fischer,2011 - rome and judaea in ad i

Gnther Moosbauer und Rainer Wiegels (Hrsg.)

Fines imperii imperium sine ne?

Osnabrcker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption Band 14

Herausgegeben von Gnther Moosbauer und Rainer Wiegels

Gnther Moosbauer und Rainer Wiegels (Hrsg.)

Fines imperii imperium sine ne?Rmische Okkupations- und Grenzpolitik im frhen Principat Beitrge zum Kongress Fines imperii imperium sine ne? in Osnabrck vom 14. bis 18. September 2009

Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH . Rahden/Westf. 2011

338 Seiten mit 99 Abbildungen

Gedruckt mit nanzieller Untersttzung der STADT OSNABRCK GTTINGER AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN VARUS-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FRDERUNG DER VOR- UND FRHGESCHICHTLICHEN AUSGRABUNGEN IM OSNABRCKER LAND E.V., OSNABRCK

Bibliograsche Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Moosbauer, Gnther ; Wiegels, Rainer (Hrsg.): Fines imperii imperium sine ne? Rmische Okkupations- und Grenzpolitik im frhen Principat / hrsg. von Gnther Moosbauer ... . Rahden/Westf. : Leidorf, 2011 (Osnabrcker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption ; Bd. 14) ISBN 978-3-89646-735-5

Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliograe. Detaillierte bibliograsche Daten sind im Internet ber http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar. Gedruckt auf alterungsbestndigem Papier

Alle Rechte vorbehalten 2011

Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH Geschftsfhrer: Dr. Bert Wiegel Stellerloh 65 . D-32369 Rahden/Westf. Tel: +49/(0)5771/ 9510-74 Fax: +49/(0)5771/ 9510-75 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.vml.de ISBN 978-3-89646-735-5 ISSN 1863-074X

Kein Teil dieses Buches darf in irgendeiner Form (Druck, Fotokopie, CD-ROM, DVD, I n t e r n e t oder einem anderen Verfahren) ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages Marie Leidorf GmbH reproduziert werden oder unter Verwendung elektronischer Systeme verarbeitet, vervielfltigt oder verbreitet werden.

Umschlagentwurf: COMPUTUS Druck Service, 55595 Gutenberg Titelfoto: Buchisstele 13 vom 17. April 29 v. Chr. - Minas Nerpel, Abb. 1 (in diesem Band) aus: R. Mond/O.H. Myers, The Bucheum III, London (EES) 1934 Taf. 43 Redaktion: Achim Rost und Susanne Wilbers-Rost, Belm Satz und Layout: Enns Schrift & Bild GmbH, Bielefeld Internet: http://www.geschichte.uni-osnabrueck.de/80.htm Druck und Produktion: Druckhaus Breyer GmbH, Diepholz

InhaltsverzeichnisVorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Roman occupation in the north of Hispania: war, military deployment and cultural integration ngel Morillo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rmer und gentes Alpinae im Konikt archologische und historische Zeugnisse des 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Stefanie Martin-Kilcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Larme romaine et les peuples gaulois de Csar Auguste Michel Redd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rmische und indigene Strategien der Herrschafts- und Friedenssicherung Germanien Siegmar von Schnurbein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perdomita Britannia: Roman and indigenous strategies and their outcomes in Britain from Caesar to Domitian and beyond Simon James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Roman conquest of Dalmatia and Pannonia under Augustus some of the latest research results Marjeta ael Kos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Domitian und die Donaugrenze Miroslava Mirkovi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Augustus, Prinzeps und Pharao zwischen politischer Realitt und ideologischem Anspruch Martina Minas-Nerpel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rome and Judaea during the First Century CE: A strange modus vivendi Moshe Fischer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Transformation of Rural Structures in Southern Gaul between the 1st Century BC and the 1st Century AD. The Case of Eastern Languedoc. Franois Favory, Marie-Jeanne Ouriachi and Laure Nuninger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Die Transformation der Landwirtschaft in Germanien und Raetien Gnther Moosbauer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integration der lokalen Eliten individuelle und korporative Privilegierungen Helmut Halfmann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Household specialisation in horse breeding: the role of returning veterans in the Batavian river area Maaike Groot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Les dieux, la cit et le pouvoir imprial. Religions et intgration des provinces de lOccident romain William Van Andringa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

11

27

63

75

87

107

119

131

143

157

185

195

203

219

6

Tradition Persistenz Resistenz: Kultmonumente, Kulte und Akkulturation in Nordafrika, Kleinasien und Lusitanien Gnther Schrner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La violence et la guerre chez les Romains au temps dAuguste Yann Le Bohec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zwischen Integration und Segregation eine Problemskizze zum Verhltnis zwischen rmischem Heer und Zivilgesellschaft im Principat. Rainer Wiegels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monumentalisierung rmischer Macht augusteische Stadtanlagen zwischen Monotonisierung und imitatio Urbis Sabine Panzram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Der Kaiserkult als Mittel der politischen Integration Peter Herz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The friendly kings. Politics, culture and religion in the East. Ariel S. Lewin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peace as The Highest End and Good? The Role of Peace in Roman Thought and Politics Kurt A. Raaaub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

227

239

253

275

297

309

323

VorwortUniversitt und Stadt Osnabrck veranstalteten in Zusammenarbeit mit der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen vom 14. bis 18. September 2009 den internationalen Kongress Fines imperii Imperium sine ne? Rmische Okkupationsund Grenzpolitik im frhen Principat. uerer Anlass war die spektakulre Niederlage des rmischen Feldherrn Publius Quinctilius Varus gegen ein Aufgebot germanischer Stmme unter Fhrung des Arminius im Teutoburger Wald im Jahr 9 n. Chr., also vor genau 2000 Jahren. An dieses Datum wurde auch in Haltern, Kalkriese und Detmold mit der groen Ausstellungstrias Imperium Konikt Mythos erinnert, welche durch den Kongress begleitet und zugleich ergnzt wurde. Als Schirmherrn des Kongresses konnte der damalige Ministerprsident des Landes Niedersachsen und heutige Bundesprsident Christian Wulff gewonnen werden. Inhaltlich sollte auf vergleichender Basis ein Kernproblem der Geschichte des Rmischen Reiches insbesondere in der Kaiserzeit thematisiert werden, nmlich die Frage nach Widerstand und Integration der Bevlkerung in den Grenzzonen des Imperiums, wobei der Schwerpunkt in die Zeit von Caesar bis Domitian gelegt wurde. Dass ein derart komplexes Thema im Rahmen eines Kongresses auch nicht nur annhernd erschpfend abgehandelt werden kann, war von vornherein klar. Vielmehr ging es darum, grundlegende Aspekte herauszuarbeiten, welche insbesondere fr die Frage nach dem Verhltnis von Zentrum und Peripherie, d.h. nach grundlegenden, von Rom aus gesteuerten und beeinussten Entwicklungen im Verhltnis zu eigenstndigen, regionalen Prozessen aufschlussreich sind oder sein knnten. Um hier zu differenzierten Ergebnissen zu gelangen, wurde der Blick ber bestimmte Provinzgrenzen hinaus auf das Imperium als Ganzes gerichtet. Dokumentiert werden sollten unterschiedliche Formen rmischer Herrschafts- und Friedenssicherung. Dabei standen insbesondere indigene Anpassungsstrategien und Formen der Resistenz in den verschiedenen Regionen des Rmischen Reiches im Mittelpunkt der Errterungen. Dieses geschah zunchst durch Studien zu den Provinzen an Rhein und Donau (Germanien, Raetien, Noricum, Pannonien und Moesien), aber auch zu Britannien, Gallien, der Hispania und den afrikanischen Provinzen mit durchaus eigenen Akzentsetzungen. Ein zweiter Themenblock galt der Evolution der Zivilstrukturen in den von Rom neu gewonnenen Gebieten: Dazu gehren Urbanisierung und Transformation des lndlichen Siedlungswesens ebenso wie die Entwicklung der Wirtschaftssysteme und der religisen Strukturen. An vielen Orten entstanden neue Zentren, die zu Kristallisationspunkten einer fortschreitenden Romanisation wurden. Andererseits lsst sich aber auch in vielen Fllen ein Festhalten der indigenen Gesellschaften an alten Traditionen feststellen, die ihrerseits dann Eingang in die rmische Provinzkultur fanden, was zu einem eigenstndigen Tertium jenseits von rmisch-mittelmeerlndisch und einheimisch-indigen fhrte. Im letzten Block wurden die Instrumente der Herrschaftssicherung Roms behandelt. Ein Schwerpunkt lag dabei auf der Behandlung der rmischen Armee, die nicht nur machtpolitisches Instrument war, sondern zudem eines der wichtigsten Mittel zur Integration der einheimischen Bevlkerungen in den Randgebieten in den Gesamtverband des Imperium Romanum. Zu diesen Instrumenten zhlten aber auch eine auf Rom als Zentrum ausgerichtete Ideologie und der Kaiserkult. Der Festvortrag zur Tagung mit dem Titel Zum antiken Friedensideal im antiken Rom, der vor einer groen ffentlichkeit in der Marienkirche in Osnabrck von Prof. Dr. Kurt Raaaub (USA) gehalten wurde, wird hier mit publiziert. Er wurde nicht zuletzt angesichts des Anspruchs der Stadt Osnabrck als Friedensstadt ausgewhlt, womit eine Brcke zwischen Antike und Gegenwart geschlagen werden sollte. Als Referenten und Teilnehmer an den Diskussionen konnte eine groe Anzahl von internationalen Spezialisten gewonnen werden, denen an dieser Stelle fr ihre Bereitschaft zur Mitwirkung ausdrcklich gedankt sei. Besonderer Dank gilt Dr. Ralph Hussler (Osnabrck) fr die sich ber zwei Jahre erstreckende Vorbereitung und Organisation der Tagung. Fr diese Aufgabe konnte erfreulicherweise eine eigene Stelle eingeworben werden. Zudem organisierte Ralph Hussler neben dem Kongress eine viel beachtete Vortragsreihe zum Thema Rmer und Germanen in Nordwestdeutschland, die von 2008 bis 2009 an der Volkshochschule Osnabrck stattfand und von Universitt und Stadt veranstaltet wurde. Sie diente zugleich der regionalen Vorbereitung des Kongresses und stie in der ffentlichkeit auf groe Resonanz. Ebenfalls

8

Vorwort

zu danken ist den Hilfskrften der Alten Geschichte und Archologie der Universitt Osnabrck sowie weiteren Studierenden, die zum reibungslosen Ablauf der Tagung beitrugen. Zu den guten Geistern bei Vorbereitung und Durchfhrung der Tagung gehrten schlielich Hannelore Riese und Rita Hetzer aus dem Sekretariat Geschichte der Universitt Osnabrck. Die Durchfhrung des Kongresses und die Publikation der Akten wurden in erster Linie ermglicht durch die grozgige Finanzierung seitens der Stadt und der Universitt Osnabrck. Ferner leisteten die Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen als Mitveranstalter, die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, der Landkreis Osnabrck und die Varus-Gesellschaft (Gesellschaft zur Frderung der vor- und frhgeschichtlichen Ausgrabungen im Osnabrcker Land e.V.) erhebliche nanzielle und sachliche Hilfestellung, ohne die der Kongress nicht htte durchgefhrt werden knnen. Allen Institutionen sei auf diesem Weg unser besonderer Dank ausgesprochen.

Auch wenn aus unterschiedlichen Grnden nicht alle Beitrge in diesem Tagungsband vorgelegt werden knnen, so drfte damit doch die Tagung ihren Intentionen entsprechend ausreichend dokumentiert sein. Der Versuch, einen berblick zu diesem komplexen Thema zu geben, fhrt automatisch zu inhaltlichen Lcken. Aus diesem Grund bestand von Anfang an der Gedanke, einen zweiten Band mit ergnzenden Artikeln zu publizieren. Die Planungen hierzu sind noch im Gange. Die Redaktion der Tagungsbeitrge, die erst im Herbst 2010 vollstndig zur Verfgung standen, lag in den Hnden von Dr. Achim Rost und Dr. Susanne Wilbers-Rost, untersttzt von den wissenschaftlichen Hilfskrften des Faches Alte Geschichte Dirk Sievertsen und Christian Stephan. Die berprfung der fremdsprachlichen Beitrge erfolgte durch Teresa Gehrs und Anne-Marie Plet vom Europischen Sprachendienst in Osnabrck. Ihnen allen, aber auch Verlag und Layout-Bro sei herzlich fr die letztlich zgige Umsetzung der Manuskripte in Buchform gedankt. Gustav-Adolf Lehmann Gnther Moosbauer Siegmar von Schnurbein Rainer Wiegels

Die Autoren des vorliegenden BandesProf. William Van Andringa HALMA-IPEL UMR 8164 (CNRS, Lille3) Universit Lille 3 Pont de Bois BP 60149 59653 Villeneuve dAscq cedex Frankreich [email protected] Prof. Franois Favory Professeur des universits Universit de Franche-Comt UMR 6249 Laboratoire Chrono-Environnement Directeur de la MSHE C. N. Ledoux 32 rue Mgevand 25030 Besanon Cedex Frankreich [email protected] Prof. Moshe Fischer Tel Aviv University Department of Archaeology Ramat Aviv 69978 Israel [email protected] Dr. Maaike Groot Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Faculteit der Letteren De Boelelaan 1105 1081 HV Amsterdam Niederlande [email protected] Prof. Dr. Helmut Halfmann Universitt Hamburg Historisches Seminar Arbeitsbereich Alte Geschichte Von-Melle-Park 6 / VIII 20146 Hamburg Deutschland [email protected] Prof . Dr. Peter Herz Universitt Regensburg Institut fr Geschichte / Alte Geschichte 93040 Regensburg Deutschland [email protected] Dr. Simon James BSc PhD FSA School of Archaeology & Ancient History University of Leicester Leicester LE1 7RH, UK Grobritannien [email protected] Prof. Dr. Yann Le Bohec Bote 9.2 17, rue Olympe de Gouges 59000 Lille Frankreich [email protected] Prof. Ariel Lewin Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Linguistiche e Antropologiche Via N. Sauro 85 85100 Potenza Italien [email protected] Prof. em. Dr. Stefanie Martin-Kilcher Institut fr archologische Wissenschaften Abt. Archologie der Rmischen Provinzen Universitt Bern 3005 Bern Schweiz [email protected] PD Dr. Martina Minas-Nerpel Swansea University Department of History and Classics College of Arts and Humanities Singleton Park UK-Swansea SA2 8PP Grobritannien [email protected] Prof. Dr. Miroslava Mirkovi Universitt Beograd Philosophische Fakultt Cika-Ljubiana 18-20, Djuriceva 1 11000 Beograd Serbien [email protected]

10

Die Autoren des vorliegenden Bandes

Prof. Dr. Gnther Moosbauer Universitt Osnabrck FB Kultur- und Geowissenschaften Archologie der Rmischen Provinzen Schlostrae 8 49069 Osnabrck Deutschland [email protected] Prof. ngel Morillo Cerdn Departamento de Ciencias y Tcnicas Historiogrcas y de Arqueologa Facultad de Geografa e Historia Universidad Complutense C/ Profesor Aranguren s/n. ES-28040 Madrid Spanien [email protected] Laure Nuninger UMR 6249 Laboratoire Chrono-Environnement University of Franche-Comt-CNRS 32 rue Mgevand 25030 Besanon Cedex Frankreich [email protected] Marie-Jeanne Ouriachi UMR 6249 Laboratoire Chrono-Environnement University of Franche-Comt-CNRS 32 rue Mgevand 25030 Besanon Cedex Frankreich [email protected] Dr. Sabine Panzram Universitt Hamburg Historisches Seminar Arbeitsbereich Alte Geschichte Von-Melle-Park 6 / VIII 20146 Hamburg Deutschland [email protected]

Prof. Kurt Raaaub Dept. of Classics Brown University Providence R.I. 02912-1856 U.S.A. [email protected] Prof. Dr. Michel Redd INHA/EPHE 2 rue Vivienne 75002 Paris Frankreich [email protected] Dr. Marjeta ael Kos Intitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU Novi trg 2 (p.p. 306) 1001 Ljubljana Slowenien [email protected] Prof. Dr. Siegmar von Schnurbein Rmisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts Palmengartenstrae 10-12 60325 Frankfurt a.M. Deutschland [email protected] Prof. Dr. Gnther Schrner Universitt Erlangen Institut fr Klassische Archologie Kochstr. 4/19 91054 Erlangen Deutschland [email protected] Prof. Dr. Rainer Wiegels Universitt Osnabrck FB Kultur- und Geowissenschaften Alte Geschichte Schlostrae 8 49069 Osnabrck Deutschland [email protected]

Rome and Judaea during the First Century CE: A strange modus vivendiMoshe Fischer

AbstractThis paper focuses on the situation of 1st century CE Judaea against the background of Herodian era (37-4 BCE) achievements (pre-Roman). First, various main aspects of the Herodian era will be briefly presented with an emphasis on pre-Roman Roman elements, such as urban frames, the road system and architectural-artistic expressions. The postHerodian period (after 6 CE) will then be presented in an attempt to distinguish between the time before and after 44 CE (Agrippa Is death). An attempt will be made to highlight new real Roman elements (not known under Herod the Great) then introduced to Judaea, which could have been the reason for certain inquietude. Finally, the years of the First (Great) Revolt and thereafter will be examined, based mainly on recent archaeological research carried out in the area, which will serve as short case studies. The main purpose of this paper is to give a distinguishable concise presentation of Judean society under Herodian patronage on the one hand and that with a Roman, mainly military presence, on the other. It is obvious that coexistence was present in the country, but also that it was of a rather special nature. All this should explain the subtitle A strange modus vivendi. In a paper presented at a table ronde I organised at the 17th International Congress of Classical Archaeology on behalf of the Association Internationale dArchologie Classique (AIAC), Rome, FAO, 22-26 September 2008, Werner Eck drew attention to the information given in Johns Gospel that Pontius Pilate published his reasons for the condemnation of Jesus in three languages, namely HebrewAramaic, Greek and Latin (see also Eck 2003; 2009). Eck has shown that Hebrew-Aramaic was used for those who could not read/understand the two ofcial languages, whilst Greek was the lingua franca of the whole East, and Latin became the language of the regions rulers. The Roman conquest of Judaea brought the Latin language to the area, alongside those that had been used for centuries, namely Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. Latin became the language of the new rulers. However, as a continuing tradition, Latin was not forced onto the people as an exclusive language. On the contrary, Greek

continued to be used whenever required. This reects the linguistic reality of Rome itself, where Greek became de facto the second language. Thus, it is not surprising that the majority of ofcial Roman documents in the East were edited in Greek. It also ts the reality of the documents of the archives of Babatha and Salome Komaise, found in the Caves of the Judean Desert (Lewis 1989). Most of these were written in Greek, including petitions to the governor, and so on (Eck 2003:125 -144, note. 4). Does all this not reect the strange modus vivendi I try to focus on in my paper? Recently, an article published by Hannah Cotton on the impact of the Roman army in Judaea, emphasising the adjustment to and reconciliation with Roman rule as reected by the same Babatha archive from the Judean Desert preceding the Bar Kokhba War, concludes with the following major question: How are we to reconcile this [namely the acceptance of Roman rule, M.F.] with the erce rebellions motivated by religious and national motives against everything which the empire represented? (Cotton 2007a:407). The Babatha archive clearly shows that the advantages of Roman rule, which made it acceptable and even desirable, could have been the clue to the modus vivendi. On the other hand, it is even more striking to realise, following Menahem Stern in an article from 1987 (1987:71-72; pointed out by Cotton 2007a:405), that the main reason Agrippa used in his famous speech in 66 CE (BJ 2,345-404) to persuade his compatriots not to revolt against Rome is that Rome is invincible and all opposition is futile and Menachem Stern added in his article that there is a complete absence of any expression of appreciation of the civilizing achievements of Romeno awareness of the benets of the Imperial Peace. Moreover, all this reects a real contrast between Judaea and other provinces, or a great part of them, and their relationship with the Empire. Unlike there, no sharing of common interests occurs here; thus, for example, no Jew was to command a Roman legion (an exception is Tiberius Alexander, who abandoned Judaism), or local elites from only the non-Jewish sector in Palestine were integrated in

144

Fischer, Rome and Judaea during the First Century CE

the imperial elite, etc. (Cotton 2007a: 406). This pessimistic view contrasts somewhat with the famous rabbinic discussion regarding Roman rule; yet there, too, both the advantages and disadvantages of the latter are put into perspective: R. Jehudah, R. Jose, and R. Simeon were sitting and Jehudah, the son of proselytes, sat before them. R. Jehudah opened the conversation, saying: How beautiful are the works of this nation (the Romans). They have established markets, they have built bridges, they have opened bathing-houses. R. Jose said nothing, but R. Simeon b. Johai said: All these things they have instituted for their own sake. Their markets are gathering-places for harlots; they have built baths for the purpose of indulging themselves in their comforts; they have built bridges to collect tolls from those who cross them. (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 33b). Archaeological reality also seems to strengthen the aspect of advantages of Roman civilization, not only already in Herodian era, but mainly in the decades following his death, which I will focus on shortly. We have to bear in mind, however, that the end was ultimate, since the name Judaea suffered a kind of damnatio memoriae says Hannah Cotton in her article quoted above, it was air-brushed out of the map of the Roman provinces, she concludes (Cotton 2007a:398), which was, in fact, uncommon in the Roman Empire, namely to change names of provinces as a result of revolts. To return to my main issue, this paper is an attempt to present aspects of the reality of the antebellum period, including postHerodian Judaea, which in 6 CE became a province of the Roman Empire, ten years after Herods death (4 BCE), yet still bearing the name Judaea. A kind of provincialisation now started, leading nally to the establishment of an independent province after the death of Agrippa I in 44 CE, and possibly also to the dramatic events of 66-70 and 132-135 CE. In any case, from 6 CE onwards, military units were stationed at several strategic points, yet their location at the outbreak of the Great Revolt was probably an emergency measure. Such units existed at Ascalon (BJ 3, 12), Kypros/Jericho (BJ 2,484-5), Masada (BJ 2,408), Samaria (BJ 3,309) and Jezreel Valley (vita 115) (Cotton 2007a:395; Cotton and Geiger 1989:14). The army had to play an important role in the formation of the province, not to mention its involvement in the belligerent events of the second half of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd century CE, as emphasised by various articles published in recently (e.g. de Blois and lo Cascio Eds. 2007; Fischer 2009; Fischer [in press]).

The formation of the province as an administrative, political and military unit is in fact accompanied by changes and their impact on the environment, on the landscape, which seems to be a crucial factor. Thus, as early as during the 1st century CE, the construction of the Roman road between Caesarea and Scythopolis during the suspension of hostilities between July 69 and spring 70 by a military unit, as evidenced by a milestone discovered at its original spot (Isaac and Roll 1976), represents a sign of change in landscape to be fully carried out in the coming centuries. As to various aspects of landscape used to judge historical events and processes, such as Hellenisation or Romanisation, etc., or as in our case here, creating a picture of 1st century CE Judaea, they should be seen as part of a process, since landscape is never simply a natural space always articial, always synthetic, always subject to sudden or unpredictable change, (Jackson 1984:8, 156). In our attempt to present the Roman provincial picture versus that inherited from preRoman/Herodian rule, we can adopt the inspiring model proposed by Alcock in 1993, which dealt with rural, civic, provincial and sacred landscapes. Their comparison leads imminently to the question of what in fact was newly introduced in the postHerodian 1st century CE, and how these changes contributed to altering the landscape, creating a new reality. For such a purpose, virtually all aspects of everyday life have to be taken into account, such as urbanisation, the army, countryside, art, funerary habits and their expression, ceramics, coins, glass, etc. Such attempts have often been made recently, as emphasised by highly stimulating collections of papers published for various areas under Roman rule (such as Alcock Ed. 1997; Hoff and Rotroff, Eds. 1997; Fentress Ed. 2000; Ostenfeld Ed. 2002; Schrner Ed. 2005). For Judaea, however, such syntheses are still a desideratum.

I. Herodian Palestine1. Settlement and architectural landscapeIn a different context, J. B. Ward-Perkins explored the Roman contribution to the development of architecture in Anatolia and compared it with Herods Judaea, where Roman elements, such as opus caementicium, Roman-style temples and colonnaded streets, were introduced to the country before real Roman rule began (Ward-Perkins 1994:281). In Ward-Perkins eyes, Herod was a pioneer in introducing such elements to the East. It would therefore

Osnabrcker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 14

145

be appropriate to present a brief overview of Herods Judaea, focusing primarily on various main aspects of the landscape at his time. After the dramatic end of both Seleucid and then Jewish/Hasmonean rule over the Near East and Pompey, the Greats and Gabiniuss activity in the area between 63 and 55 BCE, a real stabilisation of central rule occurred under Herod the Great (37-4 BCE), including several main steps which led to a serious re-modelling of the landscape. Thus, a real architectural revolution occurred, including a monumental architecture realised according to a combination of local traditions with a strong inuence of Hellenistic and Roman principles (see various papers in Jacobson and Kokkinos 2009) tending to a somewhat exaggerated monumentality and even personal grandomania (recently psycho-historically analysed by Kasher and Witztum 2007). The most prestigious building project was doubtlessly the construction of the Second Temple at Jerusalem, which was considered to be a monument comparable with achievements in the Greco-Roman world, as expressed in Rabbinic literature: He who has not seen the Temple in its full construction has never seen a glorious building in his life.... (Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 51b; Baba Bathra 4a); Flavius Josephus also provides many details on the building (AJ, 15, 388-420; BJ, 5, 184-237), which unfortunately remained poorly explored due to its special place in the tumultuous religious tradition and reality of the Near East. Despite representing a continuous tradition, its monumentality, surpassing everything constructed previously, has denitely marked the religious landscape of Jerusalem, as well as that of the whole country and even Jewish diaspora, due to its centralising character, implying a thrice-yearly pilgrimage of all Jews to the Temple in Jerusalem. Viewing the Temple and its place among Judaism, despite being surrounded by nonJews, the famous forbiddance inscriptions in both Greek and Latin mentioned by Josephus and Philo (BJ 5, 194; 6, 125; AJ 15, 417; Philo, leg. ad Gaium 212; ep. ad Ephes. 2, 14) and signalised by archaeological nds (Clermont-Ganneau 1871: 132-133; see also Boffo 1994: 283-241) are highly important. They warn strangers non-Jews against crossing the balustrade of the Second (Middle) Courtyard of the Temple in Jerusalem, mentioning that the punishment for this trespass was death. At the same time, they demonstrate that Jews were unable to isolate themselves from their surroundings and reality, including that of the ruling power, as reected by the Latin version of the inscription (although it has not yet been discovered).

As to non- or even anti-isolation, one of the monumental features of the Temple should be mentioned in this context, too, namely the Royal basilica (basileios stoa) where the number of all the columns was a hundred-and-sixty-two, and their capitals were ornamented in the Corinthian style of carving, which caused amazement by the magnicence of this whole effect, (AJ 15, 414). As a matter of fact, as early as during the Hellenistic period (Fischer and Tal 2003), but mainly during the Herodian period, all three main classical orders were used in Ancient Israel, as was common in the whole Mediterranean, including even a strong mixing of orders (Avigad 1954; cf. Japp 2000; Lichtenberger 1999; Roller 1998). Another interesting point should be emphasised here, namely that a clear tendency towards the use of Corinthian style can only be felt during the Herodian period and, moreover, even towards the use of the regular style (Fischer 1990), as becomes apparent by looking at any Herodian building project. At that time, a grand building programme, unprecedented in the country, transformed Caesarea (old Stratons Tower), Samaria (becoming now SamariaSebaste), Antipatris (old Afeq/Pegae), etc. from ruins, or totally neglected sites, into ourishing cities. We even hear of gladiatorial combats that accompanied the festivities of the inauguration of Caesarea, probably in the recently excavated hippo-amphi-stadium (Humphrey 1996). It seems that Augustan Rome then made its entrance to the Near East, as emphasised by Kathy Gleason in a wonderful description of the building phases of the Herodian palace at Caesarea, the Promontory Palace, reecting the massive transformation of Rome itself during the time of Augustus (Gleason 1996; see Zanker 1988). The harbour of the latter Sebastos was denitely an outstanding logistical and architectural project, as emphasised by Flavius Josephus and evidenced by the underwater archaeological project carried out at the site (Oleson, Raban and Hohlfelder 1989). The main trend of this building phase continued to be the massive use of ashlars for both walls and vaulted structures (such as at Herodium), which in fact lasted until the Late Antique period. The Temple Mount, the Patriarchs Tombs at Hebron, the remains of Caesarea Philippi, the temples of Caesarea and Samaria-Sebaste and many other structures of this period illustrate this trend. The vitality of Hellenistic royal architecture was now combined with and adapted to the new style, which began to be popular under Augustus. However, it is unlikely that the latter marble was used in Judaea, with the exception of rudimentary use for opus sectile, such as in the bathhouse at Jericho (Netzer 1977, 9, Fig. 11) or the pavement of the

146


orchestra in the theatre at Caesarea (Albricci 1965), and a few pieces of minor art, such as the head of a marble Silen, which was found at Herodium and attributed to the Herodian period (Netzer 1985, Fig. p. 85). It is interesting to note that the isotopic composition of its marble points to Pentelikon, a very popular source of marble in Augustan Rome, together with the newly rediscovered Carrara quarries! As to building projects, Flavius Josephuss description, including the use of marble as a building and decorative material, was probably misled in many cases by the white shining stucco applied to walls, since this technique was used widely and successfully by Herodian artisans (see Fischer and Stein 1994). Among the various Roman inuences in architectural planning and design, the most strident one is the use of opus reticulatum this very typical western Roman technique by the builders in Herods lifetime and that of his successors, such as at Jericho (Kelso and Baramki 1955; Pritchard 1958), where Netzer (1977) attributes its use to the presence of Roman artisans brought there by Herod Jerusalem (Ben-Arieh and Netzer 1974), Caesarea Maritima (Levine 1975) and Caesarea Philippi (Paneas; modern Banias) (Tzaferis and Israeli 2008).

self. It is worth mentioning that the marble of this item has been identied by Norman Herz (University of Georgia at Athens) as originating from Carrara, which would shed further light on the relationship between Herod and Augustan Rome. I will deal with this item and its place in the sculpture of Early Roman Palestine on another occasion. Such a trend also lasted under Herods descendants, as depicted by Josephus telling us that, after the death of Herod Agrippa (in 44 CE), the Caesarea mob looted the images of the kings daughters (AJ 19,356-357).

II. The First Century1. The post-Herodian interregnum and Varus in JudaeaThe picture presented above should be sufcient to reect the introduction of symbols of Romanitas to this area, as Alcock puts it (Alcock 1997:4). These have been enjoyed or rejected by certain parts of local populations. Following this development, the decades after Herods death seem to witness a progressing introduction of Romanitas on the one hand, yet a crystallisation of opponent resistance on the other. A rst sign of the latter occurred soon after Herods death, bringing to the scene Publius Quinctilius Varus who became renowned following the Teutoburg Forest disaster (9 CE). Serving as the Roman governor of Syria between 7 and 4 BCE when, after Herods death in 4 BCE, anti-Herodian/antiRoman(?) riots broke out in Judaea (Varus revolt), he ruthlessly suppressed them, including acts with Roman soldiers razing the porticos of the temple in Jerusalem, as described in detail by Flavius Josephus (AJ 17, 206-323; cf. Schrer 1973:330-335; see now Lichtenberger 2009:165-166). These events are also mentioned in the pseudoepigraphical work The Assumption of Moses and in the rabbinic chronicle work Seder Olam Rabbah (Schrer 1973:332333, note 9; 534, note 92; cf. Eshel 2008). The late Hannan Eshel (2008) pointed out that there is no claim that Varus was killed in Germania due to his actions in Jerusalem. Nor can such claim be found in the writings of Josephus or in the apocryphal and rabbinic works. He concludes, therefore, that it seems as though Josephus and Jews in Judaea were unaware of what befell Varus in the Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE. As to the consequences of the riots themselves, the former kingdom of Herod was divided into three territories which had their own history, preparing the scene for the future dramatic events to come.

2. Sculpture of Herodian PalestineA number of interesting aspects were revealed with regard to sculpture of the Herodian era where it seems that no images of either the king himself and other gurative art were used, keeping almost strictly to the anti-iconic attitude of the Second Commandment, as expressed by Flavius Josephus (Ap. 2, 12; BJ 2, 75; cf. Gaifman 2008); on the other hand, Josephus largely describes the use of colossal statues erected in the Temple of Augustus and Roma at Caesarea (BJ 1, 414), which unfortunately are lost. A rather strange story is that regarding the Golden Eagle required by Herod to be attached to the Temple in Jerusalem (AJ 17, 149-163; BJ 1, 648-655). It is worth mentioning a fragment of a headless cuirassed statue of marble discovered by the Harvard University Expedition at the Herodian Augusteum in Samaria-Sebaste (Reisner, Fisher and Lyon 1924, I, 176, No. 210A; II, Pl. 79e-f), wrongly dated by me to the Severan period (Fischer 1998, 159, No. 182) and later attributed to the Early Roman/Herodian period (Fittschen 2002); it may have depicted an emperor (Augustus?) or somebody of his entourage, and might be seen against the background of Herods pro-Roman policy, as suggested by Thomas Weber (2008.) Weber has also re-evaluated fragments of marble statues which he interpreted as representing Herod the Great him-


147

2. The rst century realityIn the 1st century CE, we witness the rst real Jewish-Roman interchange. Jews were still enjoying broad autonomy, albeit under Roman rule. Now, Herods descendants created settlements and palaces reecting a new trend of a certain aristocratic air such as Caesarea Philippi (Hellenistic Paneas/Paneion/now Banias; Wilson 2001; recently Tzaferis and Israeli 2008:17-20; 174-175) and Tiberias (AJ 18, 36-37; Hirschfeld 2004:3; 221). Caesarea Philippi was founded by Herods son Philip in 3 BCE and was later inherited to Agrippa II (54-100 CE), who even changed the name of the city to Neronias (AJ 20, 211). According to Josephus (BJ 3,514), during the reign of Agrippa II the natural beauties of Paneion have been enhanced by royal municencethe place having been embellished by Agrippa at great expense, (Tzaferis and Israeli 2008:174-175). The creation of the province of Judaea in 6 CE gave new impulses, mainly to its two capitals: the political capital Caesarea and the traditional capital Jerusalem. The main Herodian structures of Caesarea predominantly its royal palace complex (the Promontory Palace) now became the praetorium of the praefectus of Judaea, successfully meeting the demands of such a structure (Burrell 1996), as emphasised by archaeological and epigraphic nds in recent decades (Levine 1975; Jacobson and Kokkinos 2009). An interesting settlement pattern is now developing in Judaea, which is becoming the model for later periods, sometimes even to the present day, namely a multi-ethnic/ multi-religious urban society vis--vis a mono-ethnic/mono-religious rural landscape (Hirschfeld 1996). Cities founded by Herod the Great and his successors were inhabited by representatives of the whole ethnic/religious spectrum of Judaea, co-existing for better and for worse. This situation is well reected by archaeological, architectural, artistic and epigraphic remains, such as Caesarea, where Pagan temples, a Jewish synagogue and Christian complexes were active throughout the 1st century CE, at least until the events after 66 CE (Levine 1975). An intensive building boom is also reected by interesting economic data, such as the suspension of large-scale building activity in Jerusalem after the construction of the Temple, resulting in unemployment affecting 18,000 workers (AJ 20,219-222, cf. Schalit 1969, 329, n.64). As to architectural and artistic achievements, monumental tombs from Jerusalem, mainly from the Kidron Valley (Avigad 1954) and that of Helen of Adiabene (Kon 1947), attest to the last works of architecture and art before the great changes which occurred at the end of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd centuries CE. In my opinion, these monumental tombs, in fact family mausolea, represent a clear adaptation

of Jerusalems aristocracy to the architectural and artistic principles of the Roman Eastern Mediterranean. A clear transition can be noted upon their examination between pure traditional Oriental elements (the clear pyramid shape and design of the Zachariah Tomb) combined with Greek elements (such as the Doric faade of the Benei Hezir Tomb and the Doric-Ionic combination of the Zachariah Tomb) and Roman inuence, as felt in Western and Eastern provinces at the same time (Fedak 1990:140148). At the Tomb of Absalom, the traditional pyramid is replaced by a Greco-Roman tholos. The entrance to the so-called Yehoshaphat tomb behind the Absalom Tomb is carved in wonderful GrecoRoman style. A truly outstanding example of this mixture of tradition and Greco-Roman elements is visible in the Umm el Amud tomb, and mainly in the so-called Kings Tomb, in fact that of the legendary Helen of Adiabene. Clear Greco-Roman artistic and architectural dcor is used in a strange, Oriental way, reminiscent also of the Petra monuments. Artists give the impression that they wish to emphasise their knowledge of the fashionable artistic language. Tradition, Greek and Roman elements, Jewish Jerusalem under Roman rule, tomb of a Lady converted to Judaism. Isnt this a strange modus vivendi?

3. Ancient roads and sitesBeside architectural and artistic changes, the issue of communication and transport could represent another criterion for analysing pre-and post-Roman developments in the area and the impact they had on the landscape. Although there is no doubt about the Roman contribution to road building and the development of transport networks, including that in the Near East and Palestine (Fig. 1), it should be noted, however, that a well-developed road system existed in the Near East in general and the Land of Israel in particular long before the Romans arrived there (Graf 1993), mainly that leading to Jerusalem. Thus, for example, the rock for roads leading through Beth Horon or Horvat Mazad passes had been cut for generations before the Romans arrived (see Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996:8-10; 137-138; Pl. 62-63). Any research dealing with roads and communication systems should distinguish between: (a) road building and (b) their ultimate use, regarded against the periods in which the roads were actually used, as revealed by archaeological remains. For this purpose, only excavated sites along the roads in combination with dated material, such as milestone inscriptions and other epigraphic or historical evidence, could give a reasonable answer regarding periods in which the roads were used (Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996:320-338).

148


Fig. 1 Roman road system in Palestine


149

It is obvious, however, that after Herods death and during the establishment of the Roman rule, the area underwent certain changes, leading to a greater involvement of the Roman factor, mainly at the ofcial level but certainly with an impact on everyday life. Presence of the Roman army was visible all over the country, as mentioned above, although it seems that it occupied only a few sites, such as Jerusalem, Caesarea, Samaria, Ascalon, Jericho (Kypros), Masada and Machaerus (Schrer 1973:362-364). Hundreds of small- or medium-sized sites with a rural character continued to exist without being occupied by the Romans. This may indicate a certain amount of Roman reservation, refraining from direct confrontation with the Jews in the very heart of the Jewish area and pilgrimage, as was the case in Jerusalem itself, too. It is also in accordance with early Palestinian Talmudic traditions concerning preparations of the pilgrimage ways for the three great festivals (Shahar 2000:187-201). Indeed, during this period many thousands of Jews continued to make their pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year, namely at Pessah (Passover), Shavuot and Sukkot (Tabernacles), obviously up to the Destruction of the Temple (70 CE). Philo states in his De specialibus legibus I, 12, 96 that thousands of people from thousands of cities come to the Temple, some over land, others over sea, from east, west, north and south, at every feast. Josephus exaggerates when he speaks of 2,700,000 Jews spending the Passover of 68 CE in Jerusalem (BJ 6,425). The same seems to be the case when he reports that Lydda was practically abandoned when Cestius Gallus arrived there in 66 CE because the entire population had gone to Jerusalem for Sukkot. Nonetheless, this gives us an idea of the dimension of such pilgrimages. The Temple tax paid by Babylonian Jews, as well as Jews from all over the world, especially from the Roman east, was brought to Jerusalem by a delegation containing tens of thousands of Jews (AJ 18, 312). The New Testament refers also to the intensive use of public roads and their dangers (Hengel 1983:169-175), including the famous Emmaus story. The development of roads under Herod and his successors may also be considered part of a general development of the country, including the construction of cities and the development of the countryside (in general Schalit 1969; Applebaum 1976:642643; 1977; recently Japp 2000). On the other hand, a number of surveys in and around Jerusalem have shown that there were uctuations in this development, due to the increasing size and population of the city of Jerusalem in detriment of the farms and villages around it. Roads and sites along the roads, however, do not seem to have been affected by this

development (Baruch 1998). Surveys of the roads leading to Jerusalem have revealed that increased settlement can be observed during the Herodian/ Early Roman period, mainly along the roads (Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996: 328-329). Many of these settlements that have been surveyed and excavated in the Dead Sea area (Fischer, Gichon and Tal 2000), the Judean Hills (Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996, s.v. Kh. ad Daliya, Kafr Rut, Kh. Kureikur) and the Antipatris area (Fischer 1989) ended violently during the First Jewish Revolt against the Romans, and were re-settled on a larger scale only later in the Roman period, most of them even in the Byzantine period (Hirschfeld 1996). A distinction can be made, however, between the consequences of the First Revolt in the Shephelah and the Judean hills north and south of the hillside of Jerusalem and between Jerusalems hillsides. On the former, most of the settlements were hit less severely; they were resettled or their inhabitants continued to live there up to the destruction of the settlements in the Bar-Kokhba War; the hillside of Jerusalem alone was depopulated from its Jewish residents following 70 CE, and was partly replaced by Romans, both army members and veterans (Shahar 2000).

4. The Emmaus-Jerusalem roads: The Horvat Mazad alternative as a case studyThe Emmaus-Jerusalem roads (Fig. 2) played an important role in connecting the Mediterranean coast with the Judean Mountains, including Jerusalem, from earliest antiquity onwards (Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996:87-98). One of its characteristics was the topographic possibility of using various alternatives, one of which leading through the Horvat Mazad pass is given here as a case study. Archaeological investigations and excavations carried out along this road and at Horvat Mazad have shown that the main use and settlement period was that of Herod the Greats reign and the 1st century CE up to ca. one year prior to the Destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE). However, rather intensive use was also recorded before the Roman era, during the Hasmoneans, and later during the consolidation of Roman rule in the 2nd century CE. For the purpose of this article, only a brief reminder of the archaeological evidence is given here (for a full report, see: Fischer [in press]; for preliminary observations, see Fischer 1987). The site of Horvat Mazad seems to have been built as a fort overlooking the main road, mainly due to its outstanding topographic location (Fig. 3), during the

150


Fig. 2 Roads between Jaffa and Jerusalem


151

Fig. 3 Horvat Mazad along the ancient road. Foto by Derrick Riley

reign of Alexander Jannaeus. It was probably abandoned sometime after his death (76 BCE). A rather elaborate structure, serving as a fortied road station, as revealed by archaeological and numismatic evidence, was only built there during the reign of Herod the Great. Judging from numismatic evidence, this structure was still in use in Year III of the First Jewish Revolt (68/9 CE), after which it was abandoned. It covers the whole period called the End of the Second Temple Period or the Herodian period (40[37] BCE - 70 CE). The road station built under Herod at Horvat Mazad on the ruins of the earlier (Hasmonean) watchtower reects his general policy of pacifying the country and the increasing security issues and settlement policy. Signs of such road stations, often fortied, can be seen in various areas of Judaea surrounding the core land of Jerusalem and its neighbourhood (Barouch 1996). The road station, created in accordance with Herodian policy mentioned above, continued to exist under Roman governors until its nal abandonment in 68/9 CE, as evidenced by numismatic nds mentioned above. The changes made in the last few years of its existence and their hasty character can be seen as preparations, reecting the emergency atmosphere after 66 CE, and in this geographical area mainly around 68 CE. It is worth mentioning that material evidence exists which may be connected with the Jewish ethno-religious character of the site during the period after Herods death as well, such as the existence of

Jewish stone vessels and a miqveh (ritual bath)(for such installations see: Reich 1990), supported by the presence of a complete Judean-type (Herodian) oil lamp and coins of Herod Agrippa and mainly those of the First Jewish Revolt. To this, the absence of pork bones among the archaeozoological nds of this stratum can be added, all of them pointing to that Jewish character of the site (as emphasized by Berlin 2005 for the whole region). It seems that Horvat Mazad owes its existence to the pilgrimage policy mentioned here, which had to assure maximum security to Jewish pilgrims going to Jerusalem (Safrai 1981). According to the Rabbinical sources referring to the time before the Destruction of the Temple, one of the main concerns of Herodian pilgrimage policy was the organisation of the road system, including annual repairs of roads and bridges, probably as a public responsibility (Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996:17-19; cf. Krauss 1911, II: 324, n. 59; see Safrai 1990). The journey was made either using asses or on foot, according to both Rabbinical and New Testament sources. Thus Hillel the Elder asks the ass driver For how much will you rent me your ass from here to Emmaus?... (cf. Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996: 18-19). As to the New Testament it was emphasised several times that its heroes travelled a lot (Hengel 1983). It is worth mentioning the Latin idiom per pedes [apostolorum] used for walking... (like the Apostles did) (cf. Duden, Vol. 5, 2520, s.v.).

152


One of the main obstacles to the pilgrimage system was banditry, which became a plague during the Herodian period (Isaac 1984; see also Hengel 1983, 169-175). Josephus mentions robbery on roads several times (AJ 17,278-284; BJ 2,60-65; AJ 17,273277; BJ 2,57-59; AJ 17,270; 18,274). It is important to note that much of the brigandage described by Josephus/Nicolaus of Damascus should sometimes be considered as anti-Herodian and anti-Roman resistance, although it occasionally appears difcult to differentiate between the two. As a preventive act against banditry in the Trachonitis, which frightened both pilgrims from Babylonia and the local population, Herod established the famous unit of Zamariss archers in Batanaea (AJ 17, 29; NO: ]; Applebaum 1989:47-65). The building of a road station such as Horvat Mazad at one of the main roads leading to Jerusalem therefore seems to have been a mere necessity. Moreover, in case of emergency, both the road and its stations could have been controlled by armed forces as well, as was the case later, for example, during the military escort of Paul to Caesarea (Acts 23, 23; 31; cf. Hengel 1983). The last stage of the 1st century CE modus vivendi starts with the dramatic events of the sixties, culminating in the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the expelling of Jews from this area. Thus, after the Cestius Gallus campaign in 66 CE (BJ 2, 507555), the Romans entered a period of reorganisation and preparation toward the nal battle for Jerusalem. Now the Roman expeditionary force to suppress the Jewish revolt was sent to Judaea. It seems that the inhabitants of the site of Horvat Mazad reorganised themselves at the same time, too, as evident from reinforcements of walls, repartitions of rooms, additions of several smaller installations, such as small dolia, recalling the changes made in Masada by the zealots (Netzer 1991:623-624; cf. Cotton and Geiger 1989:4-7). Here, the discovery of three Jewish coins from Years II (67/8 CE) and III (68/9) of the Revolt are worthy of mention. It seems that Horvat Mazads inhabitants were preparing to face the new threat which, indeed, came by Vespasians taking over of Emmaus in the spring of 68 CE. Josephus states that Vespasian ...came to Emmaus. He occupied the passes leading to the capital, built a fortied camp and, leaving the fth legion there... (BJ 4,443-450; Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996, s.v. Emmaus). Somewhat later, however, the inhabitants of Horvat Mazad abandoned the site. The terminus post quem of this phase is given by the coins from Year III of the Jewish Revolt, (68/9 CE), as mentioned above. In 70 CE, Titus marched with legion XII Fulminata and other troops from Caesarea through Samaria and Gophna to Jerusalem. He then ordered the fth and tenth legion to join him

from Emmaus and Jericho, respectively (BJ 5, 42). Although Josephus does not explicitly say how the fth and tenth legions went to Jerusalem, it seems that Tituss order given to the fth legion to march through points to the choice of the Emmaus Emmaus-Horvat Mazad-Abu Ghosh-Biddu option over frightening Beth Horon, which has been in fresh memory after Cestius Galluss attempt of reaching Jerusalem in 66 CE.. Following these events, the area and site of Horvat Mazad were used temporarily by Roman troops patrolling the road, as evidenced by items attributed to this stratum and dated to the Middle Roman period. Such items include a fragment of an imported oil lamp with the stamp of the potter Fortis, a rather popular supplier of lamps for the Roman army during this period, and a number of coins, such as one from Ascalon from the year 76/77 CE with the countermark LX of the Tenth Legion and two Nabataean coins of Rabbel II, one with his mother Shuqailath (70-76 CE) and the other with his wife Gamilath (last quarter of the 1st century CE), used frequently by the Roman army. In the context of the military reorganisation of the province in general and the roads leading to Jerusalem in particular, Horvat Mazad lost its previous importance. It was now more important for the Romans to strengthen the sites overlooking the passes between the mountain and the plain. The fact that Jewish pilgrimages to Jerusalem no longer took place certainly had an impact on the situation. It seems that stationing the fth legion at Emmaus and the tenth at Jerusalem was a guarantee for the Roman control of the major routes to Jerusalem and Jerusalem itself, as reected by various Talmudic passages referring to Emmaus (Lamentations Rabbah 1, 52). A military presence for an undetermined period after the First War can be ascertained at Emmaus, at least by several inscriptions found there (Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996, Gazetteer, s.v. Emmaus). The headquarters of Legio X Fretensis was established after 70 CE in Jerusalem, where it remained until the last quarter of the 3rd century CE. First of all, it had to guard the city, as stated by Flavius Josephus (BJ 7, 1; 2,5; 1,17; also vita 76, 422) and as evident from inscriptions (ILS 9059). However, it also had to control trafc to and from Jerusalem. Jerusalem had lost its previous status as a major city and centre of Jewish life in the province, the only one advantage it had over Caesarea, gaining primacy over the 1st century CE. Tacitus describes this vividly, saying that Hierosolyma genti caput (Historiae V, 8,1) whilst Caesarea Iudeae caput est (Historiae II, 78,2); the latter was preferred by the Romans as the capital of Judaea (Stern 1980:12-13, 21, 28, 46). However, the roads leading to Jerusalem still remained important. Control over them and the lands behind


153

them was based on a combination of systematic military patrolling and the settlement of veterans, albeit on a lower scale than it has been thought (Isaac 1992:347-349). In fact, only one settlement of 800 veterans is related by Josephus (a chorion BJ 7, 217, namely that of Ammaus (Motza), later also called Colonia (as preserved by Arabic Qaluniya; see Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996:16; s.v. Motza). It is obvious that, in addition to cheap land division, the idea behind this act was to maintain security in the region. The activity of patrolling was conducted from the headquarters of Legio X at Jerusalem. Its presence there is evidenced by various nds, such as inscriptions, tiles, coins (Avigad 1983:205-206) and industrial activity (as discovered at the Jerusalem Convention Center, see Arubas and Goldfus 2005), yet its localisation remains problematic (Geva 1984). Within the newly established patrolling system, Abu Ghosh started to play an important role due to its good location on a large saddle and its water sources (see Fig. 2). Archaeological remains, inscriptions and milestones reect this position (de Vaux and Steve 1950; Fischer, Isaac and Roll 1996, Gazetteer, s.v. Abu Ghosh). The road was reorganised as a Roman public road, as evident from the milestones erected along it. On the other hand, recent discoveries of Jewish settlements in the area north of Jerusalem, such as that at Givat Shaul (Shuafat), which have been denitely dated to a time between the two Jewish Wars (Bar Nathan and Sakler-Frances 2008; Cotton 2007b), shed new light on that tumultuous period. They have rightly been attributed to the newly created toparchy called Oirene, which replaced Jerusalem as a toparchy of this area. Plinys description from his Naturalis Historia 5, 70: Orinen, in qua fuere Hierosolyma longe clarissima urbem orientis, non Iudaeae modo denitely reects a certain reality, yet the archaeological nds mentioned here seem, however, to emphasise a more complex situation of Jews living in the shadow of their destroyed Jerusalem, as a kind of continuing strange modus vivendi.

art and adapted to local needs (Hlscher 1994:140143). Without exaggerating the colonial aspect of Roman Palestine since it seems that a large part of the population, even that of the elite, was a Near Eastern one we can agree with symptoms of colonial impact, such as actions which leave an imprinton the physical and mental landscape, (Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002:9). Some observations regarding this aspect could be taken from the language issue we have started to explore in our paper. In spite of the introduction of the Roman way of life in almost all elds of activity, the Latin language only became prominent where Roman citizens were living; Romans who came to Judaea from other regions, bringing the Latin language with them. Of course ofcial representatives of the Roman rule, including veterans, used Latin. Veterans made up the majority in coloniae, which are limited in the 1st century CE to Vespasians Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesarea, to which Hadrians founding of Colonia Aelia Capitolina can be added only around 130 CE. Eck (2009) points out that veterans and their successors determined the public aspect of the coloniae, as far as we can deduce from their epigraphic material. The environmental, architectural and artistic expressions presented here reect aspects of the impact of Roman imperialism, perhaps that of at least partial acceptance of the Roman way of life, that of less resistance to imitation of the latter, as was the case in many Roman provinces (Mattingly 1997). Isnt the famous rabbis conversation/dispute about the advantages and disadvantages of the Roman way of life quoted above a vivid example of such acceptance and resistance? It is therefore not too surprising that a certain Lauricius travelling sometime during the 2nd century CE in Waddi Rum (Jordan) wrote (in Greek) the following message:

(The Romans always win; I, Lauricius wrote this, farewell Zeno) (IGLSyria 21.4:138; cf. Jones 1997: 185).

ConclusionsCorroborating the data presented here, it is rather obvious that Judaea shows real expressions of Romanisation during the late 1st century BCE and rst half of the 1st century CE, such as Roman-style roads with road stations, cardo & decumanus-based cities, bath complexes, theatres, etc. The Roman armature, as McDonald (1986) puts it, is here, and is rapidly lled with artistic content based later on marble

AcknowledgementThe Conference of these proceedings was very much held under the impact of the 2000 year perspective of Varuss activity in Germania, so that the Varus passage included in this article would symbolise the Judaean connection of the Roman general. It is also a good opportunity to thank the organisers for an amazing conference, creating an exceptional frame for talks and discussions. My thanks are going also to

154


Rina Talgam, Werner Eck, Oren Tal and Boaz Zissu who kindly contributed to the table ronde organized by me at the 17th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Rome, FAO, 22-26 September 2008; the impact of their contributions and fruitful talks we had together can easily be found in this paper.

BEN-ARIEH, S. AND NETZER, E. 1974.Excavations along the Third Wall of Jerusalem 1972-1974, IEJ 24: 97-107.

BERLIN, A. 2005.Jewish Life before the Revolt: the Archaeological Evidence. Journal of the Study of Judaism 36: 417-470.

BOFFO, L. 1994.Iscrizioni Greche e Latine per lo studio della Bibbia (Biblioteca di storia e storiograa dei tempi biblici 9). Brescia.

AbbreviationsANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt. Berlin. BASOR Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers. EI Eretz Israel. ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel. IEJ Israel Exploration Journal. JJS Journal of Jewish Studies. JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology. JRS Journal of Roman Studies PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly. PJb Palstina-Jahrbuch. RB Revue Biblique. ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins.

BURRELL, B. 1996.Palace to Praetorium: The Romanization of Caesarea. In: Raban, A. and Holum, K.G. (Ed.), Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden: 228-247.

CHAMPION, T. C. (ED.) 1989.Centre and Periphery, Comparative Studies in Archaeology. London.

CLERMONT-GANNEAU, CH. 1871.Discovery of a Tablet from Herods Temple, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 112-119.

COTTON, H. M. 2003.Survival, Adaptation and Extinction: Nabataean and Jewish Aramaic Versus Greek in the Legal Documents from the Cave of Letters in Nahal Hever. In: Schumacher, L. and Stoll, O. (Eds.), Sprache und Kultur in der kaiserzeitlichen Provinz Arabia. Althistorische Beitrge zur Erforschung von Akkulturationsphnomenen im rmischen Nahen Osten. St. Katharinen: 1-11.

COTTON, H. M. 2007A.The Impact of the Roman Army in the Province of Judaea / Syria Palaestina. In: De Blois, L. and Lo Cascio, E. (Eds.). The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC AD 476). Economic, Social, Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects. Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman empire, 200 B.C. A.D. 476) Capri, March 29 April 2, 2005. Leiden: 393-408.

Bibliographical referencesALBRICCI, A. 1965.Il pavimento dipinto della conistra. In: Frova, A. 1965. Scavi di Caesarea Maritima. Milano 93-120.

ALCOCK, S. E. 1993.Graecia Capta. The Landscapes of Roman Greece. Cambridge.

COTTON, H.M. 2007B.The Administrative Background to the New Settlement recently discovered near Givat Shaul, Ramallah-Shuafat Road. In: Patrich, J. and Amit, D. (Eds.), New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region. Jerusalem: 12*-18*.

ALCOCK, S. E. (ED.) 1997.The Early Roman Empire in the East. Oxford Monograph 95.

APPLEBAUM, S. 1976.Economic Life in Palestine. In: Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum II. Assen: 631-700.

COTTON, H. M. AND GEIGER, J. 1989.Masada II: The Latin and Greek Documents. Jerusalem.

APPLEBAUM, S. 1977.Judaea as a Roman Province. The Coutryside as a Political and Economic Factor. In: ANRW II, 8: 355-396.

DE BLOIS, L. AND LO CASCIO, E. (EDS.) 2007.The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC AD 476). Economic, Social, Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects. Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman empire, 200 B.C. A.D. 476) Capri, March 29 April 2, 2005. Leiden.

ARUBAS, B. AND GOLDFUS, H. (EDS.) 2005.Excavations on the site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Hauma). Portmouth.

AVIGAD, N. 1954.Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

DUDEN. DAS GROSSE WRTERBUCH SPRACHE. MANNHEIM 1994. ECK, W. 2003.

DER DEUTSCHEN

AVIGAD, N. 1983.Discovering Jerusalem. Jerusalem.

BAROUCH, Y. 1996.Road Stations in Judea during the Second Temple Period. Judea & Samaria Research Studies. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting 1996. Ariel: 125-135 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. X-XI).

The Language of Power: Latin Reected in the Inscriptions of Judaea/Syria Palaestina. In: Schiffman, L. H. (Ed.), Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity. Papers from a New York University conference marking the retirement of Baruch A. Levine. Leiden: 125-144.

BARUCH, E. 1998.The Economic Hinterland of Jerusalem in the Herodian Period. Cathedra 89: 41-62 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 196-197).

ECK, W. 2009.Presence, Role and Signicance of Latin in the Epigraphy and Culture of the Roman Near East. In: Cotton, H. M., Hoyland, R. G., Price, J. J. and Wasserstein, D.J. (Eds.),


155

From Hellenism to Islam. Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East. Cambridge: 15-42.

GEVA, H. 1984.The Camp of the Tenth Legion in Jerusalem: An Archaeological Reconsideration. IEJ 34: 239-254.

ESHEL, H. 2008.Publius Quinctilius Varus in Jewish Sources, JJS 59/1: 112-119.

GLEASON, K. L. 1996.Ruler and Spectacle: The Promontory Palace. In: Raban, A. and Holum, K. G. (Ed.), Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden: 208-227.

FEDAK, J. 1990.Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age: A Study of Selected Tombs from the Pre-Classical to the Early Imperial Era. Toronto.

GRAF, D. F. 1993.The Persian Royal Road System in Syria-Palestine. Transeuphratne 6: 149-168.

FISCHER, M. 1987.Die Straenstation von Horvat Masad (Hirbet el-Qasr). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Weges von Jerusalem nach Emmaus. ZDPV 103: 117-136.

HENGEL, M. 1983.Der Historiker Lukas und die Geographie Palstinas in der Apostelgeschichte. ZDPV 99: 147-183.

FISCHER, M. 1989.An Early Byzantine Settlement at Kh. Zikrin (Israel). A Contribution to Archaeology of Pilgrimage. In: Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of Christian Archaeology, Lyon 1986. Rome: 1781-1807.

HIRSCHFELD, Y. 1996.Changes in Settlement Patterns of the Jewish Rural Populations Before and After the Rebellions Against Rome. Cathedra 80: 3-18. (Hebrew).

FISCHER, M. 1994.Historical and Philological Observations on Marmorarii in Byzantine Palestine in the Light of Two Greek Inscriptions. Mediterranean Language Review 8: 20-40.

HIRSCHFELD, Y. 2004.Excavations at Tiberias, 1989-1994. (IAA Reports, No. 22). Jerusalem.

FISCHER, M. 2009.The Security Issue on the Emmaus-Jerusalem Road Before and After the Great Revolt: Horvat Mazad as a Test Case. In: Geiger,J., Cotton, H. M. and Stiebel, G. D. (Eds.), Israels Land. Papers Presented to Israel Shatzman on his Jubilee. Raanana: 187-206 (Hebrew; English abstract p. 190).

HOFF, M. C. AND ROTROFF, S. I. (EDS.) 1997.The Romanization of Athens. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996). Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 94.

HLSCHER, T. 1994.Monumenti statali e pubblico. Rome.

FISCHER, M. (IN PRESS).Horvat Mazad through the Ages: Archaeology of a RoadStation at the Jaffa-Jerusalem Road. With contributions by B. Arensburg et al. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 28). Tel Aviv.

HUMPHREY, J. H. 1996.Amphitheatrical Hippo-Stadia. In: Raban, A. and Holum, K. G. (Ed.), Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Leiden: 121-129.

FISCHER, M.L. 1990.Das korinthische Kapitell im Alten Israel in der hellenistischen und rmischen Periode. Studien zur Geschichte der Baudekoration im Nahen Osten, Mainz.

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

ISAAC, B. 1992.The Limits of Empire: the Roman Army in the East. Oxford.

FISCHER, M. L. 1998.Marble Studies. Roman Palestine and the Marble Trade. (Xenia. Konstanzer Althistorische Vortrge und Forschungen No. 40). Konstanz.

ISAAC, B. AND ROLL, I. 1976.A Milestone of A.D. 69 from Judaea. JRS 66: 15-19.

ISAAC, B. AND ROLL, I. 1982.Roman Roads in Judaea, I, The Legio-Scythopolis Road (BAR International Series 141). Oxford.

FISCHER, M. AND STEIN, A. 1994.Josephus on the Use of Marble in Building Projects of Herod the Great. JJS 45: 79-85.

FISCHER, M., ISAAC, B. AND ROLL, I. 1996.Roman Roads in Judaea II. The Jaffa-Jerusalem Roads (British Archaeological Reports, International Series, No. 628). Oxford.

JACKSON, J. B. 1984.Discovering the Vernacular Lanscape. New Haven.

JACOBSON, D. M. AND KOKKINOS, N. (EDS.) 2009.Herod and Augustus. Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21-23 June 2005. Leiden.

FISCHER, M., GICHON, M. AND TAL, O. 2000.En Boqeq. Excavations in an Oasis on the Dead Sea. Volume II. The Ofcina. An Early Roman Building on the Dead Sea Shore. Mainz.

JAPP, S. 2000.Die Baupolitik Herodes des Groen. Die Bedeutung der Architektur fr die Herrschaftslegitimation eines rmischen Klientelknigs (Internationale Archologie Band 64). Rahden / Westfalen.

FISCHER, M. AND TAL, O. 2003.Architectural Decoration in Ancient Israel in Hellenistic Times. Some Aspects of Hellenization. ZDPV 119,1: 19-37.

FITTSCHEN, K. 2002.Zur Panzerstatue aus Samaria Sebaste, In: Rutgers, L. V. (Ed.), What Athens has to do with Jerusalem. Leuven: 9-17.

JONES, B. G. D. 1997.Concluding Remarks: From Brittunculi to Wounded Knee: A Study in the Development of Ideas. In: Mattingly, D. J. (Ed.), Dialogues in Roman Imperialism. Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire.(JRA Supplementary Series Number 23). Portsmouth: 185-200.

FROVA, A. 1965.Scavi di Caesarea Maritima, Milano.

GAIFMAN, M. 2008.The Aniconic Image of the Roman Near East. In: Kaizer, T. (Ed.), The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World Volume 164. Leiden: 37-72

K ASHER, A. AND WITZTUM, E. 2007.King Herod: A Persecuted Persecutor. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

K ELSO, J. L. AND BARAMKI, D. C. 1955.Excavations at New Testament Jericho and Khirbet En-Nitla. New Haven.

156


KON, M. 1947.The Tombs of the Kings. Tel Aviv. (Hebrew).

ROLLER, D. W. 1998.The Building Program of Herod the Great. Berkeley.

K RAUSS, S. 1910.Talmudische Archologie Leipzig.

ROMAN AND BYZANTINE NEAR EASTThe Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research (JRA Supplementary Series No. 14). Ann Arbor 1995.

LEVINE, L.I. 1975.Roman Caesarea. An Archaeological-Topographical Study (Qedem 2), Jerusalem.

LEWIS, N. 1989.The Documents from the Bar-Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Greek Papyri. Jerusalem.

SAFRAI S. 1981.Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels. Neukirchen.

LICHTENBERGER, A. 1999.Die Baupolitik Herodes des Groen. Abhandlungen des deutschen Palstinavereins No. 26. Wiesbaden.

SAFRAI, Z. 1990.The Maintenance of Local Roads in Palestine in the Periods of the Mishnah and the Talmud. In: Kedar, B.Z., Dothan, T. and Safrai, S. (Eds.). Commerce in Palestine throughout the Ages. Jerusalem: 159180 (Hebrew)

LICHTENBERGER, A. 2009.Varus in Syrien. Die Provinz Syria und das Klientelknigreich Juda. In: 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht. Imperium. Stuttgart: 160-166.

SCHALIT, A. 1969.King Herod. Portrait of a Ruler. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

LYONS, C. L. AND PAPADOPOULOS, J. K. 2002.Archaeology and Colonialism. In: Lyons, C. L. and Papadopoulos, J. K. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Colonialism. Los Angeles: 1-26.

SCHRNER, G. (ED.) 2005.Romanisierung Romanisation. Theoretische Modelle und praktische Fallbeispiele. BAR International Series 1427. Oxford.

LYONS, C. L. AND PAPADOPOULOS, J. K. (EDS.) 2002.The Archaeology of Colonialism. Los Angeles.

SCHRER, E. 1973-1987.The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135), I-III.2. (rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman). Edinburgh.

MACDONALD, W. L. 1986.The Architecture of the Roman Empire II: An Urban Appraisal. New Haven.

SHAHAR, Y. 2000.From Jerusalem to Orine - Consequences of the First Revolt in the Vicinity of Jerusalem. In: Faust, A. and Baruch, E. (Eds.), New Studies on Jerusalem (Proceedings of the Sixth Conference, Ingeborg Rennert Centre for Jerusalem Studies): 187-201 (Hebrew).

MATTINGLY, D. J. (ED.) 1997.Dialogues in Roman Imperialism. Power, Discourse, and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire. JRA Supplementary Series, No. 23. Portsmouth.

STERN, M. 1987.Josephus and the Roman Empire as Reected in The Jewish War. In: Feldman, L. H. and Hata, G. (Eds.), Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Leiden 1987: 71-80.

NETZER, E. 1977.The Winter Palaces of the Judaean Kings at the End of the Second Temple Period, BASOR 228: 1-13.

NETZER, E. 1985.King Herod - Good or Bad for the Jews? Edan 5: 83-88 (Hebrew).

TIR TSAFRIR, Y., DISEGNI, L. AND GREEN, L. 1994.Tabula Imperii Romani: Iudaea, Palaestina. Jerusalem.

NETZER, E. 1991.The Masada Reports III. The Buildings. Stratigraphy and Architecture.Jerusalem.

TZAFERIS, V. AND ISRAELI, SH. 2008.Paneas Volume I. The Roman to Early Islamic Periods. Excavations in Areas A, B, E, F, G and H. (IAA Reports No. 37). Jerusalem.

OLESON, J. P., R ABAN, A. (EDS.) 1989.

AND

HOHLFELDER, R. L.

VAUX DE, R. AND STEVE, A.-M. 1950.Fouilles Qaryet el-Enab Abu Ghsh Palestine. Paris.

The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima: results of the Caesarea Ancient Excavation Project, 1980-1985. (BAR Int. series 491 and 594). Oxford.

WARD -PERKINS, J.B. 1994.The Architecture of Roman Anatolia: The Roman Contribution. In: Ward-Perkins, J. B., Studies in Roman and Early Christian Architecture. London: 276-286.

OSTENFELD, E. N. (ED.) 2002.Greek Romans and Roman Greeks. Studies in Cultural Interaction. Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity (ASMA) III. Aarhus.

WEBER, TH. M. 2008.Der beste Freund des Kaisers. Herodes der Groe und statuarische Reprsentationsformen in orientalischen Heiligtmern der frhen Kaiserzeit. In: Kreikenbom, D., Mahler, K.-U., Schollmeyer, P. and Weber, Th. (Eds.), Augustus der Blick von auen. (Knigtum, Staat und Gesellschaft frher Hochkulturen 8). Wiesbaden: 249-269.

PRITCHARD, J. B. 1958.The Excavation at Herodian Jericho 1951. New Haven.

R EICH, R. 1990.Miqwaot (Jewish Ritual Immersion Baths) in Eretz Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmud Periods (Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem) (Hebrew).

WILSON J. F., (ED.) 2001.Rediscovering Caesarea Philippi. The Ancient City of Pan. Pepperdine.

R EISNER, G.A., FISHER, C.S. AND LYON, D.G. 1924.Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908-1910, Cambridge, Mass.

ZANKER, P. 1988.The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor.

fischer,2011 - rome and judaea in ad i

Documents

17th international

english abstract

strange modus

jra supplementary

2nd century

international

1st century

horvat mazad