Palestine Exploration Quarterly 133 (2001)

THREE ROMAN CLIENT KINGS: HEROD OF JUDAEA,

ARCHELAUS OF CAPPADOCIA AND JUBA OF
MAURETANIA
David M. Jacobson

The appointment of Herod as Rome’s client ruler of Judaea in 40 b.c.e. marked a radical
change in the political, economic and cultural development of that country. In the course of a
single generation, this relative backwater in the Levant joined the mainstream of the Graeco-
Roman world. Herod became a privileged member of an international élite, travelling abroad
frequently, with Rome, the centre of the empire, as a common destination. His frequent
journeys provide a striking contrast with the movements of his Hasmonaean predecessors, who
never appear to have ventured far from Judaea. The Jewish historian Josephus has left a
valuable record of Herod’s movements, which are catalogued in Table 1. For his information
on Herod, Josephus relied heavily on the memoirs of Nicolaus of Damascus, a leading
intellectual and writer of his generation, who served as chief councillor to the king (Wacholder
1989). Josephus presents Herod as a loyal client of Rome, eager to maintain the esteem of
Augustus and his deputy, Marcus Agrippa, and also to present himself as a champion of the
traditional values of hellenistic monarchy. These aims took precedence over satisfying the
aspirations of his Jewish subjects.
It is no coincidence that this new era for Judaea commenced during the ascendancy of
Antony and the painful transition of Rome from republic to principate. These years saw a
fundamental change in the relationship between the Roman administration and the kings who
were subject to its authority. Much of this change can be attributed to Antony (Braund 1988,
76). The triumvir attended to replacing unsuitable client kings with appointees who were
judged to be more cooperative and effective surrogates. When Octavian Augustus triumphed
over Antony and established the Roman principate, he further rationalized the relationship
between Rome and the client kingdoms, organising them into a close-knit network under his
direct authority. This restructuring was sufficiently important to attract the following notice in
Suetonius:
As to the kingdoms which he gained by right of conquest, he (Augustus) either returned them to those
from whom he had taken them or joined them to unrelated kingdoms, with a few exceptions. He also
linked the allied kings with one another by establishing connections between them: he was very ready to
suggest or support their marriage-alliances and friendships. He took care of them all as if they were limbs
and organs of empire. It was also his custom to appoint a man to guide those young in years or unstable
in mind, until they became adults or recovered. He brought up and educated the children of many kings
together with his own family. (Suet. Aug. 48; transl. Braund 1988, 77)
The friendly and allied kings each founded cities called Caesarea in their own kingdoms. And they all
decided together to complete at their joint expense the temple of Olympian Jupiter at Athens, begun long
ago, and to dedicate it to the Genius of Augustus. And they often left their kingdoms to pay their daily
respects to him in the manner of clients, wearing togas and without their royal insignia. This they did not
only at Rome, but also as he was travelling about the provinces. (Suet. Aug. 60; transl. Braund 1988, 77)
Almost all the above points are corroborated in Josephus in respect of Herod the Great,
showing how punctiliously Herod observed the responsibilities of a dutiful client, which also
three roman client kings 23
Table 1: Places visited by Herod from the year of his appointment as king of Judaea until his
death (40–4 b.c.e.), with the year and references from Josephus
Year bce Place visited by Herod Reference in Josephus
(*on military campaign) BJ AJ
40 Rhinocuroura, Pelusium, i.277–79 xiv.374–75
Alexandria, Rhodes, i.280–81 xiv.377–78
Brundisium i.281–85 xiv.379–89
Rome
39 Ptolemais i.290 xiv.394
38 Antioch i.321–22 xiv.440
Samosata* i.328 xiv.445–47
Daphne, Antioch xiv.451
35/34 Mount Lebanon, Ptolemais i.329 xiv.452
Laodiceia xv.64–67
31 Philadelphia (Rabbath Ammon)* i.380 (xv.148)
30 Rhodes i.387–94 xv.187–95
23/22 or Mitylene xv.350
22/21
20 Syria (Antioch) i.399–400 xv.354–63
17 Rome xvi.6
15 Syria (Antioch?) xvi.12
14 Chios, xvi.18–19
Lesbos (Mitylene), Byzantium, xvi.20
Pontus (Sinope), xvi.21–23
Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, xvi.23
Phrygia, Asia (Ephesos), Samos xvi.23–62
13 Asia (Mitylene?) xvi.86
12 Rome, Aquileia i.452–54 xvi.90–129
Elaeusa-Sebaste i.456 xvi.131
10 Antioch i.512 xvi.270
Rome (?) xvi.271
c.7/6 Berytus i.538–43 xvi.361–69
Tyre i.543 xvi.370

testifies to the reliability of Suetonius as a historian, at least on this subject. The survival of the
extensive writings of Josephus, virtually intact, means that we possess much more information
about Herod than we do about all the other client kings. For this reason, Herod provides the
best case study on this subject.
Although our information on other client kings is sketchier, it is possible to obtain a
coherent picture of these personalities and their deeds. In this study we shall compare and
contrast Herod with two other client kings from across the Empire, Archelaus I of Cappadocia
and Juba II of Mauretania, who were linked to the former through dynastic marriages. It will
be shown that that the careers of all three monarchs followed a clear pattern and the comparison
will underline these and other features shared by these client kings.1
We shall now examine these shared characteristics in detail.

dynastic relationships linking herod, archaelaus and juba

Dynastic intermarriage had been an established practice among the monarchies of the near
east for more than a millennium, and Augustus exploited it to his advantage to further his
24 palestine exploration quarterly
clientela policy. Our three client kings, Herod, Archelaus and Juba, fit the Augustan scheme as
articulated in Suetonius, in being linked together through dynastic marriages, although not
simultaneously. The common thread is Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus of Cappadocia
and an Armenian Princess.2 She was given in marriage first to Alexander, Herod’s elder son by
the Hasmonaean princess Mariamme, in 18 or 17 b.c.e. ( Jos. BJ i.446; 476; AJ xvi.11; 193;
206). After Alexander’s execution by Herod, Glaphyra was sent back to Cappadocia ( Jos. BJ
i.553; AJ xvii.11). There she met Juba, who may have then been serving with or advising Gaius
Caesar in connection with his eastern expedition, which was in progress by 1 b.c.e.( Jos. AJ
xvii.349; cf. Gsell 1928, 222–23). Archelaus appears to have met Gaius on that occasion (Dio
lvii.17, 4; cf. Tac. Ann. ii.42). Glaphyra must have married Juba shortly afterwards and would
have brought with her the two sons that she bore Alexander, Tigranes and Alexander ( Jos. AJ
xvii.349; xviii.139–40; cf. Kokkinos 1998, 246–63). This marriage was not successful and it
dissolved a few years later.3 Glaphyra contracted a third with Herod’s son Archelaus ( Jos. BJ
ii.115; AJ xvii.341). However, she was already dead by 6 c.e. when Archelaus was deposed
( Jos. BJ ii.116; AJ xvii.351–53).
The dynastic alliance cemented by Herod of Judaea and Archelaus of Cappadocia
established the foundations for the client network according to the designs of Augustus. Their
grandson, Tigranes, was appointed king of Armenia (Tigranes V) by Augustus (Res G 27; Jos.
BJ ii.222; AJ xviii 139; Tac. Ann. vi.40). All we know about his younger brother, Alexander, is
that he had a son, also named Tigranes, who was sent by Nero to rule Armenia (Tac. Ann.
xiv.26; cf. Kokkinos 1998, 248–50). The second Tigranes had a son who married into the royal
family of Commagene ( Jos. AJ xviii 140; cf. Sullivan 1978a, 794–95). Other descendants of
Herod married into the monarchies of Pontus, Emesa and Nabataea (Sullivan 1978; 1990, 327).

the origins of the client king

A striking similarity shared by Herod, Archelaus and Juba is that none were natives of the
kingdoms that they were given to rule, but all were members of the royalty or aristocracy of
neighbouring nations.4 This is a point that has not previously received proper attention.
These men all had natural leadership qualities. Many of the kings in the eastern Empire,
including Herod, Archelaus, Amyntas of Galatia, Polemo of Pontus and Eurycles of Sparta had
been hand-picked by Antony, and the fact that Octavian confirmed most of them, even though
many had sided with Antony at Actium, bears out this fact (Plut. Ant. 61, 1–2; Magie 1950, 443;
cf. Sullivan 1990, 184). However, their personal assets did not compensate for their lack of royal
blood in the eyes of their citizens. Many of their subjects regarded these Roman surrogates as
illegitimate usurpers, and this was indeed true for the majority of Jews in relation to Herod.5
Archelaus’ subjects took offence at him and they referred their complaints to Rome, probably
in 26 b.c.e. (Dio lvii.17, 3–4). On that occasion, he was successfully defended by the future
emperor, Tiberius (Suet. Tib. 8; Dio lvii.17; cf. Bowersock 1965, 158–60). Disaffection with the
imposed Numidian monarchy was widespread in Mauretania, as we can gauge from the strong
support given by Mauretanians to the North African insurrection led by Tacfarinas that broke
out in 17 c.e. (Tac. Ann. ii.52; iv.26). Such seething resentment forced the client kings to rely all
the more on Rome for their survival.
The origins of Archelaus lay in Pontus, the northern neighbour of Cappadocia.6 His
forebears were not kings but the priests of Comana in Pontus, although there these priestly
aristocrats ranked second to the Pontic kings. Archelaus was appointed king by Antony,
probably in 36 b.c.e. (Sullivan 1980, 1148–49). It is alleged that his elevation was due to the
triumvir’s infatuation with his mother, Glaphyra, although it is more likely due to Antony’s
three roman client kings 25
high regard for Archelaus’ grandfather, also called Archelaus (App. BC v.7; Martial xi.20, 3;
Plut. Ant. 3; cf. Sullivan 1980, 1153–54). His name at birth seems to have been Sisenes. Despite
his loyalty to Antony at Actium, Augustus confirmed Archelaus in his position (Plut. Ant. 61, 1;
Dio li.2, 1–2).
Juba II belonged to the royal house of Numidia, which bordered Mauretania on the east.
Juba II was the son of Juba I of Numidia.7 His father joined a Pompeian alliance, which met
defeat by Julius Caesar at the battle of Thapsus in 46 b.c.e. (Plut. Caes. 55, 1; Dio xliii.7–8).
The infant Juba was brought to Rome, where he was carried in Caesar’s African triumph (Plut.
Caes. 55, 2; App. BC ii.101). After the death of Antony and Cleopatra in 30 b.c.e., Juba was
rewarded with his father’s kingdom of Numidia and took in marriage Antony and Cleopatra’s
surviving daughter, Cleopatra Selene (Dio li.15, 6; Plut. Ant. 87, 2). In 26 or 25 b.c.e. Augustus
gave Juba the territory of Mauretania in return for his hereditary domain, which was annexed
by Rome.8 He ruled Mauretania until his death in c. 23 c.e. and was succeeded by his son,
Ptolemy.9
According to Josephus, Herod was of Idumaean stock and a member of an aristocratic
family ( Jos. BJ i.123; AJ xiv.8; 121). His grandfather, Antipas, had been appointed strategos of
Idumaea by the Hasmonaean monarchs of Judaea, Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 b.c.e.) and
his widow Salome Alexandra (76–67 b.c.e.) ( Jos. AJ xiv.10). Herod’s father, Antipater, wielded
increasing power over the Hasmonaean court, eventually surpassing the authority of his
sovereign Hyrcanus II (63–40 b.c.e.) ( Jos. BJ i.207). Idumaea, which lay to the south of the
Judaean heartland, had been subjugated by John Hyrcanus I (135–104 b.c.e.), who obliged its
population to be circumcised and adopt the Jewish religion ( Jos. BJ i.63; AJ xiii.257–58;
xv.254; cf. Kokkinos 1998, 88–94). There is a later tradition, which is represented in the
writings of Julius Africanus and Epiphanius, which claimed that Herod was of lowly origins
and his family hailed from Ascalon.10 This possibility is unlikely, especially in view of the fact
that the other client kings had noble origins, and stories about Herod’s lowly Ascalonite descent
would appear have been fabricated as a smear. That is not to ignore the close links cultivated
by Herod and his family with that city, which can properly be called the port of Idumaea, from
the days of his grandfather onwards ( Jos. AJ xiv.10; Grant 1971, 22).
Herod was appointed king of Judaea at Antony’s behest, with the approval of Octavian in
40 b.c.e., even while a legitimate Hasmonaean king, Hyrcanus II, was alive and his nephew,
Antigonus, was de facto ruler of Judaea. A special session of the Roman Senate was convened to
approve Herod’s appointment, followed by a procession to the Capitol, where a sacrifice was
offered and the decree recognizing Herod as King of Judaea was deposited in the temple ( Jos.
AJ xiv.384–89; BJ i.284–85; cf. Braund 1984, 24–25). It may be reasonable to assume that the
installation of the other client rulers involved similar proceedings and pageantry.

the relationship between client kings and rome

Herod enjoyed the rank of a rex sociusque et amicus populi Romani, which was the normal status
accorded to ‘allied’ kings by Rome.11 In the new order established by Augustus, the client kings
were considered as vassals of the emperor himself. In Strabo’s words: ‘And kings, dynasts and
decarchies are and have always been in the emperor’s portion (of the empire)’ (Strab. xvii.3,25;
cf. Tac. Ann. i.11; Braund 1988, 81). While monarchs were obliged to recognize the suzerainty
of Rome, respect was usually reciprocated. There is no evidence that Herod or the other
monarchs routinely paid tribute to Rome (Pastor 1997, 109–10; Braund 1984, 63–66). On the
other hand, it would seem that Herod made a one-off payment to Antony to obtain recognition
from Rome of his jurisdiction over Idumaea and Samaria (App. BC v.75).
26 palestine exploration quarterly
Like several other client monarchs, Herod was styled as ‘friend of Rome’ (philorômaios) and
‘friend of Caesar’ (philokaisar).12 The epithet philorômaios has been viewed as a straight translation
of amicus populi Romani, which was a formal title conferred by Rome on its client (Braund 1984,
106). It was used in Cappadocia by some of Archelaus’ predecessors but not by that particular
king (ibid., 107). Instead, he styled himself philopatris ‘friend of his country’, possibly to endear
himself to his adoptive kingdom (Pani 1972, 103–04; Sullivan 1980, 1153; cf. Jos. BJ i.633).
Juba is not known to have used such epithets, which seem to have been the preserve of the
eastern Greek world.
Possession of Roman citizenship, although attested only in relation to a few client kings,
was probably a characteristic of them all (Schürer 1973, 316; Braund 1984, 39–53; 1988,
82–83). The fact reported by Suetonius that client kings appeared before Augustus clad in togas
is a material indication that they all enjoyed this privilege (Braund 1988, 82). Herod and his
family inherited Roman citizenship through his father Antipater ( Jos. BJ i.194; AJ xiv.137).
The belief that Herod had shared in Julius Caesar’s grant of citizenship to his father,
notwithstanding Josephus’ silence on this matter, has been strikingly proved by a recently
published inscription.13 There is direct evidence from inscriptions that Juba, too, was a Roman
citizen and through him his son Ptolemy acquired the Roman praenomen and nomen, Gaius
Julius.14
To assist in binding the client monarchies closely to Rome and perhaps also to one
another, the kings sent their sons to the imperial capital for their education. As noted by
Suetonius, Augustus encouraged this practice. In all, Herod sent eight sons to Rome, some
lodging at the imperial court.15 Shortly before the death of Herod in 4 b.c.e. his grandson, the
future Agrippa I, was sent to Rome as a child, scarcely six years old ( Jos. AJ xviii.143–46). He
grew up in the company of Claudius and other imperial princes according to a Hellenistic
custom of surrounding the royal offspring with a select circle of companions (syntrophia) ( Jos AJ
xviii.165; Schwartz 1990, 40–44). His privileged upbringing gave Agrippa sufficient influence
at the court of Rome to play a major role in securing the succession of Claudius, following the
murder of Caligula ( Jos. BJ ii.206–17; AJ xix.236–77; cf. Schwartz 1990, 91). His son, Agrippa
II, also spent his boyhood in Rome ( Jos. AJ xix.360–62). Other royal princes that are known to
have been brought up in Rome include the future Juba II of Mauretania (Dio li.15, 6) and the
sons of the murdered Cotys VIII of Thrace (IGRR IV 145 = Syll.3 798). Although the presence
in Rome of the male offspring of Juba and Archelaus of Cappadocia is not attested in the
ancient sources, Ptolemy, son of Juba, and Archelaus II, son of Archelaus I, continued to play
prominent roles in the dynastic network, as kings of Mauretania (c. 23–40 c.e.) and Cilicia
Aspera (c. 18–37 c.e.), respectively (Ptolemy: Gsell 1928, 277–87; Archelaus II: Sullivan 1980,
1167–68). Therefore, it is highly likely that they, too, were sent to Rome in their youth to be
educated, in accordance with official policy as attested by Suetonius.
A client king was expected to keep law and order in his country and to guard his frontiers,
which were generally also those of the Roman Empire (Braund 1984, 91–103). The kings
contributed towards Roman military power, in support of imperial authority, and they were
rewarded for their aid with the gift of territory. In 38 b.c.e., we find Herod joining Antony in
his assault of Samosata, the capital of Commagene ( Jos. BJ i.321–22; AJ xiv.439–47; Dio
xlix.22, 2; Plut. Ant. 34, 2–4; cf. Sullivan 1978a, 768–69). Then, in 14 b.c.e., he hastened to
assist Marcus Agrippa at Sinope during the Cimmerian Bosporus campaign, spearheaded by
Polemo I, the client king of Pontus ( Jos. AJ xvi.16–23; Dio liv.24, 4–6; cf. Roddaz 1984,
463–68; Sullivan 1980a, 918–20; Hoffmann 1952, cols. 1283–84).
Archelaus I of Cappadocia accompanied Tiberius in 20 b.c.e. to install Tigranes III in
Armenia in place of his anti-Roman brother, Artavasdes ( Jos. AJ xv.105; Res G. 27; Vell. ii.94,
three roman client kings 27
4; Tac. Ann. ii.3, 4; cf. Pani 1972, 20). In the same year and probably as a reward for his
assistance, Archelaus had his territories augmented by Augustus, receiving coastal areas of
Cilicia and the territory of Armenia Minor, whose throne became vacant after the death of
Artavasdes I (Dio liv.9, 2; Strab. xii.1, 4; 2, 11; 3, 29; xiv.5, 6). From Cassius Dio we learn that
Juba went on campaign with Augustus, probably in Spain in 26–25 b.c.e. (Dio li.15, 6; cf. Gsell
1928, 208). It was at the conclusion of this campaign that Juba was appointed king of
Mauretania. Over two decades later, he may have accompanied Gaius Caesar on his eastern
campaign (Pliny HN vi.139; xii.55–56; xxxii.10; cf. FGrH IIIA, no. 275, F1–3). Furthermore,
Juba and his son Ptolemy supported Roman efforts in putting down the insurrection of
Tacfarinas in North Africa (Tac. Ann. iv.26; Gsell 1928, 229–30, 282–83).
Herod followed the established custom of leaving a large bequest in his will to his Roman
patrons, Augustus and Livia ( Jos. AJ xvii.190). It would seem that Augustus was a beneficiary
of the will of Amyntas, king of Galatia, who died in 25 b.c.e. (Strab. xii.8,14). The literary
evidence for this is supported by the presence of a slave and a freeman, both with the agnomen
Amynthianus, in the imperial household, which would seem to have been left to Augustus by
Amyntas (Braund 1984, 143). References to the agnomina Herodianus, Archelaianus and
Iubatianus associated with the imperial court have been taken to indicate legacies to the
emperor from Herod, Archelaus I of Cappodocia and Juba II of Mauretania, respectively
(ibid.). A passage from Dio referring to legacies left by Augustus to client kings would seem to
indicate reciprocity in this regard (Dio, lvi.32, 2; cf. Braund 1984, 155). Such bequests should
be seen as a mark of friendship between the emperor and his clientela. The decision of Augustus
to return the legacy that Herod had left him in his will further emphasizes the closeness of their
relationship ( Jos. BJ ii.99–100; AJ xvii.322–23; cf. Richardson 1996, 40).

networking between the client kings

A consequence of dynastic intermarriage was frequent contact, including visits, between the
client kings. Their interest in one-another’s affairs usually had the effect of strengthening
relationships, but not always. Thus, we find Archelaus of Cappadocia paying a visit to Herod in
an earnest attempt to save his son-in-law, Alexander, from disgrace and even worse ( Jos. BJ
i.499–512; AJ xvi.261–69). He also received Herod at his island palace in Sebaste-Elaeusa ( Jos.
BJ i.456; AJ xvi.131; 332; Strab. xii.2, 7; xiv.5, 6). The unscrupulous client ruler of Sparta,
Eurycles, undid Archelaus’ patient domestic diplomacy, which was actively encouraged by
Augustus ( Jos. AJ xvi.357). Eurycles used his stay in Judaea in c. 8 b.c.e. to meddle
mischievously in the dispute between Alexander and his older half-brother Archelaus, for
personal financial gain ( Jos. BJ i.513–31; AJ xvi.300–10; cf. Roller 1998, 59). A few years
earlier, Archelaus of Cappadocia had incurred the enmity of Marcus Titius, who served as
Governor of Syria from 20 to 12 b.c.e., and Herod intervened to effect a reconciliation ( Jos.
AJ xvi.270). Very occasionally, the emperor had to intervene to restrain one client king
committing acts of aggression against another, as exemplified by Augustus’ censure of Herod
for launching an attack on neighbouring Nabataea ( Jos. AJ xvi.286–93; cf. Nicolaus of
Damascus in FGrH IIA, no. 90, F136; Stern 1974, 250–55).
As Suetonius informs us, the kings also worked together in a number of other ways. This
historian is our unique source about their cooperative endeavour to complete the enormous
temple of Zeus Olympius (the Olympieion) in Athens and dedicate it to the Genius Augusti. While
there is material evidence from the surviving structure of this enormous temple that work was
carried out on it in the Augustan period, it was actually completed more than century later
under Hadrian (Tölle-Kastenbein 1994, 153–54). The involvement of the client kings in this
28 palestine exploration quarterly
project reminds us that their relationship with one another and with Rome possessed a religious
dimension, connected with the Graeco-Roman cult.
We are also told that the kings also acted in concert to found or refound cities in honour of
their imperial overlord. These urbes Caesareae sprang up across the Mediterranean from
Mauretania in the west to Judaea in the east (see Fig. 1).16 Among them were Caesarea
Maritima and Sebaste-Samaria in Herod’s kingdom, Sebaste-Elaeusa and Caesarea-Mazaca in
the kingdom of Cappadocia and Caesarea-Iol established by the client king of Mauretania.17
They cemented a religious connection between the subject kings and the Roman emperor, with
the establishment of the imperial cult within these urbes Caesareae. Temples dedicated to Roma
and Augustus are documented for Caesarea Maritima, Sebaste-Samaria and Panium in
Palestine, Caesarea-Mazaca in Cappadocia and Caesarea-Iol in Mauretania.18 Emperor
worship became widespread throughout the eastern half of the Empire, as a response to the
establishment of the Principate:
Because mankind addresses him thus [as Sebastos] in accordance with their estimation of his honour,
they revere him with temples and sacrifices over islands and continents, organised in cities and provinces,
matching the greatness of his virtue and repaying his benefactions towards them. (Nicolaus of Damascus
in FGrH IIA, no. 90, F125; transl. Price 1984, 1)
For the inauguration of Caesarea Maritima, Herod instituted a quinquennial festival dedicated
to Augustus, with athletic contests, musical competitions and spectacles involving wild beasts.19
This festival was clearly modelled on the Actian Games, held in connection with the dedication
of Nicopolis, the city in Epirus founded by Augustus close to the site of his historic naval victory
at nearby Actium (Gurval 1995, 74–81; Rieks 1970). These games had a religious dimension
and were bound up with the Imperial cult, but their roots were in ancient Greece (Gurval 1995,
76–77). There is a distinct possibility that similar games were held at the urbes Caesareae founded
by other client kings.
Several of the urbes Caesareae, including Caesarea Maritima, Caesarea-Iol and Sebaste-
Elaeusa, were ports which served as outlets to the Mediterranean and provided secure
communications with Rome, and not least between client kingdoms themselves. Thus, we find
Herod arriving in Cappadocia at its port of Sebaste-Elaeusa ( Jos. BJ i.456; AJ xvi.131) and
disembarking at Caesarea Maritima on his return home from the Aegean in 14 b.c.e. ( Jos. AJ
xvi.62). No doubt as a consequence of the closer ties between Judaea and the Mediterranean
world, we find Herod’s court and the Judaean upper class using imported ceramic and
glasswares to a far greater extent than did their Hasmonaean predecessors (Avigad 1980,
81–202). Discoveries at Masada have revealed that wines, fruit and other foodstuffs imported
from Italy graced Herod’s table (Cotton and Geiger 1996; Cotton, Lernau and Goren 1996).
Similarly, the copious quantity of shards of Samian ware from Gaul and Italy at Cherchel
(Caesarea-Iol) from the time of Juba attests to strong trade links between his Caesarea and
western Europe. Moreover, the rich assortment of classical sculpture from the Augustan period
found there underlines its position as a cultural hub at that time (Fittschen 1979, 230–42).
The effectiveness of client kingship as a means of forging close integration of outlying
regions with Rome and of establishing effective conduits for diffusing Roman cultural influence
is vividly illustrated by the occurrence of opus reticulatum in several of the client kingdoms during
the Augustan period. This characteristically Roman building technique is rarely encountered
outside Italy, and yet it crops up at Sebaste-Elaeusa (Cappadocia), Caesarea-Iol (Mauretania),
Emesa (the capital of a client principality of that name) and at three sites in Herod’s Judaea.20
The use of hydraulic concrete in the harbour moles at Caesarea Maritima and Sebaste-Elaeusa
is another case in point. In these instances, it is likely that craftsmen were either sent to Italy to
 three roman client kings
Fig. 1 The Roman Empire in 10 b.c.e. showing the client kingdoms, the urbes Caesareae and towns named after members of the ruling
families

29
30 palestine exploration quarterly
learn the current building techniques or, alternatively, artisans were shipped out from Rome to
work in the client kingdoms. A similar process of stylistic diffusion has been observed at work in
the realm of decoration, with Roman-inspired scroll (rinceau) motifs making their debut at
Caesarea-Iol and Jerusalem in the Augustan period (Mathea-Förtsch 1996, 187). With their
images and symbols taken from Phoenician-Numidian, Hellenistic, Egyptian and Roman
iconography, Juba’s coins reflect the cosmopolitan orientation of his kingdom (Salzmann 1974).
By contrast, the coins of Herod’s Judaea and Archelaus’ Cappadocia drew their motifs almost
exclusively from Greek themes (Herod’s coins: Jacobson 1986; Meshorer 1982, 5–30; Archelaus’
coins: Sydenham 1978, 27–30; Simonetta 1977, 46).

the client kings as traditional hellenistic monarchs

The client kings of Rome felt duty-bound to prepare their subjects for assimilation into the
oikoumene of the Roman Empire using Graeco-Roman culture as their principal instrument
(Smallwood 1981, 82). Notable among the manifestations of their hellenization programme,
were the founding by the client kings of urbes Caesareae on the hellenistic model with the
establishment in them of pagan cults and Greek-style agonistic festivals, as mentioned above.
In the tradition of the hellenistic kings, several of the client monarchs, including Herod and
Archelaus, also founded or more correctly, for the most part, refounded cities, smaller
settlements and outposts in their own kingdoms named after themselves and members of their
families. Among these were Antipatris, Phasaelis, Herodium, and Cyrus in Judaea and
Archelais in Cappadocia ( Jacobson 1988, 394–99).
This last facet of common policy of the client kings did not draw comment from Suetonius,
but this may be because it would have struck him as obvious. Their agenda in this sphere was
in perfect tandem with Augustus’ own programme of cultural renewal, which ‘propelled Rome
into the world of hellenistic culture’ (Zanker 1988, 335). Ancient Greece was a paragon for
Augustan Rome and the emperor and his entourage promoted hellenic conventions. A poignant
fact in this regard is that Juba II of Mauretania acquired his Greek in Italy, where he received
his education (Dio li.15, 6; cf. Leveau 1984, 80 n. 303). In the architectural sphere, the Augustan
building programme drew heavily on the repertoire of classical Greek and hellenistic temples
(Gros 1976, 49–51). Pliny provides numerous instances of great works of art brought by
Augustus from Greece and Asia Minor to adorn his new buildings in Rome in Book 35 of his
Historia Naturalis. In the heart of his forum, Augustus had two great paintings by Alexander the
Great’s court painter, Apelles of Cos, prominently displayed. One of these depicted Alexander
the Great, accompanied by Castor and Pollux, with an allegory of Victory, and the other
showed Alexander riding in triumph in his chariot, with a figure of War with hands tied (Pliny,
HN xxxv.27; 93–94; cf. Serv. Ad. Aen. i.294; Croiselle 1985, 148, §27, 2; 205, §93, 8; §94, 1).
Augustus may have been promoted as the new Romulus, but he also wanted to style himself as
Alexander the Great reborn.21 The literary and archaeological evidence shows that the
Augustan age saw an acceleration of Greek influences. One might represent the diffusion of
hellenic culture at that time as a process in which Greek culture was drawn from Greece and
Asia Minor and blown across Italy and the entire Mediterranean. Romans occasionally reacted
against this relentless influx of influences and immigrants from the East, and Juvenal sums up
this xenophobia in his pungent third satire, written a century later ( Juv. iii.60–64, 67–71).
From the writings of Josephus and other evidence, we learn that Herod structured his
court, civil administration and army on Ptolemaic and Seleucid models, although these were
modified to take account of contemporary Roman practices. The titles and grades of Herod’s
ministers and other members of his entourage, mentioned in Josephus, were mostly the same as
three roman client kings 31
those employed in the earlier hellenistic kingdoms.22 Herod, following those earlier examples,
relied on a mercenary army composed of Thracians, Germans and Gauls, which had to
maintain order in his kingdom ( Jos. BJ i.672; AJ xvii.198; cf. Otto 1913, 56). Greek was the
official language of the royal court and administration. Herod’s entourage of ‘friends’ (philoi)
and ‘kinsmen’ (syggeneis) included Greek and Roman advisors and confidants ( Jos. BJ i.672; AJ
xvii.198; cf. Otto 1913, 56).
Following the patronage of scholars accorded by hellenistic monarchs and continued by
Roman patricians, Herod surrounded himself with Greek men of learning, most notably
Nicolaus of Damascus.23 Nicolaus served as senior councillor, diplomatic envoy and tutor to
Herod, having previously served as tutor to the children of Antony and Cleopatra, and was also
a prolific writer (Wacholder 1962; Laqueur 1936, 362–424). His Universal History, in 144 books,
was perhaps the most voluminous historical work ever written and it compares with the 142
books of Livy’s History of Rome (Roller 1998, 5–6, 61–62; Wacholder 1962, 65 and 121, n.1).
He also wrote a biography of Augustus, an autobiography, ethnographic and philosophical
works and, allegedly, tragedies and comedies (Schürer 1973, 28–32). Only fragments of his
historical and biographical writings survive (FGrH IIA, no. 90, F1–143). Herod’s memoirs,
presumably in Greek, are mentioned by Josephus ( Jos. AJ xv.174). A fragment of Nicolaus’
memoirs attests to Herod’s interest in history (FGrH IIA, no. 90, F135; cf. Stern 1974, 248–50).
Augustus and Marcus Agrippa also wrote memoirs (Malcovati 1969, 84–97; Roller 1998, 8,
n. 29).
Archelaus was active in scholarly pursuits, writing a book about gemstones that is now lost
apart from some fragments preserved as pithy quotations in Pliny and Julius Solinus (FGrH IIB,
no. 123, F1–9). His interest in this subject is not surprising considering the mineral wealth of
Cappadocia, which was commented on especially by Pliny (Pliny HN xxxv.31; xxxvi.61; 160;
163; xxxvii.115; 151–52; cf. Pani 1972, 142). Strabo tells us that deposits of rock crystal and
onyx began to be mined near the border with Galatia during Archelaus’ reign (Strab. xii.2, 10).
Like Herod, Juba attracted Greek men of culture to his capital, including the tragedian
actor, Leonteus of Argos (Ath. viii.343 E-F), and almost certainly the poet Crinagoras of
Mytilene, who commemorated Juba’s marriage to Cleopatra Selene in verse (Anth. Pal. ix.235).
His Greek doctor, Euphorbus, was the brother of Augustus’ personal physician, Antonius Musa
(Pliny HN xxv.77).
Of the three client kings, Juba was the most prolific author, whose works were generously
quoted by classical authors, notably Pliny, Plutarch and Athenaeus, and it is scarcely more than
these scanty fragments of his output that survive (FGrH IIIA, no. 275, F1–104). Juba wrote
exclusively in Greek, mostly on cultural topics, ranging from geography and natural history to
philology, mythology, antiquities and political history. Plutarch rated Juba very highly as a
historian, commenting that no king was more devoted to historical research than he was (Plut.
Sert. ix.8). One of his works, entitled ‘Similarities’ (Omoiotêtes), was a discourse on comparisons
between different cultures (FGrH IIIA, no. 275, F13–14). He wrote Peri Libyês (ibid., F5–6),
which described his own region, and he dedicated a treatise to Gaius Caesar on the Orient (Peri
Arabias), almost certainly connected with the latter’s eastern campaign (ibid., F1–3). He also
had a special interest in art and drama, writing a work on painting in at least nine books and a
history of the theatre in no less than seventeen books (ibid., F15–21). His scientific talents are
demonstrated by his discovery of the plant euphorbia, which he named after his physician.24 Pliny
credits him with devising a method of producing Gaetulian purple from the lichen, orchil,
probably to compete with the Tyrian purple industry (Pliny HN vi.201; Gsell 1928, 233–34).
The custom developed by the hellenistic kings of making benefactions to the illustrious
cities and cult centres of Greece was continued by their Roman successors, and especially by
32 palestine exploration quarterly
Octavian Augustus and his deputy, Marcus Agrippa (Augustus: Graindor 1927, 10–54; Kienast
1982, 353–60; 370–83; Marcus Agrippa: Roddaz 1984, 434–43). The client kings of Rome
followed suit in this manifestation of Graeca adulatio (Braund 1984, 77–79; Geagan 1979,
376–82; Graindor 1927, 81–93). From surviving inscriptions from Athens we are informed that
the royal houses of Pontus, Thrace, Cappadocia, Commagene, Mauretania as well as that of
Judaea contributed buildings and other endowments in that city (Graindor 1927, 81–93).
Josephus confirms Herod’s largesse to Greek cities. We are told that Herod helped to
rebuild the temple of the Pythian Apollo at Rhodes and contributed financially towards
maintaining that island’s fleet ( Jos. BJ i.424; AJ xvi.147). He restored a stoa at Chios destroyed
in the Mithridatic Wars, and made gifts to the island of Samos, to certain districts in Asia Minor
and to the cities of Pergamum, Sparta and Athens ( Jos. BJ i.425; Jos. AJ xvi.18–19; 23–24). In
Athens, his generosity is recorded on honorific inscriptions, as mentioned above (OGIS 414 =
IG2 II/III 3440; OGIS 427 = IG2 II/III 3441; possibly SEG 12, 150; cf. Kokkinos, forthcoming;
Graindor 1927, 82–83; Robert 1938, 136–38; Schürer 1973, 308). Another of Herod’s
buildings, not referred to by Josephus, has recently been identified from a carved inscription
running across two fragments of an architrave of a monumental building found on the island of
Syros (Mantzoulinou-Richards 1988). This small island was never the recipient of royal
patronage in antiquity and, as there is a quantity of architectural debris known to have
originated in neighbouring Delos, it is probable that the monumental building in question
stood on the more illustrious island. A dedicatory inscription there to Herod Antipas attests to
the relationship between Delos and the Herodian dynasty, evidently one that continued into a
second generation (OGIS 417 = ID 1586). Herod also made endowments towards the
gymnasiarchies of several cities and patronized the Olympic Games for which he received the
title of ‘Patron of the Games’ (agonothetês) for life ( Jos. BJ i.423; 426–27; AJ xvi.149; cf. Kienast
1982, 375; Smallwood 1981, 81). It is to be noted that these acts of philanthropy, like Herod’s
involvement in the building of pagan temples, show that he was keen to identify himself as a
supporter of Greek culture and its religious institutions, despite the fact that these expressions
of patronage were inimical to Judaism.
The benefactions of Archelaus to Greek cities are also testified in surviving inscriptions. At
Athens, ‘the demos’ honoured ‘the king of Cappadocia and Rough Cilicia, Archelaus Philopatris
for his virtue’ in making some donation (OGIS 357 = IG II/III2 3430). A second similar
inscription recording gratitude to this monarch has also been found there (OGIS 360 = IG II/
III2 3431). He also received a statue at Olympia in his honour, probably for a subsidy given
towards the Olympic Games (OGIS 359 = IO 315). While he was king, his mother, Glaphyra
was rewarded with a dedication for an unspecified benefaction by the demos at Magnesia-on-
the-Maeander in Asia Minor (OGIS 361 = IM 138).
Juba also patronized the Greek cities and especially Athens. A statue of this king was set
up in a gymnasium, called the Ptolemaion, which stood close to the Agora, probably in
appreciation of a benefaction that he had made there. The gymnasium had been built by an
ancestor of his wife, Cleopatra Selene, a scion of the Ptolemaic dynasty (Paus. i.17, 2; Braund
1984, 78). Another inscription honouring Juba has been found in Athens (IG II/III2 3436).
Juba appears to have visited Athens accompanied by his second wife, Glaphyra, in the first year
of the first millennium c.e., possibly coinciding with the opening of the 195th Olympiad that
year. On that occasion, a statue was erected in her honour by the demos (OGIS 363 = Kokkinos
1987).
Some of the cities which received benefactions did so simply because they were ports of
call where the dignitary received hospitality. This seems to have been true for Herod’s
generosity to Chios (Braund 1984, 76). Owing to adverse winds, Herod was obliged to break
three roman client kings 33
his journey there while en route to join Marcus Agrippa and his expedition to the Bosporus ( Jos.
AJ xvi.18–19).
These benefactions helped to cement friendly relations between the Herodian dynasty and
the Greek cities that often endured for more than one generation. We find a statue base in
Athens honouring Archelaus II, son of Archelaus I (OGIS 362 = IG II/III2 3434; 3435; cf.
Sullivan 1980, 1167). Similar dedications there commemorate Juba’s son, Ptolemy, who is
described as ‘a descendent of King Ptolemy’ (IG II/III2 3445), and his daughter, who seems to
have been called Drusilla (IG II/III2 3439; cf. Tac. Hist. v.9). Herod’s great-granddaughter,
Julia Berenice, also received honours there (OGIS 428 = IG II/III2 3449). Cos was one of the
cities that received an endowment from Herod to maintain its office of gymnasiarch and the
inscription honouring ‘King Gaius Julius Herodes,’ mentioned earlier (see n. 14), was found
there ( Jos. BJ i.423; Höghammar 1990, 57; Cat. no. 13). We also learn that a Coan notable,
Euratos, was received at the court of Herod in 8 b.c.e. ( Jos. BJ i.532). The relationship between
Cos and the Herodians is further attested by a dedication found on the island honouring
Herod’s son, Antipas, set up to his ‘friend and guest’ (philos kai xenos) by the Coan dignitary,
Aglaos (OGIS 416 = Höghammar 1990, Cat. no. 16; cf. Sherwin-White 1978, 249; Schürer
1973, 341, n.1). Such direct relations with the Greek cities and their citizens provided an easy
path for the import of Greek culture into the client kingdoms. Herod extended his euergetism
outside Greece, particularly to neighbouring areas:
Thus, he provided gymnasia for Tripolis, Damascus and Ptolemais, a wall for Byblos, halls, porticoes,
temples and market-places for Berytus and Tyre, theatres for Sidon and Damascus, an aqueduct for
Laodiceia on Sea, baths, sumptuous fountains and colonnades, admirable for their proportions, for
Ascalon. ( Jos. BJ i.422, transl. by H. St. J. Thackeray, in Josephus II [Loeb], 199–201; cf. Jos. AJ xvi.146)

According to Josephus, Herod also helped construct the most of the public buildings in
Nicopolis in Epirus ( Jos. BJ i.425; AJ xvi.147; Gurval 1995, 65–69; Hoepfner 1987; Kienast
1982, 373–74). In this way, he loudly proclaimed his loyalty to Rome and identification with
Augustus’ political programme. At Antioch, Herod had the main thoroughfare, or cardo, paved
and colonnaded for a length of twenty stadia.25 Marcus Agrippa, always a model for Herod,
likewise sponsored building projects of his own at Antioch during one or two visits that he paid
there (Malalas 220, 225; Downey 1961, 171–72; Lassus 1977, 67–69; cf. Roddaz 1984, 422–24;
435). The civic honours that Juba received from New Carthage and Gades (see n.15, above)
imply that he, too, patronized towns close to his kingdom (Lichtenberger 1999, 174).

epilogue
Of the three client kings, Herod was, without doubt, the most incisive ruler and also, as far as
we know, the greatest builder. Yet, he had the most difficult population to deal with. He had a
daunting task in his endeavour to square a programme of cultural integration, which seems to
have been encumbent on all the client kings, with the sensibilities of his Jewish subjects. The
broad mass of the Jewish population was passionately devoted to its distinctive monotheistic
creed, with its strict ordinances governing every aspect of their daily lives, and it viewed with
abhorrence the pagan idolatry that was promoted by Herod’s policies.26 While it is true that
hellenistic influences had permeated deeply into Judaean society well before Herod’s time, it is
now clear from both documentary sources and archaeological discoveries that the process of
hellenization greatly accelerated during his reign (Levine 1998, 33–95; Hengel 1989).
Notwithstanding the staunch opposition by devout Jews to his policies, it is significant that even
34 palestine exploration quarterly
among the devout Jews of Qumran were to be found books of the Bible in Greek translation
(Millar 1993, 352).
Herod made some attempt to appease the Jews, although without compromising his main
agenda. For example, he acted in defence of the civic rights and religious freedom of diaspora
communities in Ionia ( Jos. AJ xvi.27–65; xii.125–26; Smallwood 1981, 140, n. 78). Then,
again, Herod applied himself to rebuilding the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem on a magnificent
scale, and also imposing stone enclosures around the Tombs of the Patriarchs in Hebron and
Abraham’s terebinth at Mamre. But these acts were entirely consistent with the noble virtues
promoted by the hellenistic monarchs of euergesia (benefaction) and eusebia (piety), which Herod
keenly espoused. Herod is known to have enjoyed the titles of euergetês and eusebês.27 When he
announced his plan to rebuild the Temple, Herod repeatedly referred to this project as an
expression of his piety ( Jos. AJ xv.382–87; cf. Jacobson 1988, 393; Richardson 1986, 347–60).
However, Herod wanted to be seen as the patron of all religions and was equally eager to
promote the cult of Augustus and Rome at Caesarea-Maritima, Samaria-Sebaste and Panium
and the Semitic cult of Ba‘al Shamin outside Kanatha.28 It was widely appreciated that the
pagan character of Caesarea Maritima, and also Sebaste-Samaria, was a sure indication that
these urbes Caesareae were not destined for the Jews ( Jos. BJ ii.266–70; 284–92; cf. Richardson
1986, 351). While Herod demonstratively displayed forbearance towards the antagonistic
Pharisee elders, Samaias and Pollion, Augustus, too, tolerated the sharply critical Timagenes of
Alexandria (Sen. Ir iii.23, 4–8). By longstanding Greek tradition, a virtuous ruler had a duty to
show deference to learned men. The violent reactions by religious Jews to the décor of Herod’s
theatre in Jerusalem and the image of an eagle mounted above a gate of the Temple bear
witness to the tense atmosphere created by Herod’s assimilationist cultural policies in Judaea,
which continued right up to his death.29
Within a few decades of the articulation of Augustus’ client policy, his successors
considered that it had begun to outlive its usefulness and the networking of the kings had even
become prejudicial to Roman interests. A conference convened at Tiberias in 44 c.e. by
Herod’s grandson, Agrippa I, and attended by five client rulers, who represented a significant
proportion of the Roman near east and all related to the Herodian dynasty, alarmed the
Roman governor of Syria.30 Consequently, orders were given for the gathering to disperse. The
dismantling of the client system was already underway. Cappadocia became a procuratorial
province in 18 c.e. after the death of Archelaus while awaiting trial for treason in Rome, while
Mauretania came under the direct Roman rule in 40 c.e., following the murder of Ptolemy, the
son and heir of Juba, by Caligula.31 By contrast, the incorporation of Judaea was only
accomplished after a violent struggle, in which four remaining client kings contributed
auxiliaries to the Roman armies.32 However, the groundwork for the incorporation of Judaea
as a Roman province had been truly laid by Herod and, after the First Jewish Revolt had been
extinguished, his foundation Caesarea Maritima replaced Jerusalem as the regional capital.
notes
1 Aspects of client kingship in the period of the Roman 3 Jos. BJ ii.115. In this account, Josephus mistakenly
Principate have been the studied in some breadth and remarks that Glaphyra’s marriage to Archelaus of Judaea
depth previously, in particular by Pani (1972), Braund followed the death of Juba, because this king continued
(1984; 1988), Sullivan (1990) and Paltiel (1991), but not to reign until at least 23 c.e..
from this particular perspective. 4 Other client kings of Herod’s generation who did not
2 Sullivan 1980, 1161–66; Pani 1972, 114–40. There is stem from the native dynasties include Amyntas of
no definite evidence that Herod met Juba but the two Galatia (Sullivan 1990, 171–74), Polemo of Pontus
may have come into contact during Herod’s first visit to (Sullivan 1990, 161–63) and Eurycles of Sparta
Rome in 40 b.c.e., when Juba was a youth living in the (Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 97–98; Bowersock
household of Octavian. 1961).
three roman client kings
5 Herod is referred to by Josephus as ‘reigning over a
kingdom in which he was an alien’ ( Jos. BJ i.521) and as
‘a commoner and an Idumaean, that is a half-Jew’ ( Jos.
AJ xiv.403). Furthermore, the Pharisees and Essenes were
excused from taking an oath of loyalty to Herod, no
doubt because of their steadfast refusal to do so. However,
in the case of the Essenes, we are told that they refused to
swear on principle ( Jos. BJ ii.135). See Schürer 1979,
394–95.
6 Archelaus I reigned for at least 50 years, until his
death in 17 c.e. By that time he was ‘drooping under the
infirmities of age’, so that it is likely that he was about 10
years Herod’s junior (Tac. Ann. ii.42; Dio. lvii.17, 4;
Magie 1950, 491; Sullivan 1980, 1159–66). Herod was
born in c. 72 b.c.e. (Kokkinos 1998, 156). On Archelaus,
see Pani 1972, 93–145; Sullivan 1980, 1149–61; 1990,
182–85.
7 Juba was born in about 50 b.c.e. which made him
junior to Herod by about 22 years. On the life and
achievements of Juba II, see Romanelli 1958, 156–74;
Gsell 1928, 206–76; Jacoby 1916.
8 Dio liii.26, 2. Strabo xvii.3, 7 states that Juba received
Mauretania in addition to his paternal dominions. In
fact, he is partly correct because Gaetulia (the hinterland
of Algeria) had been part of the kingdom of Numidia
during his father’s rule (Dio xliii.3, 3–4).
9 Tacitus still mentions Juba as reigning in Mauretania
in 23 c.e. (Tac. Ann. iv.5) but, by the following year, his
son Ptolemy is mentioned as the new king (Tac. Ann.
iv.23). Many of Juba’s coins are inscribed with the regnal
year (Mazard 1955, nos. 125–394), the highest being 48.
This is consistent with Juba’s reign commencing in 25
b.c.e. and ending in 23 c.e.. See Gsell 1928, 211.
10 Julius Africanus, Epist. ad. Aristidem, in Euseb. HE i.7,
11; cf. i.6, 2–3; Epiphanius, Panar. i.20, 1.3–5. Justin
(Dial. C. Trypho 52, 3) mentions Herod’s roots in Ascalon,
but he omits reference to his family’s humble status. See
Schürer 1973, 234, n. 3; Kokkinos 1998, 94–128.
11 Jos. AJ xvii.246; cf. Braund 1984, 23–37; Cimma
1976; Schürer 1973, 316–19. Because the Romans
referred to the kings as reges socii et amici and never as
clientes, some scholars have suggested that the relationship
between the central power and an ‘allied’ monarchy was
more symmetrical in character than one denoted by a
clientship. See Braund 1984, 23; 29–30; Lintott 1981,
61–62. J. Rich has argued that the official terminology
was merely an expression of Roman politeness, obscuring
the true nature of the interstate relationship, which can
most accurately be described as that between patron and
client (Rich 1989; cf. Tac. Agr. 14). For references to other
kings as ‘friends and allies’ of Rome, see Sands 1908,
10–46.
12 Philokaisar: OGIS 427 = IG2 II/III 3441; Meshorer
1970; cf. Jos. BJ i.400; Fraser 1978, 370, n. 27. Philorô-
maios, OGIS 414 = IG2 II/III 3440; cf. Jos. AJ xv.387. For
a discussion of these epithets and more generally of the
titulature employed by client kings, see especially Braund
1984, 105–107.
13 Jacobson 1993/4. A statue base from Cos honours
‘King Gaius Julius Herodes’ (Höghammar 1990, 57; Cat.
no. 13). From inscriptions we also learn that the Roman
client ruler of Sparta, Eurycles, also bore the tria nomina
Gaius Julius Eurycles (Ehrenberg and Jones 1976, nos.
35
102[= SEG XI 922–23], 350 [= SEG XI 924], 351 [=
IG V 1, 970]; cf. Cartledge and Spawforth 1989, 96).
14 Braund 1984, 45; cf. Gsell 1928, 207–208. Juba II
was duumvir quinquennalis at Carthago Nova and Gades
and patronus coloniae at Carthago Nova, a privilege that
was exclusive to Roman citizens (ILS 840 [New Carth-
age]; Festus Avienus, Ora Maritima 277–83 [Gades]; cf.
Braund 1984, 78). Likewise, Sohaemus, the client ruler of
Emesa, at the other end of the Mediterranean was duumvir
quinquennalis at neighbouring Heliopolis (Baalbek) and he
and a descendent of Herod, either Agrippa I or II, were
each the patronus coloniae there (Braund 1984, 78–79).
15 The three sons of Herod with Mariamme: Jos. BJ i.435; 445;
AJ xv.342–43; Archelaus and Antipas: Jos. AJ xvii.20; Herod
the younger and Philip: Jos. AJ xvii.21; Antipater: Jos. BJ
i.573; AJ xvii.52–53. See Braund 1984, 10–11.
16 Eutrop. vii.10; see Roller 1998, 89, n. 14; Braund
1984, 107–12; Leveau 1984, 17–19; Kienast 1982, 382.
Herod also honoured Marcus Agrippa by renaming the
coastal town of Anthedon, Agrippias or Agrippeion. See
Lichtenberger 1999, 159–61.
17 Caesarea Maritima: Lichtenberger 1999, 116–30;
Raban and Holum 1996; Sebaste-Elaeusa: Keil and
Wilhelm 1931; Kirsten 1974; Schneider 1999; Caesarea-
Iol: Leveau 1984; Fittschen 1979; Sebaste-Samaria: Lichten-
berger 1999, 80–92; Avigad 1993; Caesarea-Mazaca: Teja
1980, 1103–05; Harper 1976.
18 Caesareum at Caesarea Maritima: Hänlein-Schäfer 1985,
A48, 201–03; at Sebaste-Samaria: ibid., A47, 199–201; at
Panium: Ibid., A46, 198–99; Ma’oz 1993; at Caesarea-
Mazaca: Price 1984, 269, no. 117; at Caesarea-Iol:
Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, I7, 271–73; Leveau 1984, 16–17;
Fishwick 1987, 147–48.
19 Jos. BJ i.415; AJ xvi.136–41; xix.343; cf. Lichten-
berger 1999, 125–26; Lämmer 1974. Herod also insti-
tuted a quinquennial festival in Jerusalem. See Jos. AJ
xv.267–76; cf. Lichtenberger 1999, 74; Lämmer 1973.
The quinquennial games were maintained in Caesarea
until at least the third century (Schwartz 1990, 110;
Kokkinos 1998, 379–80).
20 Dodge 1990, 109, 112; Deichmann 1979, 473–76;
Leveau 1970. Opus reticulatum has been found in Herod’s
kingdom in Jerusalem (Netzer and Ben-Arieh 1983),
Jericho (Netzer 1977, 9) and Banias (Panium) (Ma’oz
1993, 141).
21 Vermeule 1985, 7–9; Richard 1970, 381; Kienast
1969. As pointed out by Vermeule and Kienast, Augustus
was not the first Roman leader to mould his image on
Alexander the Great. Pompey, Julius Caesar and Mark
Antony likewise endeavoured to imitate Alexander and
the hellenistic kings.
22 Schalit 1969, 183–223 (administration); 403–11
(court); 167–83, 699–701 (army); Otto 1913, 56–60,
81–87. It must be recognised that some of the Greek
official titles used by Josephus may not specifically denote
hellenistic usage, but simply the application of Greek
terminology to describe Roman ranks and institutions
(Shatzman 1991, 205–98).
23 Schürer 1973, 28–32, 310–11; Schalit 1969, 412–13;
Otto 1913, cols. 85–87. On the tradition of hellenistic
monarchs as patrons of scholars and philosophers, see
Préaux 1978, 212–20. For the same practice in republican
Rome, see Roller 1998, 55.
36 palestine exploration quarterly
24 Pliny HN xxv.77. Pliny says elsewhere that this plant
was discovered by Euphorbus (Pliny HN v.16), and this
would seem to be more logical, because Juba’s involve-
ment would then be the naming of the plant after its
discoverer. Dioscorides remarks that euphorbia was
found at the time of Juba in the land of the Autololes
(Diosc. iii.82).
25 Jos. BJ i.425 (one stoa); AJ xvi.148 (stoas on both sides
of the street). The local historian of the Byzantine period,
John Malalas recorded that Herod paved the streets
outside Antioch with white stone, in honour of Augustus
(Malalas 223). Herod’s construction was destroyed in a
fire that devastated the city in 23/24 c.e., and the cardo
was rebuilt by Tiberius in a similar manner, with
colonnades and also with tetrapyla constructed at intersec-
tions (Malalas 235; cf. Lassus 1972, 132, 140–51; also,
idem. 1977, 60–63).
26 A useful summary of Judaism in the early years of the
Principate is given in Goodman 1996, 761–68.
27 The title euergetês (benefactor) occurs together with
philokaisar on a stone weight (Meshorer 1970. Cf. Jos. AJ
xvi.150–54). Herod is styled eusebês on one of the
dedicatory inscriptions in Athens (OGIS 427 = IG2 II/III
3441) and on a lead weight from Ashdod (Azotus)
(Kushnir-Stein 1995).
28 There is material evidence that an honorific statue to
Herod was set up in one of the temples at Sia‘ near
Kanatha. On the cult-centre at Sia‘ and the dedicatory
inscription on the base of Herod’s statue, see Schürer
1979, 15; 41; 140–42; cf. Millar 1993, 394–96.
29 On the trophies of the nationes captae or gentes devictae
that adorned the theatre and the hostility that they
generated, see Jos. AJ xv.272–79. On the incident of the
golden eagle in the Temple, see Jos. BJ i.648–55; AJ
xvii.149–67.
30 The five kings at this conference were Agrippa I, his
brother, Herod of Chalcis, Sampsigeramus II of Emesa,
Polemo II of Pontus and Cotys of Armenia Minor. See
Jos. AJ xix.338–42; cf. Sullivan 1978, 324; 1978a,
787–88; 1978b, 213–14.
31 Cappadocia: Dio lvii.17, 3–7; Tac. Ann. ii.42, 2–3;
Philostr. Vita Apoll. i .12,2; cf. Sullivan 1980, 1159–61;
Mauretania: Suet. Cal. 26,1; Pliny v.11; Dio lix.25, 1; cf.
Fittschen 1979, 74.
32 The four kings were Agrippa II of the Herodian
dynasty, Sohaemus of Emesa, Antiochus IV of
Commagene and Malichus II of Nabataea. See Jos. BJ
iii.68; v.460–65; Tac. Hist. ii.81; v.1; cf. Sullivan 1978,
341–42; 1978a, 790; 1978b, 217–18.

bibliography
Abbreviations
ANRW = Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase, 1972 ff. (Berlin / New York).
FGrH = Der Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby, 1923– (Berlin/Leiden).
ID = Inscriptions de Délos, ed. F. Durrbach etc., 1926 ff. (Paris).
IG = Inscriptiones Graecae, 1873 ff. (Berlin).
IG2 = Inscriptiones Graecae, editio minor, 1924 ff. (Berlin).
IGRR = Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes, 1906–27 (Paris).
ILS = Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau, 1892–1916 ( Berlin).
IM = Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mäander, ed. O. Kern, 1900 (Berlin).
IO = Die Inschriften von Olympia, ed. W. Dittenberger and K. Purgold, 1896 (Berlin)
JGRW = Judaea and the Graeco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence (Acts of a Symposium
Organized by the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Archaeological Institute, Georg-August-
University of Göttingen, Jerusalem, 3–4 Nov. 1988), ed. K. Fittschen and G. Foerster, 1996 (Göttingen).
NEAEHL = The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, 1993 ( Jerusalem).
OGIS = Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger, 1903 (Leipzig).
SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, 1923–71 (Leiden).
Syll.3 = Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger, 3rd edn., 1915–24 (Leipzig).

References
Avigad, N., 1984. Discovering Jerusalem: Recent Archaeological Excavations in the Upper City (Oxford).
—— 1993. ‘Samaria (City)’, in NEAEHL, 1300–1310.
Bowersock, G. W., 1961. ‘Eurycles of Sparta’, JRS, 51, 112–18.
—— 1965. Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford).
Braund, D. C., 1984. Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of Client Kingship (London / Canberra / New York).
—— 1988. ‘Client Kings’, in D. C. Braund (ed.), The Administration of the Roman Empire (Exeter), 69–96.
Cartledge, P., and Spawforth, A., 1989. Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities (London / New York).
Cimma, M. R., 1976. Reges Socii et Amici Populi Romani (Rome).
Cotton, H. M., and Geiger, J., 1996. ‘The economic importance of Herod’s Masada: The evidence of the Jar
Inscriptions’, in JGRW, 163–70.
——, Lernau, O., and Goren, Y., 1996. ‘Fish sauces from Herodian Masada’, JRA, 9, 223–38.
Croiselle, J. M., 1985. Pliné l’Ancien, Livre XXXV (Budé: Paris).
Deichmann, F. W., 1979. ‘Westliche Bautechnik im Römischen und Rhomäischen Osten’, MDAI(R), 86, 473–527.
Dodge, H., 1990. ‘The architectural impact of Rome in the East’, in M. Henig (ed.), Architecture and Architectural Sculpture
in the Roman Empire (Oxford), 108–120.
three roman client kings 37
Downey, 1961. A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton, NJ).
Ehrenberg, V., and Jones, A. H. M., 1976. Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, 2nd edn. (Oxford).
Fishwick, D., 1987. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, Vol. 1.1 (Leiden).
Fittschen, K., 1979. ‘Juba II und seine Residenz Jol/Caeasarea (Cherchel)’, in H. G. Horn and C. B. Rüger (eds.), Die
Numider. Reiter und Könige nordlich der Sahara (Bonn), 227–42.
Fraser, P. M., 1978. ‘The kings of Commagene and the Greek world’, Studien zur Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift für F. K.
Dorner (Leiden), 359–74.
Geagan, D. J., 1979. ‘Roman Athens: Some Aspects of Life and Culture I: 86 B.C.– A.D. 267’, ANRW II, 7.1,
371–437.
Goodman, M., 1996. ‘Judaea’, in A. K. Bowman, E. Champlin and A. Lintott (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 10:
The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C – A.D. 69 (Cambridge), 737–81.
Graindor, P., 1927. Athènes sous Auguste (Cairo).
Grant, M., 1971. Herod the Great (London).
Gros, P., 1976. Aurea Templa: Recherches sur l’architecture religieuse de Rome à l’époque d’Auguste (Rome).
Gsell, S., 1928. Histoire ancienne de l’Afrique du nord, Vol. 8 (Paris).
Gurval, R. A., 1995. Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War (Ann Arbor, MI).
Hänlein-Schäfer, H., 1985. Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten römischen Kaisers (Archaeologica, 39:
Rome).
Harper, R. P., 1976. ‘Caesarea Cappadociae’, in R. Stillwell (ed.), Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (Princeton, NJ),
182.
Hengel, M., 1989. The Hellenisation of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (London / Philadelphia).
Hoepfner, W., 1987. ‘Nikopolis — Zur Stadtegründung des Augustus’, in E. Chrysos (ed.), Nicopolis I (Proceedings of the
First International Conference on Nicopolis, 23–29 September 1984: Preveza), 129–33.
Hoffmann, W., 1952, ‘Polemon (2)’, RE 21.2, cols. 1282–87.
Höghammar, K., 1990. Sculpture and Society: A Study of the Interplay between Plastic Art and Society on Kos in the Hellenistic and
Augustan Periods (Uppsala).
Jacobson, D. M., 1986. ‘A new interpretation of the reverse of Herod’s largest coin’, ANSMN, 31, 145–65.
—— 1988. ‘King Herod’s ‘‘heroic’’ public image’, RB, 95, 386–403.
—— 1993/94. ‘King Herod, Roman citizen and benefactor of Kos’, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 13,
31–35.
Jacoby, F., 1916. ‘Iuba (2)’, RE 9.2, cols. 2384–95.
Keil, J., and Wilhelm, A., 1931. ‘Denkmäler aus dem Rauhen Kilikien’, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiquae, Vol. 3
(Manchester).
Kienast, D., 1969. ‘Augustus und Alexander’, Gymnasium, 76, 430–56.
—— 1982. Augustus: Prinzeps und Monarch (Darmstadt).
Kirsten, E., 1974. ‘Elaiussa-Sebaste in Kilikien. Ein Ausgrabungswunch an den Ausgräber von Side und Perge’,
Mélanges Mansel, Vol. 2 (Ankara), 777–802.
Kokkinos, N., 1987. ‘Reassembling the inscription of Glaphyra from Athens’, ZPE, 68, 288–90.
—— 1998. The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse (Sheffield).
—— forthcoming. The Herods in Greece (Colloquenda Mediterranea A/4: Bradford).
Kushnir-Stein, A., 1995. ‘An inscribed lead weight from Ashdod: a reconsideration’, ZPE, 105, 81–84.
Lämmer, M., 1973. ‘Griechische Wettkämpfe in Jerusalem und ihre politische Hintergründe’, Kölner Beiträge zur
Sportwissenschaft, 2, 182–227.
—— 1974. ‘Die Kaiserspiele von Caesarea im Dienste der Politik des konig Herödes’, Kölner Beiträge zur Sportwissenschaft,
3, 95–164.
Laqueur, R., 1936. ‘Nikolaos (20)’, RE 17.1, cols. 362–424.
Lassus, J., 1972. Antioch on the Orontes, Vol. 5: Les Portiques d’Antioche (Princeton, NJ).
—— 1977. ‘La ville d’Antioche à l’époque Romaine d’apres l’archéologie’, ANRW II, 8, 54–102.
Leveau, P., 1970. ‘Trois tombeaux monumentaux à Cherchel’, BAA, 4, 101–47.
—— 1984. Caesarea de Maurétanie. Une ville romaine et ses campagnes (Rome).
Levine, L. I., 1998. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Seattle / London).
Lichtenberger, A., 1999. Die Baupolitik Herodes des Großen (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 26: Wiesbaden).
Lintott, A. W., 1981. ‘What was the ‘‘Imperium Romanum’’?’, Greece and Rome, 28, 53–67.
Magie, D., 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, (Princeton, NJ).
Malcovatti, E., 1969. Imperatoris Caesaris Augusti. Operum fragmenta, 5th edn. (Turin).
Mantzoulinou-Richards, E., 1988. ‘From Syros: a dedicatory inscription of Herodes the Great from an unknown
building’, Ancient World, 18/3–4, 87–99.
Ma’oz, Z. U., 1993. ‘Banias’, in NEAEHL, 136–43.
Mathea-Förtsch, M., 1996. ‘Scroll ornamentation from Judaea and their different patterns’, in JGRW, 177–96.
Mazard, J., 1955. Corpus nummorum Numidiae Mauretaniaeque (Paris).
Meshorer, Y., 1970. ‘A stone weight from the reign of Herod’, IEJ, 20, 97–98.
—— 1982. Ancient Jewish Coinage, 2 vols. (Dix Hills, NY).
Millar, F., 1993. The Roman Near East, 31 BC– AD 337 (Cambridge, MA / London).
38 palestine exploration quarterly
Netzer, E., 1977. ‘The winter palaces of the Judean kings at Jericho at the end of the Second Temple period’, BASOR,
228, 1–13.
—— and Ben-Arieh, S., 1983. ‘Remains of an opus reticulatum building in Jerusalem’, IEJ, 33, 163–75.
Otto, W., 1913. ‘Herodes (14)’, RE Suppl. 2, cols. 1–158.
Paltiel, E., 1991. Vassals and Rebels in the Roman Empire: Julio-Claudian Policies in Judaea and the Kingdoms of the East
(Collections Latomus 212: Brussels).
Pani, M., 1972. Roma e i re d’Oriente da Augusto a Tiberio (Cappadocia, Armenia, Media Atropatene) (Bari).
Pastor, J., 1997. Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine (London / New York).
Préaux, C., 1978. Le monde hellénistique: La Grèce et la Orient (323–146 av. J.-C.), 2 vols. (Paris).
Price, S. R. F., 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge).
Raban, A., and Holum, K. G. (eds.), 1996. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millenia (Leiden / New York /
Köln).
Rich, J., 1989. ‘Patronage and interstate relations in the Roman Republic’, in A. Wallace-Hadrill (ed.), Patronage in
Ancient Society (London), 117–35.
Richard, J.-C., 1970. ‘ ‘‘Mausoleum’’: D’Halicarnasse à Rome puis à Alexandrie’, Latomus, 29, 370–88.
Richardson, P., 1986. ‘Law and piety in Herod’s Architecture’, Studies in Religion, 15, 347–60.
—— 1996. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Columbia, SC).
Rieks, R., 1970. ‘Sebasta und Aktia’, Hermes, 98, 96–116.
Robert, L., 1938. Études épigraphiques et philologiques (Paris).
Roddaz, J.-M., 1984. Marcus Agrippa (Rome).
Roller, D. W., 1998. The Building Programme of Herod the Great (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA / London).
Romanelli, P., 1958. Storie delle province romane dell’Africa (Rome).
Salzmann, D., 1974. ‘Zur Münzprägung der mauretanischen Könige Juba II und Ptolemaos’, MDAI(M), 15, 174–83.
Sands, P. C., 1908. The Client Princes of the Roman Empire under the Republic (Cambridge).
Schalit, A., 1969. Konig Herodes. Der Mann und sein Werk (Berlin).
Schneider, E. E. (ed.), 1999. Elaissa Sebaste I: campagne d’scavo, 1995–1997 (Bibliotheca archaeologica 24; Rome).
Schürer, E., 1973. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135), rev. and ed. by G. Vermes,
F. Millar and M. Black, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh).
—— 1979. ibid., Vol. 2.
Schwartz, D. R., 1990. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 23: Tübingen).
Shatzman, I., 1991. The Armies of the Hasmonaeans and Herod. From Hellenistic to Roman Frameworks (Texte und Studien zum
Antiken Judentum 25: Tübingen).
Sherwin-White, S. M., 1978. Ancient Cos: An Historical Study from the Dorian Settlement to the Imperial Period (Göttingen).
Simonetta, B., 1977. The Coins of the Cappadocian Kings (Fribourg).
Smallwood, E. M., 1981. The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian, 2nd edn. (Leiden).
Stern, M., 1974. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism: 1 From Herodotus to Plutarch ( Jerusalem).
Sullivan, R. D., 1978. ‘The dynasty of Judaea in the first century’, ANRW, ii, 8, 296–354.
—— 1978a. ‘The dynasty of Commagene’, ANRW, ii, 8, 732–98.
—— 1978b. ‘The dynasty of Emesa’, ANRW, ii, 8, 198–219.
—— 1980. ‘The dynasty of Cappadocia’, ANRW, ii , 7.2, 1125–68.
—— 1980a. ‘Dynasts in Pontus’, ANRW , ii, 7.2, 913–30.
—— 1990. Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100–30 B.C. (Toronto).
Sydenham, E. A., 1978. The Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 2nd edn. (New York).
Teja, R., 1980. ‘Die römische Provinz Kappadokien in der Prinzipatszeit’, ANRW, II, 7.2, 1083–1124.
Tölle-Kastenbein, R., 1994. Das Olympieion in Athen (Arbeiten zur Archäologie; Köln / Weimar / Wien).
Vermeule, C. C., 1985. Alexander the Great Conquers Rome (Cambridge, MA).
Wacholder, B. Z., 1962. Nikolaus of Damascus (Berkeley / Los Angeles).
—— 1989. ‘Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus’, in L. H. Feldman, and G. Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible and History
(Detroit, MI), 147–72.
Zanker, P., 1988. The Power of the Image in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor, MI).