicates that two reception rooms in the Jericho palace were similarly named as the two reception halls in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem. The two halls in the Jerusalem palaces were named after Augustus and Agrippa (BJ 1: 402, AJ 15: 218), whereas Netzer (1975) supposes that the huge reception halls in Jericho were probably named Caesareum or Agrippeum. On the other side of the Wadi Qelt, there was a sunken garden and an artificial mound with a circular reception hall on top. Other Jericho constructions included a hippodrome (Fig. 15; AJ 17: 193, 233), an amphitheatre (BJ 1: 666) and possibly a theatre (Fig. 32). The design of the Jericho Third Palace reflected the influence of Campanian villas of the Late Republic period. The details of opus reticulatum and opus incertum as well as frescoes are constantly found in the luxurious villas in Campania. These characteristics indicate that the villa at Jericho was probably built by Italian architects (see Chapter 5). Fig. 12. Plan of the First Palace in Jericho, after Netzer (1996a: 36).

Fig. 13. Plan of the Second Palace in Jericho, after Netzer (1999b: 36).

18

circular hall enclosed by a portico. Thirteen metres down the middle terrace, a rectangular hall surrounded by porticoes was built. Two rooms were constructed at the eastern side with a bathhouse underneath. There was a large bathhouse complex adjacent to the upper terrace. A peristyle court with a large mosaic floor was erected at the entrance of the bathhouse. This court was used as a palaestra for exercise. The first room was the apodyterium for dressing. A tepidarium with lukewarm temperatures was put before the entrance of the frigidarium. A hypocast was installed in the caldarium. The bathhouse was decorated with coloured frescoes and its floor was paved with black and white tiles. Large storage rooms were also built next to the bathhouse. On the south-western side of Masada, an 18 x 12m pool was identified as a royal swimming pool. The Western Palace occupied an area of 3750m². The central part was dominated by a rectangular courtyard with many rooms around it. A bathhouse was also built in the palace. Mosaic floors were discovered in an antechamber and the bathhouse. Masada was a magnificent palace which Herod prepared for his own dwelling and possibly longterm refuge. With regard to it be a safe place for his family and himself (AJ 15: 185), he thus elaborately constructed the palace in high contrast to the wild environment surrounding the rock of Masada.

Fig. 14. Plan of the Third Palace in Jericho, after Netzer (1993: 688). Alexandrium was both a strategic place and a palace. Doric columns were erected in the Hasmonean period. There might have been a stoa or a monumental façade as a part of the palace. A ritual bath has also been discovered by excavation. A peristyle hall was built in the Herodian period. Coloured plaster in black, green, red and yellow is still visible on some columns. A coloured floor within a frame was located in the centre of the hall. The roof of the peristyle was probably supported by a vault (Tsafrir & Magen 1993: 1320). Herod entertained Marcus Agrippa in this palace in 15BC (AJ 16: 13). Alexandrium was also the place where Herod’s wife Mariamme was imprisoned and his sons Alexander and Aristobulus were buried (AJ 16. 394; BJ 1: 551). Masada (Fig. 15) was also built to be a palace, but its construction was far more elaborate than Alexandrium. The Northern Palace (Figs. 39 & 40) was one of the most exceptional pieces of architecture among Herod’s buildings. Different parts of the palace were constructed on its terraces. The upper terrace included a semi-circular veranda. On top of the terrace, there was a circular hall enclosed by a portico and a large room. Twenty metres below the terrace, there was a middle terrace with a 19

Fig. 15. Plan of Masada, after Yadin & Netzer (1993: 974).

courtyard fortress of Antonia, whereas Antipas’ residence in Jerusalem might be in the old Hasmonean Palace. With many rooms under peristyle courts, the courtyard of Herod’s palace in western Jerusalem was similar to many town houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Excavations in the Citadel area show that the platform of the palace was constructed over a skeletal grid of walls with a large amount of fill where floors of the buildings were laid on top (Amiran & Eitan 1972: 50). According to Josephus (BJ 5: 176-83), there were gardens, fountains, pools and streams in the palace complex. The interior of the palace was decorated in gold and stone (AJ 15: 318).

In Jerusalem, two palaces became the administrative and political centres of the city. Herod elaborated the Hasmonean fortress called Banias (BJ 1: 75, 118), creating a palace and renaming it after Mark Antony (Fig. 7; BJ 1: 401; Tacitus Hist 5: 11). But after he built a palace in western Jerusalem, the role of Antonia as Herod’s palace was replaced (AJ 17: 255). But after Judaea was put under the authority of the procurator in AD6, the praetorium might have been the Western Palace. As Wilkinson (1978: 140-2) contends, the bema where Pilate sat during Jesus’ trial (Mathew 27: 19) was more likely to be in the Western Palace than the

20

the palace. It thus indicates the possibility that the palace was not occupied by anyone and might have been used as a tomb. Segal (1974) believes that the Upper Palace was modeled on Augustus’ mausoleum (Fig. 16) in Rome. Vardaman (1975: 46) argues against Segal’s suggestion, claiming that Herod did not have the chance to see the structure until his trip in 17BC, after Herodium was finished. But as Roller (1998: 165) proposes, Herod might have heard of the distinctive style of the tomb even when he was in Palestine. The answer is still inconclusive, unless the real tomb of Herod is discovered.

Fig. 16. Augustus’ mausoleum in Rome. Photograph by the author. Like Antonia, Herodium (Figs. 10 & 41) was a combination of palace and fortress. Inside the tower there was a peristyle court surrounded by round towers. The living quarters were located west of the peristyle court. Moreover, there was a bathhouse with mosaic floor and wall paintings decorated in the Pompeian First Style. The lower structure of Herodium included a large pool complex, a large palace, a circuit, a bathhouse and a monumental building. Measuring 70 x 46m, the pool was the central feature of the palace complex. A round structure was erected in the centre of the pool which was probably a pavilion built in the shape of a tholos. Circular walls with an elaborate colonnaded peristyle were installed in the garden to become boundaries of its three sides. There have been debates around the topic whether the Upper Palace in Herodium was the tomb of Herod. Netzer (1981a: 100; 1987a: 40) argues strongly against this view, maintaining that Jews would not use tombs to be living quarters. Instead, he believes that Herod’s tomb was located outside the palaces of Herodium. However, the impossibility that Netzer indicates evidently occurred at Herod’s palace in Caesarea. The Caesarea palace was also built on top of the cemetery of the Hellenistic Strato’s Tower, as evidenced by the rock cut tombs found beneath the palace foundation (Gleason et al 1998: 34). The city of Tiberias, as well as the palace there, were also built on top of a cemetery. There are indeed many ritual baths in Herod’s palaces, even in the promontory palace in the gentile Caesarea Maritima, but they seem to be only lip service Herod gave to Jewish purity laws. Magness’ (2001) pottery analysis of the Upper Palace also demonstrates that there was an absence of pottery in the period after Herod’s death until the Zealot occupation of

Idumaea There are still uncertainties about the location of the boundaries of Idumaea. At the western shore of the Dead Sea, En-Gedi was the new eastern Idumaea capital that replaced Adoraim (Avi-Yonah 1977: 96). Josephus (BJ 2: 653-4) also implies that Masada was clearly on the border on Idumaea. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the western Dead Sea shore south of the area of En-Gedi and Masada was a part of Idumaea. Josephus (Apion 2:116) claims that the border of Idumaea was near to Gaza. Josephus (AJ 15. 254) also reports that Costabar was governor of both Gaza and Idumaea; he thus implies that the two places were very near to each other. The western border was probably parallel to the coast and near the barren and arid Shephelah. According to 1 Maccabees 4: 26-35, Lysias sent an expedition of 65,000 men to Idumaea and camped at Beth-Zur. In Verse 61, Judas defeated Lysias’ armies and fortified Beth-Zur, which consequently became a stronghold that faced Idumaea. Being twenty miles south of Jerusalem, Beth-Zur was thus clearly a point of the northern boundary of the region. Linking the area near Gaza through Beth-Zur to 21

from the First Temple period such as Carmel, Zif and Adora, were reused in the Herodian period. Pottery from sites such as Zohar Valley, Mesugat Tamar, Horvat ‘Uzah, Tel Malhata, Tel Masos, Tel Sheva‘ and Beer Shema‘, is identical with that found in Herodian fortresses and palaces in Judaea. Due to their strategic location as natural strongholds, these sites were probably used as defensive and military centres for their surrounding districts (Gichon 1967: 36). With other important fortresses including Ira, Arad and Beersheba, the whole region was heavily fortified. These fortresses belonged to the Judaean prototypes which can be further divided into two sub-types: those with protruding towers and those without (Gichon 1980: 852). A central courtyard is a common trait amongst these fortresses. For example, Arad, the first excavated fortress, contains a quadrangular castellum measuring 25 x 30m with a central courtyard. The shape of this Roman castellum is found in pre-Roman patterns traced back to the First Temple period.

En-Gedi and Masada, a northern border could be drawn and it probably passed through Hebron. The southern border is still uncertain, but Beersheba was an important town in that area. The land was productive in grain, olive, and fruits. In addition, there were good grazing lands for goats, sheep and camels (Richardson 1996: 57). In the east and south, semi-nomadic activities dominated the area. In the west, grain-growing was the main agricultural production. The central and northern areas were land for olive production. Agriculture was particularly encouraged by two trade routes: the Petra-Gaza road and the coastal route from Mesopotamia to Egypt via Marisa. There are two theories about the migrations of Edomites into southern Judaea (Kasher 1988: 1-6). The first supposes that from the earliest times a tribe of Edomites had already settled south of the Hebron mountains and in the northern Negev. But Kasher is opposed to this idea, claiming that the languages used by Edomites did not exist in Idumaea in the eighth century BC. The second theory supposes that the migration started during the Assyrian period and finished at the end of the Persain period. But Bartlett (1999: 113) claims that there was no substantial migration from Edom to southern Judah and Idumaea in the seventh to sixth centuries BC. Instead, individual traders, family groups of nomadic tribes and mercenary soldiers were probably the ones who migrated into the area. Besides the Idumaeans, Moabites and Ammonites also lived in the area in the Nabataean period. Although the Nabataeans invaded the area, archaeological evidence shows that the invasion did not cause widespread destruction and that the local culture continued. For example, settlements with distinctive Moabite ethnic and ritual traits continued (Glueck 1951: 47-62). The cult of the Edomite god Kos survived at a number of places. Although the name of Kos might have been replaced by other new names, the core element ‘Kos’ was still in use in people’s names such as Costabar. Furthermore, Idumaean population and culture dominated in the areas between Beth-Zur and Beersheba. These two places became an administrative unit in the Hasmonean period.

Gichon (1967; 1971; 1980; 1991) has proposed that the region was fortified for the defence against tribes from the Negev desert in times of water and food shortage in the Negev desert. Frequent fluctuations in precipitation and other disasters in the desert fringe, coupled with seasonal drought in the summers caused more serious food shortage to the nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes in the Negev than to the population of Idumaea (Gichon 1991: 320-1). Idumaea and the Negev thus became two contrasting zones of permanent agriculture and seminomads respectively (Applebaum 1986: 137-8). Therefore, it forced Arab bandits to raid the Idumaean communities, which were more abundant in food. Even though Nabataea was annexed as Roman Arabia in AD106, banditry in the area remained serious. In particular, the edge of the Negev, including Idumaea, southern Judaea and ‘En-Gedi-Jericho, was actually the wealthiest part of the Herodian kingdom. The economic security of Judaea could not be preserved if there were no assured means for combating banditry (Gichon 1967: 27; 1991: 319). Moreover, the Negev desert always served as a passage for traffic between Egypt and Syria and between the Red Sea and the Levant. The construction of the Petra-Gaza road encouraged trade as well as robbers. Although the Herodian government had no responsibility to ensure the safety of Nabataean traders, the busy caravan trade attracted more nomads to become bandits and subsequently affected the safety of settlements and nomads in southern Palestine. However, Gichon has overlooked the problem of local banditries in Palestine, which was also one of the reasons for fortifying Idumaea. This issue is discussed again in more detail in ‘Security of the kingdom’ in Chapter 6 of this thesis.

In the early Herodian period, Idumaea was divided into two smaller units: Idumaea and ‘En-Gedi (or Eastern Idumaea) with Marisa and Adoraim as their capitals respectively. However, Marisa had been seriously destroyed by the Parthians with little hope of recovery (AJ 14: 364; BJ 1: 269). Beth Guvrin thus replaced Marisa as the new capital of the toparchy. The former capital of Eastern Idumaea was Adoraim, but its transfer to the inconvenient oasis of ‘En-Gedi was probably due to economic reasons (Avi-Yonah 1977: 96).

Instead of importing soldiers from elsewhere, local Idumaeans were used as the Herodian armies in Idumaea. These troops were settled and fed by the food resources in the rich land there. They were ready to mobilize to other parts of the Herodian kingdom for military assistance (BJ 4: 243). Perhaps the Herodian armies were incorporated into the Roman army or regional Herodian

As the southern frontier of the Judaean province, Idumaea was heavily fortified by Herod. Traces of fortresses in Idumaea can be dated back to the First Temple period (Kasher 1988: 1). Defensive structures are found from Gaza to Zo‘ar via Beersheba and along the western shore of the Dead Sea to ‘En-Gedi. Fortresses 22

baths and costly fountains as well as cloisters around a court. Augustus also gave a royal palace there to Salome (AJ 17: 321; BJ 2: 99). Herod spent such a large sum on the city partly because he might have been born there, partly because it was his port of departure for the Mediterranean before he constructed Caesarea Maritima. Outside his territory, he donated buildings to Tyre, Sidon and Ptolemais-Acco. He showed such generosity to these particularly important Phoenician cities probably because he envisaged trade and wealth from them (Grainger 1991: 181).

armies in some ways (Gichon 1991: 322), or armies of peasants could be recruited immediately during emergencies (Gracey 1986: 317). Agricultural settlements and installations have been excavated around many forts in Idumaea in the Roman and Byzantine periods. Excavations at Tel Gamma, Shera, and Hesa show that there might have been large grain houses from the Persian to the early Roman periods (Gichon 1980: 857). Idumaea were probably the main area for food production, and part of the surplus was used to supply the armies in its immediate vicinity (ibid). The combination of agricultural settlements, water-installations and fortifications suggests that the armies might also have taken part in food production and provided themselves with food resources.

However, there is no evidence that Herod donated buildings to poleis within his territory. It was probably because he desired to concentrate coastal trade in his new port in Caesarea Maritima. Other coastal cities in his territory did not become partners but only obstacles and competitors. He envisaged a new port that could rival with Alexandria (Holumn & Hohlfelder 1988: 73), and the concentration of wealth was an especially important target. Simultaneously, Caesarea Maritima (Fig. 17) replaced Jerusalem as the new capital of Palestine, because Jerusalem was located in an inland area at a high elevation. It was only because of religious factors that trade came to the city. Moreover, leaving Jerusalem, he could reduce the problem of social unrest and opposition in the Jewish Holy City. In Herod’s eyes, Caesarea Maritima was a safer place than the old Jewish capital, as it was his ‘ideal’ city occupied and surrounded by a loyal population. Furthermore, with its more accessible location to and from the Mediterranean, the city served as a link between Palestine and Rome. He thus intended to strengthen the link of his kingdom with the centre of the empire.

The coast The former Philistine and Phoenician coastal towns have been most important seaports since the Iron Age, and they remained important in the early Roman period. Many of its communities were granted polis status under Seleucid and Ptolemaic rule, but this status was taken away during the Hasmonean period. Nevertheless, the increasing amount of coinage in the coastal cities implies that the economy of the coastal area was boosted rapidly in the Hasmonean period (Safrai 2000: 78-83). The Jewish dynasty was eager to profit through the traditionally important coastal cities (ibid; Applebaum 1989: 39). After Pompey’s campaign in AD66, their polis status was restored. Gabinus subsequently rebuilt some of them, including Gaza, Azotus and Anthedon. The restoration of the coastal cities sharply diminished the Jewish political territory. More importantly, the Hasmoneans lost Joppa which was the main Jewish outlet to the sea and Mediterranean trade. In 44BC, the Jewish request to Julius Caesar for the return of Joppa was successful. Although Mark Antony granted Joppa and some other coastal cities to Cleopatra, in 30BC the Jewish port was transferred into Herod’s hand after Cleopatra was defeated. The coastal area, except for Ashkelon, Dor and the cities north of Ptolemais-Acco, was put under Herod’s custody. The coastal cities still retained their autonomy in internal matters. Like the Decapolis, many of them were not willing to be under the Jewish client king but only Gaza successfully appealed and was transferred to the province of Syria.

The location of Caesarea was the old site of Strato’s Tower which had been completely destroyed by the Hasmoneans. Herod built an almost completely new city on top with only partial reuse of the material in Strato’s Tower. The most obvious feature of Caesarea was its harbour which comprised three basins. The innermost one was the basin created by the Phoenicians in the southwest part of the Strato’s Tower. The middle one was a natural bay protruding from the north and south by rocky promontories. The outer basin was created by the construction of two breakwaters to enclose a vast area of the open sea; it was the first time that such a technique was used in the Roman Empire. Hydraulic concrete was also used for the construction of the breakwaters. The massive blocks were able to withstand the battering from waves and provided the foundations for the infrastructure on top. On the breakwater, a lighthouse was built and planned for dedication to Drusus (AJ 15: 336), Augustus’ son-in-law who would have become the Roman emperor after Augustus. But his sudden death in 9BC forced Herod to change the name of the tower, given that the regime only commemorated living people with its architecture. Statues were also probably erected on the breakwaters to commemorate Herod’s relatives. Warehouses were built on the breakwaters. A warehouse has also been discovered at the innermost part of the

Herod especially favoured Anthedon and Ashkelon. They were the only coastal poleis in Palestine where he donated public buildings. But these buildings are only mentioned in the work of Josephus and no archaeological traces of them have been discovered. In Anthedon, Herod rebuilt the city and renamed it Agrippias (BJ 1: 87, 118, 416; AJ 13: 357. 14: 9). Kasher (1982: 73) believes that he rebuilt this port in order to compete with Gaza, which was the traditional ally of his enemies in Petra and prominent mid-point on the Arabian-Mediterranean trade route. According to Josephus (BJ 1:422), Herod built 23

Fig. 17. Plan of Caesarea Maritima, after Netzer (1999b: 109).

available material in Caesarea. The platform was a ridge of kurkar bedrock that ancient builders elevated and extended by bringing in fills (Holum 1999: 13). Column fragments have been discovered, and they indicate that the temple was supported by Corinthian columns approaching 21m in height (ibid: 19; Kahn 1996: 136). According to Josephus (BJ 1:414) statues dedicated to Roma and Augustus were put in the polished-white temple modelled after and not inferior to that of Pheidian Zeus at Olympia. Moreover, vaulted warehouses were also built next to the temple.

central basin. These warehouses thus provided immediate places for uploading and unloading cargoes. Facing the harbour, a temple (Fig. 18) dedicated to Roma and Augustus was erected on the shore. Sailors could see the temple built on a raised platform clearly from the sea. Together with the lighthouse, the temple became the first visible landmark when one entered Caesarea (AJ 15: 339). Archaeological evidence shows that there was a monumental staircase at the platform’s south flank (Stanley 1999: 35). Instead of using marble, Herod used kurkar for his constructions, a readily 24

Fig. 18. Remains of the Augusteum in Caesarea Maritima. Photograph by the author.

Fig. 19. Plan of the promontory palace in Caesarea Maritima, after Gleason et al. (1998: 30).

25

entry to the Lower Palace, there was a ritual bath similar to those found in the Herodian quarter in Jerusalem. The presence of the mikveh indicates the Upper Palace was built either by Herod or Agrippa I. Moreover, two pools were built in the form of frigidaria and they were probably not only prepared for Herod but also for his important visitors. In the post-Herodian period, the palace probably became the praetorium of the procurator, but Burrell (1996: 247) maintains the possibility that a praetorium might have been set up apart from the palace, as in Jerusalem where the praetorium and the Herodian residences were located in two different buildings. In a series of rooms near the entrance from the amphitheatre, mosaic floors have been discovered. The palace served as the residence and office of the Procurator. A separate official room seems to have been used for police duties and prisoners, and was where the Apostle Paul might have been locked up (Acts 23: 35).

According to Josephus (AJ 15: 340), Caesarea had a grid of paved streets (Fig. 17). The focal point of Caesarea was a group of buildings concentrated at the south-west corner of the city. These buildings included the promontory palace (Fig. 19), an amphitheatre (Figs. 33 & 34) and a theatre (Figs. 29 & 30). Herod’s palace (Fig. 19) was located at a promontory, facing directly to the sea. The palace comprised a lower and upper part, with the lower part constructed first. The most obvious archaeological feature of the Lower Palace was the central pool (Fig. 20). It has been argued that the pool was a fishpond common in Italian villas, but it might also have been a swimming pool as in other Herodian palaces. Netzer (1996b: 197) supports the latter view, claiming the pool was nearly the same size as the one in the Jericho Second Palace. The water source for the pool was probably the sea. The pool was surrounded by 2.6m wide open walks and 4.2m wide three-side colonnades. A main central room served as the triclinium similar to those in Italian villas. Moreover, the building seemed to be a twostorey one. Netzer (1996b) believes that the Lower Palace was the first building erected in Caesarea. As Caesarea was far from Jerusalem, it took longer for Herod to come here than to go to Jericho or Herodium. A palace would be convenient to his stay when he came to see the process of construction.

An amphitheatre (Figs. 33 & 34) was built in front of the palace, but it was actually a multi-purpose building, a combination of a stadium and a hippodrome (Porath 1995; Humphrey 1996). It was an innovation that is only found so far in Palestine. South of the amphitheatrehippodrome, an Italian form stone theatre (Figs. 29 & 30) was built, the first theatre in Palestine. Like other GraecoRoman cities, entertainment buildings in Caesarea were built on the city’s outskirts (Porath 1996: 107). Along with the palace, the two entertainment buildings formed a group of magnificent architecture in the south-west corner of the city. The amphitheatre and the theatre might have also been used for public assemblies; their adjacent location to Herod’s palace implies such a political function.

Galilee The boundaries of Galilee are clear. Running from modern Haifa to the Jordan River, the highlands of the Carmel range and the northern side of Mount Gilboa marked the southern border of the region. The northern boundary ran roughly from the mountains north of Acco eastward to Huleh. The shoreline south of PtolemaisAcco became the western edge of Galilee. The River Jordan and the Sea of Galilee formed a natural line marking the eastern limit of the region.

Fig. 20. The central pool of the promontory palace in Caesarea Maritima. Photograph by the author. Evidenced by its architecture, the Upper Palace at Caesarea showed a division of function from the Lower Palace (Gleason et al 1998: 40). In the Lower Palace the triclinium, with its adjacent rooms facing the pool, suggests that they were for entertainment and residential purposes, whereas the peristyle court and hall in the Upper Palace were big enough for public functions. The courtyard was paved with crushed kurkar. Colonnades stood on a stylobate of ashlar blocks set directly into foundation trenches cut in the bedrock. The 192m² audience hall was the central feature of the palace. Its size was comparable to those in Rome and elsewhere in the East, sufficient enough to hold a banquet. Smaller rooms with a corridor in front were built around the hall. Steps were also built between the Lower and Upper Palace given that there was a 3.6m difference in elevation. In a room in the Upper Palace, north of the

Topographically, Galilee is divided into two parts by the central mountain area. Josephus (BJ 3: 38-40) also divides Galilee into upper and lower parts. The Mt Meiron massif made Upper Galilee an enclosed area. The landscape of Upper Galilee was rugged with mountains nearly 1000m high. This physical obstacle made it difficult for easy travel and contact with Upper Galilee from the area south of the Meiron massif, and it thus created the regionalism of Upper Galilee with Tyre becoming its main source of influence (Meyers 1976, 1992; Hanson 1980). Large villages existed in Upper Galilee. For example, Meiron was an important crossing 26

point for traffic in the region (Meyers 1981). But these large settlements were not seats of local government like the regional capitals in Lower Galilee. Upper Galilee was thus relatively less well developed than Lower Galilee, as indicated by the lack of large administrative capitals. Due to the less rigid administrative arrangement, Upper Galilee was less affected by Roman control and urbanization (Avi-Yonah 1977: 191; Meyers 1976: 697).

rivalry between the two cities for status and power persisted (Life 36-9). Archaeological discoveries dated to the first century in Tiberias are limited. So far only a town gate is dated to the early first century AD by Foerster. But this spacious gateway implies that the city still had a lot of space for development in its infant stage. According to Josephus, there was a stadium (Life 92) and a prayer house (Life 277) in the city.

In contrast to Upper Galilee, Lower Galilee was a more sophiscated area, given that it was adjacent to many Graeco-Roman cities including Caesarea Maritima, Dor, Ptolemais-Acco and Scythopolis. Before discussing its differences with Upper Galilee, it is important to investigate the development of Sepphoris and Tiberias, because these two cities were the most important factor that changed the atmosphere of the Lower Galilean region.

Tiberias was a controversial place. It is clear that the city reveals more about Antipas’ personal interest than Sepphoris. Many elements in the new city were unacceptable in the eyes of religious Jews. In the first place, the new city was built on top of a cemetery (AJ 18: 36-8), which implies that the city was ritually unclean. In the second place, the palace in Tiberias was filled with animal images (Life 65-6), which ran counter to the Jewish taboos. In the wealthy area in first century AD Jerusalem, there are paintings comparable with those in Pompeii. Wall paintings are also known in other Herodian palaces. But none of them contain animal images. Nevertheless, it could be inferred that the palace paintings in Tiberias were similar to those in Italian villas which did not necessarily avoid figures contradictory to Jewish taboos. Antipas pursued his own interest with little concern for people in his territory and the city consequently became a contentious place in Galilee. Although the construction was against Jewish laws, it still attracted poor people and slaves to settle there, for Antipas promised housing and land to the new residents (AJ 18: 36-38).

Sepphoris was the capital of Galilee in the city’s early twenty years of the Herodian period. There was a revolt in the city in AD4, but after that, it was peaceful. It did not join the First Jewish Revolt. Therefore, coins minted in AD67 and 68 bore the legend Eirenopolis, the ‘city of peace’ (Meyers et al 1986: 5). To a certain extent, this capital was similar to other Graeco-Roman cities. Although there were not as many public buildings as in the coastal cities, the Italian style theatre (Fig. 31) indicates the ruler’s intention to develop the capital. Theatres were not common in Galilee. The nearest one to Galilee was located in Caesarea Maritima. The construction of a theatre in an already existing nonGraeco-Roman environment implies a sudden change in the character of the city. The city-planners intended to impose an up-to-date lifestyle common in cosmopolitan Mediterranean cities and to make the city ‘the ornament of all Galilee’ (AJ 18: 27). The date of the theatre is still under debate. It might have been early or late first century AD in origin (Meyers et al 1992), but the discovery of early first century AD pottery increases the chance that the theatre was built by Herod Antipas as a part of his grandiose construction in Galilee in the early first century AD. Other building types common in contemporary Mediterranean cities might also have been built in Sepphoris, although they have not been discovered. For example, Josephus claims there was a royal palace (AJ 17: 271) and an arsenal (BJ 2: 56) in Sepphoris. The importance of Sepphoris leads to a reassessment of research on historical Jesus. Nazareth was only a few miles away from Sepphoris, and must have been greatly influenced by the atmosphere of the city. Overman (1989) thus concludes that the cosmopolitan environment in Lower Galilee provided the foundation for Jesus’ disciples to produce the wellwritten Gospels.

The study of Sepphoris and Tiberias became one of the central themes in archaeological research on the early Roman Galilee. These two cities were important centres in the region, as reflected in their architectural elements and administrative roles. Lower Galilee consequently experienced intense urbanization and became increasingly significant as the seat of the rulers. Moreover, ancient agricultural field systems in Lower Galilee lay mainly along the Haifa-Nazareth and Tiberias roads (Colomb & Kedar 1971: 136); Sepphoris and Tiberias were thus surrounded and easily supported by these fields. Freyne (1980: 104-20) pushed forward the date of the initial urbanization of Galilee in the Hellenistic period, with the development of cities nearby including Ptolemais-Acco, Scythopolis, Philoteria, Antiochia, Seleucia and Tyre. But Freyne’s view are too simplistic in arguing that the whole Galilee was highly urbanized (Reed 2000: 64). In the Hellenistic period, there was still a lack of government motivation for developing Galilee into an important administrative area. The atmosphere in Lower Galilee only changed in the Herodian period through the construction of the two capitals. With the location of these two important centres on a main road crossing through the region, Lower Galilee formed a network with the coastal cities including Caesarea Maritima, Dor and Ptolemais-Acco. The busy traffic also boosted local industry, especially pottery production in Kefer Hananiah from the first century BC to the fourth

Sepphoris was initially chosen as the capital of Galilee, but the existing settlement did not allow Herod Antipas to construct whatever he liked. Therefore, an undeveloped site would give him more freedom in planning his ‘ideal’ city. Tiberias was thus built to replace Sepphoris as the new capital. But the intense 27

a strategic point at this important junction, located on the connecting axis between the northern area of Palestine and his new possessions in Batanaea and Trachonitis (Urman 1985: 117-120). The traditional site of this imperial cult centre is located in the cave and spring in the sanctuary of Pan. Overman et al (2003) have recently suggested that the temple structure they excavated at Omrit was the authentic Augusteum. But further examination of their suggestions is necessary. As indicated from coin images during the reign of Philip, Herod seemed to have built a lavish monumental entrance with polished white stones. The temple had an Ionic façade with a pediment containing a shield-like feature. The use of the shield on the pediment was common in Late Republic Rome, and the Ionic order was favoured in Augustan Rome (Roller 1998: 191). Herod might have been aware of this architectural fashion in the capital of the empire. After the introduction of the cult, the area subsequently became a focal point in the ethnically mixed Golan, because it was the first imperial cult centre and symbol of Augustus’ deified presence in Palestine. Moreover, as the site was near to the cult of Dan, this raised the religious importance of Golan as a pagan area. The site of Pan probably became increasingly well known at this important traffic junction.

century AD. The village was located on the border between Upper and Lower Galilee; according to later Jewish sources, its pottery was widely spread to many settlements in Galilee and Golan (Edwards 1989: 172-4). Besides the main road crossing through Tiberias and Sepphoris, local roads also enabled intense local traffic, as evidenced by Jesus’ active travel and ministry in the region. The large number of villages and urban centres in Lower Galilee covered an area roughly 15 miles by 25 miles (Overman 1989: 164). The close proximity of these settlements implies that material and information flowed easily in this area (Overman 1989: 164; Reed 1995: 2178). Influenced by the flourishing urban settlements and the increasing flow of material, Lower Galilee developed to be more cosmopolitan in character than did Upper Galilee (Meyers 1976; 1977; 1992; 1995).

Golan Golan is situated between north-west Jordan and the Sea of Galilee from east to west, and the southern slope of Mount Hermon and Yarmuk from north to south. A large part of Golan had been inhabited since the Persian and Hellenistic periods. For instance, it is reported that the number of settlements increased dramatically from 78 in the Seleucid period to 108 in the first century AD (Richardson 1996: 140). Most settlements were located near one or more springs (Urman 1985: 50). Among all known Roman and Byzantine settlements, the water sources are known for 141 sites among 184. Only 18 sites relied on wells, cisterns and reservoirs. Given that agriculture was the main economic activity in the area, water sources were more important than security and proximity to trade routes.

After Philip was appointed the tetrarch of Golan in 4BC, he upgraded Banias to be his capital and renamed it Caesarea in honour of Augustus (AJ 18: 28; BJ 18: 28). A palace-like building has been uncovered to the west of the sanctuary of Pan (Ma‘oz 1993: 141). The walls were built in the opus reticulatum technique of Italian origin, similar to those found in Jericho. A rectangular wall was built behind the opus reticulatum walls. Adjacent to the west of the main hall, a small plastered pool has been uncovered. Although all architectural features are similar to those in other Herodian palaces, there is no conclusion as to the real function of the building. It might have been another temple side by side with Pan (ibid). But judging from its architectural features, the former possibility seems to be greater.

Most settlements were located on hills and spurs, and where the agricultural area was concentrated as well. Only a few settlements were located on level ground or on the plains. Urman (1985) attempted to classify the site hierarchy in Roman and Byzantine Golan and put them into the categories of city, town and village. Five settlements extended more than 120 dunam in size and are qualified as cities (ibid: 84-5). These were Banias, Gamala, Susita, Hammath Gader and Tel el-Jukadar. Urman (ibid: 88) classifies 14 sites as towns between 40 to 120 dumans. The size of 28 sites is each estimated between 20 and 40 dumans and they were classified as villages (ibid: 93). Statistics for the site size show that there was a clear land division in Golan. Every one or two cities or large towns were surrounded by four or five provincial towns and a large number of large villages, small villages and farmsteads (ibid: 105).

According to Josephus (AJ 18: 106-7), Philip spent his whole life in his own land, and minted his own coins in Caesarea Philippi. His reign lasted for nearly half a century (4BC-AD41). Agrippa I inherited the territory after Philip died. There was no obvious urban development during the reign of Agrippa I. After Agrippa I was exiled, Agrippa II inherited the land, and adorned it at his own expenses (BJ 3: 514). Agrippa II enlarged Caesarea Philippi and named it Neronias in honour of Nero (AJ 20: 211). Entertainment buildings were also erected in the city and Caesarea Philippi was chosen by Vespasian and Titus to be the place for rest and entertainment for Roman troops during their suppression of the First Revolt (BJ 3: 443-4).

During the pre-Herodian period, there were no cities or poleis in Golan, unlike other regions in Palestine. When Herod first built a cave temple at Banias consecrated to Augustus (AJ 18: 28; BJ 2: 168), the area was still remote and undeveloped. It seemed that Herod wanted to create

Bethsaida-Julias was another city which Philip built by adding residents and strengthening its fortifications (AJ 18: 28). Before this, Herod named it after Julia, the daughter of Augustus (AJ 18: 107). Although a name

28

Fig. 21. Plan of the temples in Se‘ia. Ball (2000: 187). symbolic of Roman authority was given, the city was not granted polis status until Agrippa II (AJ 18: 28; 20: 159; BJ 2: 168). Identified as el-Tel, the site is confirmed by archaeological evidence that a large settlement built on a hill during the Roman and Byzantine eras (Epstein 1968: 268-7). Remains and architectural fragments of monumental structures have been uncovered nearby and there might have a large settlement inhabited in the area from the early Roman period onwards. But the nature of the site is still uncertain until evidence of monumental buildings becomes available.

Druze and Eitha. Some of the military settlements were probably founded by troops of Babylonian Jews under the leadership of Zamaris. Moreover, some Zamarid troops might have lived around Gamala (ibid: 54-5). Centuriation is evident from considerable traces of gridsystem of field division visible north of Raphid and at the south-east of Neveh (ibid: 55). Settled by a loyal Jewish and Idumaean population, a security region was created for defend against the northward activities of robbers against caravans coming to and from Damascus (Kasher 1988: 160). Consequently, the Hauran became even more important when the Imperial government fought against the Parthians in Syria (ibid: 160-1).

Besides Golanitis, Herod was granted Trachonitis, Batanaea and Auranitis. The area included the Hauran and a part of Mount Hermon. In 25BC, the Hauran and Trachonitis were under the rule of Zenodorus. As banditry in the Leja was notorious during his reign, Augustus replaced Zenodorus with Herod (AJ 9: 271). Herod’s first attempt was to subjugate the area but it was not finished as late as Agrippa I who finally erased the barbaric behaviour of the native population there. Agrippa I provided the natives with houses and encouraged them to stop living in caves. The adverse and remote geography of the region along with its primitive population was the main reason for its light urbanization. Josephus (AJ 16: 272) claims the local population did not desire to take part in agricultural production, as there was not much profit in return. Moreover, it was difficult to cultivate the remote lava lands. In addition to this, the profit to be derived from agriculture was certainly less than from plundering caravans (Kasher 1988: 162). Although not much profit was expected, the Herodian development of the area started as a method of maintaining the security of the area.

Immediately after Herod’s death, there was great chance for revolt in the region. As a result, Augustus might have attempted to annex the Hauran whereas Herod Philip would have lost part of his inheritance. The best way to keep Augustus’ hand would have been to establish a military settlement and name it Caesarea as propaganda to show the increasing stability of the area and Philip’s loyalty to Rome (MacAdam 1986: 61-7). Among the new military settlements, Eitha might have been granted the name Caesarea and became the only city in the region in the reign of Herod Philip (ibid). The combination of a strong Roman presence in Syria, the Nabataean kingdom in the Hauran together with a substantial Herodian garrison in Eitha eventually stopped robberies and stimulated the development of agriculture. Philip, lacking any ambition for territorial expansion, concentrated on the internal politics and security of his tetrarchy. Although there was a mix of population in Trachonitis, there is little evidence for racial conflict in the area. Gentile sanctuaries and settlements existed sideby-side with Jewish ones. For example, the sanctuary of El-Senamon was in close proximity to the Jewish village of Bathyra. Other gentile temples included those at ElMushanaf, Se’ia, El-Qanawat in Auranitis, Suwieda and Tsur in Trachonitis and Acrabe in Northern Batanaea (Kasher 1988: 175-6). Some of these temples were constructed by Herod the Great. Herod built a temple near Kanatha with his statue erected there. He also constructed the Temple of Se’ia (Fig. 21) on the slope of Jebel Druze. This cultic complex contained two temples

The real urbanization of the Hauran did not really take place until 106 when the Nabataean kingdom was annexed as the province of Arabia, but its initial development should be attributed to Herod’s forcible program of planting agricultural settlements (MacAdam 1986: 58). Herod settled his loyalists among Jews, Idumaeans and Babylonians in Bashan, Hauran and Trachonitis (AJ 16: 285; 17: 23-31). Applebaum (1989: 53-5) believes that Herod’s Babylonian and Idumaean troops dwelt in several settlements including Ecbatana, Bathyra, Neveh in Bashan, Deir e-Sheir in the Jebel 29

Identification of early Roman sites and settlement patterns are heavily reliant on literature studies and field surveys. According to Josephus (BJ 3: 44), most of Perea was desert and too wild for tender fruits. Areas of finer soils were used for planting crops, trees, olives, vines and palms (BJ 3: 45). The desert area was particularly concentrated around the fortress of Macherus in the southern part of Perea. But rainfall and rivers still supported the water supply of other area.

dedicated to Ba‘al-Shamon and Dushares. The temple consisted of a sacred precinct entered through a propylaeum, or triple monumental gateway. The precinct was surrounded by three temples to the south, west and north. Whereas the small southern one was a simple, prostyle temple of fairly conventional design, the other two were more unusual (Ball 1994: 81). The western one was the Temple of Dushares. It was arranged with two enclosed squares enclosing a third square formed by four columns. The northern part was the Temple of Ba‘alShamon, characterized by an elaborate entrance of plaster casts of masonry and a façade flanked by two towers. The temples were elaborate structures on the newly subjugated territory in the Hauran. The investment of these temples reflected Herod’s intention to develop this area.

Kasher (1988: 152-4) indicates that the Idumaean defensive belt, the one that Alt, Avi-Yonah and Gichon suppose, extended across the River Jordan and continued along the eastern border of Idumaea up to the Decapolis. A Perean limes was set up to protect the region from the threat of the Nabataeans and their allies in the cities of Decapolis (ibid 152-3). Moreover, he suggests that it was a frontier to prevent invaders crossing over the River Jordan and arriving at the area around Jericho, which was fertile for agricultural production. His list of Perean fortresses and fortified towns (from north to south) includes Ammathus, Zia, Gedor, Tyros, Beth-Nimrin, Herodium (in Perea), Beth-Jeshimoth and those of Macherus. Little information is known about some of these sites as not all of them have been excavated or identified. Kasher’s extension of the idea of Alt, AviYonah and Gichon is based on the assumption that a line of fortifications must represent the existence of a limes. But he has not considered whether the factor of landscape could also affect the distribution of fortresses. The whole region of Perea was a long strip running from north to south. It was natural for the builders to work according to this direction. Similar pattern is also found in the polis distribution in Decapolis. The builders might have intended to use the fortresses as central places to protect their hinterlands. They might also have been places of refuge, especially when Herod could cross the River Jordan and escape from the south upwards to the north from one fortress to another. This fortress line might not have functioned as limes, and their sparse distance might not have allowed them to be an effective frontier.

The northern part of Golan was adjacent to Mt Hermon, which was an important part of Herod’s estate. Herod undertook a series of political, military and settlement operations, splitting the territories into small principalities. Iturean princes in places such as ‘Akra, Chalcis and Abilene were appointed to rule over them. An excellent road network, with 3 – 4m wide roads access to its foothills as well as to centres of economic activity and administration, covered a large part of the area of Hermon (Dar 1993: 24), connecting the regions of Trachonitis and the Hauran. Every small settlement and cluster of isolated farmhouses was connected with each other by paved paths. Jews, Itureans, Nabataeans and residents of the poleis lived in peaceful co-existence (ibid). In Philip’s area, the political and social situation was not as unstable as in other parts of early Roman Palestine, even though the population and religion were more mixed. Like many other typically mixed cities in the Roman world, there was a sizable Jewish community, but only the predominantly Jewish city of Gamala took part in the First Jewish Revolt. The Jewish nationalistic atmosphere around Gamala was probably affected by Jewish Galilee, which was adjacent to the southern part of Golan. Otherwise, most places seemed to be peaceful. Titus even chose Caesarea-Philippi as a rest place for his armies, and Agrippa II’s position as a client king continued after the First Revolt. The foundations for such a political situation could be traced back to Herod Philip.

Glueck (1951: 398-400) identified Bezemoth as Khirbet Sweimeh, where both Josephus (AJ 17: 171; BJ 1: 657) and Pliny (Nat Hist 5: 16) claim there was a famous bath. It lies along the north-east shore of the Dead Sea. Strobel and Clamer (1986: 381) believe that the early Roman building there was the Callirrhoe Bath. The remains of a large building, measuring 35 x 29m, might have been one of the pools, a villa or other structure of the complex. The bases of some columns are still in situ. Other evidence including pottery shapes, lamps, stone mugs and bowls, all date to the Roman and later periods (Glueck 1951: 399).

Perea According to Josephus (BJ 3: 46), Perea included the region from Macherus in the south to Pella in the north, Philadelphia in the east to the Jordan River in the west. Because of the lack of archaeological excavations there, there is little information about sites in Perea. While other regions in Palestine and Transjordan were intensively explored by nineteenth century explorers, Perea did not have the same attraction given that it was lacking clear historical outlines (Strobel 1997: 271).

Down to the south of Bezemoth was Herod’s fortress of Macherus where Salome danced with Herod and John the Baptist was executed (Matthew 14: 3-11; AJ 18: 117-9). The fortress was constructed during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (BJ 7: 171). It was located at the eastern side of the Dead Sea, above the hot spring of Callirrhoe. It was once destroyed by Pompey and later 30

rebuilt but was again destroyed by Gabinus (BJ 1: 160-3; AJ 14: 83-4). Aristobulous II tried to refortify it but his attempt was unsuccessful (BJ 1: 172-3; AJ 14: 85-97). The fortress was surrounded by deep ravines. Because of these features, its defensive effectiveness probably became the reason for Herod to refortify the site. Its basic plan followed other Herodian fortresses with the hill enlarged into a typical conical shape, but it was elaborated more than others as the site along with the palace totally occupies an area of 4000m². A circuit wall and tower enclosed the lower part of the fortress and the palace. The Hasmonean towers at the south-east and north-west were reused in the Herodian period, and at the south-west was a Herodian tower. The southeast corner of the palace was dominated by baths. At the southern part of the fortress, there was a large courtyard decorated with mosaics and plaster mouldings. The mosaic in the tepidarium is preserved with a wave pattern in black on a white background similar to the one at Masada (Roller 1998: 186). Qasr ar-Riyashi (Figs. 22 & 23) was a group of Herodian fortresses as near the thermal spring of Sayl al-Hidān (Strobel 1997: 277-8). The whole fortification comprised three parts linked by a partially stepped passage. The Herodian fortresses of al-Hammām occupied a ridge facing the southern cliff of the wadi, containing many rooms, cisterns, and an aqueduct as well as mosaic decorated terraces. At the south-east part of the fortress, there is the main fortress at the Arnon gorge. Near these two royal structures there is a pavilion-like plateau with a special building, located on the peak of the 20m high rocky hill surrounded by walls. A conical Herodian sundial was found in the site.

Fig. 22. The Herodian castle (Qasr ar-Riyashi) near the thermal springs of Sayl al-Hidan, after Strobel (1997: 277).

Josephus (BJ 1: 419-20) notes that there was another Herodium other than the one near Jerusalem. The site was probably Khirbet es-Samra (or el-Hebbesa). It was located on an isolated hill about 10km north-east of the mouth of River Jordan. Having a similar location to Alexandrium, the site was also artificially terraced with a structure erected on the summit. The structure consists of a trapezoidal wall with a citadel in the north-east corner. The citadel had an excellent view to the south and west. It was probably built to protect the palace at Livias, lying only a few kilometres to the south. Herod rebuilt the site of Esebonitis and settled cavalry there (AJ 15: 295). Ending with ‘itis’, the name of the site implies that it was a territory rather than a town (Roller 1998: 160). The town’s name might have been Esebon which was 12km north of Masada. There seems to have been a major rebuilding of public space from 37BC to AD73. Defensive towers were built at the edge of the site, and they might have been parts of a Herodian fortification system. At the south side of the site, a courtyard was found, and was probably a part of the Herodian fortress. Fig. 23. The Herodian fortress (Qasr ar-Riyashi) at the Anon gorge, after Strobel (1997: 277). 31

From the Hellenistic period onwards, especially from the time of the Seleucids, the area was more densely populated, as evidenced by an increase in the number and size of sites (Magen 1993b: 1317). The population in Samaria increased as a result of migrations from Greece and Macedonia through Alexander’s conquest and subsequent colonization during the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods. The Hellenistic rulers attempted to promote pagan religions in the area and adorn existing pagan cities, whereas the autonomy of the Jewish towns in Judaea was denied (Jones 1931: 84). Samaria was the area of the ‘King’s land’ under the Hellenistic monarchies. The population was settled in the district in order to increase the kings’ agricultural income. The archaeological distinction between settlements as Samaritan, Jewish or Greek is not obvious, and it is only through inscriptions and tombs that the existence of particular ‘peoples’ can be identified (ibid). Although there was a campaign of Judaization under the Hasmonean kingdom, it is doubtful if the gentile population in Samaria was assimilated to any great extent.

Cities were planted in Perea for administrative purposes. But information about the individual cities is rare because few archaeological activities took place there until recently. Livias was one of the most important toparchies in Perea. The city was named after Augustus’ wife (BJ 2: 167). Its name was later changed to Julias (BJ 2: 252; 4: 438). Glueck (1951: 391) identified Tell Rama as Herodian Livias. According to Josephus, Herod built a palace on the site (BJ 2: 59) but it was destroyed during Simon’s rebellion after Herod’s death (BJ 2: 58). Although Schürer (1979: 142) identified Livias with Old Testament Beth-haram (Josher 18: 27; Numbers 32: 36), there seem to be no pre-Roman remains on the site (Glueck 1951: 391). Abila is located near Livias and it is believed to be modern Khirbet el-Kefrein where much Roman pottery was found (Glueck 1951: 376). This Herodian Abila, which Josephus (BJ 2: 252) claimed was in Perea, was different from the Abila in the Decapolis, as the latter was located near Gadara (today’s Umm-Qais; Wineland 2002: 107). According to Josephus (BJ 2: 252-3), Nero gave this town to Agrippa. Josephus (AJ 5: 4) claims that it was about 60 stadia from the River Jordan, thus matching the location of Khirbet Kefrein (Khouri 1988: 75).

Field towers common in Greece were widely built in Samaria. Elsewhere the idea and architecture of these towers were not common in predominantly Jewish area in Judaea (Dar 1986). They were probably imported by Greek migrants. At least 1200 field towers have been identified in Samaria (Applebaum 1986: 258). The distribution of field towers expanded to the south as far as Modi’in. The unified style of these towers reflects that the building program and the control of agriculture took place under the same authority. It thus indirectly demonstrates that Samaria had been regal land since the Hellenistic period. Dar (1986) believes the towers were associated with the fields nearby. They were built neither for defence nor refuge. Instead, he argues that wine production was the original purpose of these towers, as evidenced from the dark condition and stable temperature inside the tower. Important coastal cities including Caesarea Maritima and Dor probably served as export centres for Samarian wine. Moreover, the towers might also have served as storerooms and shelters for the cultivators during certain periods of work (Applebaum et al 1978: 95). The ‘tower phenomenon’ in Samaria continued until the second century AD when the towers went out of use.

Many cities were located in the southern half of Perea. The northern part seemed to lack similar important settlements. It was probably because the northern sector was adjacent to the poleis of the Decapolis. These cities included Scythopolis, Gadara, Jerash, Philadelphia and Heshbon. The northern part of Perea might have been influenced by the flourishing communities of Decapolis, while the further south it was, the more arid was the climate and the land. Moreover, many main roads passed through the area adjacent to Perea; the main north-south route ran up to Philadelphia; the second route, the King’s Highway, started from the Gulf of Aqaba and ran from Petra through Heshbon, Philadelphia, Jerash, and Dera to Damascus. There was also a road that linked Neapolis with Philadelphia and another that joined Jerusalem with Philadelphia through Jericho and Betharamphtha-Livias. Moreover, local roads, such as the one between the harbour in Kallirrhoë and Macherus, were also enlarged on the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Strobel 1997: 279). Therefore, some parts of Perea were highly populated as a consequence of this intense network with its adjacent area.

Fortified settlements also appeared in Western Samaria, and have been dated from the Hasmonean to early Herodian period. There may have been 175 to 200 households, probably inhabited by the Hasmonean military settlers. However, the sharp decline of Herodian pottery indicates that Herod may have deliberately abandoned the sites in order to terminate the threat of the Hasmonean remnants to his rule (Applebaum 1986: 261).

Samaria The boundary of Samaria was marked by the CarmelMount Gilboa line in the north, the Jordan River in the east, an indefinite line a few miles north of Jerusalem in the south, and the drop between the hill country and the Sharon in the west.

In Samaria, only Shechem-Neapolis and Sebaste qualified as cities. There is a lack of information about ShechemNeapolis, given that it has always been a heavily built up area with few chances for archaeological excavations. The literary record does not indicate any Herodian 32

and building new ones with local masons. At the west gate, a Herodian tower was located on each side of the entrance. A third tower was located at 50m to the north. The third tower was particularly Herodian in character because of its composition with ashlar masonry common in Herodian constructions. The building complex on the summit functioned as both an imperial cult centre and Herod’s palace. The western section of the acropolis was fortified with an intricate system of towers, walls and retaining walls. Massive retaining walls were also built on the northern and southern slopes of the acropolis. Similar to cities in Greece, the summit served as the centre of the city as well as a place of refuge.

building activity there. But its central location in Samaria and southern Levant as well as the intersection of many roads there reflected its importance as a mid-point for inland travel. In contrast to Shechem-Neapolis, the amount of information regarding Sebaste is more abundant. Sebaste served as the capital of Samaria from the time of the northern Israelite kingdom (early 9th century BC – 720BC). In the Hasmonean period, the gentile population there was suppressed but they were restored during Pompey’s campaign in the Roman East. From 57 to 55BC Gabinus governed Palestine and rebuilt part of its walls and civic structures (AJ 14: 88; BJ 1: 166). The city was renamed after him as Gabiniopolis or a similar name. But in 30BC the city was granted to Herod. The new client king renamed it Sebaste, following Augustus’ name. In order to create his royal city, he subsequently settled 6,000 loyal inhabitants on the site. The city’s best land was also granted to these new citizens. According to Josephus (AJ 15: 296-8; BJ 1: 403), these veterans included Galatians, Thracians and Germans. His Hasmonean enemies were probably forced out and Sebaste became a gentile city without opposition from the residents.

Located at the highest point in Sebaste, the Augusteum (Fig. 25) could be viewed from any point in the city and its surroundings. It was even high enough to view Mt Gerizm where the Samaritan Temple was. It thus became a symbol of the Roman emperor to rival local religion. At the entrance of the north-south oriented Augusteum, a monumental staircase was installed along with a large forecourt surrounded by colonnades and subterranean corridors. A building with central hall and apse was constructed at the southern end of the temple, probably functioning as a hall for official ceremonies and banquets. With the average size of stones 40 x 24cm, two massive parallel walls were built surrounding the temple with a separation of 3m. The northern part of the outer wall was 3m thick while both the eastern and western ones were 2.2m. The inner wall was 1.3m on both sides. At the

Larger than its previous form, Herodian Sebaste (Fig. 24) measured 20 stadia in circumference. But the shape of the city was irregular, the greatest length measured at slightly more than a kilometre. The city had been a strategic point from the Iron Age, as the topographic position of the city on a summit made it an ideal place for fortification (Avigad 1993b: 1300). Herod refortified the site, reusing parts of the Israelite and Hellenistic walls

Fig. 24. Plan of Sebaste, after Roller (1998: map 15).

33

Fig. 25. Plan of the Augusteum in Sebaste, after Netzer (1987a: 102). was based on the Seleucid tradition that the citizenry of polis was drawn from two sectors: military servicemen and civil population (ibid: 201). In other words, Sebaste comprised entirely Herodian loyalists. Even Caesarea did not have such foundation. As a city loyal to Herod, he believed it was more secure than Caesarea and the other Herodian fortresses. It was probably the only place in Roman Palestine that Herod did not face a challenge from its Jews (ibid: 201). When he escaped from the hands of the Hasmoneans, he chose to go to Sebaste rather than his home region of Idumaea. The extensive fortifications erected by Herod are convincing evidence that he intended to make it his shelter (Barag 1993: 16). Furthermore, as it was only a day of travel from Jerusalem to Sebaste, he could still control the affairs of the province in this regional capital city (AJ 15: 292-3). Instead of building regional centres as in Judaea, Sebaste was sufficient to function as Herod’s eye of surveillance on its surrounding population.

north-east corner of the outer wall, a massive tower was built. A spacious villa was constructed east of the Augusteum and was probably Herod’s palace. The name Sebaste and the building of the Augusteum became the symbols of a city dedicated to the Roman emperor. The installation of the imperial cult was only possible in gentile cities. Herod did not build any imperial cult centres in Judaea because of the strong religious atmosphere amongst the Jewish population there. But the relatively mixed population in Samaria since the Iron Age and after the conquest of Alexander the Great decreased the strong nationalism and subsequently the opposition to Herod. Herod’s importation of the imperial cult announced the coming of a new age and the authority of the Roman emperor, which was also expressed in the name of the temple and the city itself. But at the same time, Herod also well understood the rebuilding of Jerusalem and Sebaste would grant him additional power, given that these two capitals of Judaea and the northern kingdom symbolized a glorious past as well as the seats and the inheritance of the old Israelite kingships in Jewish nostalgia (Barag 1993: 16). Similar intentions can be seen in Herod’s construction of the Temple as a symbol of his power as King Solomon. As an administrative centre and an important cult place, Sebaste was perceived to be prominent in the eyes of Herod and gentile population. Kasher (1990: 200) believes that Herod’s control of the Sebaste-Caesarea axis and the Samarian region was based on the geostrategic concept of separating the strongly nationalist Galilee and Judaea. Unlike Caesarea Maritima which still had a large Jewish community, the foundation of Sebaste 34

Chapter 4 An anatomy of Herodian architecture

others is Eastern Oriental, as well as the distinctive indigenous local cultural concepts … Outwardly, its physical aspect corresponds to the general principals developed in the Mediterranean West, but its essence and nature are Oriental” (1982: 209-11).

The terms ‘Hellenistic’ and ‘Roman’ not only represent periods but also styles diffused from two cultural centres: Greece and Italy. In studies of Herodian architecture, different elements are always ascribed to the categories of ‘Hellenistic’ and ‘Roman’ styles with reference to Greek and Italian designs as the origin of Herod’s architectural ideas. It is widely assumed that a ‘Hellenistic’ and a ‘Roman’ package of architectural elements were brought to the Near East. For example, Roller (1998) seems to have uncritically assumed that Herod’s model and inspiration all came from Rome (Burrell & Netzer 1999: 705). Going further than Roller, Strange even employs the term ‘Roman urban overlay’ to emphasize the superimposition of Roman architecture on Judaea, claiming that, “With the arrival of the Romans … city planning in ancient Palestine takes on a decidedly Roman appearance” (1995: 65; cf. 1992: 32). Under such a scheme in modern scholarship, Herod’s building program is interpreted to be a top-down imposition of Hellenistic and Roman urban forms on Palestinian cities with the aim to replicate the Greek and Italian urban environment in Palestine. When scholars write about architecture in the Roman East, attention is only paid to elements similar to those in Greece and Italian cities. Architectural examples in Hellenistic and Roman cities in other parts of the Roman world are thus compared with the Palestinian cities so as to show how the latter became increasingly similar to the former. Consequently, it is always concluded that Herodian cities were ‘Hellenized’ or ‘Romanized’. Jacobson (2002b) summarises the development of research on Herodian architecture over the past half-century, claiming that the perspectives shifted from the analysis of the Herodian buildings within the narrow confines of Palestinian art and architecture to a wider perspective of Hellenistic and Roman styles. He seems to believe that the focus on the local element was an old-fashioned method in archaeological research. From Jacobson’s point of view, the extension from a local to a Mediterranean-wide scale reflects advances in scholarship. Obviously, he has underestimated the problem of the over-emphasis on the dominant influence from the Mediterranean. In addition, Jacobson seems to be ignorant of the trend of analyzing architecture in the wider Roman East.

Barghouti thus points out that the activities within the architectural space made the Near Eastern cities different from those in the Roman West, even though they were both similar in forms. As Dodge (1990) declares, architecture in the Roman East did not fully copy that at Rome; the use of local material was important in Roman Eastern architecture. Millar (1993b) also assesses the distinctiveness of each ethnic group in the Roman East, emphasizing their diversity under the Roman rule. Ball’s (2000) argument develops those of Barghouti, as he reveals that local and Oriental styles played a substantial role in architectural design in the Roman East. According to Ball, “… to some extent, the impression of Roman urbanisation is distorted by inscriptions and definitions, and the surviving inscriptions have been interpreted as a ‘consciousness disassociation’ by the Roman cities from their Semitic past. …The East had great cities long before and could always teach the Romans a thing or two about cities and urbanization” (2000: 149). Isaac has criticized Ball’s thesis, claiming that he has overlooked the importance of Greek and Roman forms. As Isaac (2002: 274) argues, “The reader feels that he is witnessing a sort of contest between eastern and arguing that local and Near Eastern elements have largely been neglected”. Herod did borrow architectural ideas from Rome following his stays there. Herod’s architectural works also contained designs similar to those in Greece and Asia Minor but Oriental and even local elements were also integrated into many of his buildings. He did not blindly imitate the architectural forms in Greece and Italy. Instead, there are many innovations and combinations of forms. As Burrell and Netzer argue,

While scholars are still endeavoring to find out more similar aspects between Palestine and the great civilizations in Greece and Italy, the assumption of ‘purely’ Hellenistic and Roman forms of architecture in the Near East has been critically challenged. Barghouti argues that,

“Above all it was Herod’s own views and abilities that were expressed in his particular choice of sites, his use of local building materials, and his desire to make the final outcome useful” (1999: 715).

“… the nature and character of these cities was, in fact, a multiform rather than a uniform development, with two definable sources behind it. The one source is Western Mediterranean, the

Herod and his descendents were thus active agents who took part in modifying culture. Architecture in early Roman Palestine was more hybrid than has been assumed 35

previously. There was no ‘Roman urban overlay’. Instead, the process of the transformation of landscape was more complicated than has been suggested. Even though some buildings were extremely similar to those in Greece and Italy, the population in early Roman Palestine might not have been aware of these characteristics and they might have appropriated the meanings into their own cultural context. We should not assume that many of them were able to categorize the forms of architecture. In this chapter, the architectural forms of different types of Herodian constructions are analyzed in order to assess a new perspective of what kind of landscape the Herodian dynasty created.

Fig. 26. Herodian streets in modern Jerusalem, after Wilkinson (1978: 53).

Urban planning Some cities in Hellenistic Palestine, such as Marisa, already possessed a grid plan. Some towns not deliberately built by central government were also arranged by an orthogonal layout. For example, a grid street pattern has been found in ancient Meiron, but it was not as inherent as the one in Marisa, as there were more variations in streets according to changes in topography (Meyers et al 1981: 77). In Jerusalem, Wilkinson (1975; 1978: 61-3; 1997: 80-2) notes that some Herodian streets near the Temple Mount form right angles with one another (Figs. 26 & 27). Three parallel and north-south oriented Herodian streets today lead to the Single, Double and Triple Gates of the Temple Mount respectively (Fig. 27). Moreover, other Herodian streets nearby formed right angles with these three special streets. Therefore, Herodian Jerusalem might have possessed a grid plan (Fig. 28). In addition, these streets might probably have been well paved. In new Herodian cities such as Caesarea Maritima (AJ 15: 340), Antipatris (Beck & Kochavi 1993: 70) and Phaselis (Mowry 1952; Harder 1962), the entire towns were planned with grid patterns. Hippodamian town planning thus became an important urban feature in many important towns.

Fig. 27. Herodian streets in modern Jerusalem, after Wilkinson (1978: 56).

It is widely believed that grid town planning in Near Eastern cities was diffused from the Greek world through the conquests of Alexander the Great (Owen 1991: 74). Scholars generally agree that the tradition can be traced back to the eighth century BC with Old Smyrna and Miletus in Asia Minor as the earliest examples. Nevertheless, recent studies by Ball (2000: 248-61) suggest that the Hippodamian form was of Near Eastern origin. Citing earlier examples in southern Italian and Sicilian cities such as Poseidonia, Metapontum, Selinus and Akragas, Ball (ibid: 248-8) criticizes the claim that the two Asia Minor cities were the earliest examples of the grid plan. Emphasizing Phoenician colonization long before the Greeks came, Ball (ibid: 249) further argues that it was highly possible that Phoenicians brought over

Fig. 28. Reconstruction of the street layout of Jerusalem during the time of Herod the Great, after Wilkinson (1978: 63).

36

was to provide shelter from the sun. Segal (1997: 10) maintains that colonnaded street should be considered as a type of monument. First, the length and splendour offered a sense of stability and direction. Moreover,

the town plan to these former Phoenician colonies. Similar cases can be found in North African cities such as Lepcis Magna and Sbeita, which were Phoenician rather than Hellenistic or Roman foundations. Although cities in the Near East were normally products of longterm changes rather than evolutionary urban planning, the grid pattern was an urban feature in both Harappa and cities in the Indian sub-continent (ibid: 251). Orderly layouts also characterized many Achaemenid towns including the Uratian site of Karmir-Blur in Armenia. The Achaemenid Empire might have played an important role in spreading the Hippodamian town plan from India to the Mediterranean (ibid: 251-4). The fourth century BC Hippodamian town plan in Miletus in Asia Minor thus might have been diffused from India and the Persian Empire rather than from mainland Greece (ibid: 251-4). If it was the case, the Greekness of town planning in the Hellenistic period is a misconception of modern scholarship. However, it is questionable whether Late Hellenistic and early Roman populations realized the origins of the Hippodamian town plan. The silence of the ancient literature on such issues might not be accidental. It was possible that contemporary populations only saw the Hippodamian form as a type of town plan without realizing where it was from, given that it was a long-term and long-distance process for such town plan to be diffused from the Near East to the Mediterranean.

“… since the colonnaded street was planned on a human scale, that is to say, took into consideration the measures of a person’s footstep, fields of vision and walking pace, its clearly defined space, the rhythm of the columns as they pass the traveller’s eyes and the continuous interplay of light and shade --- all combined to create a feeling of order, beauty and majesty” (ibid). Pointing out the possibility that the colonnaded street might have originated from the Hellenistic stoa which was also roofed, Segal (ibid) believes that the colonnaded street functioned as an agora or a basilica where people met. This function was particularly strengthened by the presence of shops and busy traffic on such streets. However, Ball (2000: 264) points out that the concept of covering a public building like the Hellenistic stoa was even older in the Near East. For example, colonnaded buildings are to be found in the palace at Ebla of the third millennium BC as well as the palace and temple at Tell Tayanat of the early first millennium BC (ibid). Moreover, the bazaars in many ancient Near Eastern cities were likewise colonnaded and thousands of years older than the ones in the Roman period (ibid: 268-70). For example, the bazaars of Isfahan and Shiraz were also colonnaded. As colonnaded streets also functioned as markets, as demonstrated by shops behind the columns, Ball (ibid: 270) suggests that colonnaded street was a Near Eastern product aiming at providing cover. Nevertheless, given that so far only one colonnaded street is known in Herodian Palestine, the influence of this urban feature in people’s perception of the urban landscape should not be over-emphasized.

The cardo and decumani were distinctive urban features in Oriental cities such as Jerash and Bostra. These intercrossing main roads are always unquestionably assumed to be Roman in origin, but they might have existed before the Roman presence in the East (Ball 2000: 256). Analysing the relationship between these thoroughfares and major temples in cities in the Roman Near East, Ball (ibid: 256-61) claims that these streets embodied the purpose of religious avenues, giving access to a sanctuary. In Jerash, the cardo passed the Temple of Artemis at the centre of the city and also led to and from the Temple of Zeus south of the oval plaza. Cardo and decumani are lacking in Herodian Palestine. In Jerusalem, a thoroughfare linked the Damascus Gate to the western wall of the Temple Mount. But it was definitely not a cardo and there was no decumanus forming a right angle to it. Moreover, there is no evidence that it was seen to be a sacred way. Therefore, thoroughfares access to major temples were not necessarily sacred ways.

Through the construction of the Hippodamian street plan, with the main streets and colonnaded street, a sense of order was created in a city. In particular, main streets and colonnaded streets became significant thoroughfares giving access to landmarks. They did not necessarily contain religious meaning, but they were important pathways characterizing people’s mental image of a city. The construction of these streets might have represented the authority of the central planner. In already developed cities such as Jerusalem, it was sometimes necessary to clear away some houses and other obstacles in order to put up new architecture or street plans on top. Such clearances are seen south of the Temple Mount and in the area near the Augustan temple in Sebaste. Houses there were demolished in order to give way to new building projects. The Jerusalem grid was probably not a simple project. Actions similar to that south of the Temple Mount might have been undertaken, but the area involved was probably even larger. A new urban order was imposed on the city and its people’s movements were thus controlled in a new way. Like other Graeco-Roman cities, the donation of such projects probably gained the

Colonnaded streets were another common urban feature of the Roman East, with the 1.85km long cardo at Apamaea which is the most magnificent example. However there is little evidence that such a type of street was common in Herodian Palestine. Bahat (1994: 188) believes that there was a colonnaded street near the west wall of the Temple Mount, because two columns are found standing there. The street was composed of finely cut stones closely matched with their neighbours. The evidence thus suggests that this street in this busy area was colonnaded. Nevertheless, no other colonnaded street has ever been found in any other Herodian city in Palestine. The main function of the colonnaded streets 37

of the Temple Mount were originally used as seats or stair-steps in a theatre, as evidenced first by their size (6.5 x 15in) fit to be part of an ascending stairway or seats, and secondly by inscriptions ∆Ι and ∆ΙΟ, usually found at the edge of the rows of seats near the theatre staircases (Reich & Billig 2000a: 177-181; 2000b; 2002: 45-6). However, these stones might have also belonged to the theatre of Aelia Capitolina in the time of Hadrian (Patrich 2002). Patrich (ibid) believed that the reasons why the Herodian theatre in Jerusalem remains undiscovered because it might have been a wooden structure. The identification for the location of the Herodian theatre in Jerusalem is still uncertain until further archaeological discoveries are revealed. Among the still standing theatres, the one in Caesarea (Figs. 29 & 30) is currently the oldest in Roman Palestine and Arabia. The example in Sepphoris (Fig. 31) was the only theatre in Galilee. Both these theatres were of Italian types (for the differences between Hellenistic and Italian theatres, see Bieber 1961: 189). The theatre in Jericho (Fig. 32), however, was very different from those common elsewhere in the Roman Empire. The theatre was combined with a long arena, and it is suggested that the building was a combination of hippodrome and theatre for both chariot racing and dramas. Although the stage was absent from the theatre, Segal (1994: 88) suggests that a wooden stage could be built before performances took place. When there were chariot races, the stage could be removed so that the audience could watch the race from the theatre side. A similar building has been found in Caesarea but it was a combination of amphitheatre and hippodrome (Figs. 33 & 34). Different from the arena in Jericho with its seats confined to the theatrical area, the ‘amphi-hippodrome’ in Caesarea had its seats extended on the same level to both longer sides of the arena (Patrich 2001: 272). Porath (1995) suggests that it was a multi-purpose building for sporting competitions, chariot racings and gladiatorial games. The stadium in Sebaste was simpler in plan than those in Jericho and Caesarea. It was a rectangular enclosure surrounded by four porticoes with Doric columns (Crowfoot et al 1942: 41-50). In addition, its walls were coated with coloured plaster (ibid). A hippodrome-like structure was also built in Herodium (Fig. 41), but Netzer (1981: 75; 1987a: 37-8) has found that its width was insufficient for chariots to turn. Therefore, Netzer believes that it was a place for public meetings and was where Herod’s funeral took place.

donor fame. But people’s perception and appreciation towards these donations varied in different places. Although Herod transformed Jerusalem and built the Temple to show piety to the Jewish population, Jews showed little gratitude for it. Their focus was the Temple as a religious place rather than Herod’s gift. While the modification of Jerusalem was significant in people’s daily and religious life, such changes were not obvious in their attitude towards the government. In Caesarea Maritima, however, the gentile population was proud of such royal constructions in the city (AJ 20: 173; BJ 13: 266). We can expect the same effect in Sebaste, Antipatris and Phaselis where Herod’s loyal population was settled. Gentile populations were grateful for the royal patronage, which was a common phenomenon in contemporary Graeco-Roman cities. Therefore, Herod successfully gained the fame of being a donor of public buildings there.

Buildings for Entertainment Buildings for the purpose of entertainment were not common in pre-Herodian Palestine. No pre-Roman remains of buildings such as theatres, amphitheatres or hippodromes have been discovered. The most famous example in literature was the gymnasium built by the Seleucids in Jerusalem which aroused the dissatisfaction of many Jews. Nevertheless, many new types of entertainment buildings along with new entertainments were imported into Palestine in the Herodian period. They were built not only in gentile but also in Jewish cities. As argued earlier, there was sometimes a twist of elements in the content of entertainment provided in order to suit Jewish tastes. Moreover, the architectural forms of entertainment buildings were new in Palestine. In addition, there was a modification of Italian entertainment buildings which was not a common practice in the Roman world. The theatre was alien to both Jews and gentiles in Palestine at the end of the first century BC. There is also no evidence for theatres in contemporary Decapolis, and only five theatres in the Nabataean kingdom have been dated to the late first century BC-first century AD. That Herod built theatres in Palestine was probably because he would like to follow Pompey’s example of building the first stone theatre in Rome, which was a magnificent monument in the Late Republic. After Herod’s building program, the number of theatres in Palestine was still limited. The standing ones are in Caesarea Maritima (Figs. 29 & 30), Jericho (Fig. 32) and Sepphoris (Fig. 31). According to Josephus (AJ 15: 267), Herod also built a theatre and amphitheatre in Jerusalem but their locations remain unknown. Recent discoveries suggest that some corniced stones of the Umayyad palace south

It is notable that the functions of many of these buildings were different from those in later periods or in contemporary Roman Italy. In particular, the combination of a hippodrome with other structures was an innovation in Herodian Palestine. The strict differentiation in the typology of entertainment buildings, as Porath (1995) argues, did not exist in Palestine. In addition to entertainment, these public buildings could well be places for gathering and public announcement. The hippodrome

38

Fig. 29. Plan of the theatre in Caesarea Maritima, after Segal (1994: fig 70).

Fig. 30. Picture of the theatre in Caesarea Maritima. Photograph by the author.

39

Fig. 31. Plan of the theatre in Sepphoris, after Segal (1994: fig 12).

Fig. 32. Plan of the theatre-Hippodrome in Jericho, after Segal (1994: fig 130).

40

Fig.33. Plan of the amphitheatre-hippodrome in Caesarea Maritima, after Porath (1995: 18).

Fig 34. Picture of the amphitheatre-hippodrome in Caesarea Maritima. Photograph by the author.

41

in Herodium probably performed this function. In the Jericho theatre, Herod gathered the elite of the city and intended to kill them all as a part of his funeral ceremony (AJ 17: 161, 175; BJ 1: 659). Even though the form of the theatres in Caesarea and Sepphoris was the same as the Italian type, the performances taking place there were probably quite different from those in mainland Italy. Like many other parts of the Roman East, Italian dramas had difficulties in competing with the long established Greek form which was more suitable to Greek populations. Therefore, even though the architectural form of the theatre was Italian, the notion of the theatre was still Greek in character. But in Jewish Galilee, it is unlikely that Greek dramas of mythical and pagan colour found their places amongst the Jewish population. The theatre in Sepphoris might have shown Jewish plays written by the flourishing Alexandrian Jewish community during the Hellenistic period. In view of these leisure-building examples, it is probably safe to claim that Italian entertainment buildings were appropriated by population in Palestine. Bathhouses of Italian technology were also a new type of leisure-building introduced into Palestine in the time of Herod. Most excavated examples are private ones in Herodian fortresses and palaces. Although Herodian bathhouses were built under the initiative of one man and within a limited period of time, none of them possessed the same plan (Fig. 36; Netzer 1999a: 45). But in general, most of them were integrated into palace buildings. Only the example at Masada was a freestanding structure. According to Nielsen (1999: 41-2), the bathhouses in Herodian palaces were comparable to western and Campanian baths which were also the earliest Roman bathhouses. In Campanian baths, like those in Pompeii which are the best-preserved examples, the plans show separate zones for different functions: 1. a palaestra (colonnaded exercise court) with rooms; and 2. an exedra containing a bath block of vaulted rooms and service spaces. The bath block comprised a row of independently vaulted rectangular rooms which were parallel to each other (ibid: 57). Moreover, within the row, there was a small, circular domed chamber which functioned as a laconicum (a hot, dry steam sweat chamber); this circular type was recommended by Vitruvius (5: 10: 5). The plans of Campanian and Pompeian bathhouses reveal that the palaestra was essentially an adjunct to the bath and functioned as an exercise courtyard (Nielsen 1999: 64). In the bathhouse of the Jericho Third Palace, a row of rectangular bathing halls with a domed and circular frigidarium (cold-water bathing hall) was put in front of a peristyle court (Nielsen 1999: 64). Although Italian technology was integrated into Herodian bathhouses, local traditions of bathing still continued, as attested by the discoveries of ritual baths in Herodian palaces.

Fig. 35. Plan of the bathhouse in Ramat Hanadiv, after Hirschfeld (1995: 84). rooms and a large courtyard. The small bath pool (frigidarium) of unhewn stones and grey plaster was 1.7 x 2m in size. The village was initially fortified at the time of Alexander Jannaeus. According to Josephus (AJ 13: 422), Jannaeus placed his soldiers in many settlements. The Hasmonean defensive system continued into the early Roman period and the site was used until the First Jewish Revolt. But the bathhouse at Ramat Hanadiv is a rare example, given that public bathhouses were not as common in Herodian Palestine as in cities in Greece and Asia Minor. Even though there were a limited number of them, they were concentrated on the coastal area. According to Josephus (BJ 1: 422), there was a public bathhouse at Ashkelon, but it has not yet been discovered and it is not known whether the bathing facility was of the Hellenistic or Italian style. But in most cities in Palestine, traces of public bathhouses are lacking. In Greece and Asia Minor, some Hellenistic baths were converted into Italian style suites, probably because of their more advanced technology for heating. The discovery of the Italian style bathhouse in Ramat Hanadiv thus indicates that bathhouses in coastal cities might also have incorporated Italian technology (Hirschfeld 1995). Unlike those in Italy, Greek bathhouses in Greece and

A public bathhouse with Italian technology has been discovered at Ramat Hanadiv (Fig. 35) near Caesarea Maritima. This late first century BC bathhouse was excavated along with a Hasmonean fortress and a columbarium. The bathhouse was rectangular in plan, measuring 16.5 x 5.5m. There were four contiguous 42

Fig. 36 Italian style bathhouses in Herodian palaces, after Netzer (1999a: 47). Herodium 1. Lower Herodium, main baths, located next to the garden complex which contained palatial wings, service facilities and dwellings. Two of the dwellings included Italian style baths. 2. Upper Herodium, baths. Jericho 3. Third Palace, main baths in the north wing. 4. Second Palace baths. 5. First Palace baths. There was also a second bathing facility only for ritual immersion. 6. Third Palace, secondary bathhouse postulated in the basement of a reception hall on the artificial mound. Kypros 7. Upper Kypros baths. 8. Lower Kypros baths, including a palatial room and a bathhouse. Machaerus 9. Upper Machaerus baths, close to a peristyle court. Masada 10. Northern Palace, lower terrace baths at the bottom of the terraced structure. 11. Northern Palace, main baths adjacent to the palace.

43

platform. Other contemporary terraced examples include the Villa of Diomedes again at Pompeii, the Villa of Quintilius Varus at Tivoli and the Villa of Pompeius at Albano. Herodium (Fig. 41) was surrounded by desert with its Upper Palace (Fig. 10) standing high up on a flat landscape. It consequently became a lighthouse structure visible as far as the Mount of Olives east of Jerusalem. The promontory palace at Caesarea Maritima (Fig. 19) was surrounded by water on its three sides. The Villa of Capo di Sorrento (Fig. 42) also extended to the steep rocks of the island. This emphasis on location thus created an atmosphere of a palace floating on the water when one viewed it far away from the shore or on the sea. In Jericho the Winter Palace (Fig. 14) was built on both sides of Wadi Qelt and was connected by a bridge, probably to provide a view of the seasonal flow of water in winter (Netzer 1993: 690). A similar method was used in the first century BC villa at Sperlonga (Fig. 43) with a small bridge connecting both sides.

Asia Minor were seen as a part of the gymnasium (Farrington 1999: 65; Nielson 1999: 40; Yegül 1992: 250-1). Therefore their average size was generally smaller than the Italian ones, and no bathhouses of imperial scale were there in the early imperial period (Farrington 1999: 64-5). Only the technology of Italy was borrowed, but the notion of going to bathhouses was still the same amongst Greek population (ibid). The bathhouses in gentile cities on the coast in Palestine might have had similar to situations as their counterparts in Greece and Asia Minor.

Palaces Herodian palaces combined Hellenistic and Italian elements in architectural plans and features. This unique and sophisticated architecture was confined to Herodian residences and did not spread to commoners’ villas in Palestine. Following the common practice in Late Republican Italy, many of these palaces were built in beautiful or contrasting landscapes. The incorporation of architecture into the natural landscape was also common in some Italian villas (Netzer 1993: 690; Förtsch 1996). Masada (Fig. 15) was built on top of a high hill in the Judaean wilderness. The Villa of Gregoriana at Tivoli (Fig. 37) was built about 50BC in the steep gorge of the Anio waterfalls. The Northern Palace at Masada particularly had a wide view towards the Judaea wilderness, the Dead Sea and the oasis at En Geddi (Fig. 38). The terracing technique (Fig. 40) was common in some villa architecture. For example, at Pompeii, the Villa dei Misteri of the second century BC was built on a raised

Fig. 37. Villa of Gregoriana at Tivoli, after Förtsch (1996: 100). Fig. 38. The view of the Dead Sea and Judaea Wilderness from the Northern Palace in Masada. Photograph by the author.

44

Fig. 39 . Herodian Northern Palace in Masada, after Netzer (1991: 579).

Fig. 40. Cross-section of the Northern Palace, Masada, after Netzer (1991: 579). 45

Fig. 41. Plan of Herodium, after Netzer (1987a: 31).

46

this form of room in Italy, a transverse-lying anteroom projects out of the main room to its sides where tableware was probably displayed. According to Vitruvius (6. 3. 10), rooms similar in shape to triclinia always include an important view from the position on the couches. These rooms with impressive scenery were probably used for dining. A Corinthian oeci (reception room) was found in the Jericho Winter Palace (Fig. 51; Förtsch 1996: 86-9). The earliest example of an oeci was the one in Casa del Labirinto (Fig. 52) built around 60-50BC. The rooms of the Largo Arrigo (Fig. 53) in Rome of the second half of the first century BC are almost contemporary with the Jericho example (ibid). The back corner column was an important feature of this type of room. In addition, most of the rooms had a light roof. The Jericho Winter Palace was particularly outstanding in these aspects given that the size of these elements overshadowed those earlier and later examples (ibid).

Fig. 42. Villa of Capo di Sorrento, after Förtsch (1996: 102).

Fig. 43. Villa at Sperlonga, Via Flacca, after Förtsch (1996:98). 44

Förtsch (1996) and Foerster (1996) have analysed the relations between Herodian and Roman villas, claiming that their plans and room types were similar to each other. At the level III of Seleucia (141BC-AD43), there was a reception area consisting of an open court; on its south side a wide porch was preceded by a distylos in antis (Foerster 1996: 57). In the palace at Vouni in Cyprus of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, there was an open peristyle court and a reception area with the two side wings erected in the south-east and north-west. Moreover, storerooms were added on the eastern side of the palace. The Northern Palace in Masada was also built on a similar plan. The reception wing there also contains andrones and a reception hall surrounded by a central open court (ibid: 58-9). Furthermore, storerooms were also built next to the palace.

45

Fig. 44. The atrium in Upper Herodium, after Förtsch (1996: 103). Fig. 45. The atrium in the Villa di Settfinestre, after Förtsch (1996: 103).

46

Other room types common in Italian houses and villas have been identified in Herodian residences. At Herodium, the group of rooms to the west of the peristyle court (Fig. 44) was similar to the Italian atrium complex such as the one at Settefinestre (Fig. 45; Förtsch 1996: 78). Masada contains a vestibulum which was the entrance porch (ibid: 79). In the Jericho Palace, the eastern procoeton-triclinium (Fig. 46) was a kind of room typical in Italian villas (Figs. 47-50; ibid: 80). In

47

48

49

50

Fig. 46. The eastern triclinium in the Third Palace in Jericho, after Förtsch (1996: 103). Fig. 47. The Auditorium of Maecenas, Rome, after Förtsch (1996: 103). Fig. 48. Villa Imperiale, Pompeii, after Förtsch (1996: 103). Fig. 49. Roman villa, Nennig, after Förtsch (1996: 103). Fig. 50. The triclinium in Villa di Arianna, Stabia, after Förtsch (1996: 103). 47

4951

the door. The atrium also housed many family rituals. Images of family ancestors were always placed in the atrium (ibid: 6-9). A shrine (lararium) was also installed in a corner of the atrium. At the lararium, the paterfamilias regularly prayed and offered sacrifice to the family deities. The ritual for a boy to become an adult, called the sollemnitas togae purae, took place at the lararium in the atrium (ibid: 9-10). In addition, rituals for death and mourning also took place in the atrium (ibid: 10). Apparently, multiple meanings and social identities were created through routine activities in Italian houses (Revell 2000). Of course, such ritual performances did not take place in the Jewish Palestine, and Herod’s palaces would not have had such domestic shrines. Furthermore, Herod’s residences even lacked the axis common in Italian houses and villas. Instead, fauces, atrium and tablinum were always separated from each other. In the Upper Palace in Herodium, for example, the atrium only faced the aisle and was not oriented towards the entrance of the fortress. If there was any power relationship between patrons and clients executed in Herodian villas, it was not exercised as in Italian villas, for the Italian arrangement was lacking there. The initial meanings of these rooms were thus lost and the physical forms of the rooms were appropriated to another culture.

52

Most Herodian residences had wall decoration obviously imported from Italy, and usually corresponded to the Second Pompeian Style. However, unlike those in Italy, human images did not appear on wall decoration, although first century Jews could bear images to a certain extent. Some flower motifs were found on the wall paintings in the Winter Palace in Jericho. The flowers were schematised into a sequence of small triangles. In a rich man’s house in today’s ‘Jewish Quarter’ in Jerusalem, similar motifs have been also found. They belonged to the transition from the Second to the Third Style which was current in Italy in the time of Augustus (Fittscher 1996: 147).

53 Fig. 51. The Corinthian oeci in the First Herodian Palace, Jericho, after Förtsch (1996: 104-5). Fig. 52. The oeci at Casa del Labirinto, Pompeii, after Förtsch (1996: 104-5). Fig. 53. The oeci at House at Large Arrigo, Rome, after Förtsch (1996: 104-5). Nevertheless, only the architectural forms of villas were adopted in Herod’s architecture, while the meanings and rituals associated with Italian architecture were lost. Herod’s villas consisted of Italian room types, but they were not arranged as those in the Italian forms. In some Italian houses, fauces and atrium and sometimes fauces, atrium and tablinum were arranged in a row and formed an axis, but this arrangement does not appear in Herodian residences. In other words, only the shape of each type of room was used, not the arrangement. Although only a small percentage of houses in Pompeii were arranged in this form and the most common was fauces-atrium type, those that contained a tablinum probably represented higher-class status than those that did not (Grahame 1998: 171-175). The arrangement in these Italian houses contained the meaning of client-patron relationship. The fauces-atrium-tablinum axis controlled the view of clients when they came into the patrons’ houses (Clark 1991: 4-6). A client directly engaged the aisle, and his gaze was directed towards the end of the tunnel where the tablinum was and where the patron sat. The tablinum therefore symbolized the seat of power which lined the axis of entry. Peristyle courts were also put behind the tablinum in order to create an extension of the view from

Many of the wall colours used in Herodian palaces contain mercury which is not found in Israel (Rozenburg 1996: 123-4). Mercury was not found in the wall paintings at the Hellenistic sites of Tel Anafa, Araq el Emir and the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho (ibid). Therefore, it seems that mercury together with Italian painters were imported by Herod (ibid: 128). At Jericho, the Herodian frescoes lacked the relief device common in the First Style and in the Hellenistic Structural Style. Therefore, the incised functional lines in the Structural Style and in the Hasmonean palaces are absent from the Herodian palaces. Moreover, Hasmonean palaces did not have the Herodian motifs of the small squares used to divide the isodomic blocks of the upper part of the wall. Though there were such differences between Herodian and Hasmonean practices in decoration, still they were only minor elements. Important Hasmonean elements were not drastically changed, especially the decorative tradition of avoiding images unacceptable to Jews. Rozenburg (ibid) believes that Herod still tried to link himself to the Hasmonean rulers and to avoid criticism

48

Fig. 54. Patterns of mosaics common in Herodian Palestine, after Ovadiah (1994: 69). 1. Plain double frame. 2. Plain double frame with the inner one divided into three equal panels. 3. A plain frame with the inner area divided into three panels. The central panel was larger than the other two and was embellished with a rosette. 4. Plain and decorative frame with repeated field patterns such as hexagons, composite meanders and intersecting circles. 5. An emblematic arrangement of a circle in a square with a rosette in the middle. The corner of the inner circle was decorated with different motifs. 1. A plain double frame, as with one of the mosaics in Masada. against him as a usurper. In particular, Hasmonean 2. A plain double frame with the inner one divided into loyalists might have paid special attention to former three equal panels, as with the one in the Palatial Hasmonean elements as a memorial and for the nostalgia Mansion in the ‘Jewish Quarter’ in Jerusalem. of their previous regime. But in completely new 3. A plain frame with the inner area divided into three Herodian palaces, Herodian rulers did not avoid images. panels. The central panel was larger than the other At Tiberias the palace was full of animal images; the two and was embellished with a rosette. This type of head of a figure was also discovered in Herodium mosaic has been found in the ‘Jewish Quarter’ in (Netzer 1987a: 8). Jerusalem and is paralleled by similar examples in Pompeii and Hasmonean Jericho. Besides wall paintings, mosaics were another type of 4. A plain and decorative frame with repeated field sophisticated decoration used in Herodian palaces. patterns such as hexagons, composite meanders and Nevertheless, only a small number of Herodian mosaics intersecting circles. They are found in the Masada have been found. Ovadiah (1994: 68-70) has categorized Northern Palace, the ‘Jewish Quarter’ in Jerusalem the types of mosaics in Herodian Palestine, claiming that as well as in Pompeii. they can be divided into five groups (Fig. 54):

49

5.

Referring to the Temple Mount as ‘Herod’s Roman Temple’, Jacobson (2002a) stresses the similarity between the Temple Mount and some Italian examples (Figs. 61 & 62), particularly focusing on the Royal Stoa of the Temple Mount (Fig. 2) which he believed to be an architectural feature in some temples in Italy. Contrary to Jacobson’s conclusion, it seems that the Royal Stoa was Hellenistic rather than Italian in origin, as the stoa was always one of the main buildings in an agora.

An emblematic arrangement of a circle in a square with a rosette in the middle. The corner of the inner circle was decorated with different motifs. Examples have been found in the ‘Jewish Quarter’ in Jerusalem, Masada Western Palace, Olynthos, Delos, Palatitza-Vergina and Pompeii.

Some mosaics of the Herodian period were decorated in the Hellenistic polychrome tradition, some of them in the severe black and white fashion comparable to Italian mosaics popular in the Late Republic and early Empire (Ovadiah 1994: 76; Ovadiah & Ovadiah 1987: 150). Under Hellenistic influences, polychrome mosaics consisted of framing bands enclosing a central emblema, but they did not have the delicate gradation and threedimensional effect common in Hellenistic mosaics (Ovadiah 1994: 76). Instead, some of them look like the narrow border at the top of a panel in Second Style wall paintings (Ovadiah 1994: 76; Ovadiah & Ovadiah 1987: 150). Besides contemporary mosaics and Italian wall paintings, the decorations of Herodian mosaics might also have been influenced by monumental tomb architecture in Jerusalem, decorated sarcophagi in Israel and limestone ossuaries (Ovadiah 1994: 67). The Herodian installation of mosaics reflected the up-to-date lifestyle in rich individuals’ and ruler’s residences.

In addition to the stoa, Lalor (1997: 107-9) points out the similarities (Fig. 57) between the arched staircase at the southwest corner of the Temple (Robinson’s Arch; Fig. 55) and the stairs of the first century BC amphitheatre at Pompeii (Fig. 56). Both of them were supported by arches and declined in the same manner. A similar descending arch passageway can be found at both sides of the monumental staircase at the south wall of the Temple Mount (Ritmeyer & Ritmeyer 1989: 40). In view of such individual elements of the Temple Mount, it is safe to claim that the Temple had some Graeco-Roman architectural features.

Temples The Jerusalem Temple was the religious centre of Judaism, but many sanctuaries in the Near East also served as the centres of pagan religions. For example, the Temple of Baal at Palmyra was also an example of large scale monumental architecture and a prominent sanctuary contemporary with the Herodian Temple Mount. It is generally accepted that Near Eastern temples in the Roman period were Graeco-Roman in character, but the whole picture seems to be more complicated than that. Before going on with this argument, the Graeco-Roman elements of temples in Palestine are examined first. Fig. 55. Robinson’s Arch. Photograph by the author.

Fig. 56. The amphitheatre in Pompeii. Photograph by the author. 50

Fig. 58. Jacobson’s proposal for the original position of the northern wall of the Temple Mount, after Jacobson (1999: 53). Fig. 57. Similarities between the Robinson’s Arch and the amphitheatre in Pompeii, after Lalor (1997: 108). a. The pedestrian access to the amphitheatre in Pompeii b. The north- south flight of steps of Robinson’s Arch The east-west cross section of Robinson’s Arch After the area of the Temple Mount was extended substantially in the Herodian period, the geometric pattern of the new Temple platform possessed some Graeco-Roman characteristics. The north wall of alHaram al-Sharif today is not parallel to the south wall and did not form a right angle with the west wall either. Based on the information of Warren’s underground tunnel in the nineteenth century, Jacobson (1999: 46) claims that the Herodian north wall touched the point of Warren’s excavations rather than the corner of the north and east walls today (Fig. 58). If so, the north and south walls in the Herodian period were parallel to each other, and subsequently the shape of the Temple Mount was similar to any Graeco-Roman temples which were frequently rectangular in plan. Measuring the ratio between the length of the south and west walls, Jacobson (1981) finds that it is the same as that of the Hebron enclosure. More importantly, both sanctuaries have a 60º angle from the south-east to the north-east corner (Fig. 59; Jacobson 1999: 48-53). According to Jacobson (ibid: 52-3), in antiquity a 60º angle seems to have special meaning symbolizing prestigious buildings. Similar examples are found in the banqueting hall of the Northern Palace at Masada, the Temple of Jupita Damascenus and the Delphineion at Miletus as well as the Tratro Maritimo in Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli (ibid).

Fig. 59. Jacobson’s measurement of the angle at the south-east corner of the Temple Mount, after Jacobson (1999: 48). Jacobson’s claim about the corner of the northern wall may have reflected the intention of the planners of the Temple Mount but this geometry seemed to be obscure to the general public, given that probably not many people other than the builders noticed and realized the existence and meanings of such patterns. 51

Fig. 60. Some examples of courtyards in Near Eastern temples, after Ball (2000: 333). A Tell ‘Uqair and the Eanna Temple complex at Ur B The oval temple at Khfaje C The temple of Artemis at Jerash D The temple complex at Baalbek E Umayyad mosque at Damascus enclosed by courtyards (Fig. 60). Because the public Although the Temple Mount was Graeco-Roman in participation of worship and sacrifice was important in many aspects, the general plan of the Temple was Near the Near East, it was necessary to have a large area for Eastern in origin, which Jacobson has ignored. Stressing gathering which was a feature absent in most Graecothe continuity of Near Eastern culture, Ball (2000: 318) Roman temples. states that sanctuaries of eastern religions should be analysed within the context of the Near East rather than Jacobson (2002a: 23) compares the Temple Mount with being seen as direct borrowings from Greece and Italy. some Italian temples but some of the points he makes are Ball particularly emphasizes a common feature amongst unconvincing. The Italian courtyard temples (Figs. 61 & temples in the Near East; temple sanctuaries were 62) he mentions were only enclosed on three sides. They

52

should be viewed as peristyle courts which were also common in villa architecture rather than as the courtyards in Near Eastern temples. Such a peristyle courtyard can be seen in the Lower Palace at Herodium which was only enclosed on three sides. Moreover, Jacobson’s examples of large temples with theatres and courts were very exceptional cases in Italy, given that many Italian temples only occupied a small area. His comparative examples are what Hanson (1959) calls ‘theatre-temples’, a cultural product of the close relationship between drama and religious activities in Italy (ibid: 29). The feature of a four-sided enclosed courtyard (Fig. 60) was thus a unique aspect absent from Italian temples. Even a remote sanctuary far away from main settlements in the Near East would be larger than the average Roman temple. The enclosure thus became the main reason why Near Eastern temples were massive in scale. It is interesting to note that the Augusteum in Sebaste (Fig. 31) was also Near Eastern in plan with a courtyard in front, even though it was an imperial cult centre dedicated to Augustus. However, the imperial cult in the harbour of Caesarea Maritima was like an Italian sanctuary with no courtyard, partly because it was immediately in front of the shore and consequently did not have sufficient space for a courtyard. Nevertheless, the Augusteum in Sebaste is an obvious example of how Roman and imperial meanings combined with local traditions. Fig. 61. Fontuna Primigenia, Palestrina, Italy, after Jacobson (2002a: 23). The creation of a hybrid landscape As argued from above, architecture in early Roman Palestine should not be simply termed as ‘Hellenistic’ and ‘Roman’. Some architectural forms are indeed identifiable with those in towns in mainland Greece and Italy, but many elements were Near Eastern in origin. When these architectural elements combined together, the urban form became more hybrid rather than being simply Greek or Roman. Therefore, cities in Palestine should not be perceived as either ‘Greek’ or ‘Roman’, given that they differed from those in Greece and Italy in many aspects. Although some elements were similar or largely the same as the Graeco-Roman types, their meanings might have been different in Palestine. Moreover, Herod not only constructed Italian types of architecture but also those common in the Hellenistic East. Nevertheless, he did not exclude local styles. Some buildings were even innovations in the Empire. The term ‘Roman architecture’ should be used carefully. Many examples of ‘Roman architecture’ are actually cited in Campania, an area of Greek colonies in the Classical period. Its descendants were different from those in the Latin area (Lomas 1995; 1998). Many types of architecture, such as bathhouses first appeared in this area rather than in Latium. Among the Campanian cities, Pompeii is always used as a comparative example of a

Fig. 62. Hercules Victor, Tivoli, Italy, after Jacobson (2002a: 23).

53

golden eagle on top of the Temple in Jerusalem also symbolized the power of Rome, even though it might have been a Mesopotamian eagle (Goodenough 1958: 122-8). Moreover, cities with imperial names such as Caesarea and Sebaste also expressed the meanings of royal and imperial settlements. Therefore, any buildings that represented the empire were also imperial to a certain extent, no matter what cultural styles they belonged to. As any architectural forms could be classified as ‘imperial’, the meanings of imperial architecture were thus more political than cultural. The political aspect of some buildings should be stressed but should not be used as signs of any transformation in ethnical or cultural styles, given that putting the populations under the symbols of Rome was a political practice, not a cultural one.

‘standard Roman city’. Everything within this town is classified as culturally Roman. But this notion has been challenged by Grahame (1998) in his analysis of Pompeian houses. There is always an assumption of a ‘standard’ Pompeian house which normally comprises a fauces, atrium, tablinum and peristyle court. This type of house is frequently referred to as uniform and standardized Roman domestic architecture, consequently becoming a physical reflection of Roman identity. But Grahame’s analysis shows that little regularity occurred among these houses. Almost one-third of the houses in Pompeii do not have courtyards and no standard design can be generalized among these non-courtyard houses (ibid: 166). Among courtyard houses, they are distributed variously in different regions in the city. But overall the larger the house, the more courtyards are there (ibid: 171). Moreover, houses are not essentially combined with fauces and atriums with other features such as tablinum and peristyle. The fauces-atrium combination occurred the most frequently (ibid: 173). Less than half of courtyard houses possess a fauces-atrium-tablinum arrangement (ibid). The ideal house type designed with fauces-atrium and alae tablinum is rare; only one-fifth of courtyard houses have such an arrangement (ibid). No type of common arrangement is found amongst all classes of courtyard houses, except for the existence of an atrium. But the atrium was a place where the patron met his clients, and thus should be seen as a reflection of class status rather than culturally Roman (ibid: 174). The presence of the atrium seems to represent elite architecture, with its meanings representing social and economic status. Furthermore, while we should not assume everyone always went to Rome to borrow material culture there so as to be culturally Roman, individuals seemed to copy forms from one another, particularly from those who were socially successful, in order to display high social status (ibid). The architecture of Pompeii was thus not necessarily Roman. When it is used as a standard Roman comparative example, incorrect stylistic and ethnical labels are also put on the cities in Roman provinces.

Cultural Romanization through the imposition of Italian architectural forms did not occur, as evident from the multi-combination of styles in many Herodian buildings. In rich houses in the ‘Jewish Quarter’ in Jerusalem, Italian style architectural elements have been discovered, but they probably represented the social status and wealth of the Jerusalem wealthier classes rather than the cultural identity of being Roman, given that the ritual baths in the same houses signified the Jewish identity of the house owners. In studies of architecture in the Roman East, attention is always paid to large-scale public buildings, but domestic structures for commoners have always been overlooked. Residential areas were people’s focus on day-to-day life. So far Italian styles have only been uncovered in elite houses, but it is important to recall that not the whole area in a city was occupied by the upper classes. Avi-Yonah (1975: 238) believes that the lower city in early Roman Jerusalem, which was probably a crowded and poorer area, had experienced long term development since the Iron Age, while the upper city was where wealthy people lived, as evident from discoveries of their houses there. Other commoners’ houses, as reflected in examples in Capernaum and Gamala, were constructed with no reference to any particular style. In contrast with the new hybrid form of public architecture, common domestic structures did not experience any evolution in forms. The living quarters of commoners were still very local in style, especially in the use of local materials.

The accommodation of a large area of space was a central feature of ‘imperial architecture’ was that they were monumental in the scale. Such features represented the power of Rome that could mobilize resources to build such enormous and grandiose buildings. Although small public bathhouses were thus not seen to be ‘imperial’ because of their relatively small size, the activities within an imperial bath and a small public bathhouse might have been very similar. It is possible that large scale architectural forms different from Italian ones can also be classified as Imperial. Colossal scale architecture was rare in Palestine; most Herodian public buildings, except the Temple Mount, were of modest scale aiming at providing practical social needs (Burrell & Netzer 1999: 715). Nevertheless, as long as they symbolized the power of the Roman Empire and no matter what form or scale they took, modest scale architectures should be seen to be ‘imperial’. For example, imperial cult centres represented the divine power of the Roman emperors and expressed the authority of the ruler comparable to deities. Herod’s

As demonstrated from the hybrid forms of much Herodian architecture, Strange’s (1992: 32; 1995: 65) proposal of ‘Roman urban overlay’ has obviously oversimplified the meanings of material culture and the process of the transformation of the landscape in Palestine. Even though some buildings and architectural elements were Italian in form, it is doubtful how many people would realize their origins. Josephus claims that many of Herod’s buildings were built of white marble or polished white stone (BJ 1: 404; 1: 420; 1: 425; 4: 532; 5: 190), but the archaeological traces of marble in the Herodian period for mass construction are extremely rare (Fischer & Stein 2000: 80-1). As there was no source of marble in Palestine, it was necessary to import it from elsewhere in the Mediterranean; but the transportation of 54

Herodian environment and simultaneously created a more hybrid cultural landscape.

marble into Judaea did not begin until late in the first century AD (ibid). Although the forms of Herodian architecture were new to Palestine, Herod apparently made use of the materials immediately available. For example, the stone for the Temple Mount was probably quarried from the ‘Russian Compound’ in today’s Jerusalem (Ritmeyer 1989: 47). Although Fischer and Stein (2000: 81-4) suggest various reasons why Josephus made such mistakes, his confusion of marble and white stone might still be possible. Josephus describes the Herodian building project in extreme detail, but we should not expect that a non-architect would realize the nature and origins of materials as much as Vitruvius did. The theatres of Caesarea and Sepphoris provide another example to support the idea of the Jewish perception towards the Herodian buildings. These two theatres were Italian in style, but they might have simply been perceived as ‘theatres’ rather than ‘Roman theatres’. Even for Greek populations in other provinces, such a form of theatre might well have represented a new type rather than a culturally Roman one. As argued above, attending an Italian theatre and bathhouses in Greek society might still be Greek in cultural practice. In addition, as drama and religions were closely linked in Italy, Italian temples were always integrated into theatres (Hanson 1959: 29), whereas the spatial association between Greek theatres and temples were loose. Nevertheless, Greek dramatic performance always took Greek mythologies as their subject and the Greek theatrical space was filled with religious colour. But in the theatres in Caesarea and Sepphoris, no religious connections have been found. In early Roman Palestine, the only entertainment building that had religious linkage was the Sebastean stadium dedicated to Kore. We should not assume that people in Palestine would all have the notion of what Rome and Italian architecture looked like. Moreover, the political and religious meanings of worshipping Roman emperors in imperial cult centres might not have been reflected in architectural forms, except for the presence of the emperors’ statues there. They might have been similar to a common pagan temple in architecture. As shown above, the Near Eastern temple enclosure was used in the Augusteum in Sebaste, a temple dedicated to the Roman emperor. Furthermore, throughout Josephus’ detailed descriptions of Herodian building activities, he never mentions the term ‘Roman architecture’, with the implications that the meanings of cultural and stylistic ‘Romanness’ might not have been explicitly perceived. Some aspects of other cultures might well have been appropriated by Jews and transcended into new meanings not contradictory to Jewish beliefs (Gruen 1997: 88). Considered as a whole, the urban landscape of Herodian Palestine did not appear culturally Roman. The formation of a new landscape was more complicated than simply being assimilated into a Graeco-Roman one. On one hand, the intrusions of new and large-scale buildings into the already existing landscape showed a contrast with the old elements, with many types of public architecture in early Roman Palestine already having been mixed in form. The Herodian building program thus deconstructed the pre-

55

Chapter 5 Jewish perceptions of space

that reflected their religious thoughts. As Cohen (1993) argues, one was not able to distinguish Diaspora Jews from gentiles according to their clothes, hairstyles, and languages. The differences between Jews and non-Jews, especially in the Diaspora, were based on religious beliefs and ethnic consciousness rather than appearance.

Archaeologists have often labelled material culture in terms of ethnicity. In its extreme form during the First World War, Kossina used Germanic archaeological objects to support the ideology of the ‘pure’ bloodline and superiority of the German people (Trigger 1989: 163-7). For example, discoveries of ancient instruments indicated the music talent of Germans in modern times (ibid). Kossina’s ‘nationalist’ archaeology was later used by the Nazi government as propaganda to create the image of the Aryan master race. Scholars have criticized such extreme examples of nationalist and imperialist practices in archaeology (Trigger 1984), but Hellenistic and Roman archaeology today also assumes and contrasts the polar relationship between the indigenous natives and the superior Greeks and Romans. Under such a scheme, native and lower class culture thus gave way to the superior ones of Greece and Rome, and consequently superior identity of becoming ‘Greek’ and ‘Roman’ was adopted by local populations (Hengel 1974; Millett 1990a; 1990b). Romanization is always assumed to be a process resulting in the assimilation of individuals’ identities from natives into Romans. It has been argued that Italian culture was not as superior as it was in the Greek East as in the Western Empire. But in the discussion of the Greek world under Roman rule, Woolf (1994) also assumes that the populations eventually became Romans. The notions of ‘becoming Greek’ and ‘becoming Roman’ are simplified in modern scholarship. As shown above, architecture in the Roman East was not really ‘Roman’. Instead, complex processes of acculturation took place. Instead of being culturally ‘Hellenized’ or ‘Romanized’, the cultural landscape in Palestine became a more hybrid product.

The material culture of other ethnic groups was appropriated by Jews and given Jewish meaning within the context of Jewish culture. For example, although Graeco-Roman elements were used in the architecture of the Temple Mount, Jews still saw it as a Jewish temple. The Italian style theatre in Sepphoris might have been used to show Jewish dramas rather than Graeco-Roman ones (see below). Second Style wall paintings have been discovered in Herod’s palaces and elite houses in Jerusalem, but they did not have any human or animal images as those in Pompeii. The practices and perceptions towards an object by an Italian in Rome might have been different from a Jew in Palestine. Although Herod had substantial opportunities to make contact with Italian upper classes and architects during his stays in Rome, the architectural styles of his constructions were not as the same as those in Italy. As Bourdieu (1977) argues, there are divergences in the practice and perception of culture, even within the same society. Individual perceptions and acts towards a particular cultural practice are shaped by one’s experience of that particular exercise rather than following the totality that modern scholars always assumed. Therefore, no system of normative rules existed outside an individual’s history. People’s practices and perceptions of culture are shaped by social practice, but at the same time individuals are shaping the practice. Graeco-Roman material culture was spread to Palestine. But it did not mean that all Jews shared the same perceptions towards foreign culture. It thus explains why Herod was able to build an imperial cult centre in Golan but not in Judaea and Galilee. Similarly, gentiles in and around Palestine had different attitudes towards the Jews. For example, those in Caesarea, Ashkelon and Scythopolis all participated in the massacres of Jews during the First Jewish Revolt, whereas those in Jerash chose to protect the Jewish members of the city (BJ 2: 479-80). As mentioned in the previous chapter, Herodian constructions and urbanization produced a hybrid landscape. But Jews in different regions and religious sects had different understandings of the transforming landscape in Palestine, especially under the atmosphere of the polarization of Jewish beliefs in the Late Second Temple Period.

As Jones (1997; 1998: 33-4) argues, there is not always a one-to-one relationship between material culture and identity. Moreover, not all types of material culture should be classified in terms of ethnicity, given that they might have also been symbols of gender, class or age (Meskell 2001: 187-8). Some types of material culture might also be utilitarian. Meskell criticizes a phenomenon in the practice of archaeology, where archaeological objects are always categorized according to predetermined labels and ancient people are placed into issues of Western taxonomies. The Jewish population in early Roman Palestine seemed to lack a material culture that could be used as ethnic symbols to contrast themselves with gentiles. There are thus difficulties in defining an early Roman Jewish site if archaeologists only rely on ethnical items. As Reed (2000: 44) states, only chalk vessels, stepped plastered ritual baths, secondary burials with ossuries in loculi tombs and bone profiles that lack pork help in the identification of a Jewish site. However, these items were not used by ancient Jews to emphasize their ethnical or religious identities. Instead, they are physical materials

Notwithstanding such diversity in society in early Roman Palestine, it is certain that the adoption of Graeco-Roman culture did not change Jewish ethnic identity. There is no evidence to support the Romanization of ethnical identity, 56

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

or the transformation from being Jews to ‘Romans’. Although certain types of Graeco-Roman elements appeared in the hybrid cityscape produced by Herod, Jews understood the meanings of space in terms of their own culture and religion. Analysing the perceptions of space in different sects is a vast project. But two general themes were common among all classes of Jews and thus characterize the Jewish understanding and produce the meanings of space: rules of purity and Jewish identity in contrast to gentiles.

The Court of Israelites The Court of Priests The area between the porch and the Altar The Sanctuary The Holy of Holies.

Developing Jeremias’ idea, Malina (1981: 139) has further argued that the Temple symbolized the condition and location of God-human interaction according to the level of holiness. Her model was based on three zones representing places of human assembly, God’s space and the zone of interaction in between as well as the surrounding area of those who were not God’s people (ibid: 140).

Purity and space In terms of Judaism, impurity can be briefly categorized as ritual and moral impurity. This classification was accepted by most of the population in Palestine except for the Essenes who saw them as closely related. For most of the Jewish population, ritual impurity was a common occurrence and could happen to everybody, whereas moral impurity only occurred in sinful people. Ritual impurity, commonly described in Leviticus 11-15 and Numbers 19, resulted from direct and indirect contact with natural processes including childbirth, disease, and genital discharges as well as contact with the corpses of humans and certain types of animals. This type of impurity was natural and almost unavoidable. It was not classified as a sin, given that it did not result from sin. The consequence of ritual impurity was therefore not permanent. A ritually impure individual could be purified through bathing and waiting. Resulting from sin, moral impurity was considered as defiling and led to the expulsion of the People from Israel. There was no purification rite to cleanse an individual from moral impurity. Instead, compensation, punishment and exile were the consequences.

Fig. 63. The symbolic relationship between God and people in the Jerusalem Temple, after Malina (1981: 140). Under such a scheme, Jeremias’ classification of concentric circles can be further put into Malina’s (ibid: 141) space category: Symbolic space category Mixed nature: clean, unclean and abominations Mixed culture: clean or unclean, but no abominations Zone A: Space of God’s people: assembly space

Purity laws played an important role in shaping Jewish classifications of space. In Jewish eyes, space was categorized into different levels of purity, with the extremes of holiness and sinfulness. The Temple Mount was the centre of such a purity system. The structure of the Temple was composed of different courtyards, and each of them represented a different level of purity. The further into the courtyard, the more holy it was. The inner courtyards were narrower and enclosed by high walls; the level of holiness and the limitation of accessibility thus increased at the same time, with the Holy of Holies as the dwelling place of Yahweh where it was impossible for anyone except the High Priest to be contact with him (Richardson 1988: 25). In examining the location of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and the world, Jeremias (1967: 79) claims that nine different concentric circles of purity surrounded the Holy of Holies. The sequence starts from the outer most to the inner ones: 1. The land of Israel 2. The city of Jerusalem 3. The Temple Mount 4. The terrace that gentiles could not pass 5. The Court of Women

Threshold of God’s space Zone B: Space of interaction Final limits of man’s space Zone C: God’s space

Temple structure Outside the Holy Land In the Holy Land replicated by Jerusalem, the holy city Temple Mount and courts of a. Gentiles (strangers and sojourners in the land) b. (Israelite) women c. Israelites Altar and laver Table and seven-branched candlestick Curtain before the sanctuary Porch Holy Place Holy of Holies

The centre of the cosmos in Jewish thought was thus replicated in the Temple (Parker Pearson & Richards

57

was further supported by the absence of a gentile court in the old Tabernacle in Exodus 25-27, Solomon’s Temple in 1 King 6-7, and the visionary Temple complex in Ezekiel 40-48. The arguments amongst different sects of Judaism thus show that interpretation of space became a discourse related to sacred activities and the idea of holiness.

1994: 12), and the relationship between God and people linked by cleanliness. Under such a scheme, the different levels of purification and types of people were defined. As Levine (1994: 244) suggests, the religious ambience of Jerusalem and the Temple was characterized by exclusion and separatism. A social hierarchy was thus widened in Jewish society with people who were more ritually clean coming closer to God.

The Essenes in Qumran give us another perspective on purity laws. As stated earlier, the Essenes did not separate ritual and moral impurity. The Qumran Essenes set themselves apart from the crowd and lived in the desert as a means to avoiding the sinful world which would make the Qumran members ritually and morally impure. In the monastery, members insisted strictly on purity, as shown in the contents of the scrolls and an installation of large number of ritual baths. According to the Damascus Document (CD) 10: 12, water could be used for purification. The baths’ positions signified the importance of cleanliness before certain activities. The ritual bath at the north-west entrance to the main building became a stage to purify oneself from the outer world before coming into the sacred building. In addition, in each bath there was a divider built at the top of the cistern steps to mark the entrance and exit to the ritual bath, and to separate clean and unclean (Bartlett 1997: 84). The ritual baths next to the dining hall represented a stage to purify oneself before participating in the holy meal. This meal was especially signified through the religious symbol of the dining room marked by its length and its orientation towards Jerusalem (Betz & Reisner 1993: 58). Moreover, the uncleanness of outsiders was particularly emphasized by the community. According to 1QS 5: 13-14, outsiders were not allowed to touch the Essenes members in Qumran, given that the outsiders had not been cleansed of their wickedness. Therefore, as stated in 1QS 5: 13, people were not pure unless they converted from wickedness. They were also banned from the community food, consumed only by righteous persons (e.g. 1QS 7: 23, 15-16; 8: 16-18; CD 9: 21). 1QS 5: 13 thus points out the linkage between ritual and moral impurity. Distinctions between the two types of purity was rare in Qumran. Sinners were considered to be ritually impure, and their ritual impurity resulted from their sins.

Nevertheless, attitudes towards the categorization of purity laws varied in Jewish society. First of all, not anyone chose to observe non-priestly or priestly purity. Among individuals who followed the rules, their interpretations of laws were highly selective. For example, although some Jews were opposed to the eagle Herod put on the Temple because it was against the image taboo in Jewish law, Goodenough (1956: 219-32) argues that many Jews also found it acceptable. In particular, it was probably a Mesopotamian solar eagle used to symbolize royalty and divinity rather than a symbol of Rome (ibid: 122-8). Moreover, although it was forbidden to use Roman coins with the emperors’ image to pay the Temple tax, the Tyrian shekel actually bore representations of Tyche or Melqart who were respectively the Graeco-Roman goddess of Luck and the king-god of Tyre (Bond 1996: 159). Bond (ibid: 260) thus stresses that first century Jews also had a certain degree of tolerance towards pagan symbols. Moreover, this phenomenon also shows that interpretation of laws varied in first century BC and AD Palestine. The Jewish categorization of space could be selective and divided. A direct example of selective interpretation was the Hasmoneans’ attempt to prevent the impure half-Jew Herod coming into Jerusalem which they saw as the Holy City. Nevertheless, there were no laws forbidding gentiles entering Jerusalem. Jewish opinions were divided about the proper area of the Temple. This question is especially raised in modern scholarship about Jesus’ action in cleansing the Temple (Matthew 21: 12-6; Mark 11: 12-18; Luke 19: 45-8; John 2: 12-6). The arguments about the meaning are not discussed here (for the details, see Collins 1999), but the simplest explanation for Jesus’ action was that the Temple was a holy place; although the selling of pigeons and money exchange were related to offerings, one should not turn the Temple into a market. Klausner (1925: 314-5) pays particular attention to a passage from the Mishna, Berakot 9.5: “a man should not behave himself unseemly while opposite the Eastern Gate (of the Temple) since it faces toward the Holy of Holies. He may not enter into the Temple Mount with his staff or his sandal or his wallet, or with the dust upon his feet, nor may he make of it a short by-path; still less may he spit there.” Klausner thus claims the Pharisees did not permit the selling of animals and money exchange in the Temple even in the outer court. He shows that the Tosephta version of this passage also has an additional warning that people should tie up their coins in handkerchiefs. But the Sadducees controlled the Temple and might not have considered the outer court too holy to forbid activities for sacrificial purposes. The Sadducees’ interpretation of the Temple

The Essenes’ inseparable view on moral and ritual impurity characterized their attitudes towards the Temple. As the priestly class was seen to be morally corrupt, the original holy Temple was also defiled and could no longer be a proper place for worship. As the Essenes insisted that one must be in a pure state in order to pray in the place of meeting (CD 11: 22), they retreated from the corrupted Jerusalem and built a monastery as a new and holy place of worship. Archaeological excavation in the Hasmonean palace at Jericho revealed a synagogue structurally similar to the meeting hall of the Qumran monastery (Rapuano 2001). The discovery implies that the Qumran monastery might have contained a synagogue. Functioning similarly to Diaspora and other Palestinian synagogues, the synagogue at Qumran might have been used as an alternative to the Temple, even though the notion behind the Essenes’ choice of 58

Pharisaic promotion of non-priestly purity in dietary law increasingly spread amongst the public (Regev 2000: 180-4).

worshipping in a synagogue was quite different from other Jews. Jews worshipping in synagogues outside Jerusalem did not reject the Temple, but it was only because of the problem of distance that they could not attend the Temple every week. The Qumran Essenes, however, might have treated the monastery as a new and holy place for worship that could no longer take place in Jerusalem. But there is no evidence for sacrifice in Qumran. The Essenes did not reject the Temple, but only the practice there. They still desired to take over the Temple and convert it into their ideal form.

The Pharisees particularly set purity boundaries by keeping a distance from ritually and immorally impure people as a means to maintaining their cleanliness. Their method of ritual impurity was different from the Qumran Essenes, who were separated from the world in the Judaean desert. The Pharisees insisted on living in populated areas where they could display their ritual power to the public. In particular, many Pharisees were involved in the struggle of religious debates with the Sadducees and the priests in the Temple. This idea of pollution was used by religious elites to reinforce their power through their attempts to influence people’s behaviour. As Douglas points out,

The undifferentiated view towards moral and ritual impurity seems to have only existed in Qumran. Priests, Pharisees and commoners all paid different levels of attention to ritual purity. For the Temple priestly class, their greatest concern was probably the purity of the Temple. Purity was an indispensable element for a priest to serve in the Temple sanctuary and for a common Jew to come into the Temple area. That the priests had to be kept ritually pure is evident in the ritual bath building next to the western wall of the Temple Mount. Moreover, there was a narrow subway for a priest to go to the Temple precinct to avoid being polluted by the crowd. In Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10: 25-37), the priest and Levite refused to touch the body of the Jewish victim who they thought was dead; it was assumed that the priests were heading for Jerusalem for their Temple duties. Off-duty priests might have lived and had their training in Jericho. Netzer (1982: 118) claims that the large number of ritual baths in the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho indicates the abundance of priests there. Moreover, clean spring water was strictly separated from that already used in the miqvaot and the swimming pools (ibid: 117). The emphasis on ritual purity was thus evident in the ritual baths in the Hasmonean High Priests’ residences. The two priestly class persons in Jesus’ parable might have attempted to avoid ritual impurity. Similarly, the priestly class would also avoid going to places where they would become ritually impure in order to guarantee their pure state when coming into the Temple. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that priests promoted other types of purity laws apart from the priestly purity related to Temple service.

“… people try to influence one another’s behaviour… the ideal order of society is guarded by dangers which threaten transgressors. These danger-beliefs are as much threat which one man uses to coerce another as dangers he himself fears to incur by his own lapses from righteousness… the whole universe is harnessed to men’s attempt to force one another into good citizenship” (1966: 3). Therefore, since cleanliness was related to status, the attempt of keeping purity was not only to keep oneself godly, but more importantly to raise the sect’s status and religious power in Jewish society (Douglas 1973: 141). As the Temple was a symbol of purity, each sect attempted to define its relationship with the Temple by keeping their own version of ritual purity (Neusner 1973: 33). The promotion of non-priestly purity thus granted the Pharisees a role as the leaders and authorities of certain religious practice and consequently they gained social power from the public who followed their rules (Regev 2000: 195-200). Consequently, the power of space was created with the ritually clean places associated with powerful groups and the unclean places with unclean people. For example, this ideology formed a boundary to separate the leprous from the public. Nevertheless, the effect of the Pharisaic promotion should not be over-emphasized. There is no evidence that all the Jewish population strictly followed the Pharisees’ teaching. Jewish commoners might not have necessarily followed ritual purity laws, as long as they did not need to visit the Temple. Although the Torah (Exodus 23: 17; Deuteronomy 16: 16) states that a Jew should visit the Temple three times a year, obviously not all Jews strictly observed this rule. It seems that many Jewish commoners believed that ritual purity could easily occur and was unavoidable. If one did not need to go to the Temple, being ritually pure was not necessary. This might explain why not all Jewish households contained ritual baths, as many Jews believed that there was no need to keep oneself ritually pure all the time. This phenomenon can explain the willingness of some Jews to move to the Tiberias which was built over a cemetery (AJ 18: 36-8).

Apart from the purity laws exercised in Temple service, at the same time non-priestly purity was increasingly promoted in Jewish society. Non-priestly purity was actively discussed by the Schools of Hillel and Shammai in the time of Herod. The Pharisees showed particular concerns on dietary law. This is not only manifested in the historical record but also in the archaeological discoveries of vessels made of chalk or soft limestone. According to the Mishnah (Kelim 10: 1), the use of stone vessels would avoid contamination as they could be washed and used again if they became unclean. But an earthenware vessel had to be broken if it was not ritually cleaned. The production of such vessels also became a flourishing industry in Jerusalem (Magen 1994). Many of the earliest finds of stone vessels are dated to the time of Herod, which corresponds to the rise of the Hillel and Shammai Schools. This correlation thus suggests that the 59

their world location in the first century AD, that the Jubilees’ notion re-appeared in Rabbinic literature suggests a continuity in this belief, especially when Jews were in a similar situation dominated by a foreign power.

Tiberias palace, with its animal images (Life 65-6), also became an unimportant matter to Jewish commoners. The ritually impure space in Tiberias only caused problems to religious classes, who therefore avoided the place.

Immoral behaviour according to Jewish religion and traditions played a role in the formation of anti-gentile ideology, but its importance should not be overemphasized. It is important to stress that Jews did not expect gentiles to observe purity laws (Klawans 2000: 44). Although in Ezra 6: 21; 9:1, 11-14 and Nehemiah 13: 30 there are examples of the Jewish expulsion of gentile wives, Klawans (ibid: 44-6) argues that it was because the idolatrous gentiles they married led the Israelites astray and subsequently ritually impure. Little was said about the impurity of all gentiles and therefore Jews did not expect that gentiles should behave as morally as God’s chosen people should. Moreover, the worship of pagan deities was common in gentile cities in both Palestine and the Mediterranean world. Diaspora Jews particularly needed to get used to the pagan environment where they were minorities. What concerned Jews most was the danger of defilement of the Temple and the Holy Land. But not every part of Palestine was seen to be holy. The Holy Land seemed to be confined to Judaea proper where Herod did not build any imperial cult centre. Although pagan cults were located outside Judaea, it did not mean that Jews were not opposed to gentile religions. Jews still saw these places as symbols of idolatry. Psychologically these places were immoral, idolatrous and polluted. Some extreme Jews might even have avoided entering a gentile city. A sharp distinction between gentile and Jewish space was consequently formed with the former contradictory to Jewish beliefs.

Jewish- gentile relationships and space The status as God’s people was the most distinctive element of Jewish identity. As Jospe (1994: 135) explains, Jews in antiquity did not feel superior to others or impose their will to dominate non-Jews. Jospe’s observation overlooks the Hasmonean Judaization policy which forced many gentiles to convert to Judaism. But Jospe (ibid: 127) also points out that the moral principal of ‘chosenness’ was ‘an internally-directed Jewish responsibility to live in a certain way, based on Torah, and the promises of divine blessing are conditioned upon Israel’s fulfilling those covenantal responsibilities’. This moral belief of responsibility as God’s chosen people was embedded in the minds of Jews. But unlike Jews in the Persian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods, Jews in early Roman Palestine increasingly denied that foreign rule was God’s punishment for their sins. Under the Hellenistic monarchies, the Jews obeyed foreign government until the Seleucids’ violation of the Temple. In the early Roman period, with the aim of bringing back the glory of the Davidic kingdom, most Messianic beliefs in the Herodian period were highly political (Aberbach & Aberbach 2000; Idinopulos 1991). Many people no longer believed that God would put his people under foreign rule. The Essenes put the responsibility of the sin only on to the Jewish ruling class in the Temple but not on the general public. Jewish autonomy under the Hasmoneans was subsequently transformed into rebellious notions under Herodian rule.

Buildings of entertainment including theatres and hippodromes are clear examples of ‘foreign’ buildings in Herodian Palestine. These places were surely seen as ‘new’ given that they first appeared in Palestine in the Herodian period. After Herod constructed the entertainment complex in Caesarea-Maritima, he introduced Roman games including chariot races and gladiatorial competitions (AJ 15: 267-76). The Jewish reaction towards Roman games can only be found in Talmudic literature where the rabbis responded differently (Weiss 1996; 1999). Although it is always assumed that rabbis were opposed to games and spectacles, it is clear that Jews did frequently attend them in the second half of the second century AD (Weiss 1996: 444-5). Nevertheless, the Jewish attitude towards the games in the second century was only formed after the speedy imposition of foreign culture following the Second Revolt. In first century BC Palestine, these buildings were foreign to both gentiles and Jews who had not been to other Graeco-Roman cities overseas (Segal 1994: 5); the bloody games obviously aroused a Jewish negative response (AJ 8: 274-6).

As God’s chosen people, a sense of centrality amongst gentiles was created in Jewish minds. This centrality was reflected in the Second Temple Jewish view about their position in the world. The Jewish idea about the central location of Jerusalem in the world is first mentioned in Jubilees. In Jubilees, Mount Zion was the navel of the earth and Mount Sinai the centre of the desert. Nevertheless, this concept was not Jewish or Semitic in origin. Instead, it was borrowed from the contemporary Greek idea that Delphi was the omphalos of the world (Alexander 1997: 149). In early Ionian maps, the world was depicted as a circular disc with Delphi as the midpoint surrounded by the continents of Europe, Asia and Libya. Alexander (1997: 149-51) claims the similar date between the Hasmonean revolt and the Jubilees map in the mid-second century BC is more than coincidence. The Jubilees map reflected an anti-Greek political protest emphasizing the centrality of two holy mountains. This symbolic idea was supported by the creation of a large Israel through the deliberate enlargement of Jewish territory over non-Jewish neighbours (ibid 151). Although there is silence about the Jewish view towards

Nevertheless, it is important to stress that a negative Jewish perception of gentile places was not the same everywhere. This variation was particularly influenced by different levels of religious notions. Judaea and Galilee 60

obviously stood at the side of the gentile residents of the city and protected them against the rebels (BJ 2: 458-60); the Jews were killed only because the gentiles did not trust them. Rich Jews apparently showed more concern towards protecting their property than overthrowing Roman power. After experiencing the pain of the revolt in the early first century AD, Sepphoris also refused to join the revolt party. It is evident that not all Jews kept apart from gentiles; some of them lived side-by-side without major conflicts. It is true that anti-gentile ideology was a reason for the Jewish revolt, but it was never the whole case.

were especially strong in resistance to pagan religions, given that the composition of the population there was predominantly Jewish. Information about Perea is not as sufficient as for other parts of Palestine, but it is known that the area was mainly settled by Jews, which thus explains the lack of pagan temples in the area. But in the Golan there was a more mixed population than in Galilee, Judaea and Perea. Therefore, the religious balance was more varied within the region. In Gamala, the discovery of a synagogue implies the existence of religious class, although its strength is uncertain. Moreover, the character of Gamala as a rebellious stronghold in the First Revolt further strengthens the argument that the community was relatively strongly Jewish and perhaps with a political Messianic vision. Nevertheless, according to the Gospels (Matthew 8: 2834; Mark 5: 1-20; Luke 8: 26-38), where Jesus drove demons out of a man’s body and transferred them to a group of pigs, a weak religious atmosphere was expected in this settlement. First of all, pork consumption was forbidden in Jewish law. Although pigs might have been sold to surrounding gentile populations, the keeping of forbidden animals would still be opposed by religious groups, as evidenced by the lack of pork in many Jewish settlements. The exact location of the site is uncertain from the Gospel record, which respectively located the event at Gadara (Matthew 8: 28) and Gerasa (Mark 5:1; Luke 8: 26). McRay (1991: 166-168) believes that the settlement where the event took place was around Tell elKursi, 9 miles south-east of Tell Hum, given that it is the only spot on the entire eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee where there is a steep bank coming into the lake. Overall, some settlements were apparently less religious than others, and the mixed population provided such a background not found in Galilee, Judaea and Perea. When Herod decided on the construction of an imperial cult centre in Banias, he must have expected less opposition there from the Jewish population in Golan.

In many cities in Palestine, as shown in Chapters 3 and 4, foreign architecture was imposed on existing settlements, but not all these new places were disliked by Jews. More correctly, the focus should be activities within a building rather than the building itself. Sepphoris is a clear example of how foreign architecture was imposed on a Jewish settlement but created harmonious results. The date of the theatre in Sepphoris is still debated, but there is still a substantial chance that it was built by Antipas in the early first century AD. It was the first time that a theatre was built in Jewish Galilee. The composition of the Jewish population in Sepphoris was reflected in the discovery of a large number of ritual baths in the city as well as its role as a centre in the AD4 revolt. In the theatre, it was possible that Jewish dramas were played. It is questionable whether Greek plays were shown or not, given that they were always full of pagan content and Greek mythology. Instead, Jewish plays were the possible entertainment. Jewish drama flourished in Alexandria and was subsequently exported to Palestine. Only fragments of these Jewish dramas have been reserved in other literature records. The known Jewish plays in Alexandria include ‘On the Jews’ by Theodotus, ‘On Jerusalem’ by Philo’s, both the epic poet, and ‘The Leading Out’ by Ezekiel the tragedian (Nickelsburg 1984: 118-30). Although the practice of Jewish drama had its roots in Greek culture, the content was still Jewish and acceptable to Jews. The surrounding area must have been influenced by the cosmopolitan character of Sepphoris. Batey (1984: 563; 1992: 59-60) claims that Jesus’ use of the word ‘hypocrite’ (Matthew 6: 1-5), which means actor, might have originated in the context of drama. Jesus’ choice of this word might have been influenced by the dramatic activities in the Galilean capital which was only a few miles away from his home at Nazareth. As Meyers (1976; 1977; 1995) argues, Lower Galilee was cosmopolitan in character in the first century AD, through its function as the crossroad of the region with two important capitals, Sepphoris and Tiberias. Although Galilee was a predominantly Jewish area (Meyers 1992; 1995; Freyne 2000: 107-8), some forms of foreign and Diaspora cultures still found ways to integrate into the Jewish society in Palestine.

It is dangerous to over-generalize Jewish anti-gentile notions in some gentile cities. According to Josephus (BJ 2: 479-80), Jews in cities such as Gerasa, Sidon and Apamea lived well with their pagan neighbours and became parts of the communities there. Observing that the Jewish community was not a marginal phenomenon in the Roman Empire, Rajak (1992) argues that it is inappropriate to speak of high boundaries between Diaspora Jews and their neighbours. Cohen (1993) also claims that it was hard to distinguish the appearance of Diaspora Jews from gentiles, given that they were assimilated in both languages and clothing. Goodman (1990) also argues that no institutions, except for the Roman special taxation for Jews after AD70, played an official role in distinguishing the Jewish status of a person. Therefore, it was difficult to distinguish a Jew from a gentile without investigation beyond appearance. And in Palestine, the division between Jews and gentiles should not be over-exaggerated. Obviously, not all Jews agreed to participate in the AD66 rebellion. The supporters were mainly from the less educated and poorer classes. More educated and richer individuals were opposed to riots. Wealthy Jews in Scythopolis

Rajak (1985) has challenged the assumption that gentiles were always more tolerant than Jews, claiming that the intensity of anti-Semitism was no less than the Jewish anti-gentile position. Gentiles particularly disliked what they recognized as Jewish exclusivism. Moreover, the 61

Caesarea Maritima probably served as the most obvious example of Jewish attitudes towards pagan religion. With a temple to Augustus, Herod obviously built this city for the gentile population in Palestine. But the cult co-existed with a large Jewish population in the city. When there was a debate about who was the real owner of the city, Jews argued that the city was theirs given that it was built by a Jewish king. The debate over the problem of ownership thus showed that Jews were more concerned with the political aspect of Caesarea Maritima than the religious matter. The case of Tiberias offers another example of the relative importance of the political aspect in Jewish eyes. Tiberias was a Graeco-Roman city deliberately built for Jews, but Antipas’ palace in the city was packed with animal images (Life 65-6) and the city was built on top of a cemetery (AJ 18: 36-8). These aspects were seriously attacked by religious groups in Palestine. Nevertheless, many Jews still settled there given that Herod Antipas provided many benefits to the new settlers. In view of this compromise, it is certain that the settlers were of poor class. Although there were different opinions on the purity laws as discussed earlier, people’s willingness to comply with Herod’s offer indicated that questions of living were more important than religion, at least in the eyes of some Jews.

judicial autonomy and the request for transporting the Temple tax also created inconveniences in public decision making in the polis (ibid: 29). Above all, the idea of an invisible God was extremely strange to gentiles whose temples had to contain statues of deities (ibid: 30). The population in the Graeco-Roman world was not totally ignorant of Jewish history. According to Siker (1987), Abraham was well known amongst GraecoRoman writers for his wisdom and righteousness, his role as a significant ruler, and his astrological and philosophical expertise. But the Jews still did not enjoy the privilege of being a civilization. As Yavetz (1983) argues, anti-Semitism in the Graeco-Roman world should only be seen as an example of views about barbarians due to Jewish self-imposed segregation and radical religious rites such as circumcision, strange dietary laws and the Sabbath. Yavetz also points out that such views towards barbarians were also common in the way different Greeks described each other. Therefore, antiSemitism should be seen as contempt rather than hatred. Nevertheless, Yavetz’ idea sounds convincing only in the Diaspora world where many Jews integrated into local communities. In Palestine, however, tension between Jews and gentiles still occurred. However, Jewish and gentiles aggression towards each other, as in Fuks’ (2000) case study of Ashkelon, should be viewed in political terms. In Ashkelon, Jewish and gentile relations were highly influenced by politics. Fuks (ibid: 45) agrees with Stern’s saying that both Ashkelon and the Hasmonean alliance with the Ptolemies was an indirect reason why the Hasmoneans did not invade Ashkelon, the only coastal city south of the Carmel which survived the Hasmonean revolt. In the early Roman period, diplomatic relations between Ashkelon and Herod also indirectly led to the Ashkelonians’ peaceful relations with Jews until the AD66 revolt. Before the construction of Caesarea Maritima, Ashkelon was probably Herod’s departure point on the coast, as evidenced by his palace there (ibid: 48). There were complex reasons behind the Jewish attack on Ashkelon and the Ashkelonians’ massacre of 2500 Jews in the city during the Jewish revolt (BJ 2: 477), but Smallwood (1981: 301) believes that the Roman armies in the city rather than the gentile residents were the targets of the Jews. It was Ashkelon’s fear of Jewish attack that caused their attack on them.

Although the Messianic vision played a role in the Jewish revolt, day-to-day religious conflicts in Palestine were not the only reason that triggered riots. Instead of religious fundamentalism, the main cause for the Jewish unrest should be attributed more to political and nationalistic reasons (Aberbach & Aberbach 2000; Idinopulos 1991; Rappaport 1981: 82) along with other social problems such as debt and poverty (Goodman 1982; 1987). The opposition between Jews and gentiles was embedded in the Hasmonean conquest of gentile cities on the coast and in the Decapolis. It was this historical memory which caused such animosity that was uncommon in other parts of the Graeco-Roman world.

The continuity of Jewish identity Herodian constructions and urbanization dramatically transformed the cultural landscape of Palestine and created a hybrid landscape. Although Graeco-Roman elements were used in architecture, Jews still perceived the new and foreign architectural elements in terms of their own religion and culture. Under Roman rule, the Jewish worldview and meanings of space were produced in a Jewish context. The urban space created by the Herodian builders was not passively perceived. Instead, social and cultural meanings were actively produced through people as ‘being-in-the-world’, a term proposed by Heidegger (1962). This ‘inherent approach’ to the perceptions of landscape (Johnston 1988: 61) emphasizes that meanings are only created in people’s experience (Cosgrove 1984; Olwig 1993; 1996; Thomas 1996). Landscape is a “particular cognitive and symbolic ordering of space” (Ingold 1993: 152; also Bender 1999).

There is no evidence that Jewish dislike of gentile cults caused any violence. Although Goodman (1987) devotes a chapter in his book to the religious and ideological causes of the Jewish revolt (ibid: 76), he also claims that there are many limitations for ascribing it as the sole reason for the revolt, particularly when the polarization of sectarianism hardly formed a unified idea and action that could cause such a large scale uprising. Jews did not interfere with gentile religious matters unless they violated the Temple and the Holy Land. When Herod introduced the imperial cult to Palestine, Jews only criticized and questioned Herod’s religious policy. But Herod gave an excuse that he had to comply with the order from Augustus. Jews and the imperial cult in 62

Jewish identity was based on descent from Jewish parents. The cases of Herod and Paul showed that there was a differentiation between ‘real Jews’ and ‘half-Jews’. The issue of the internal diversity in Jewish society is a complex one and thus is not discussed any further here. But it has been shown that the Jewish ethnicity was strongly embedded in the Jewish consciousness.

In Harvey’s (1985) study of the meanings of the Basilica of the Sacré Coeur in Paris, he assesses the diverse and changing meanings of the building in different political environments at different times. The structural meanings of landscape thus must be contextualized in specific time and space (Bender 1993: 2). Although the Herodian architecture was imposed by the government, its specific meanings were produced in the strong religious atmosphere of Late Second Temple Palestine. The Jewish symbolic meanings towards landscape were characterized by different religious interpretations as well as their perceptions of their position in the world in relations to their ethnic others. In the Jewish mindscape, the meanings of Herodian architecture only existed in their worldview and subsequently their interpretations of these buildings. Although we are not certain about Jewish perceptions of a specific Herodian building, it is certain that the meanings were the Jewish ‘representations’ of the architectural object. Jewish attitudes and appreciations of Herodian architecture were influenced by the Jewish world view. The significance of the design would not be the same for them as for Italians or for Greeks.

Evidence suggests that ethnicity was a problem in other Near Eastern societies (Millar 1993b; Rajak 2000). On the Phoenician coast, long-term interaction with Greek culture had taken place since the Iron Age. Moreover, cultural changes also occurred even though there were no traces of Greek colonization. Nevertheless, Phoenician cities on the coast preserved a historic identity and culture which cannot be traced back to Greek origins (Millar 1987: 124). Although scholars assume that Hellenization took place aggressively there after the conquest of Alexander the Great, Millar (1983) stresses that Phoenician culture was still highly visible. After the Macedonian invasion, the distinctive character of Phoenician culture was still reflected in many aspects including worship of Phoenician deities and the minting of Phoenician coins. Phoenician identity continued and even spread inland through migrations. According to Josephus (AJ 12: 257-64), a group of Samaritans in the 160s BC identified themselves as Sidonians in Shechem. When Jesus was staying in the territory of Tyre and Sidon, he met a Syro-Phoenician by birth (Mark 7: 26) whom Matthew (15: 22) describes as a ‘Canaanite’. Through the analysis of the distribution of Tyrian semifine ware, Berlin (1997) also shows that the ware might have been used by Phoenicians in the early Roman period to refer to their identity, given that the archaeological distribution of the ware is only confined to the former Phoenician area in the north.

The Jewish worldview, more importantly, reflected the continuation of Jewish ethnicity under the aggressive transformation of culture. The Jewish population was never assimilated ethnically into ‘Roman’. Jewish identity was strong. Although Jews might have looked like gentiles in appearance, they still recognized themselves as Jews rather than Greeks or Romans. Goodman (1990) claims that there was no authority to classify Jews. Even the Temple priests did not exercise power to deny a person was a Jew or not. But the selfawareness of being a Jew existed among Jews themselves. Although gentiles were allowed to convert to Judaism and the Hasmoneans forced some gentiles to do so, these people were classified as ‘half-Jews’, as in the case of Herod who was Idumaean in origin. This internal grading might not have been realized by gentiles. As Momigliano (1975: 120) and Stern (1998) point out, there were many misunderstandings towards each other between Jews and the Roman government, given that they were both new to each other. Central Roman government believed that Herod was a suitable Jewish native to rule over people of ‘his kind’, but they might not have been aware that Herod was only a half-Jew in the eyes of this population. The Jewish population even refused to accept Herod entering Jerusalem, because they believed that his impure blood would pollute the Holy City. Nevertheless, they did not deny him as a Jew, as evidenced from the Jewish claim that Herod was a Jewish king. The ‘half-Jew’ identity was thus specific to Jewish society. In contrast with Judaea, Perea and Galilee, Idumaea remained a distinctive half-Jewish region loyal to Herod, given that they recognized themselves as from the same group as the king. In contrast, Paul, even though coming back from the Diaspora, emphasized that he was “…circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin …” (Philippians 3: 5). More importantly, he claimed he was “a Hebrew of Hebrews” (ibid). Paul’s

Although there were Mediterranean cultural influences on Arabia, the Nabataean population referred to themselves as ‘Nabataeans’ rather than ‘Greeks’ or ‘Romans’. With reference to the opinions of Knauf and Macdonald, Healey (2001) shows three literary examples that reflect on the Nabataean identity. A Greek inscription in the Roman period in Namāra was written by ‘Mushammar … a Nabataean’. In another inscription from Jordan, an individual described himself as a ‘hnbty’, the Nabataean. In Palmyra a cavalryman in the Roman army describes himself as a Nabataean of the tribe of Rawāh. These inscriptions show that at least some Nabataeans still retained their identity after the Roman annexation of AD106. Moreover, Nabataean fineware continued into the third century AD. In Petra, Greek influences on its architecture and sculpture were substantial, but the local character still mixed with Greek culture. It thus gave birth to a new cultural style distinctive in the Mediterranean world. Nevertheless, we should not assume that ethnic groups are identified by common cultural practices and material culture. Jones (1997: 84) defines ethnic groups as “cultural ascribed identity groups, which are based on the expression of a real or assumed culture and common 63

his covenant with Israel and the demonstration to Israelites how to live as God’s people. 3. The Israelites understood themselves to be the people whom God had especially chosen among all nations (Deuteronomy 7: 6-8; 32: 8-9). The election had become a fundamental category of self-definition in the post-exilic period from Ezra onwards (Ezra 910). 4. The Temple was the central focus of Israelite national and religious life before its destruction in AD70. The term ‘Common Judaism’ did not exist in the Second Temple Period, but these beliefs were held by different sects and classes of Jews in the atmosphere of the polarization of Jewish beliefs. These elements were the distinctive elements of Jewish ethnicity and characterized Jewish ethnic boundaries with gentiles.

descent”. However, the commonness was shared only loosely amongst members of an ethnic group because each group had perceived differently the commonly acknowledged symbols. Culture thus should not be assumed as an entity. Shennan (1989: 11) believes that part of the reason for the biased view on culture as an entity, is because they have been regarded as the equivalent to other entities such as tribes, societies and ethnic groups. Within an ethnic group or a society, other sorts of social relations such as gender, religion, class or nation are always emphasized more than ethnicity, given that they are day-to-day aspects that people encounter. Not all norms can be labeled as ethnic in character. For example, except for the matter of the ethnical differences between Samaritans and Jews, the diversification of sectarian Judaism was due to different interpretations of the scriptures and religious practices. It was an internal problem in the Jewish society with little to do with ethnically being Jewish. The change of status, appearance, or forms of material culture might have symbolized internal social relations rather than ethnic identity.

Under Roman rule, Jews did not call themselves ‘Roman’. In Acts 16: 37 and 22: 27, Paul referred to himself as a Roman citizen, a political identity rather than an ethnic one. These two identities did not necessarily clash with each other. Similarly, the promotion to Roman citizenship of the population in Eastern poleis not only added a new identity on top of their polis citizenship, but also incorporated the poleis as part of the Roman Empire (Millar 1993a: 249). In the transformed landscape of early Roman Palestine, Jews continued to retain their ethnic identity.

Nevertheless, Barth (1969: 9-10) argues that “…boundaries persist despite a flow of personnel across them. In other words, categorical ethnic distinctions do not depend on an absence of mobility, contact and information, but do entail social processes of exclusion and incorporation whereby discrete categories are maintained despite changing participation and membership in the course of individual life histories.”

The Herodian dynasty integrated elements common in the Mediterranean world into the cultural landscape in Palestine, but the Jews still perceived their landscape according to their own beliefs and culture. In studies of Romanization, this phenomenon would be interpreted as an indication of changes in ethnicity with the disappearance of native culture and the adoption of Graeco-Roman culture. But in Jewish society, acculturation did not occur as such. Foreign elements in architecture were appropriated by Jewish society with Jewish meanings for the new cultural landscape. There is no straightforward relationship between the change of material culture and ethnicity. Internal diversification within Judaism occurred side by side with the maintenance of ethnic boundaries with other ethnic groups. Jewish ethnic identity remained strong and Jews never claimed themselves to be ethnically ‘Romans’. As mentioned above, Goodman (1998: 4-5) challenged the modern notion that Jews were the only unique race of people in antiquity, stressing that we understand them more because there is a substantial amount of surviving literary evidence. Moreover, the importance of Christianity and Judaism today also lead to research bias on the emphasis of their origins (ibid: 15). Furthermore, Jews were not the only group of people in the empire to rebel against Rome; parallel examples of other peoples who used religious beliefs as encouragement of the rebels can also be found in other parts of the empire (Goodman 1991), such as the revolt of the Bessi in Macedonia in 11BC (Dio 54: 34: 5-7), the uprising in Pannonia in 10BC (Dio 54: 36: 2-3) and the northeast Anatolian revolt in late AD60s (Tacitus Hist 3: 47). Goodman (1998: 3) also

Furthermore, “… ethnic distinctions do not depend on an absence of social interaction and acceptance, but are quite to the contrary often the very foundation on which embracing social systems are built” (ibid: 10). As Banton (1994: 9) has argued, ethnic norms are determined by people’s ideas about which social relations are to be governed by ethnic norms. These symbols of common ethnicity in polyethnic society, according to Barth (1969: 11), must be something that is easily communicable and recognizable, so that each divergent group is able to find commonness with other different groups in the same ethnic society. Sanders’ proposal of ‘Common Judaism’ is probably the most suitable concept of what Second Temple Jews commonly shared. Such a scheme includes God, the Torah, election and the Temple: 1. Although various sects held different beliefs, they all maintained Yahweh was the unique and only God in the world. As Josephus states, ‘God as one is common to all the Hebrews’ (AJ 5:112). 2. The Torah was the representative of Israel, a symbol of God’s favor and his choice of his people. It was

64

points out that without the help of Jewish literature, we can only rely on non-Jewish documents to understand Jewish society, like scholars researching on Roman Britain through historical records such as those of Tacitus, Dio and Suetonius. Although the literary records of other ethnic groups in the Roman world are not as abundant as those for the Jews, their ethnic identities should be treated in the same manner as Jewish ethnicity and should not be oversimplified. The change of culture in early Roman Palestine did not involve a change of ethnicity, and the notion of ethnic Romanization or ‘becoming ethnically Roman’ did not occur to the Jews. We should also assume the continuity of ethnic identities and intra-diversities of other ethnic groups in the Roman world, although the cultural landscape of other provinces also changed substantially under Roman rule.

65

Chapter 6 Urbanization as a means of political control

taken from provinces (ibid), and Wallerstein’s economic model only fits in the Roman Empire in this aspect.

To a certain extent, theories of Romanization are similar to Wallerstein’s (1974) ‘world system theory’ which emphasizes a core and its periphery (Cunliffe 1988; Nash 1987). The central position of Rome and the subordinations of provinces represented this power relationship between core and periphery. The emphasis on centre and periphery is not new. Christaller’s (1966) ‘central place theory’ had already focused on settlement hierarchies as central places with their hinterlands as well as boundaries between different central places. I. Hopkins (1980) also analysed the settlement hierarchy and administrative pattern of post-AD70 Palestine by employing the central place theory. In general, the emphasis of these theories are the network systems formed by places of different hierarchies.

What has attracted archaeologists the most is world empire which comprised a political core and its periphery. But Woolf (ibid) pointed out that the case of Roman Empire does not entirely match Wallerstein’s model. Rome and the provinces were the core and periphery respectively, but there was no semi-periphery to connect them. As Woolf argues, the relationship between core, semi-periphery and periphery only appears in the frontier areas where Roman diplomacy and traders served as agents between the Empire and other groups outside Roman territory; but as Woolf admits, this relationship is more related to the world-empire and external groups. Woolf seems to be too rigid in fitting the Roman Empire into Wallerstein’s political system. The detailed structure of the Empire and its internal diversity was different from Wallerstein’s political system. The core of the Roman Empire was Rome while its periphery was the provinces. But Rome’s control of the periphery was not strict, especially in the late Republic and the early imperial periods, when many ethnic groups were granted autonomy and ruled by local elites approved by Rome. Moreover, Roman laws existed side by side with the native systems. Rome was concerned more with their loyalty, and taxation coupled with the stability of the provinces. Internal matters were largely in the hands of indigenous authorities; only their diplomacy with groups outside the empire was taken away by Rome. The Roman Empire comprised a core with semi-autonomous cells. Instead of ruling directly over an unfamiliar place, Rome believed that the most effective way to govern was to leave local matters to them. Central government in Rome only exercised indirect surveillance to ensure the loyalty and stability of the provinces.

Wallerstein (1974) distinguishes between two types of world systems: economically tied world-economies and politically united world-empires. The former operates with the core of strong states that have advanced technology and sophisticated economic institutions. They are able to extract surpluses from the periphery, which are weaker than the cores and mainly regarded as sources of materials. There is also a semi-periphery forming a link which integrates the core and periphery economically and geographically. But the semi-periphery does not have the political opportunity to become part of the core. Wallerstein’s world-economies thus fit only the now technologically advanced modern societies which have fast transportation and communication links to the world capitalist system. Such conditions did not exist in pre-capitalist societies where each region produced their own needs except luxurious items (Finley 1973). Only limited types of products such as olive oil, wine and fish were transported long distances within the Mediterranean from the Classical period. Moreover, not all nonagricultural products were imported from overseas. Rural industries were able to provide non-agricultural products to cities, but this aspect is often overlooked by scholars (Graf 2001: 480). Champion (1989: 8) points out that the contrast between the luxury and the utilitarian was not an absolute one, given that societies within the empire were self-sufficient only if they did not require external assistance for food. For example, Rome relied heavily on grains imported from North Africa. A certain kind of economic interdependence existed in the Mediterranean (Fulford 1987); the relative cheapness of sea transportation in the Mediterranean was an important way to supply food materials, for instance, for Roman military campaigns in frontier areas (Fulford 1992); but the scale of economic transportation was still far from the modern and globalized one that Wallerstein suggests. Economies were primarily agrarian and regional; they were only loosely integrated into a single system (Woolf 1992: 283). Rome’s main economic concern was taxation

In Woolf’s (1997: 6) analysis of the urbanization of the Roman East, he discovered that the urban network was very hierarchical with a great degree of differentiation between metropolis and cities. This is evident in Woolf’s (ibid) use of Alcock’s (1993) example of Roman Achaia where there was a clear contrast between the size of the metropolitan Corinth and other smaller cities. In the Roman East, there was a lack of middle ranking cities. The development of metropoleis such as Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem further enhanced the contrast. These higher order cities sustained in a relatively rapid speed because they provided higher order services to regions other than their own territories (Woolf 1997: 8). As shown below, the wealth of Jerusalem was rapidly boosted by pilgrimages from Diaspora Jewish communities. Secondly, they had more investments and donations from potential benefactors such as the emperor and his connections as well as private citizens who earned money from the territories of other cities (ibid: 9). For 66

Rome and Italy as privileged centre and the provinces as the periphery; second, as a space of circulation and exchange marked by the development of axial routes and rivers; and third, as a cellular space at a local level with the model of city, or town and its territory. The town/country side relationship thus became the most basic administrative unit of the Empire. In the early first century AD Roman Empire, the maintenance of local order in the eastern provinces was much based on local governmental forms which had already been established in the provinces long before the Romans appeared on the scene (Burton 1999). With surveillance and leaderselection as the main forms of interference, the first century imperial government did not and needed not have to superimpose a ‘revolutionary’ system, one which with the provinces would have been unfamiliar, unless it was necessary to exercise direct rule to ensure loyalty and regional order. This administrative method was not qualified to be a ‘Grand Strategy’ of control, because the imperial government focused on local traditions rather than an imperial policy. Therefore, there were variations in administrative styles throughout the provinces of the Empire. The continuation of many pre-Roman administrative systems led to the multiplicity of political communities which seriously undermined the homogeneity of the Imperium Romanum (Lintott 1993: 41).

example, the fund for constructing the completely new Caesarea Maritima was transferred from Herod’s financial resources in other parts of his kingdom. In contrast to these metropoleis, regular cities mainly served their hinterlands. Their network with lower hierarchy settlements such as villages did not cover an area as wide as that of metropoleis (ibid: 8). Under the Herodian building program, both metropoleis and cities were developed. The former might be recognized as the centres of Herodian territory and important points in the empire, whereas the latter functioned as the basic political units of the Herodian kingdom. The Herodian building program established a dense civic network to establish administrative and economic control. Fortresses and armies in cities were the means to establishing local security. The Herodian dynasty also indirectly interfered in both Judaism and pagan religions. The kingdom’s administrative and economic system can be traced back to the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods, when the cities were the basic units to exercise control. The system continued in the Hasmonean and early Roman periods, but Herod extended the system and built a denser network in order to exercise more effective control over the aspects of administration, the economy, regional security and religion. These aspects of control are analysed in this chapter. The target of the Herodian government was short term, aiming at the immediate result of stabilizing the kingdom. Simultaneously, it was also the hope of central Roman government to keep the stability and loyalty of the periphery. Nevertheless, the aims and methods were short term ones, relying on regional representatives and native elites as the regulators. The role of Rome was limited to the appointment of new representatives and the annexation of regions as provinces. As Braund (1984: 5) argues, given that the Roman administration of the Empire relied on regional co-operation, the relationships between Rome and client kingdoms were not simply conqueror and conquered, but more importantly, Rome intended to maintain ‘friendship’ with them. The maintenance of the empire thus relied on regional initiatives rather than being actively motivated by Rome. This kind of political Romanization, or the keeping provinces under the Roman Empire, was activated by regional powers, while the part of Rome was much more passive.

This political phenomenon lay behind the administration of pre-70 Palestine. Only when the imperial government believed that after Archelaus there was no suitable successor to rule Judaea was the region put under the direct rule of a Roman procurator. After Herod’s death, Palestine was further divided amongst his descendants. This territorial division was Rome’s means to diminishing regional power and possible challenges to her authority. Nevertheless, many gentile cities were granted polis status and were freed from the authority of the Jewish client kings. In addition to political and military surveillance, Rome believed that the increasingly fragmented political landscape could be unified under one factor — loyalty to Rome — which the Imperial authority endeavoured to ensure. Therefore, even though autonomy was granted to cities and client-kingdoms, the Roman government also expected that the poleis would obey the imperial command (Lintott 1993: 41). Only after this chain was broken by the Jewish revolt that most parts of the Herodian kingdom, except that of Agrippa II, came under the new provincial government. Subsequently, direct Roman rule replaced native client king politics.

Administration It is often assumed that there was uniformity in the administrative system of the Empire, which seemed to have followed a set of constant and uniform administrative ‘principles’. But these assumptions are oversimplified and the Roman Empire was not as coherent as many scholars believe it to be. Corbier (1991: 211) summarizes the political-geographical structure of the Roman Empire in the first three centuries in three ways: first, as a provincial and administrative space with

Polis restoration After Pompey’s annexation of Palestine, gentile poleis on the coast of Palestine and in the Decapolis were restored to their former autonomous status which they had lost in the Hasmonean period. As Jones (1937: 258) comments, Pompey not only acted as a missionary of Greek civilization by carrying traditional Roman Republican anti-monarchical policies, but also as a founder of cities 67

accessibility was undermined by its high location and distance from the coast. Whereas the coastal area was ruled in the form of polis system, it is uncertain whether Jerusalem gained polis status or not. Jerusalem was probably the only Jewish city that qualified for such status, while other area in Eretz-Israel remained rural. During the Hasmonean period, the development of the Jewish areas accelerated but the importance of these Jewish regions should not be overemphasized, because there is no evidence that the Hasmoneans were interested in strengthening control over Jewish settlements. However, through the intensification of inland administration, the administrative centralization of Herodian Palestine was further developed from that of Hellenistic Palestine. Only during the Herodian period did some interior settlements suddenly become prominent and where many new cities were established. Without ruling the coastal poleis, Herod concentrated on the urbanization of the interior area, with the aim of creating a dense network of administration and consequently tightening his control over Palestine.

and promoter of Hellenism. John Richardson (1976: 49) points out that cities in provinces were divided into different categories because some of them were more favoured than others. All cities as the basic administrative unit of a province, as Reynolds (1988: 18) argues, were expected to carry on local institutions in order to maintain local order. As Jones (1937: 258) argues, the freeing of cities was a way to weaken native dynasts, because cities were more easily controlled than dynasts who always tended to fight one another; but cities were much smaller in administrative scale than provinces and were generally more concerned with the maintenance of their autonomous status. Former Phoenician and Philistine towns on the coast were freed from the Hasmoneans and so Herod’s financial and political power was sharply diminished, given that the control of these poleis having long traditions of trade simultaneously meant a great source of wealth and the ‘internationalization’ of the Palestinian kingdom. Nevertheless, Herod still did not totally give up the opportunity of making his fortunes from them; therefore he still donated buildings to poleis like Ashkelon and Tyre.

Herodian palace administration Although the right of civic autonomy was restored, their ‘free’ status as a whole still experienced changes. Internal civic administration was in the hands of the polis’ citizens. Some cities were granted the privilege to retain their own laws or become free from garrison and tribute (Lintott 1993: 36-7). But in many situations control of external matters was shifted into the hands of Rome. This change in the polis’ administrative character was not new, since many poleis in the East had long been part of the Hellenistic kingdoms for centuries. Poleis’ relations with Hellenistic monarchic kings were shifting to their relationship with Rome. Moreover, the autonomous status of a polis was not entirely secure, given that the status might be taken away by Rome as a means of punishment and insurance of its loyalty. Although poleis were not entirely autonomous, the general public seemed to show more care for their status as a polis. Therefore, the polis became a subjected institution that had to learn to please Rome.

Since many toparchies, such as Herodium and Jericho, were actually Herodian palaces, direct rule by kings or the kings’ representatives was further strengthened. Although there is no evidence that Herod lived in a particular palace for extended period, it is certain that these palaces functioned as administrative centres where Herodian officials sat. In addition, it was highly probable that these palaces only accommodated officials whom Herod trusted; public opinion seemed not able to reach into the administrative offices of these royal domains. Furthermore, not all Herodian cities possessed territories; for example, the administrative regions of Marissa and Adora were taken away and their toparchy status was replaced by Beth Guvrin and ‘En-Gedi respectively (AJ 14: 364; BJ 1: 269; Avi-Yonah 1977: 96). The political importance of cities like Joppa, Jamnia and Azotus was reduced. Unlike Pompey, Herod attempted to reduce local autonomy of cities rather than to increase it (Jones 1937: 276-7). The authority of the Herodian kingdom was thus enhanced through his direct rule and tight surveillance. After his death, Herod’s kingdom was divided among his descendants; given that the territory of each Herodian ruler had become smaller, more effective control could be exercised.

The Herodian civic network Under Roman permission of localized politics, the administrative system of Herodian Palestine generally followed its Ptolemaic and Seleucid precedents with cities as the basic administrative units (Jones 1938: 85). As in the administration of Ptolemaic Egypt, Herodian Palestine was divided into smaller regions (toparchies); within each toparchy, villages becoming the next-tier of sub-administrative units. During the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods, only the coastal area was given particular attention, whereas inland Judaea was not much developed. Jerusalem was the only important city, but its significance was due to its status as the centre of Judaism. Economically it was a poor city because its

The Hellenistic form of administration is particularly shown in the Herodian palaces as a combination of the king’s residences and administrative centres. This type of administrative form had its origin in Macedonian, Persian and ancient Near Eastern traditions. The centralization of authority was different from the open participation of council members and citizens in the Greek agora and Roman forum. In view of most Herodian cities, palaces were the only places that performed administrative functions. For example, in Jerusalem, Jesus was judged

68

administration became more effective. On the other hand, the reduction of a peripheral power increased the authority of Rome. Palestine was ruled under a greater degree of Roman authority and it was eventually annexed after the AD70. Nevertheless, these different stages in the diminution of regional power could not be called a ‘Grand Strategy’, given that Rome seemed to react to opportunity and particular circumstances, especially when she always had every chance of abolishing the client king system as she did with Judaea. But the imperial government did so only under special circumstances. Nevertheless, under the continuation of Herodian administration and urbanization, the administrative system through the civic network was strengthened, and the Roman concept that Palestine was part of the Roman Empire was further secured.

by Pilate either in the Antonia or in Herod’s palace in the western part of the city (Matthew 27: 11-26; Mark 15: 115; Luke 23: 1-23; John 18: 28-40). Herod’s palace in Caesarea Maritima became the place where the Apostle Paul was imprisoned (Acts 23: 35). The reception hall in the palace was where officials and guests met the king. During the judgment of Paul, Festus and Agrippa II gathered in the assembly hall in the palace (Acts 25: 23). Similar halls have been discovered in most Herodian palaces. Although archaeological excavations have not revealed much about the decoration of these halls, lavish decoration might be expected as a general expression of power and wealth in palace architecture. Herodian palaces were located in cities, strategic places and even in remote areas. Reflected in their monumental architecture, palaces in cities not only functioned as administrative centres but also became symbols of the king’s power. Moreover, many palaces combined the role of a fortress, but lavish decoration and peristyle courts were usual features. Some of them even contained Italian-form bathhouses. Many of these palace-fortresses, especially those located in cities and the toparchies, functioned as administrative quarters, but many of them also served as Herod’s places of refuge. Following the Hellenistic trend among monarchies, Herod built many palaces to ensure that he had sufficient places to escape in case of emergency. In the palaces, he could still enjoy the comfortable life of a king and had certain amount of wealth to spend. Therefore, his palaces were scattered throughout Palestine so that he had enough choices of refuge in different situations.

The Herodian economy The process of Roman urbanization included the creation of new cities, the enlargement and transformation of certain existing cities and the liberation of poleis that had lost their status during the Hasmonean period. Herodian urbanization thus intensified the civic network throughout Palestine with cities as central places and their rural surroundings as hinterlands. The economic relations between cities and countryside were intense. But commercial activities also extended to the crossprovincial and to an empire scale. Although agriculture remained the most basic component of the economy in the ancient world (Finley 1973), cities served as the connecting points between agricultural villages and the wider world in and beyond the empire. Herodian urbanization thus pushed further Palestine into the economic network of the Roman Empire.

Rome’s administrative role in Palestine Obviously, the provincial administrative system was very much localized as Herod chose to continue the preexisting civic pattern as a means of rule. Although one cannot say that intervention did not occur, Roman interference was rather indirect, at least on the administrative pattern as a whole. The most important change was the Roman government’s favour for Herod in preference to the Hasmonean High Priests. Rome probably believed that the anointing of Herod on one hand would make the Jews submit more readily to this Jewish ruler, while on the other hand he would create a compromise between Jews and gentiles (Avi-Yonah 1977: 88). Although Herod still endeavoured to gain favour from Jewish religious groups, that he was supported by Rome as the governor ended the form of combined power in politics and religion that prevailed during the reign of the Hasmonean High Priests. With this split, regional power and threats to central Roman government were reduced. Moreover, the client kingdom was under the surveillance of the Roman procurator, and the emperor had the authority to take away the king’s authority and subsequently annex his land. Therefore, the political power of the client kings was not unlimited. The fragmentation of the province on the one hand decreased the size of each political unit, and as a consequence,

Long distance trade Safrai (1994: 415-35) has argued that early Roman Palestine already possessed an open economy which acquired goods from overseas. Although Josephus (Apion 1: 60-1) states that Palestinian Jews were not as interested in trade as were the sea-board Phoenicians, the increased importation of goods into Palestine occurred. The coastal trade centres served as the importation centres for goods from the Mediterranean. In particular, Caesarea Maritima became the most developed seaport that Herod attempted to use to enhance his fortune and to replace Alexandria as the most flourishing port in the Roman world (Hohlfelder 1992: 76; Holumn & Hohlfelder 1988: 73). Moreover, new inland cities simultaneously turned out to be new markets and centres for mercantile distribution. Sepphoris and Tiberias connected Ptolemais-Acco and Caesarea Maritima with the Sea of Galilee through the middle Lower Galilee. In addition, the 6,000 settlers placed in Sebaste opened up a large market which acquired imported goods. Caesarea-Philippi also became a focal 69

1987: 61). Therefore, there was an increased demand for farms and greater production from each plot of land and so an increased division of land in Herodian Judaea. Although this phenomenon created numerous social and economic problems, such as landless farmers and subsequently bandits (Goodman 1987: 51-75), the increase in production meant that Herod’s tax income from this source must have increased.

point on the route from Damascus to Palestine and the Hauran. Young (2001: 211-2) has argued that the Roman imperial government did not particularly encourage trade given that luxury was seen to be a symbol of moral decay. If this is so, as seen from his vision in promoting trade and increasing the income of his province, Herod’s attitude and policy were thus quite different from the ones of the imperial government. He well understood the considerable profits that trade could bring to his realm which was not particularly wealthy during his early years as a client king. He must know that the wealth of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra through Alexandria in Roman Egypt was one of the most obvious examples of the consequence of trade development. Herod’s income from trade might have been one of the sources for financing his building program (Jacobson 1986: 44).

Keith Hopkins (1980) argued that compulsory taxation in antiquity intensified trade, given that peasants had to sell their products in order to pay taxes. According to Hopkins, peasants no longer planted for self-sufficiency, they also had to care about market demands which affected the choices they made for their type of agricultural products. Whittaker (1990: 111) criticized Hopkins’ model, pointing out the error of Hopkins’ assumption of cash rather than crops as the method of tax payment. In the Greek East, a market economy and monetary system had existed long before the coming of Rome. But Whittaker’s insistence also seems to be oversimplified. As Duncan-Jones (1990: 187-8) pointed out, the situation might have varied. While some provinces could pay in crops, some of them still paid in cash, especially in the poorer provinces. Moreover, Hopkins makes a serious mistake when he claims that taxation in the early Roman period must have been low. In Palestine, tax was directly levied on agricultural products through proportional or fixed quota arrangements (AJ 15: 303), but Goodman (1982; 1987) argues that the heavy burden of tax was the economic reason of the Jewish revolt in AD70.

Herodian urbanization was costly but it seems that the builders expected a return of significant profit. Herod’s intention for commercial development was obvious, as seen not only from his lavish civil constructions in Palestine, but also his donations of buildings outside of his territory, and as far as Greece. The cost of these constructions was high but his donations should not be seen simply as a part of the Graeco-Roman practice of gaining reputation. Instead, as Gabba (1990: 164) argues, Herod gained advantages from those cities which had the closest commercial and political links with Palestine. As a consequence of this, his embellishment of these nonPalestinian cities indirectly benefited the commercial profitability of the Herodian kingdom.

Weber (1976) claimed that ancient cities were consumer units whose income came mainly from taxation and the landlord tenants’ profits of rents in the rural area. Based on Weber’s model, Hopkins (1980) shows the contrast between cities and villages by emphasizing the cities functioning as the organizers of villages and as the transformation centres for crops to cash. However, Finley (1973: 126) was not satisfied with Weber’s model, claiming it isolated cities from a wider world which demanded civic settlements to perform certain functions. Whittaker (1990: 111) also criticized Weber and Hopkins’ over-emphasis on the economic aspects of city, pointing out that cities were only of political and ideological importance. For economic production, cities were no more significant than villages, given that villages rather than cities served as agricultural and industrial centres, whereas industry in cities played only a minor role in the provincial economy (Whittaker 1990: 111; 1995 a: 19-22).

Taxation Through commercial activities in civic centres, duties and tolls were indirectly excised on certain trades and sales, including transit trade (Broshi 1987: 33; Gabba 1990: 162). This source of income was intensified through Palestine becoming the middleman for merchandise from Arabia travelling to the Mediterranean. Hence, the Petra-Gaza Road and the King’s Highway to Damascus subsequently became Herod’s most important source of tax revenue. As Young (2001: 210-2) argues, the only reason why the imperial government did not discourage trade was because of the considerable income from taxation it inherited from the Hellenistic kingdoms. Herod also realized the huge profits of taxation and thus he retained the Ptolemaic and Seleucid strategy of using cities as tax centres.

However, Hopkins’ assumption of the city as the economic organizer is not entirely wrong. Whittaker also seems to have separated politics and economics. Although we should not reduce the role of cities to merely that of consumers, it would still be more convenient for the central government to collect taxes from a limited number of cities rather than from numerous villages. It was true that villages were still the main production centres and in this respect were more

Herod’s other revenues came from agriculture. The Herodian period saw an intensification of agriculture in Judaea. Due to the reforms of the poleis and their territories following Pompey’s campaign, Jews who had previously owned lands in gentile areas in the Hasmonean period were forced to migrate to Jewish areas (Applebaum 1976: 656). The expanding population also demanded more agricultural resources (Goodman 70

distinguished by house structures, storerooms, installations, water-cisterns and irrigation systems (ibid: 140). Wine-presses were also common around Jerusalem. During the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods, the countryside surrounding the Holy City continued to flourish and thus provided part of food requirement for its growing population and the visitors.

important than cities in the agricultural economy, but the administrative function of a city also gave it a role to collect tax from smaller administrative centres in the villages.

Direct Agricultural profits Agriculture became an important source of Herod’s wealth. According to Josephus (AJ 17: 321), Salome derived an annual income of 60 talents from her property in Iamnia, Ashdod and Phasaelis. Applebaum (1977: 377) even suggested that her income should have been more than this. Many scholars have raised questions about the origins of Herod’s finances for his building program. Gabba (1990) suggested that his agricultural profit was sufficient to cover the initial expense. The royal domain was probably cultivated by employed labourers while Herod also granted or rented out his lands. Most rural settlements were concentrated in nuclear villages for reasons of security, water-supply and mutual aid (Applebaum 1977: 363). The amount of available labour and the number of tenants increased because of the situation where many Jewish farmers lost their land under Pompey’s restoration of the cities on the coastal plain, Samaria and Transjordan. Although it is difficult to believe that all Jewish residents were expelled from gentile cities (Kasher 1990: 178), a large-scale migration of the agriculture population subsequently took place and there was a new demand for land and work (Applebaum 1976: 656). But the increased use of land also caused soil erosion (Sperber 1977). Applebaum (1977: 369) believed that agriculture in Palestine provided sufficient food for local markets including gentile cities. It led directly to the commercialisation of the gentile cities in Judaea, whereas the rural area served as the supplier.

A large part of Herod’s income came directly from the agricultural profits of his own possessions. He inherited the King’s land system derived from the Ptolemies. Balsam trees only grew in Jericho and Egypt, and therefore this rare product was profitable (Fiensy 1991: 25). When Jericho was still owned by Cleopatra, Herod was willing to pay a large sum to rent the land (AJ 15: 96; BJ 1: 361); obviously, the profit from the land must have been considerable. Herod even renewed the Hasmonean palaces and built the Third Palace in Jericho; Netzer (1993) has suggested that certain rooms in the palace might have been used for agricultural storage. Therefore, the palaces were not only Herod’s residences, but also the operator of the oasis. In western Samaria, 962 towers have been surveyed by Dar (1986). The large number of field towers dating from the Hellenistic period suggests a centrally organized agricultural enterprise, which implies that the land in Samaria was the King’s property (ibid: 120). Dar suggests that wine was produced in the towers and the industry did not stop until second century AD. The Talmud mentioned much about the ‘King’s Mountain Country’ originally owned by Alexander Jannaeus. Based on T. Shed 7:10, Klein (1939: 42) argues that the area comprised western Samaria, north-western Judaea from Bethel to the mountain east of Caesarea Maritima. In Qawarat Bene Hassan, there were 175-200 family holdings probably settled by Herod, evidenced from a palace of massive stone blocks in the Herodian style (Dar 1986: 230-45). Dar indicated that the total area was covered by 2000 acres plots and 500 acres pasture land. In 25BC, Herod also allocated a plot of land in Gaba to his cavalry veterans. Berenice, Agrippa II’s sister, inherited at least part of the land which Josephus claimed to have a large grain store with Berenice as the central estate (Life 119). Agricultural cities including Phasaelis and Antipatris, were deliberately built to supervise the surrounding farms.

Pilgrimage The largest source of external income for Herod’s kingdom came from pilgrimage. As the centre of Judaism for both Jews in Palestine and the Diaspora, the economic impact of pilgrimage must have been significant given that adult Jewish males were required to visit the Temple three times a year (Exodus 23: 17; Deuteronomy 16:16). Although there is no evidence that all Jews religiously followed this Torah rule, we can still estimate that the number of visitors was considerable. In particular, festivals such as the Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacle attracted extra numbers of Jews. Josephus (BJ 6: 425) claimed there were 2,700,000 male pilgrimages during the Passover in AD66. Jeremias (1969: 84) believed that there were 25,000-30,000 people in Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. Disagreeing with Jeremias’ calculation, Reinhardt (1995) claimed that there were 60,000 to 120,000 people in Jerusalem in the 30s of the first century AD. The figures provided by Josephus and these modern scholars are not necessarily reliable, and they are not discussed any further here. But it is certain that there were a large number of visitors in Jerusalem.

On the Plain of Esdraelon, the Hasmoneans took over a large tract of land that was formerly a Ptolemaic and Seleucid estate. Isaac and Roll (1982: 88) have identified seven Hellenistic settlements probably belonging to the domain. After taking over Palestine, Herod probably possessed the large tract of land there (Fiensy 1991: 31). Although there were few level plains suitable for cultivation around Jerusalem, agricultural terraces about 10 to 20m wide and 150 to 250m long were built on the slopes of hills and in the valleys (Gibson & Edelstein 1985: 139). A large number of these terraced units are 71

Many pilgrims not only became consumers in Jerusalem, but also sold their merchandise which made Jerusalem an important centre of commercial exchange (Broshi 1987: 34). Moreover, extra income came from the Temple tax which could be used for Temple and the civic expenses in general (Mishnah Shekalim 1: 3). Although not all Jews came to Jerusalem, money was still transferred to the Temple from the Jewish population all over the Roman world. The Temple tax was particularly permitted by Julius Caesar and Augustus. Augustus even classified the tax as sacred money; interference with which could be subject to capital punishment (AJ 16: 215).

However, it is only in the Herodian period that there is information about Jews from all over the world gathered in Jerusalem for festival purposes (Goodman 1999; Schwartz 2001: 47). Goodman (ibid: 71) believed the silence of the sources about international pilgrimage in the pre-Herodian periods may not be an accident. Instead, it is highly likely that large-scale international pilgrimage started in the Herodian period under Herod’s promotion. Goodman (ibid: 72) states that Herod was aware of the economic consequences of a large number of visitors to Jerusalem. In particular, the economic resources in early Herodian Palestine had not been fully developed. Jerusalem was the only possession that Herod could promote as a religious centre. Although his building program in Caesarea Maritima and the colonization in the Hauran were respectively aimed at trade and regional security, they indirectly opened two important routes to Palestine from the Mediterranean and Babylon. The relative political stability of Palestine as a part of the Roman Empire also enabled the promotion of pilgrimage that might not have been possible in the unsettled politics of the Hasmonean period.

The economy of Palestine was thus boosted by Herod’s building program and policy of urbanization. The foundation of Caesarea Maritima and the continuing prosperity of the coast created important trade centres that connected inland Palestine with the Mediterranean. Inland trade continued to develop through the development of links with Syria and Arabia. The flow of trade thus produced new sources of taxation. Herod created centres for agriculture through his palace in Jericho and his new cities at Phaselis and Antipatris. These activities produced direct income from the King’s land. Although private agricultural economy was not boosted by urbanization, the increasing number of new urban centres made it more convenient to organize the countryside and collect taxes. However, it was probably the Herodian Temple Mount which provided the largest source of external revenue which in turn also gave birth to other commercial activities. Herod’s program not only increased the tax revenues of the province, but also opened up trade links and opportunities with other important trade centres in the Roman world. Moreover, under such economic development, external income started coming into Palestine, and Herod’s policy thus further opening the economy of Palestine to the Roman Empire.

The Temple was not only Herod’s gift to Judaism, but also a part of his economic plan. The consequences of the gift were probably in Herod’s mind when he planned to invest a large sum for the renovation of the Temple Mount. Herod enlarged the Temple which allowed a greater number of people to enter the platform area. The splendour of the Temple not only gave a personal fame to the builder but also became a matter of international pride for Judaism. The famous and grandiose Temple attracted both Jewish and gentile visitors. During their stay in Jerusalem, visitors might have lived in tents (AJ 17: 213-17) but they also required accommodation in the city (Mark 11: 11). The coming of visitors subsequently attracted many businesses, including those for the provision of food and accommodation as well as the selling of luxuries. In time the large number of visitors and the opportunities for making profit gave birth to the market at the western wall of the Temple Mount.

Security of the kingdom Fortifications were part of Herod’s building program. However, not all fortresses were built by Herod. Many of them existed in the pre-Roman period. Nevertheless, fortresses were one of Herod’s most notable constructions across the landscape of early Roman Palestine. There are complex arguments about the functions of these fortresses. Although they were undeniably used for the security of the kingdom, the location of Palestine as a frontier of the Roman East further complicates the issue. It is thus important to analyse the matter from both a local and an imperial-wide perspective.

Furthermore, the selling of pigeons and Tyrian shekel exchange for offerings in the Temple also brought extra profits to Palestine. Pigeons were particularly raised in columbaria in Shephelah (Safrai 1994: 174), since a pair of young female pigeons was commonly offered as sacrifice for people who were not able to afford expensive animals such as sheep (Leviticus 1: 14). The exchange of Tyrian shekels was made according to the Tyrian standard. Meshorer (1982: 7-9) have shown that Tyrian coins were minted in Jerusalem after Tyre stopped minting in 19BC. Subsequently, coin minting must have become an important part of local economy of Jerusalem when a large number of ‘lawful’ coins were required for offerings; Broshi (1987: 36) believes that currency exchange could have accounted for between 10 and 15% of Herod’s income.

72

1971: 181; Gracey 1986: 314-5; Speidel 1992). Roman armies also stationed in Palestine. For example, Herod’s funeral was led by the regiment of Thracians, Germans and Gauls (AJ 16: 198-9; BJ 1: 672). Acts 10 mentions the Apostle Peter’s meeting with Cornelius from the Italian cohort. According to Acts 27: 1, the Apostle Paul and some prisoners were handed over to Julius, a centurion of the Augustan cohort. Herod stationed the loyal Babylonian Jewish army of Zamaris at Batanaea (AJ 17: 24). With established and new urban settlements, the Herodian urbanization further strengthened the security of Palestine by the creation of a military network.

Fortification Although there is a silence about the function of fortresses in Judaea, some interior fortifications served as important points to protect cities and palaces. Some cities had no fortresses for their protection. They were garrisoned by troops and therefore the cities also served as a military base. Fortresses in remote locations like Masada and Alexandrium seem not to have protected any particular city. Instead, the extraordinary high locations in the Judaean desert gave them an advantage as royal places of refuge. Scholars generally believe that such a function was performed by a small number of large fortresses, as at Herodium and Masada. However, the interior design of many fortresses including peristyle courts and Italian baths indicates they were not really built for the enjoyment of the garrisons. Instead, many of them served as a network where Herod could escape from his palaces and cities. It was this reason why Herod invested so much in the decoration of these fortresses as his short-term refuges. It was also the reason why he heavily fortified Sebaste as the probably safest refuge in his kingdom. The king’s strategy of fortification was highly defensive not for the sake of the public but mainly for the safety of his property, himself and his family.

Palestinian Limes? The relatively few fortresses in the northern half of the Herodian kingdom shows that Herod seems to have paid little attention to the defence of the north in general, and the unequal distribution of Herodian fortresses was thus far from accidental. The locations of fortresses in southern Palestine were determined by the historical factors that had existed before the Roman period; some of them can even be traced back to the First Temple Period. However, the functions of these fortresses varied at different times. For the Hasmoneans, they were used for military defence, especially when Judaea was always surrounded by enemies. But for the Ptolemaic and Seleucid rulers, they had little reason to fortify the southern Palestinian desert which had little effect on defence against their particular enemies. For the Ptolemies, the frontier line, if there was one, should have been somewhere in northern Galilee and southern Syria, but no traces of Ptolemaic fortifications have been found there. For the Seleucids, the Negev desert was more than enough to serve as a natural barrier to exhaust Ptolemaic armies coming from Egypt. Therefore, there is no evidence that southern Palestine was developed as a frontier during the struggle between Hellenistic kingdoms. Rather than using a particular frontier line, the whole of Palestine functioned as a frontier zone in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods. Nevertheless, the existence of fortresses since the First Temple period and the continuation of these fortresses under Herod’s reign indicates that they were valuable to Palestine.

Fortresses in Herodian Palestine were unequally distributed. There seem to be relatively fewer traces of fortresses in Galilee, Golan, Samaria and the coastal area. Instead, fortresses were mainly located in the southern half of the Herodian kingdom. In contrast to the southern half of Palestine, the northern sector did not experience the constant threat from enemies. In Upper Galilee, the Itureans were either Judaized or pushed back further north, to Mount Hermon, in the Hasmonean period. The peasant Itureans seem not to have been a threat to Palestine, and Upper Galilee was so poor that large scale raidings from organized bandits were not attracted. Instead, local and small scale robberies targeting at individual travellers might have been common in Palestine, as evident from Jesus’ parable for the good Samaritan (Luke 10: 25-37). The absence of fortresses, nevertheless, does not mean that military force did not exist there. Instead of fortresses, cities could also function as bases for the army. Cities were rich in material resources so that the troops there did not need to spend time cultivating food for themselves. In Idumaea, however, there is evidence for agricultural activities near military posts. In the Hauran, troops were probably the new cultivators of the lava lands. In the cities, there was also provision for entertainment, a facility particularly important to non-Jewish soldiers. Titus used CaesareaPhilippi as the resting place for the Roman army and where entertainments were provided. Instead of defence against external threat, the armies were particularly prepared for the internal security of the province, especially for the tension between the provincial government and the Palestinian Jewish population. In view of this, the majority of Herod’s army comprised a gentile core (including Idumaeans and Sebastians) and Babylonian Jews in Zamaris’ calvary unit (Applebaum

Both Alt (1930; 1931; 1935; 1955) and Avi-Yonah (1958) agreed that there was a limes from Flavian times in southern Palestine. Gichon (1967; 1971; 1980; 1991) claimed that there was a limes in southern Idumaea, but he (1967) also believed that the limes had existed in the time of Herod or even the First Temple Period. Kasher (1988: 153-6) extended Gichon’s idea, suggesting that the limes also existed in Perea and Trachonitis. Gichon (1967) went further, claiming that the Idumaean limes had already existed in the First Temple Period as a defence against the Edomites. However, his ideas seem to be arbitrary because he has neglected the fortresses inside the ‘frontier line’. If we have to accept that there was a

73

against robbers on the route to Damascus. Moreover, Gichon (1991) also pointed out that the harsh conditions of the Negev Desert might have forced the tribes to sack the fertile land in Idumaea.

limes in southern Palestine, it should be viewed as a zone full of fortresses rather than a line; Gichon’s limes is near the southern border of that zone. Kasher has paid attention to the fortresses further within the proposed frontier, and he even speculated on an inner limes running from the north to the south of Jericho. Nevertheless, Kasher’s observation is incomplete if we accept his methodology, given that one can point out many layers of the ‘limes’ in Idumaea parallel to Gichon’s limes.

Gichon’s proposal for defence against tribal banditry sounds more reasonable, but he has neglected the situation that bandits also existed in Palestine (Goodman 1987; Horsley 1988; 1995: 256-75; 1996: 124-5; Isaac 1984). If the limes was designed to verdict banditry, there should be ‘limes’ surrounding all the ‘King’s Land’. Gichon’s idea that the threat from banditry is still valid, but the defensive target was wider than that he proposes. Rather than forming a fixed line as a frontier against enemies from a particular direction, each fortification functioned as a central military point in a small agricultural area. The military posts in Idumaea, Perea and the Jericho region seemed to have functioned as protectors of the agricultural land against any kind of robbers from any direction. A frontier limes similar to Hadrian’s Wall thus did not exist nor was necessary in Palestine.

When these scholars employed the term limes, they meant that the southern Palestine was a military frontier formed by a chain of fortresses. However, as Isaac (1988) pointed out, the term limes in the first century AD meant a military road. Only in the period between the late first to third century AD did limes came to mean a border zone or boundary, but it still did not indicate permanent defence structure or formal military and administrative organization as is assumed in modern international borders. Both Gichon and Kasher agreed that the limes functioned as defensive belts against the Nabataeans, but as Isaac (1980: 892) has argued, contemporary sources stress that the Nabataeans were mainly traders and robbers rather than warriors. Moreover, Herod seemed to show little care for military affairs. The fortifications in Idumaea were thus not constructed as a barrier against another government. Moreover, according to Josephus (AJ 16: 333-5), Augustus even once thought about putting the Nabataeans under Herod’s control, but the emperor eventually did not do so because of the chaotic situations in Herod’s family matters (Bowersock 1983: 53). Moreover, it was unwise to add extra duties to Herod who had already had his own responsibility (ibid). Nevertheless, Augustus’ initial attempt revealed the weakness of the Nabataean political independence and unity which could not pose a serious threat to Herod’s strong military presence in Idumaea.

The boundary of the province The limes is always believed to be a frontier; but if a limes did not exist in Palestine, it is questionable what marked the boundary of the client kingdom. As Isaac (1990: 390-401) and Whittaker (1996) argue, there is no evidence for a ‘scientific’ frontier in any part of the Roman Empire. Roman activities always reached beyond the Roman territory. Herodian activities even extended as far as Philadelphia. Military boundaries seemed to be lacking in Palestine. The Gichon and Kasher’s limes only marked the boundary of the rich agricultural land needed to be protected. Nevertheless, this does not mean that a boundary did not exist, but that it was administrative rather than military in nature. Whittaker (1996: 34) expressed the view that there was a sharp distinction between administrative and ‘unadministrative’ land in Roman ideology; according to Whittaker (ibid), three further bands of space can be categorized: the administrative territories, the unadministered territories under the Roman rule and the outer periphery.

It is questionable whether there were any limes in Palestine. First of all, there is little evidence that there was a need to defend against the Nabataean kingdom. Herod’s conflict with its kings occurred in northern not southern Palestine. Moreover, the conflicts between the two client-kingdoms should be viewed as short-term events rather than long-term antagonism. Evidence shows that there was intensive marriage links between the client-kingdoms (Jacobson 2001); Mariamme, one of Herod’s wives, was a Nabataean princess (AJ 16: 193, 553; 17:11; BJ 1: 444, 476). After Herod defeated the Nabataean kings, the latter could no longer to pose any threat to Palestine.

A political boundary needed not to be based on a physical line. The boundary of provinces and even the Empire seemed to be ill-defined and “remained for centuries open-ended geographically as well as conceptually” (Lintott 1993: 42). Isaac also criticized the modern notion of physical boundary as problematic, given that it was not a concept upon which Roman administration was established. Instead, Isaac (1989; 1993) believed that the Roman categorization of territory and annexation was based on ethnic rather than territorial differentiation. In other words, the Roman government put ‘people’ rather than ‘land’ under administration. In Isaac’s sense, the Palestinian Jews were seen as a unit, whereas the Nabataeans and the Decapolis Greeks as another. Josephus used cities and landmarks to mark the area of

Instead of the Nabataean kingdom and government, ‘Nabataean’ tribal robbers rather than the government appear to have been the object of the Herodian fortifications. Hodgson (1989) argued that economic geography rather than military defense lay beneath the pattern of military settlements in the Roman East. The military colonization of the Hauran was obviously an act 74

stepping-stone for military expansion elsewhere, no matter for any long-term goals or short-term benefits of the Empire. Although Herod’s territory was expanded in Trachonitis, Auranitis and Batanea, it was a peaceful colonization without the use of force, except for the suppression of robbery which was a policy aimed at the maintenance of trade route security rather than a military matter targeting territorial expansion. In Augustus’ eyes it was only about transferring a client king’s territory to another client king’s hand; the Roman Empire had gained or lost nothing. Above all, Rome showed more concern for the internal stability of the client-kingdom, especially the preparation for suppressing possible Jewish rebellions, rather than the expansion of the Herodian kingdom.

administered regions within Palestine, but some physical boundaries in Herodian Palestine, especially the eastern and southern part of Hauran and the southern border of Idumaea, were not well defined. As Lintott (1993: 31) points out, the Imperial government might subject territory to direct rule without clearly defining a province or achieving a complete pacification, as demonstrated in the early Roman period in Spain. In Palestine there was no precise line that marked the boundary between the Herodian and Nabataean kingdoms in Perea and Idumaea. In the Hauran, the situation was even more ambiguous, given that Herodian armies probably lacked a precise geography of where the “no-man’s land” extended, especially the further east it was, the fewer number of landmarks could be used to define the limit.

Local security was put under the charge of the client king, and Rome realized that local representatives certainly understood the local situation better than an authority from or based in Italy. What Rome aimed at was effective and convenient methods of ruling a large empire. As evident in the Roman rule in Palestine, Rome cared more about regional security rather than the use of the already subjugated land for further military expansion. The security of Palestine was defensive in purpose, and a large amount of force was used to protect the king’s private property rather than the whole kingdom. The decision of the empire was guided by circumstances and incidents, rather than a uniform plan or single-minded goal. There was no imperial triumph in Herodian Palestine, only a passive reaction to circumstances and tyrant politics.

Could Herodian security be classified as Grand Strategy? ‘Grand Strategy’ is one of the most debated topics of Roman military history. Luttwak (1976: 1) claimed that the goal of Roman strategy, based on a combination of diplomacy, direct force and fixed infrastructure, was “to provide security for the civilization without prejudicing the validity of its economic base and without compromising the stability of evolving order”. Bartel (1980: 19) even claimed that limities should be understood as moving social and spatial boundaries where the Roman practice of political and economic policies were imposed and conducted. By criticizing Luttwak’s idea as a hypothesis based on modern analytical analysis, Isaac (1989; 1993) maintained that Roman expansion was far less systematic than is usually believed. As Mann (1979: 180) argued,

Religion “Rome tended less to act, than to wait for things happened and the react. Frontier development shows this admirably. Each developed merely as the local response to local circumstances”.

During the Hasmonean period, political and religious power was combined when the High Priests were also political rulers. In the early Roman period, Julius Caesar and Augustus granted privileges to Judaism and the Jewish religious class continued to exercise religious freedom. The establishment of the Herodian kingdom, however, took away the political role of the priestly class. Herod’s new administrative authority possessed no divine power, even though he had a marital relationship with the Hasmonean family. Nevertheless, Herod still endeavoured to please the Jews by showing piety. However, his pro-Roman policies also made it necessary for him to please Rome through acceptance of the imperial cult, a practice forbidden in Jewish laws. Therefore, Herod was trying to please people both higher and lower than him in status, but at the same time was creating a social dilemma. Although the effectiveness of his policy is debatable, the execution of his scheme created a new religious landscape in Palestine.

Mann (1974) claimed a frontier was formed only when there was a limit and obstacle for further expansion. Therefore, instead of a symbol of Roman victory and power, the Roman frontier was a symbol of military failure (ibid: 508). The Herodian dynasty showed no sign or anything approximating to a ‘Grand Strategy’ for its expansion. Except for Herod’s early struggle with Antigonus, the Herodian territorial expansion was based on a peaceful strategy rather than military intentions. Whittaker (1996) and Potter (1996: 49-50) expressed the view that wars were motivated by Roman ideology, where leaders would gain personal glory through military victories, seen from his vast building program, Herod always desired fame, but he had little intention and action to gain it through military campaigns. Overall, what Herod always aimed at was economic profit but he did not achieve this through military means. Moreover, the imperial government seemed not to have used this client kingdom as a 75

attempted to attract people from overseas to his magnificent Temple Mount, the Temple would no longer be visited only by Jews but also gentiles. Many ‘halfJews’ might seem to come into this category and they were probably not welcomed into the Court of Israel where racial purity was emphasized. With such an assumption, there is a great chance that the gentile court was built by Herod. In particular, Herod intended to develop Palestine into a cosmopolitan district with an intense link with the Mediterranean world. Herod thus increased the fame of the Temple by making it the largest sanctuary in the Roman world and a symbol of Palestine. The Temple Mount consequently changed the perceptual location of Jerusalem in the whole Roman world. Herod’s plan for increasing the fame of Palestine was successful and was demonstrated through the reputation of the Temple in the eyes of gentiles.

Herod and the Temple Mount Herod realized that successful control of Judaism would give greater credibility to the control of the Jewish population. By contributing to Judaism, he attempted to gain Jewish loyalty. As the most important focal point of Judaism, the Temple Mount became Herod’s instrument for showing he was a good Jew. Questions have been asked about the financial sources for Herod’s expensive construction of the Temple. It is always believed that Herod used his own funds at the beginning. However, archaeological discoveries show inscriptions recording individual donations to the construction of the Temple (Isaac 1983). Thus, elements of the wealthy Jewish public had a share in the Temple’s construction and their names were displayed in public, although Herod was still the largest donor. While evidence for such donations is not abundant in early Roman Palestine, their existence shows that elements of the population of Palestine had more Graeco-Roman in the practice of donating funds for the construction of public buildings in order to gain repute. The Capernaum centurion’s donation to the synagogue construction mentioned in the Gospels (Luke 7: 5) is another obvious example. Therefore, the construction of the Temple Mount not only contained religious meaning, but was also an indicator of social change in Jewish society under Graeco-Roman influences. However, this practice of public donation should not be over-emphasized, given that rich individuals’ donations for public buildings in Palestine was still not as common as in gentile cities.

Richardson (1996: 246) suggested the Herodian Temple followed the example of the Jewish sanctuary in Leontopolis in Egypt. This Jewish temple in Egypt was established by a Zadokite priest named Onias III (AJ 13: 65-6; BJ 1: 31-3). According to Taylor (1998), the Jews of Leontopolis may have had links with the Dead Sea sect, although many questions about this issue are still unanswered. Like the Herodian Temple, this Diaspora temple also had two additional courts, but their purpose is not known. The existence of this Temple implied that Diaspora Jews in the pre-Herodian period did not necessarily put important emphasis on the Jerusalem Temple. Instead, they constructed a rival overseas to replace the Jerusalem Temple. Herod understood that Alexandrian Jews represented a source of wealth. If he was able to draw the Alexandrian Jews to his kingdom, the commercial relations with Alexandria was also strengthened. Alexandrian Jews therefore became Herod’s target for promoting pilgrimage and Herod’s concern for the Alexandrian Jews probably played a role in the design of the Jerusalem Temple.

The morphological changes of the Temple Mount and its new relation with the Diaspora Jewish communities reveal that Herod’s motivation was more complex than simply showing piety. Excluding the Temple sanctuary, the ground plan of the Temple structure did not follow its predecessors, given that a gentile court was added. The First Temple only had two courtyards, the inner court and the outer court. Ezekiel’s vision also only had two courtyards in the Temple. As for the Hasmonean Temple, the architecture is not really known because of a lack of description. An indirect record can be found in 1 Maccabees (9: 54-7) when Alcimus broke down the wall of the inner sanctuary. Schürer (1973: 175) believed that he intended to remove the barrier between the gentiles and the Holy Place. However, Richardson (1996: 245) has pointed out that the courtyard beyond the Holy Place was the Outer Court where gentiles were forbidden. Therefore, Schürer’s suggestion is impossible. Although Richardson claimed that the structure of the Maccabean Temple was similar to the First Temple, he did not mention any evidence to support his claim. Furthermore, as Jerusalem was not a particularly popular place for the gentiles in the pre-Herodian period, it is doubtful whether there was a need to build a gentile court in the preHerodian period.

Herod’s interference in Judaism was not only confined to the shape of the Temple Mount, but also in the interpretation of the Scriptures. As the sanctuary of the Temple was clearly defined by descriptions in Kings and Chronicles, Herod was not able to place a free hand on it. Nevertheless, the Hebrew Bible does not refer to the Temple enclosure in any detail. Therefore, the design of the Temple Mount in the Herodian period was the product of a contemporary reinterpretation of the Bible (Jacobson 2002a: 23; Richardson 1996: 243-5). With his welcome to Diaspora Jews, Herod also interfered in the administrative structure of the Temple. Josephus provides information about the High Priests in the Herodian Temple. Many of them originated from Diaspora Jewish communities. However, as Sanders (1982: 396) points out, all High Priests should have been brought up and trained in the Holy City. This requirement was particularly held by Pharisees (ibid: 397-8). Herod’s appointment of Diaspora High Priests was therefore an innovation probably unacceptable to a certain number of Jews (Richardson 1996: 244). Nevertheless, the new

However, economic considerations seem to support the view that the gentile court was built in the time of Herod. If we accept Goodman’s (1999) suggestion that Herod 76

discoveries of evidence this must remain hypothesis. Even if this phenomenon was true, it might not have been obvious, especially when there was a simultaneous increase in the number of gentile cities and temples. Nevertheless, the formation of new synagogues or Jewish assemblies would be a product of accelerating urbanization.

Temple structure represented the opening up of the Temple to Jews from all over the world. The Diaspora High Priests in Jerusalem thus reminded Diaspora Jews of their shared heritage with the Holy City. Jerusalem became the focus for all Jews again, and its connection with the outer world was strengthened through this religious link. His interference in the administrative structure of the Temple pushed Judaism to become a cosmopolitan religion.

The imperial Cult In communal terms, the imperial cult meant the worship of Roman emperors. Some emperors were worshiped after they died but others were deified when they were still alive (Hammond & Price 1996: 1338). Before Julius Caesar, no Roman ruler other than Romulus was worshipped in Rome, although some living heroes and ancestors were deified in Graeco-Roman societies (Fishwick 1987: 4). In Italian native beliefs, some sense of divinity could be found in humans, and therefore the ancestors were always worshipped. The worship of human beings was thus not invented by the Roman emperors. Taylor (1912: 54) argues that the worship of the same ruler in a wider world actually started from Alexander who was deified in Hellenistic kingdoms. For example, Alexander was addressed as the son of AmonRa by the priest of Ammon at Siwa; in Greek cities, the cult centres of Alexander were modelled on those granted to Olympian gods (Edson & Price 1996: 1337-8). Nevertheless, the successive Hellenistic rulers were not really worshipped in the fashion that Alexander was. The real successors of this sort of widespread ruler cult were Julius Caesar and Augustus.

Urbanization and synagogues The study of the religious material culture of first century Judaism faces many constraints. The Temple Mount was always the focus of Jews in antiquity due to its centrality in Judaism. Religious organizations in other Palestinian cities and the countryside are not as prominent as the Temple Mount is, given that research on religious buildings, especially synagogues, is limited by the scarcity of archaeological remains. So far only synagogues in Masada, Jericho, Modi’in, Herodium and Gamala have been excavated. Amongst these, only those in Gamala and Modi’in were public ones in peaceful time. The example in Jericho was attached to royal precincts. The Masada and Herodium synagogues were rooms converted by the Zealots into places of worship. New cities and towns, where there was a Jewish population, probably had synagogues. In cities of the first century, the evidence points to their existence (Shanks 1979). The existence of a synagogue in Jerusalem is indicated through a Greek inscription found in a cistern (ibid: 18-20). According to the inscription, it was the place where the Law was read and the Lord’s commandments were taught. The Gospels also imply the existence of a synagogue in Capernaum. The shape of these synagogues is unknown. However, synagogues might not have necessarily meant a particular type of building. Instead, they were more likely to be gathering places, which did not have specific architectural styles. The shape of other synagogues might not have been as same as those excavated ones.

In the ‘less-civilized’ Latin West, the imperial cult was imposed on native population (Hammond & Price 1996: 1338; Jones 1970: 151), and it was obviously a strategy to strengthen the political and divine power of the Roman emperors. However, in the more civilized Roman East, the imperial cult should not simply be seen as a political strategy imposed from above on the general public. Although the meaning of the imperial cult was political in the sense that it legitimised Augustus’ power as the great successor of Alexander the Great, it should also be seen as a religious phenomenon. Both the Roman government and Augustus did not actively promote emperor worship in the East. Instead of a top-down process, imperial cults were always started up by those who were under the authorities of the emperors, such as client kings, native elites or even the general public. Local traditions of religions were thus incorporated into the establishment of the imperial cult. Therefore, the imperial cult in the Roman East was more diverse in forms (Hammond & Price 1996).

The direct Herodian influence on public synagogues is unknown. There is no evidence suggest that Herod constructed synagogues for the Jewish public. Nevertheless, Herodian urbanization accelerated the number of cities and consequently the formation of new Jewish communities and so presumably new synagogues. Therefore, the influence of the Herodian building program on the development of synagogue was indirect. Moreover, there are no signs that the formation of new cities caused large-scale rural-urban migrations, and even many villages such as Meiron in Upper Galilee experienced growths in population and territorial expansion. Under such circumstances, we might assume that 1. not many places experienced the abandonment of their synagogues; 2. there was thus an increase in Jewish religious communities, and; 3. synagogues might have increased in number and size. Of course, until further

That Roman emperors could be deified was accepted in the Roman East. One reason for this was that the common deities between Greece and Rome opened the way for the eastern population to accept similar cults as Italians did. Moreover, as stated before, that rulers were deified had been common in Hellenistic East before Rome accepted 77

cult. It is important to note that most Herodian cities which bore imperial names were newly established capitals and heavily populated by gentiles. Therefore, imperial cults became associated with political power, symbolizing the client king’s political authority from the divine Augustus. The only exception was Tiberias in Galilee, which was predominantly Jewish (Meyers 1992; 1995; Freyne 2000: 127-8) and the installation of the imperial cult there would have raised opposition that would not have happened in gentile cities.

this practice. There is no evidence to suggest that the imperial cult was strongly opposed by native population, given that the Roman emperors were simply seen to be additional to the numerous deities in the Graeco-Roman world. The public had no obligation to participate in ruler worship. Instead, the choice was always in the hands of the general public. In Palestine, Herod had no difficulties in founding the imperial cult in gentile cities because the gentile population were grateful to Rome who granted them autonomous status which they had lost previously under the Hasmonean rule.

Although Julius Caesar exempted Jews from the imperial cult, the religious link between Rome and Palestine was not totally severed. Instead, the Jewish High Priests reached a consensus with Rome that the Temple accepted the Roman emperors’ sacrifices to Yahweh and the High Priests would pray for the health of the emperors. It was actually a compromise that offerings of gentiles were accepted in the inner sanctuary where gentiles were forbidden. The presence of Roman power still extended into the Temple and Yahweh’s protection of the Roman emperors represented a religious relation between the Jewish God and the gentile rulers. In this sense, Judaism was not totally independent but was mixed with ambiguous political meanings with Rome.

Gradel (2002: 369-71) believed that the imperial cult was built on a contract relationship that people established with their rulers, based on the pattern that deities in Graeco-Roman mythologies were both honoured and punished according to their deeds. The emperors were honoured as divine beings because people hoped that they would rule morally and return benefactions. Otherwise, if the emperors broke the contract, their honours would be condemned. To a certain extent, the imperial cult was an expression of the hope that the emperors would be a blessing to the community. However, Gradel’s suggestion only explains the ideology of the general public who participated in the imperial cult worship. If the cult was installed by particular elite members of a community rather than by the general public, the motives behind might have been more personal. As Price (1984: 243) indicates, personal introduction of the imperial cult were sometimes associated with their requests for privileges and other matters. It was the elite in communities who initiated the establishment of the imperial cult and became the promoters of the divine nature of the emperors. For example, there has been no evidence that Augustus showed any interest in deifying himself among the poleis populations of Palestine. It was Herod who established the imperial cult to worship Augustus. Firstly, Herod attempted to show loyalty to Augustus. Secondly, by founding the imperial cult and being indirectly associated with the Roman emperors, he was able to raise his status and fame among the general public.

The creation of a religious landscape The influence of Herodian urbanization thus extended to religion. The Temple Mount, as a part of a renovation program for Jerusalem, made Jerusalem more cosmopolitan than before. Urbanization created more settlements with Jewish populations and subsequently gave rise to synagogues. New royal cities were planted to serve as capitals, but Herod intended to show his loyalty to Rome through the re-naming of these cities. The imperial cult was the physical symbol of the character of these imperial centres. The increasing number of Jewish religious centres thus continued or even strengthened the Jewish religious spirit. However, the change of the Temple Mount and the Temple’s administrative structures also created more disputes amongst Jewish sects, which consequently polarized the ‘sectarianization’ within Judaism. The sudden emergence of imperial cults in Palestine gave rise to more Jewish opposition to Roman rule and to the gentile population. Herodian urbanization thus gave birth to a new religious landscape with the splitting and strengthening of Judaism, and increasing Jewish antagonism against Rome and gentiles.

Herod’s piety with respect to religion was extensive. Not only did Jews benefit by the construction of the Temple Mount but so did the gentiles, if it was true that the Gentile Court was initially built in the time of Herod. Nevertheless, the construction of gentile temples and the introduction of the imperial cult obviously aimed to benefit gentiles. Similar to the situation of the Temple Mount, financial donations for temples was a GraecoRoman way of gaining acclaim and status in a community. The imperial cult, fostered by Herod is found in his capitals, including Caesarea Maritima, Samaria-Sebaste and Caesarea-Philippi. All these cities were named after Augustus, the names symbolizing the royal and imperial theme of these cities. And the temples to the Roman Emperor subsequently became a complement to the names as well as the physical manifestation of the imperial character. Palestine was newly incorporated into the phenomenon of the imperial

The character of regional control Under Roman rule, Jews still enjoyed freedom in religion. Augustus agreed to continue the Jewish privilege of religious freedom along with the exemption from the imperial cult and permission for the transportation of the Temple tax, after the Jews had 78

reached a compromise that the priests would represent Augustus in offering sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple. Moreover, Jewish law worked side by side with Roman laws. This is apparent in the Jewish prosecution of Jesus. Pilate had already announced that Jesus was innocent according to Roman laws, but the crowds still insisted on crucifying him (Luke 23: 13-25). It was the will and selfdetermination of the provincial population rather than the Roman government that caused the execution of Jesus. Furthermore, when the Pharisees were persecuting the early church, private death penalties due to religious reasons could be exercised, as in the case of Stephen’s death, without reference to the procurator (Acts 7: 54-58). But the Jewish rights were not totally unconditional; they had to be loyal to Rome in order to continue their freedom gained through their co-operation with Julius Caesar during his struggle with Pompey. Once Jewish loyalty broke, their rights were also taken away. For example, after the First Jewish Revolt, Jews no longer needed to pay the Temple tax because the Temple was destroyed, but Rome required Jews to pay one-tenth of their income as tax to the government. Pre-AD70 Palestine was only semi-autonomous, because the cities of Palestine, other than the poleis on the coast, were still under the direct control of the client king and the Roman procurator. Jewish activities there were under their surveillance. Any actions which threatened the Roman benefits would cause the interference of Rome. Palestine was still in the shadow of a power relationship with Rome.

Fig. 64. Bentham’s Panopticon, after Foucault (1977: fig 3).

Foucault’s (1977: 195-230) study on panopticism is the representative work on the exercise of power through surveillance. According to Foucault, power is exercised in the way that the subjects can feel the power but do not know what is really behind it. Under such a definition of power, the subjects are always under a power that can constraint their behaviour and discipline. In order to illustrate this, Foucault uses the example of the Panopticon (Fig. 64), a prison designed by Jeremy Bentham. The centre of the prison was dominated by a tower. Its periphery was an annular building divided into cells extending to the whole width of the building. Each prisoner was individualized in a particular cell (Fig. 65). There was a window inside each cell facing the tower, and another facing the outside of the prison. The latter allowed the light crossing from one end of the cell to another. The central tower and the person standing in the tower was in a dark position invisible from the locations of the prisoners. Under such a setting, the prisoner could not see the person in the tower, whereas those in the tower could see every act of each prisoner. The principle underneath this form of power was visible and unverifiable. ‘Visible’ means:

Fig. 65. The view from a prisoner’s cell towards the central inspection tower, after Foucault (1977: fig 4). “… the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so” (ibid).

“… the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied on” (ibid: 201),

Under the internal arrangement and distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights and gazes, individuals were caught up and their behaviour was subsequently altered. According to Foucault,

whereas ‘unverifiable’ implies that:

79

the capitals, but at the same time they were dedicated to the Roman emperors as a means of showing loyalty.

“He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection” (ibid: 202-3).

Although control over the population was strengthened through the Herodian building program and urbanization, such control does not mean the existence of a ‘Grand Strategy’. There is no evidence to suggest that the building program and urbanization in the provinces were motivated by the imperial government. The constructions in Rome by the emperor there have always led to a misunderstanding that it was the emperors who also desired to urbanize the provincial cities. But as Isaac argues, the nature of construction in Rome was different from those in provinces, given that it was the responsibility of the emperor to adorn the capital of the empire. Isaac quotes Mann in arguing that the imperial government:

A similar type of control was exercised on the Jewish population of Palestine. The Jews enjoyed religious freedom, but rebellious behaviour was intolerable in the eyes of the emperor. The aim of establishing points of administration was to ensure that the commoners could feel the presence of the authority and the military force nearby. Cities and palaces as the seats of the government symbolized such power; they consequently acted as the centres for surveillance on their hinterlands. The most obvious example is the architectural relationship between the Antonia Fortress and the Temple Mount. The fortress looked over the Temple platform area; all activities there, except those in the Temple sanctuary, could not escape the eyes of the soldiers on top of the towers. Where and when necessary, guards mobilized quickly and moved to the platform to maintain order. In peace time, the Jews on the Temple platform were able to feel the presence of Roman armies nearby, and their behaviour was consequently self-contained and disciplined. In addition, the relationship between the Antonia Fortress and the Jewish Temple might have mirrored the power relationship between Rome and Palestine. The Jews could exercise religious freedom in the Temple. Roman authority respected Jewish religious rules and set a sign to disallow gentiles coming into the Israelite court. Moreover, the Temple tax was regarded as sacred money. Anyone stealing or robbing it was liable to the death penalty. However, these activities were looked over by Roman representatives, in a similar relationship to the Antonia Fortress watching over the Temple Mount.

“… had no great interest in urbanization as such. Their policy was to create organization of local government which could take responsibility, especially financial responsibilities, for the territories assigned to them. To this end they placed power firmly in the hands of the moneyed class in the cities” (1990: 334). Urbanization and the construction of infrastructure should be seen as local and regional activities rather than as imperial grand projects. It was the Graeco-Roman tradition of donating buildings that activated construction in cities. Initially, these activities took place in poleis where citizens would gain status through their generosity. In the Herodian kingdom, cities were under the client kings and procurators; they did not possess much freedom as Graeco-Roman poleis did. There is not as much information on donations in Jewish society as in the Graeco-Roman poleis, given that donations in the poleis were often commemorated by inscriptions. The only available evidence is an inscription about a private donor for the Temple Mount (Isaac 1983). Herod was certainly the largest donor to the Jerusalem Temple. But according to this inscription, it is known that the Jewish public also had a share in gathering funds for their religious focal point. Although donations in Jewish society might not have been as common as in the GraecoRoman poleis, honours were still granted to donors. In the Gospel, the gentile centurion in Galilee obviously gained favour from the Jewish public in Capernaum through his sponsorship of the construction of a synagogue (Luke 7: 4-5). Although his act might have been originated from his experience and tradition in Graeco-Roman cities, it is possible to explain the relatively few donations in Jewish towns. For generally speaking, Jews did not require as many public buildings as the population in the poleis did. In the poleis, public buildings such as bathhouses, theatres and temples were always in demand. In a Jewish town, a synagogue was probably the most prominent building and was probably where donors would gain their highest honour. But synagogues might also be built with

Likewise, similar types of surveillance were exercised on the poleis. Although poleis were granted autonomous status, their freedom was maintained by showing loyalty to the empire. Otherwise, the emperor could take away their autonomy in internal matters at any time. It was thus important for the poleis to please the empire. Therefore, in Freeman’s (1994) study on Pompey’s campaign in the East, he points out that Pompey’s restoration of many poleis might only have represented a transfer of the polis loyalty from the Hellenistic kingdoms to the Roman Empire. In addition, poleis might have paid tribute to Pompey and subsequently to Rome as a means to gain and maintain their privilege (ibid: 158). The eastern poleis were not entirely free cities; they were still highly subject to the Roman power. Similar relations are found in the role for the procurator who was responsible keeping an eye on the client king. Client kings also attempted to show them loyalty to the emperor as a means to maintaining their crowns. In addition to constructing imperial cult centres, the Herodian dynasty granted imperial names to some cities including Caesarea Maritima, Caesarea Philippi, Tiberias and Sebaste. These most important cities in the Herodian kingdom served as 80

public funds, and were not necessarily sponsored by a particular person. The Herodian rulers intended to take on the role of urban donors in Palestine, hoping to achieve status as in the Graeco-Roman cities. The most obvious example is the Jerusalem Temple. Due to Herod’s half-Jewish identity and the limits imposed by the scriptures, he was not able to interfere with the construction within the Temple sanctuary. Where he was able to be innovative was the outer court and the area surrounding the Temple Mount. He thus extended a large area in the south of the Temple Mount and built a monumental staircase in front of the southern wall. Furthermore, the Royal Stoa, similar to a Hellenistic agora in form and function, was probably intended to be the people’s meeting place. Herod thus aimed at building a place immediately outside the Temple sanctuary which rivalled the focal point of the Jews. He initiated a number of large-scale building projects in his kingdom, intending to use them as showpieces to Rome as evidence for his effective rule in his realm, and so negating any excuses from Rome to annex his territory. On the other hand the donation of buildings to the public could also enhance his status. In particular, his half-Jewish status was a sense of discrimination for some of the Jewish public. He therefore had to find alternative ways to gain approval in order to persuade people that he was a suitable ruler. Simultaneously, sharing similar attempts with the Hellenistic tyrants, who used architectural patronage as an instrument of political and social policy (Winter 1993: 251), Herod aimed at exercising more effective control and gaining more economic profits through urbanization. These aims were short-term or even private. The Jewish client king did not aim at securing the Roman Empire. The focus was always on the kingdom itself. But good order in the kingdom would contribute to the stability of the Empire. Although the result was indirect and unplanned, Palestine was at the same time incorporated into the political sphere of the Roman Empire. This form of political Romanization was not imposed from the core of the empire, but initiated by the ruling class in the periphery.

81

Conclusion

This research presented here challenges the prevailing views on Romanization, and to some extent, Hellenization. As shown in Chapter 1, although the meaning of Romanization has been critically reviewed by scholars, they still cannot divorce from the conclusion that natives eventually became some form of Romans. But as argued above, this conclusion is drawn because research has always focused on societies that did not possess adequate literature as did those in Palestine. Material culture, such as the Herodian buildings shown in Chapters 2 and 3, is subsequently misused as an indicator of changes in behaviour and identities. However, as demonstrated in Chapter 4, the ethnicities in Palestine and other Near Eastern societies provided valuable information on the continuation of identities under Roman rule. If these Oriental societies were not particularly exceptional in the Roman world, we might expect a comparable sense of continuation in ethnic and cultural identities in other Roman provinces.

replications of Roman Italy but many distinctive hybrid cells.

Although cultural changes occurred in early Roman Palestine, ethnical and cultural boundaries remained largely unchanged. Moreover, not all forms of material culture were used as symbols to reflect people's ethnic and cultural identities. Therefore, instead of being a symbol of Roman-ness, imported cultural objects might have been appropriated into a local context. Here, it is important to stress the limitation of changes in styles in material culture. Rather than being under one-sided Roman influences, certain types of material culture might have become more hybrid in form. With their main focus on the symbolic meanings behind styles, archaeologists have also overlooked the economic and technological aspects of such objects. Some objects were adopted mainly because of their economic value, then utility or usefulness, practicability and technological advantages. Both function and cultural symbol took a part in the creation of meanings. Ethnic and cultural boundaries were not necessarily expressed through material culture. Instead, the boundaries might be ideological and invisible to the archaeological record.

In conclusion, scholars need to rethink the meanings of Roman rule in terms of local conditions and to reconsider critically the research bias in the studies of cultural change. The formation of identities has always been researched in terms of Romanization theories, but it is important for scholars to divert their gaze towards the maintenance of identities and boundaries. Changes in a society were not simply a top-down or down-top process, but a dialogue between different actors in the production of ethnic, social and cultural meanings.

Cultural and ethnic unity was not achieved in the empire because Rome did not intend to assimilate provincial peoples through cultural superimposition. The core and periphery relationship was only reflected in the political linkages between Rome and the subjugated regions. This power relationship was sensed both visually and ideologically by the native populations. Again, it was not a one-sided domination, as to a large extent, freedom in life was still exercised by the natives. A locality continued under surveillance. This political order was based on the mutual agreement between Rome and native elites as well as the stationing of Roman military forces. The process of political Romanization in each area was characterized by unique events and negotiations, and should not be seen as part of a Roman 'Grand Strategy' aiming at dictatorship and sovereign power.

The Herodian building program rapidly transformed the landscape of Palestine. Space was reordered through a combination of the visual impact of these constructions along side the native perspectives on the landscape. New order was created in the mixture of partial cultural changes and local traditions. New cultural meanings to the transformed landscape, as argued in Chapter 5, were affected by the ethnic and cultural characteristics of the population of Palestine, whose culture was different from other ethnic groups in the Mediterranean world. Simultaneously, in other parts of the Roman Empire, unique cultural meanings were created in particular times and spaces under the increasingly intense cultural and political dialogues between natives and the imperial government. The Empire did not comprise of subordinate

82

Bibliography

Alcock, S. E. 1993. Graecia Capta: the Landscape of Roman Greece. Cambridge.

Primary sources Apocrypha. In Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books. New Revised Standard Version. Anglicized Edition. Oxford. 1995.

Alcock, S. E. 2000. Heroic myths, but not for our times. In. E. Fentress (ed.) Romanization and the City: Creations, Transformations, and Failures, pp. 221-6. JRA Suppl. Series 38.

Dio Cassius. Roman History, trans. Earnest E. Cary. Cambridge. 1914-27. Holy Bible. New International Version. London, Sydney & Auckland. 1998.

Alcock, S. E. 2001. Vuglar Romanization and the domination of elites. In S. Keay & N. Terrenato (eds.) Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization, pp. 227-30. Oxford.

Josephus. Against Apion. In Josephus, trans. H. S. Thackeray. London. 1926-81.

Alt, A. 1930. Limes Palaestinae I, II. Palästina Jahrbuch 26: 43-82.

Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. In Josephus, trans. H. S. Thackeray. London. 1926-81.

Alt, A. 1931. Limes Palaestinae III. Palästina Jahrbuch 27: 75-84.

Josephus. Jewish War. In Josephus, trans. H. S. Thackeray. London. 1926-81.

Alt, A. 1935 Aus der ‘Araba II, III. ZDPV 58: 1-77. Alt, A. 1955. Neue Untersuchungen zum limes Palaestinae. ZDPV 71: 82-94.

Josephus. Life. In Josephus, trans. H. S. Thackeray. London. 1926-81.

Amiran, R & Eitan, A. 1972. Herod’s palace. IEJ 22: 501.

Pliny the Elder. Natural History, trans. H. Rackham et al. Cambridge. 1938-63.

Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and the Spread of Nationalism. London and New York.

Tacitus. The Histories, trans. M. Grant. Harmondsworth. 1977.

Applebaum, S. 1971. Jews and service in the Roman army. In S. Applebaum (ed.) Roman Frontier Studies 1967: Proceedings of the 7th International Congress, pp. 181-4. Tel Aviv.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, trans. G. Vermes. London. 1995. The Mishna, trans. J. Neusner. New Haven. 1988. Vitruvius. De architectura, trans, F. Granger. Cambridge. 1931-34.

Second sources

Applebaum, S. 1976. Economic life in Palestine. In S. Safrai & M. Stern (eds.) The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, pp. 631-700. Amsterdam.

Aberbach, D and Aberbach, M. 2000. Roman-Jewish wars and Hebrew cultural nationalism, 66-200 CE. Basingstoke.

Applebaum, S. 1977. Judaea as a Roman province: the countryside as a political and economic factor. ANRW II 8: 355-96.

Ades, D. 1996. Art as monument. In D. Ades et al (eds.) Art and Power: Europe Under the Dictators 1930-45, pp. 50-56. London.

Applebaum, S. 1986. The settlement pattern of Western Samaria from Hellenistic to Byzantine times: a historical commentary. In S. Dar. Landscape and Pattern: an Archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 BCE –636 CE, pp. 266-69. Oxford.

Alexander, P. S. 1997. Jerusalem as the Omphalos of the world: on the history of a geographical concept. Judaism 46: 147-58.

Applebaum, S. 1989. Judaea in Hellenistic and Roman Times: Historical and Archaeological Essays. Leiden.

Alcock, S. E. 1989. Roman imperialism in the Greek landscape. JRA 2: 5-34.

Applebaum, S et al. 1978. The towers of Samaria. PEQ 110: 91-100.

83

Avigad, N. 1993a. Jerusalem: the Second Temple Period. NEAEHL 2: 729-53.

Beck, P & Kochavi, M. 1993. Aphek (in Sharon). NEAEHL 1: 62-72.

Avigad, N. 1993b. Samaria (city). NEAEHL 4: 1300-10.

Bender, B. 1993. Introduction: landscape — meaning and action. In B. Bender (ed.) Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, pp. 1-17. Oxford: Berg.

Avi-Yonah, M. 1958. The date of the Limes Palaestinae. Erlsr 5: 135-7 (in Hebrew).

Bender, B. 1999. Subverting the western gaze: mapping alternative worlds. In P. Ucko & R. Layton (eds.) The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape, pp. 31-45. London & New York.

Avi-Yonah, M. 1975. Jerusalem in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. In M. Avi-Yonah (ed.) The World History of the Jewish People: the Herodian Period, pp. 207-49. London. Avi-Yonah, M. 1977. The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 BC to AD 640): a Historical Geography. Michigan.

Benoit, P. O. P. 1976. Archaeological reconstruction of the Antonia fortress. In Y. Yadin (ed.) Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, pp. 87-9. New Haven & London.

Bahat, D. 1994. The western wall tunnels. In H. Geva (ed.) Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, pp. 177-90. Jerusalem.

Berlin, A. M. 1997. From monarchy to markets: the Phoenicians in Hellenistic Palestine. BASOR 306: 75-88.

Ball, W. 1994. Syria: a Historical and Architectural Guide. London.

Berlin, A. M. 2002. Romanization and anti-Romanization in pre-revolt Galilee. In A. M. Berlin & J. A. Overman (eds.) The First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History and Ideology, pp.57-73. London and New York.

Ball, W. 2000. Rome in the East: the Transformation of an Empire. London & New York.

Betz, O & Reisner, R. 1993. Jesus, Qumran and Vatican: Clarification, trans J. Bowden. London.

Banton, M. 1994. Modelling ethnic and national relations. Ethnic and Racial Studies 17 (1): 2-7, 9-10.

Bickerman, E. 1988. The Jews of the Greek Age. Cambridge.

Barag, D. 1993. King Herod’s castle at Samaria-Sebaste. PEQ 125: 3-18.

Bieber, M. 1961. The History of the Greek and Roman Theatre. London.

Barghouti, A. N. 1982. Urbanization of Palestine and Jordan in Hellenistic and Roman times. In A. Hadidi (ed.) SHAJ 1, pp. 209-29. Amman.

Bond, H. K. 1996. The coins of Pontius Pilate: part of an attempt to provoke the people or to integrate them into the empire? JSJ 27 (3): 241-62.

Barrett, J. C. 1997. Romanization: a critical comment. In D. Mattingly (ed.) Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire, pp. 51-64. JRA Suppl. Series 23.

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge. Bowersock, G. 1983. Roman Arabia. Cambridge.

Bartel, B. 1980. Colonialism and cultural responses: problems related to Roman provincial analysis. World Archaeology 12 (1): 11-26.

Bowersock, G. 1990. Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor.

Barth, F. 1969. Introduction. In F. Barth (ed.) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: the Social Organization of Cultural Difference, pp.9-38. Boston.

Braund, D. 1984. Rome and the Friendly King: the Character of Client Kingship. London & Canberra. Broshi, M. 1987. The role of the Temple in the Herodian economy. JSJ 38 (1): 31-7.

Bartlett, J. R. 1997. Archaeology of Qumran. In J. R. Bartlett (ed.) Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation, pp. 67-94. London & New York.

Burrell, B. 1996. Palace to praetorium: the Romanization of Caesarea. In A. Raban & K. G. Holum (eds.) Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia, pp. 22847. Leiden, New York & Köln.

Bartlett, J. R. 1999. Edomites and Idumaeans. PEQ 131: 102-14. Batey, R. A. 1984. Jesus and the theatre. New Testament Studies 30: 563-74.

Burrell, B & Netzer, E. 1999. Herod the Builder. JRA 12: 705-715.

Batey, R. A. 1992. Sepphoris: an urban portrait of Jesus. BAR 18 (3): 50-62.

84

Dommelen, P. van. 2001. Cultural imaginings. Punic tradition and local identity in Roman Republican Sardinia. In S. Keay & N. Terrenato (eds.) Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization, pp. 68-84. Oxford.

Burton, G. P. 1998. Was there a long-term trend to centralisation of authority in the Roman Empire? Revue. de Philologie 72 (1): 7-24. Champion, T. C. 1989. Introduction. In T. C. Champion (ed.) Centre and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology, pp. 1-21. London.

Douglas, M. 1966. Purity and Danger: an Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London.

Christaller, W. 1966. Central Places in Southern Germany. Englewood Cliffs.

Douglas, M. 1973. Critique and commentary. In J. Neusner. The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, pp.13742. Leiden.

Clark, J. R. 1991. The Houses of Roman Italy 100 BC – AD 250. Berkeley.

Droysen, J. G. 1836. Geschichte des Hellenismus. Vol 1. Hamburg.

Cunliffe, B. W. 1988. Greeks, Romans and Barbarians: Sphere of Interaction. London.

Duncan-Jones, R. 1990. Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy. Cambridge.

Cohen, S. J. 1993. ‘Those who say they are Jews and are not’: how do you know a Jew in antiquity when you see one? In S. J. D. Cohen & E. S. Frerichs (eds.) Diasporas in Antiquity, pp. 1-45. Atlanta.

Dyson, S. L. (ed.) 1985a. Comparative Studies In the Archaeology of Colonialism. Oxford.

Collins, A. Y. 1999. Jesus and the Jerusalem Temple. International Rennet Guest Lecture Series. Jerusalem.

Dyson, S. L. 1985b. The Creation of the Roman Frontier. Princeton.

Colomb, B & Kedar, Y. 1971. Ancient agriculture in the Galilee mountains. IEJ 21: 136-40.

Edson, C. F. & Price, S. R. F. 1996. Ruler-cult I. Greek. In S. Hornblower & A. Spawforth (eds.) The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Third Edition, pp. 1337-8. Oxford & New York.

Corbier, M. 1991. City, territory, taxation. In J. Rich & A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.) City and Country in the Ancient World, pp. 211-39. London & New York.

Edwards, D. R. 1989. First century urban/ rural relations in Lower Galilee: exploring the archaeological and literary evidence. In D. Lull (ed.) SBLSP 1988, pp. 16982. Atlanta.

Cosgrove, D. 1984. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. London.

Ellis, S. P. 1995. Prologue to a study of Roman urban form. In P. Rush (ed.) TRAC 92, pp. 92-104. Aldershot.

Cosgrove, D. 1989. Geography is everywhere: culture and symbolism in human landscapes. In D. Gregory & R. Walford (eds.) Horizons in Human Geography, pp. 11835. Basingstoke & London.

Epstein, G. 1972. The survey in the Golan Heights. In M. Kochavi (ed.) Judaea, Samaria, and the Golan: archaeological survey, 1967-1968. Jerusalem.

Crowfoot, J. W et al. 1942. Samaria-Sebaste Vol 1: the Buildings at Samaria. London.

Farrington, A. 1999. The introduction and spread of Roman bathing in Greece. In J. Delaine & D. E. Johnston (eds.) Roman Baths and Society Part 1: Bathing and Society, pp. 57-66. JRA Suppl. Series 37.

Daniels, S & Cosgrove, D. 1988. Introduction: iconography and landscape. In S. Daniels & D. Cosgrove (eds.) The Iconography of Landscape, pp. 1-10. Cambridge.

Feldman, L. H. 1986. How much Hellenism in Jewish Palestine? Hebrew Union College Annual 57: 83-111.

Dar, S. 1986. Settlement and Pattern: an Archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 BCE – 636 CE. Oxford.

Feldman, L. H. 1994. Hebraism and Hellenism reconsidered. Judaism 43: 115-26.

Dar, S. 1993. Settlements and Cult Sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Oxford.

Feldman, L. H. 2002. How much Hellenism in the land of Israel? JSJ 33 (3): 290-313.

Dodge, H. 1990. The architectural impact of Rome in the East. In M. Henig (ed.) Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire, pp. 108-20. Oxford.

Fiensy, D. A. 1991. The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land is Mine. Lampeter.

Dommelen, P. van. 1997. Colonial constructs: colonialism and archaeology in the Mediterranean. World Archaeology 28 (3): 305-23.

Fincham, G. 2000. Romanisation, status and the landscape: extracting discrepant perspective from survey data. In G. Fincham (ed.) TRAC 99, pp. 30-6. Oxford. 85

Frere, S. 1987. Britannia: a History of Roman Britain. London.

Fincham, G. 2001. Writing colonial conflict, acknowledging colonial weakness. In G. Davies et al (eds.) TRAC 2000, pp. 25-34. Oxford.

Freyne, S. 1980. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 BCE to 135 CE: A Study of Second Temple Judaism. Edinburgh.

Finley, M. I. 1973. The Ancient Economy. London. Fischer, M. L & Stein, A. 2000. Josephus on the use of marble in building projects of Herod the Great. JJS 45 (1): 79-85.

Freyne, S. 2000. The Galilean world of Jesus. In P. F. Esler (ed.) The Early Christian World Volume 1, pp. 11335. London & New York.

Fishwick, D. 1987. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, Vol 1.1. Leiden.

Fuks, G. 2000. Antagonistic neighbours: Ashkelon, Judaea, and the Jews. JJS 11 (1): 42-61. Fulford, M. 1987. Economic interdependence among urban communities of the Roman Mediterranean. World Archaeology 19 (1): 58-75.

Fittschen, K. 1996. Wall decorations in Herod’s kingdom: their relationship with wall decorations in Greece and Italy. In K. Fittschen & G. Foerster (eds.) Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Light of Archaeological Discoveries, pp. 139-62. Göttingen.

Fulford, M. 1992. Territorial expansion and the Roman Empire. World Archaeology 23 (3): 294-305.

Foerster, G. 1996. Hellenistic and Roman trends in the Herodian architecture of Masada. In K. Fittschen & G. Foerster (eds.) Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Light of Archaeological Discoveries, pp. 55-72. Göttingen.

Gabba, E. 1990. The finances of King Herod. In A. Kasher et al (eds.) Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays, pp. 160-8. Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. Gardner, J. F. 1993. Becoming a Roman Citizen. London & New York.

Förtsch, R. 1996. The residences of King Herod and their relations to Roman villa architecture. In K. Fittschen & G. Foerster (eds.) Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Light of Archaeological Discoveries, pp. 73-120. Göttingen.

Garnsey, P & Saller, R. 1987. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture. London. Geva, H. 1993. Jerusalem. NEAEHL 2: 729-49.

Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison, trans. A. Sheridan. London.

Gibson, S & Edelstein, G. 1985. Investigating Jerusalem’s rural landscape. Levant XVII: 139-55.

Freeman, P. W. M. 1993. ‘Romanization’ and Roman material culture. Review of M. Millett’s The Romanization of Roman Britain. An essay in archaeological interpretation. Cambridge 1990. JRA 6: 438-445.

Gichon, M. 1967. Idumea and the Herodian Limes. IEJ 17: 27-42. Gichon, M. 1971. The military significance of certain aspects of the Limes Palaestinae. In S. Applebaum (ed.) Roman Frontier Studies 1967: the Proceedings of the 7th International Congress Held at Tel Aviv, pp.191-200. Tel Aviv.

Freeman, P. W. M. 1994. Pompey’s eastern settlement: a matter of presentation? Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 7: 143-79. Freeman, P. W, M. 1996. British imperialism and the Roman Empire. In J. Webster & N. Cooper (eds.) Roman Imperialism: Post-colonial Perspectives, pp.19-34. Leicester.

Gichon, M. 1980. Research on the Limes Palestinae: a stocktaking. In W.S. Hanson & L. J. F. Keppie (eds.) Roman Frontier Studies 1979, pp.879-880. Oxford. Gichon, M. 1991. When and why did the Romans commence the defence of southern Palestine? In V. A. Maxfield & M. J. Dobson (eds.) Roman Frontier Studies 1989: Proceedings of the XVth Interntational Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, pp. 318-325. Exeter.

Freeman, P. W. M. 1997a. Mommsen through to Haverfield: the origins of Romanization studies in late 19th-c Britain. In D. Mattingly (ed.) Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire, pp.27-50. JRA Suppl. Series 23.

Gleason et al. 1998. The promontory palace at Caesarea Maritima: preliminary evidence for Herod’s Praetorium. JRA 11: 23-52.

Freeman, P. W. M. 1997b. ‘Romanization – imperialism’- What are we talking about?’ In K. Meadows et al (eds.) TRAC 96: 8-14. Oxford.

Glueck, N. 1951. Explorations in eastern Palestine IV. AASOR 25-28 for 1945-1949.

86

Golomb, B & Kedar, Y. 1971. Ancient agriculture in the Galilee mountains. IEJ 21: 136-40.

Hanson, J. A. 1959. The Roman theater-temples. Princeton.

Goodenough, E. R. 1958. Jewish Symbols in the GrecoRoman period Vol 7-8. New York.

Hanson, R. 1980. Tyrian Influence in the Upper Galilee: Meiron Excavation Project 2. Cambridge.

Goodman, M. 1982. The first Jewish revolt: social conflict and the problem of debt. JJS 33: 417-27.

Hanson, W. S. 1997. Forces of change and control. In D. Mattingly (ed.) Dialogues Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Experience in the Roman Empire, pp. 67-80. Series 23.

Goodman, M. 1987. The Ruling Class of Judaea: the Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome AD 66-70. Cambridge.

methods of in Roman Discrepant JRA Suppl.

Harder, G. 1962. Herodes-Burgen und Herodes-Städte im Jordangraben. ZDPV 78 : 49-63.

Goodman, M. 1990. Identity and authority in ancient Judaism. Judaism 39: 192-201. Goodman, M. 1991. Opponents of Rome: Jews and others. In L. Alexander (ed.) Images of Empire, pp. 22238. Sheffield.

Harvey, D. 1985. Monument and myth: the building of the Basilica of the Sacred Heart. In D. Harvey, Consciousness and the Urban Experience, pp. 221-49. Oxford.

Goodman, M. 1998. Jews, Greeks and Romans. In M. Goodman (ed.) Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, pp. 314. Oxford.

Haüssler, R. 1998. Motives and ideologies of Romanization. In C. Forcey (eds.) TRAC 97, pp. 11-19. Oxford.

Goodman, M. 1999. The pilgrimage economy of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. In L. I. Levine (ed.) Jerusalem: its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, pp. 69-76. New York.

Healey, J. F. 2001. ‘Romans always conquer’: some evidence of ethnic identity on Rome’s eastern frontier. In N. J. Higham (ed.) Archaeology of the Roman Empire: a Tibute to the Life and Works of Professor Barri Jones, pp. 167-71. Oxford.

Gradel, I. 2002. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford.

Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and Time, trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford.

Gracey, M. H. 1986. The armies of the Judaean client kings. In P. Freeman & D. Kennedy (eds.) The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East: Proceedings of a Colloquium held at the University of Sheffield in April 1986, Part I, pp. 311-23. Oxford

Hengel, M. 1974. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period (2 Vols). Philadelphia. Hengel, M. 1989. The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea in the First Century After Christ. London.

Graf, D. F. 2001. First Millennium AD: Roman and Byzantine periods landscape archaeology and settlement patterns. In SHAJ 7, pp. 469-80. Amman.

Hingley, R. 1991. Past, present and future — the study of the Roman period in Britain. Scottish Archaeological Review 8: 90-101.

Grahame, M. 1998. Material culture and Roman identity: the spatial layout of Pompeian houses and the problem of ethnicity. In R. Laurence & J. Berry (eds) Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire, pp. 156-78. London & New York.

Hingley, R. 1994. Attitudes to Roman imperialism. In P. Rush (ed.) TRAC 92, pp. 23-7. Aldershot. Hingley, R. 1995. Britannia, origin myths and the British Empire. In S. Cottam (ed.) TRAC 94, pp. 11-21. Oxford.

Grainger, J. 1991.Hellenistic Phoenicia. Oxford.

Hingly, R. 1996. The ‘legacy’ of Rome: the rise, decline, and fall of the theory of Romanization. In J. Webster & N. Cooper (eds.) Roman Imperialism: Post-colonial Perspectives, pp 35-48. Leicester.

Gruen, E. S. 1997. Fact and fiction: Jewish legends in a Hellenistic context. In P. Cartledge et al (eds.) Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History and Historiography, pp. 72-88. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London.

Hingley, R. 1997. Resistance and domination: social change in Roman Britain. In D. Mattingly (ed.) Dialogues in Roman Imperialism: Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire, pp.81-100. JRA Suppl. Series 23.

Hammond, M. & Price, S. R. F. 1996. Ruler-cult II. Roman. In S. Hornblower & A. Spawforth (eds.) The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Third Edition, pp. 1338-9. Oxford & New York.

87

Hirschfeld, Y. 1995. The early Roman bath and fortress at Ramat Hanadiv near Caesarea. In J. H. Humphrey (ed.) The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research Vol 1, pp.81-111. JRA Suppl. Series 14.

Isaac, B. 1983. A donation for Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem. IEJ 33: 86-92.

Hodgson, N. 1989. The East as part of the wider Roman imperial frontier policy. In D. H. French & C. S. Lightfoot (eds.). The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire Part I, pp.177-189. Oxford.

Isaac, B. 1988. The meaning of ‘limes’ and ‘limitanei’ in ancient sources. JRS 78: 125-47.

Isaac, B. 1984. Bandits in Judea and Arabia. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 88: 171-203.

Isaac. B. 1989. Luttwak’s “Grand Strategy” and the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire. In D. H. French & C. S. Lightfoot (eds.) The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire, pp.231-234. Oxford.

Hohlfelder, R. L. 1992. The changing fortunes of Caesarea’s harbours in the Roman period. In R. L. Vann (ed.) Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea, pp. 75-8. JAR Suppl. Series 5.

Isaac, B. 1990. The Limits of Empire: the Roman Army in the East. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Isaac, B. 1993. An open frontier. In P. Brun et al (eds.) Frontières D’Empire: Nature et Signification des Frontiers Romaines. Nemours.

Holum, K. G. 1999. The temple platform: progress on the excavations. In K. G. Holum et al (ed.) Caesarea Papers 2: Herod’s temple, the provincial governor’s praetorium and granaries, the later harbour, a gold coin head, and other studies, pp. 13-34. JRA Suppl. Series 35.

Isaac, B. 2002. Review on Warwick Ball’s Rome in the East: the transformation of an empire. Antiquity 76 (291): 274-5.

Holum, K. G. and Hohlfelder, R. J. 1988. King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea in the Sea. London & New York.

Isaac, B & Roll, I. 1982. Roman Roads in Judea: the Legio-Scythopolis Road. Oxford.

Hopkins, I. 1980. The city region in Roman Palestine. PEQ 112: 19-32.

Ita of Sion, M. 1968. The Antonia fortress. PEQ 100: 139-43.

Hopkins, K. 1980. Taxes and trade in the Roman Empire (200 BC-AD 400). JRS 70: 101-25.

Jacobson. D. M. 1981. The plan of the ancient Haram Elkhalil in Hebron. PEQ 113: 73-80.

Horsley, R. A. 1988. Bandits, Messiahs, and longshoremen: popular unrest in Galilee around the time of Jesus. In D. J. Lull (ed.) SBLSP 88, pp. 183-99. Atlanta.

Jacobson, D. M. 1986. Herod’s mighty Temple Mount: archaeology vividly recreates bustle of pilgrims two thousand years ago. BAR 7 (6): 40-9.

Horsley, R. A. 1995. Galilee: History, Politics, People. Valley Forge.

Jacobson, D. M. 1999. Sacred geometry: unlocking the secret of the Temple Mount. Part 1. BAR 25 (4): 42-53, 62-3.

Horsley, R. A. 1996. Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee: the Social Context of Jesus and the Rabbis. Harrisburg.

Jacobson, D. M. 2001. Three Roman client kings: Herod of Judaea, Archelaus of Cappadocia and Juba of Mauretania. PEQ 133: 22-38.

Humphrey, J. H. 1996. ‘Amphitheatrical’ hippo-stadia. In A. Raban & K. G. Holum (eds.) Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennina, pp. 120-9. Leiden, New York & Köln.

Jacobson, D. M. 2002a. Herod’s Roman Temple. BAR 28 (2): 18-27, 60-61. Jacobson, D. M. 2002b. Review article: placing Herod the Great and his works in context. PEQ 134 (1): 84-91.

Idinopulos, T. A. 1991. Religious and national factors in Israel’s war with Rome. In S. Talmon (ed.). 1991. Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, pp. 50-63. Sheffield.

Japhet, S. 1998. Some biblical concepts of sacred place. In B. Z. Keder & R. J. Zwi (eds.) Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land, pp. 55-72. New York.

Ingold, T. 1993. The temporality of landscape. World Archaeology 25 (2): 152-74.

Jeremias, J. 1969. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: an Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions During the New Testament Period. Philadelphia.

Isaac, B. 1980. Trade routes to Arabia and the Roman army. In: W.S. Hanson & L. J. F. Keppie (eds.). Roman Frontier Studies 1979, pp. 889-902. Oxford.

Johnston, R. 1998. Approaches to the perception of landscape. Archaeological Dialogues 5: 54-68. 88

Laurence, R. 1998. Territory, ethnonyms and geography: the construction of identity in Roman Italy. In R. Laurence & J. Berry (eds) Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire, pp. 95-110. London & New York.

Jones, A. H. M. 1931. The urbanization of Palestine. JRS 21: 78-85. Jones, A. H. M. 1937. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford.

Layton, R & Ucko, P. J. 1999. Introduction: gazing on the landscape and encountering the environment. In P. J. Ucko & R. Layton (eds.) The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape, pp. 1-20. London & New York.

Jones, A. H. M. 1938. The Herods of Judaea. Oxford. Jones, A. H. M. 1970. Augustus. London. Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. London & New York.

Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space, trans. D. Nicholas-Smith. Oxford. Levick, B. 1985. The politics of the early principate. In. T. P. Wiseman (ed.) Roman Political Life 90BC-AD69, pp. 45-68. Exeter.

Jones, S. 1998. Identities in practice: towards an archaeological perspective on Jewish identity in antiquity. In S. Jones & S. Pearce (eds.) Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period, pp. 29-40. Sheffield.

Levine, L. I. 1994. Josephus’ description of the Jerusalem Temple: War, Antiquities, and other sources. In F. Parente & J. Sievers (eds.). Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, pp. 233-46. Leiden.

Jospe, R. 1994. The concept of the chosen people: an interpretation. Judaism 43: 127-48. Kahn, L. C. 1996. King Herod’s Temple of Roma and Augustus at Caesarea Maritima. In A. Raban & K. G. Holum (eds.) Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia, pp. 130-145. Leiden, New York & Köln.

Levine, L. I. 1998. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Seattle. Liberman, S. 1962. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. New York.

Kasher, A. 1982. Gaza during the Greco-Roman era. In JC 2, pp. 63-78.

Lintott, A. 1993. Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration. London & New York.

Kasher, A. 1988. Jews, Idumaeans and Ancient Arabs: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with Nations of the Frontier and the Desert During the Hellenistic and Roman Era (332 BCE – 70CE). Tubingen.

Lomas, K. 1995. Urban elites and cultural definition: Romanization in southern Italy. In T. J. Cornell & K. Lomas (eds.) Urban Society in Roman Italy, pp. 107-20. London.

Kasher, A. 1990. Jews and Hellenistic Cities in EretzIsrael: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic Cities During the Second Temple Period (332 BCE – 70 CE). Tubingen.

Lomas, K. 1998. Roman imperialism and the city in Italy. In R. Laurence & J. Berry (eds) Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire, pp. 64-78. London & New York.

Keay, S. 2001. Romanization and the Hispaniae. In S. Keay & N. Terrenato (eds.) Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization, pp. 117-44. Oxford.

Luttwak, E. N. 1976. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century AD to the Third. Baltimore & London.

Klasner, J. 1925. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times and Teaching, trans H. Danby. New York.

Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge & London.

Klawans, J. 2000. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Israel. New York.

MacAdam, H. I. 1986. Studies in the History of the Roman Province of Arabia: the Northern Sector. Oxford.

Klein, S. 1939. Eretz Yehudah. Tel Aviv.

MacMullen, R. 2000. Romanization in the Time of Augustus. New Haven & London. Magen, I. 1993a. Mamre. NEAEHL 3: 939-42.

Khouri, R. G. 1980. The Antiquities of the Jordan Rift Valley. Amman.

Magen, I. 1993b. Samaria (region) -— Hellenistic and Roman-Byzantine periods. NEAEHL 4: 1316-8.

LaLor, B. 1997. The Temple Mount of Herod the Great at Jerusalem: recent excavations and literary sources. In J. R. Bartlett (ed.) Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation, pp.95-116. London & New York. 89

Millar, F. 1983. The Phoenician cities: a case-study of Hellenisation. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 209: 55-71.

Magen, Y. 1994. Jerusalem as a center of stone vessel industry during the Second Temple Period. In H. Geva (ed.) Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, pp. 244-56. Jerusalem. Magness, J. 2001. Where is Herod’s tomb at Herodium? BASOR 322: 43-6.

Millar, F. 1987. Empire, community and culture in the Roman Near East: Greeks, Syrians, Jews and Arabs. JJS 38 (2): 143-64.

Malina, B. J. 1981. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta. Mann, J. C. 1974. The Frontiers of the principate. ANRW II. 1: 508-33.

Millar, F. 1993a. The Greek city in the Roman period. In M. H. Hansen (ed.) The Ancient Greek City-State, pp. 232-61. Copenhagen.

Mann, J. C. 1979. Power, force and the frontiers of the principate (Review of Luttwak 1976). JRS 69: 175-83.

Millar, F. 1993b. The Roman Near East 31 BC – AD 337. Cambridge & London.

Ma‘oz, Z. U. 1993. Banias. NEAEHL 1: 136-43.

Millard, A. 2000. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. Sheffield.

Mattingly, D. J. 1996. From one colonialism to another: imperialism and the Maghreb. In J. Webster & N. Cooper (eds.) Roman Imperialism: Post-colonial Perspectives, pp. 49-69. Leicester.

Millett, M. 1990a. The Romanization of Britain: an Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. Cambridge.

Mazar, B. 1978. Herodian Jerusalem in the light of the excavations south and south-west of the Temple Mount. IEJ 28: 238-7.

Millett, M. 1990b. Romanization: historical issues and archaeological interpretation. In T. Blagg & M. Millett (eds.) The Early Roman Empire in the West, pp. 35-41. Oxford.

McNicoll, A. W. 1997. Hellenistic Fortifications from the Aegean to the Euphrates. Oxford.

Momigliano, A. 1975. Alien Wisdom: the Limits of Hellenization. Cambridge.

McRay, J. 1991. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapid.

Mowry, L. 1052. Settlements in the Jericho Valley during the Roman period (63 BC –AD 134). BiblArch 15 (2): 2642.

Meshorer, Y. 1982. Ancient Jewish Coinage. Dix Hills. Nash, D. 1987. Imperial expansion under the late Republic. In M. Rowlands et al (eds.) Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, pp. 87-103. Cambridge.

Meskell, L. 2001. Archaeologies of identity. In I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today, pp. 187-213. Cambridge.

Netzer, E. 1975. The Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces at Jericho. IEJ 25: 89-100.

Meyers, E. M. 1976. Galilean regionalism as a factor in historical reconstruction. BASOR 220/ 221: 93-101.

Netzer, E. 1981a. Greater Herodium. Jerusalem. Meyers, E. M. 1977. The cultural Setting of Galilee: the case of regionalism and early Judaism. ANRW II.19.1: 686-702.

Netzer, E. 1981b. Herod’s building projects: state necessity or personal need? In JC 1, pp. 48-61.

Meyers, E. M. 1992. The challenge of Hellenism for early Judaism and Christianity. BiblArch 84-91.

Netzer, E. 1982. Ancient ritual baths (Miqvaot) in Jericho. In JC 2, pp. 106-119.

Meyers, E. M. 1995. An archaeological response to a New Testament Scholar. BASOR 297: 17-26.

Netzer, E. 1987a. Herodium: an Archaeological Guide. Jerusalem.

Meyers, E. M et al. 1981. Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel 1971-72, 1974-75. Cambridge.

Netzer, E. 1987b. The Augusteum at Samaria-Sebaste — a New Outlook. EsIsr 19: 97-105. Netzer, E. 1991. Masada III: the Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem.

Meyers, E. M et al. 1986. Sepphoris — ‘Ornament of all Galilee’. BiblArch 49 (1): 4-19.

Netzer, E. 1993. Tulul Abu el-‘layiq. NEAEHL 2: 682-91. Meyers, E. M et al. 1992. Sepphoris. Winona Lake. Netzer, E. 1996a. The palaces built by Herod. In K. Fittschen & G. Foerster (eds.) Judaea and the Greco-

Millar, F. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World (31BC — AD337). London. 90

Parker Pearson, M. & Richards, C. 1994. Ordering the world: perception of architecture, space and time. In M. Parker Pearson & C. Richards (eds.) Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space, pp. 1-37. London & New York.

Roman World in the Light of Archaeological Discoveries, pp. 27-54. Göttingen. Netzer, E. 1996b. The promontory palace. In A. Raban & K. G. Holum (eds.) Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia, pp. 193-207. Leiden, New York & Köln.

Patrich, J. 1993. Hyrcania. NEAEHL 3: 639-41.

Netzer, E. 1999a. Herodian bath-houses. In J. Delaine & D. E. Johnston (eds.) Roman Baths and Society Part 1: Bathing and Society, pp. 45-55. JRA Suppl. Series 37.

Patrich, J. 2001. The carceres of the Herodian hippodrome/stadium at Caesarea Maritima and connections with the Circus Maximus. JRA 14: 269-83.

Netzer, E. 1999b. Zaberns Bidbände zur Archäologie. Mainz am Rhein.

Patrich, J. 2002. Herod’s theatre in Jerusalem: a new proposal. IEJ 52 (2): 231-9.

Neusner, J. 1973. The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. Leiden.

Pearce, S. 2002. Judaea under Roman rule: 63BCE – 135CE. In J. Barton (ed.) The Biblical World, vol 1, pp. 457-90. London & New York.

Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 1984. The Bible rewritten and expanded. In M. E. Stone (ed.) Jewish Writing of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, pp. 89-156. Assen.

Pedaya, H. 1998. The divinity as place and time and the Holy Place in Jewish mysticism. In B. Z. Kedar & R. J. Z. Werblousky (eds.) Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land, pp. 84-111. London & New York. Porath, Y. 1995. Herod’s ‘amphitheater’ at Caesarea: a multi-purpose entertainment building. In J. H. Humphrey (ed.) The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research Vol 1, pp. 15-27. JRA Suppl. Series 14.

Nielsen, I. 1994. Hellenistic Palaces: Tradition and Renewal. Aarhus. Nielsen, I. 1999. Early provincial baths and their relations to early Italic baths. In J. Delaine & D. E. Johnston (eds.) Roman Baths and Society Part 1: Bathing and Society, pp. 35-43. JRA Suppl. Series 37.

Porath, Y. 1996. The evolution of the urban plan of Caesarea’s southwest zone: new evidence from the current excavations. In A. Raban & K. G. Holum (eds.) Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia, pp. 105-20. Leiden, New York & Köln.

Olwig, K. R. 1993. Sexual cosmology: nation and landscape at the conceptual interstices of nature and culture; or what does landscape really mean? In B. Bender (ed.) Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, pp. 307-43. Oxford.

Potter, D. 1996. Emperors, their borders and their neighbours: the scope of imperial mandata. In D. L. Kennedy (ed). The Roman Army in the East, pp.49-66. JRA Suppl. Series 18.

Olwig, K. R. 1996. Nature: mapping the ghostly traces of a concept. In C. Earl et al (eds.) Concepts in Human Geography, pp. 63-9. Savage, Rowman & Littlefield.

Price, S. R. F. 1984. Rituals and Power: the Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge.

Ovadiah, A. 1994. Mosaic pavements of the Herodian period in Israel. In P. Johnson et al (eds.) Fifth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics: Held at Bath England on September 5-12, 1987, pp.67-76. JRA Suppl. Series 9.

Rajak, T. 1985. Jewish rights in the Greek cities under Roman rule: a new approach. In J. Neusner et al (eds.) Approaches to Ancient Judaism Vol V: Studies in Judaism and its Graeco-Roman Context, pp. 19-35. Atlanta.

Ovadiah, R & Ovadiah, A. 1987. Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements in Israel. Rome.

Rajak, T. 1992. The Jewish community and its boundaries. In J. Lieu et al (eds) The Jews Among Pagans and Christians, pp. 9-28. London & New York.

Overman, J. A. 1989. Who were the first urban Christians? Urbanization in Galilee in the first century. In D. Lull (ed.) SBLSP 88, pp. 160-8. Atlanta.

Rajak, T. 2000. Jews, Semites and their cultures in Fergus Millar’s ‘Roman Near East’. JJS 51 (1): 63-68.

Overman, J et al. 2003. Discovering Herod’s shrine to Augustus: mystery temple found at Ormit. BAR 129 (2) : 40-9, 67.

Rappaport, U. 1981. Jewish-pagan relations and the revolt against Rome 66-70 C.E. JC 1, pp. 81-95.

Owen, E. J. 1991. The City in the Greek and Roman World. London & New York.

91

Rozenberg, S. 1996. The wall paintings of the Herodian palace at Jericho. In K. Fittschen & G. Foerster (eds.) Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Light of Archaeological Discoveries, pp. 121-38.Göttingen.

Rapuano, Y. 2001. The Hasmonean period ‘synagogue’ at Jericho and the ‘council chamber’ building at Qumran. IEJ 51 (1): 48-56. Regev, E. 2000. Pure individualism: the idea of nonpriestly purity in ancient Judaism. JSJ 31 (2): 176-202.

Safrai, Z. 1994. The Economy of Roman Palestine. London & New York.

Reed, J. L. 1995. Population numbers, urbanization, and economics: Galilean archaeology and the historical Jesus. In E. Lovering (ed.) SBLSP 94, pp. 203-19. Atlanta.

Safrai, Z. 2000. The gentile cities of Judea: between the Hasmonean occupation and the Roman liberation. In G. Galil & M. Weinfeld (eds.) Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography, pp. 43-90. Leiden, Boston & Köln.

Reed, J. L. 2000. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: a Re-examination of the Evidence. Harrisburg. Reich, R & Billig, Y. 2000a. A group of theatre seats discovered near the south-western corner of the Temple Mount. IEJ 50 (3-4): 175-84.

Said, E. W. 1978. Orientalism. New York.

Reich, R & Billig, Y. 2000b. A group of theatre seats from Jerusalem. In H. Geva (ed.) Ancient Jerusalem Revealed — Expanded Edition 2000, pp.349-53. Jerusalem.

Sanders, E. P. 1992. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE. Philadelphia.

Reich, R & Billig, Y. 2002. Triple play: the many lives of Jerusalem’s building block. BAR 28 (5): 40-59.

Segal, A. 1974. Herodium and the Mausoleum of Augustus. Qadmoniyot 7: 46-9.

Reinhardt, W. 1995. The population size of Jerusalem and the numerical growth of the Jerusalem church. In R. Bauckham (ed.) The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting Volume 4: Palestinian Setting, pp.237-65. Grand Rapids.

Segal, A. 1994. Theatres in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia. Leiden.

Said, E. W. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. New York.

Sear, F. 1982. Roman Architecture. London.

Segal, A. 1997. From Function to Monument: an Architectural History of the Cities of Roman Palestine, Syria and Arabia. Oxford.

Relph, E. 1981. Rational Landscapes and Humanistic Geography. London.

Schürer, E. 1973. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol 1. Revised, edited & translated by G. Vermes et al. Edinburgh.

Reynolds, J. 1988. Cities. In D. Braund (ed.) The Administration of the Roman Empire 241BC-AD193, pp. 15-52. Exeter.

Schürer, E. 1979. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol 2. Revised, edited & translated by G. Vermes et al. Edinburgh.

Revell, L. 2000. The creation of multiple identities in Roman Italica. In G. Fincham (ed.) TRAC 99, pp. 1-7. Oxford.

Schwartz, S. 2001. Imperialism and Jewish Society: 200 BCE to 640 CE. Princeton & Oxford.

Richardson, J. 1976. Roman Provincial Administration. Bristol.

Shanks, H. 1979. Judaism in Stone: the Archaeology of Ancient Synagogues. Washington, D C.

Richardson, P. 1988. Religion, architecture and ethics. Some first century case studies. Horizons in Biblical Theology 10 (2): 19-49.

Shennan, S. J. 1989. Introduction: archaeological approaches to cultural identity. In S. J. Shennan (ed.) Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, pp. 1-32. London.

Richardson, P. 1996. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans. Columbia.

Siker, J. S. 1987. Abraham in Graeco-Roman paganism. JSJ 18 (2): 188-208.

Ritmeyer, K & Ritmeyer, L. 1989. Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem. BAR 15 (6): 23-42.

Smallwood, E. M. 1976. The Jews under Roman Rule. Leiden.

Ritmeyer, L. 1989. Quarrying and transporting stones for Herod’s Temple Mount. BAR 15 (6): 46-8.

Smith, M. 1956. Palestinian Judaism in the first century. In M. Davies (ed.) Israel: Its Role in Civilization, pp. 6781. New York.

Roller, D. W. 1998. The Building Program of Herod the Great. Berkeley & Los Angeles.

92

Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford.

Speidel, M. P. 1992. The Roman army in Judaea under the procurators. In M. P. Speidel (ed.) Roman Army Studies Volume 2, pp.224-31. Sitzi Stuttgart.

Trigger, B. G. 1984. Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man 19: 355-70.

Sperber, D. 1977. Aspects of agrarian life in Roman Palestine 1: agricultural decline in Palestine during the later principate. ANRW II. 8: 397- 443.

Trigger, B. G. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge.

Stanley, F. H. Jr. 1999. The southern flank of the Temple Platform (area Z2, 1993-95 excavations). In K. G. Holumn et al (ed.) Caesarea Papers 2: Herod’s temple, the provincial governor’s praetorium and granaries, the later harbour, a gold coin head, and other studies, pp. 35-40. JRA Suppl. Series 35.

Trigger, B. G. 1990. Monumental architecture: a thermodynamic explanation of symbolic behaviour. World Archaeology 22 (2): 119-32. Tsafrir, Y. & Magen, I. 1993. Sartaba-Alexandrium. NEAEHL 4: 1318-20.

Stern, S. 1998. Dissonance and misunderstanding in Jewish-Roman relations. In M. Goodman (ed.) Jews in a Graeco Roman World, pp. 241-50. Oxford.

Tuan, Y. F. 1977. Space and Place. Minneapolis. Urman, D. 1985. The Golan. Oxford.

Strange, J. F. 1992. Some implications of archaeology for New Testament studies. In J. J. Charlesworth & W. P. Weaver (eds) What Has Archaeology To Do With Faith?, pp. 23-59. Philadelphia.

Vardaman, E. J. 1975. Herodium: a brief assessment of recent suggestions. IEJ 25: 45-6. Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World-system, Vol 1. New York.

Strange, J. F. 1995. The art and archaeology of ancient Judaism. In J. Neusner (ed.). Judaism in Late Antiquity. Part one: the Literary and Archaeological Sources, pp. 64-114. Leiden, New York & Köln.

Weber, M. 1976. The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations, trans. R. I. Frank. London.

Strobel, A. 1997. Ancient roads in the Roman district of south Peraea: routes of communication in the eastern area of the Dead Sea. In G. Bisheh et al (eds.) SHAJ 6, pp. 271-80. Amman.

Webster, J. 1996. Roman imperialism and the ‘postimperial age’. In J. Webster and N. Cooper (eds.) Roman Imperialism: Post-colonial Perspectives, pp 1-17. Leicester.

Strobel, A & Clamer, C. 1986. Excavations at Ez-zāra. ADAJ 21: 381-4.

Weiss, Z. 1996. The Jews and the games in Roman Caesarea. In A. Raban & K. Holum (eds.) Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective After Two Millennia, pp. 44353. Leiden, New York & Köln.

Taylor, J. E. 1998. A second temple in Egypt: the evidence for the Zadokite Temple of Onias. JSJ 24 (3): 297-321.

Weiss, Z. 1999. Adopting a novelty: the Jews and the Roman games in Palestine. In J. H. Humprey (ed.). The Roman and Byzantine Near East Volume 2: Some Recent Archaeological Research, pp. 23-49. JRA Suppl. Series 31.

Taylor, L. R. 1912. The cults of Ostia. Baltimore. Tcherikover, V. A. 1961. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia.

Whittaker, C. R. 1990. The consumer city revisited: the vicus and the city. JRA 3: 110-117.

Thomas, J. 1993a. The hermeneutics of megalithic space. In C. Tilley (ed.) Interpretive Archaeology, pp. 73-97. Oxford.

Whittaker, C. R. 1995a. Do theories of the ancient city matter? In T. J. Cornell & K. Lomas (eds.) Urban Society in Roman Italy, pp. 9-26. London.

Thomas, J. 1993b. The politics of vision and the archaeologies of landscape. In B. Bender (ed.) Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, pp. 19-48. Oxford. Thomas, J. 1996. Time, Culture and Identity: an Interpretive Archaeology. London & New York.

Whittaker, C. R. 1995b. Integration of the early Roman West: the example of Africa. In J. Metzler et al (eds.) Integration in the Early Roman West, pp. 19-32. Luxemburg.

Thomas, J. 2001. Archaeologies of place and landscape. In I. Hodder (ed) Archaeological Theory Today, pp.16586. Cambridge.

Whittaker, C. R. 1996. Where are the frontiers now? In D. L. Kennedy (ed). The Roman Army in the East, pp.2541. JRA Suppl. Series 18.

93

Wilkinson, J. W. 1975. The streets of Jerusalem. Levant VII: 118-36. Wilkinson, J. W. 1978. Jerusalem as Jesus Knew it: Archaeology as Evidence. London. Wilkinson, J. W. 1997. Jerusalem under Rome and Byzantium 63BC-637AD. In J. Asali (ed.) Jerusalem in History: 3000BC to the Present Day, pp. 75-104. London & New York. Wineland, J. D. 2001. Ancient Abila: an Archaeological History. Oxford. Winter, F. E. 1993. The role of royal patronage in the development of Hellenistic architecture. Classical Views 37 (12): 251-81. Woolf, G. 1992. Imperialism, empire and the integration of the Roman economy. World Archaeology 23 (3): 28393. Woolf, G. 1994. Becoming Roman, staying Greek: culture, identity and the civilizing process in the Roman East. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40: 116-43. Woolf, G. 1995. Beyond Romans and natives. World Archaeology 28 (3): 339-50. Woolf, G. 1997. The Roman urbanization of the East. In S. E. Alcock (ed.) The Early Roman Empire in the East, pp.1-14. Oxford. Yadin, Y. & Netzer, E. 1993. Masada. NEAEHL 3: 97385. Yavetz, Z. 1983. Judeophobia in Classical Antiquity: a different approach. JJS 44 (1): 1-22. Yegül, F. 1992. Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge & London. Young, G. 2001. Rome’s Eastern Trade: International Commerce and Imperial Policy 31BC-AD305. London & New York.

94