Günther Moosbauer und Rainer Wiegels (Hrsg.

)

Fines imperii – imperium sine fine?

Osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption Band 14

Herausgegeben von Günther Moosbauer und Rainer Wiegels

2011 .) Fines imperii – imperium sine fine? Römische Okkupations.und Grenzpolitik im frühen Principat Beiträge zum Kongress ‚Fines imperii – imperium sine fine?‘ in Osnabrück vom 14. Rahden/Westf.Günther Moosbauer und Rainer Wiegels (Hrsg. bis 18. September 2009 Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH .

Günther . D-32369 Rahden/Westf. 14) ISBN 978-3-89646-735-5 Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. Umschlagentwurf: COMPUTUS Druck Service. 1 (in diesem Band) aus: R.de abrufbar.de/80.de ISBN 978-3-89646-735-5 ISSN 1863-074X Kein Teil dieses Buches darf in irgendeiner Form (Druck.htm Druck und Produktion: Druckhaus Breyer GmbH.): Fines imperii – imperium sine fine? Römische Okkupations. Belm Satz und Layout: Enns Schrift & Bild GmbH. Bd. DVD. . Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier Alle Rechte vorbehalten © 2011 Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH Geschäftsführer: Dr.. OSNABRÜCK Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Moosbauer. von Günther Moosbauer . 55595 Gutenberg Titelfoto: Buchisstele 13 vom 17. vervielfältigt oder verbreitet werden.Minas Nerpel. Bielefeld Internet: http://www. The Bucheum III. London (EES) 1934 Taf. Rainer (Hrsg.H.und Grenzpolitik im frühen Principat / hrsg.vml.geschichte. 2011 (Osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption .uni-osnabrueck. Fotokopie. 43 Redaktion: Achim Rost und Susanne Wilbers-Rost. Wiegels. Detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb. CD-ROM.ddb. . Tel: +49/(0)5771/ 9510-74 Fax: +49/(0)5771/ 9510-75 E-Mail: info@vml.V. Rahden/Westf. Mond/O.UND FRÜHGESCHICHTLICHEN AUSGRABUNGEN IM OSNABRÜCKER LAND E. Bert Wiegel Stellerloh 65 . 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.338 Seiten mit 99 Abbildungen Gedruckt mit finanzieller Unterstützung der STADT OSNABRÜCK GÖTTINGER AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN VARUS-GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FÖRDERUNG DER VOR. Diepholz .de Internet: www. Myers. April 29 v. Chr. Abb.. : Leidorf..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Perdomita Britannia…’: Roman and indigenous strategies and their outcomes in Britain from Caesar to Domitian and beyond Simon James . . . . . The Transformation of Rural Structures in Southern Gaul between the 1st Century BC and the 1st Century AD. . . . . . . . . . . . Jahrhunderts v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . la cité et le pouvoir impérial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Roman conquest of Dalmatia and Pannonia under Augustus – some of the latest research results Marjeta Šašel Kos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marie-Jeanne Ouriachi and Laure Nuninger . . . . . Augustus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stefanie Martin-Kilcher . . . . . . . . . Prinzeps und Pharao zwischen politischer Realität und ideologischem Anspruch Martina Minas-Nerpel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Römer und gentes Alpinae im Konflikt – archäologische und historische Zeugnisse des 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Household specialisation in horse breeding: the role of returning veterans in the Batavian river area Maaike Groot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .und Friedenssicherung – Germanien – Siegmar von Schnurbein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Inhaltsverzeichnis Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Religions et intégration des provinces de l’Occident romain William Van Andringa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rome and Judaea during the First Century CE: A strange modus vivendi Moshe Fischer . . . Die Transformation der Landwirtschaft in Germanien und Raetien Günther Moosbauer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . military deployment and cultural integration Ángel Morillo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Case of Eastern Languedoc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Roman occupation in the north of Hispania: war. Römische und indigene Strategien der Herrschafts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Domitian und die Donaugrenze Miroslava Mirković . . . . Integration der lokalen Eliten – individuelle und korporative Privilegierungen Helmut Halfmann . . . . . . . . . 7 11 27 63 75 87 107 119 131 143 157 185 195 203 219 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . François Favory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L’armée romaine et les peuples gaulois de César à Auguste Michel Reddé . . . . . . . . Les dieux. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raaflaub . . . . . . . culture and religion in the East. . Kleinasien und Lusitanien Günther Schörner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 239 253 275 297 309 323 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Politics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peace as The Highest End and Good? The Role of Peace in Roman Thought and Politics Kurt A. . . La violence et la guerre chez les Romains au temps d’Auguste Yann Le Bohec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kulte und Akkulturation in Nordafrika. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The friendly kings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zwischen Integration und Segregation – eine Problemskizze zum Verhältnis zwischen römischem Heer und Zivilgesellschaft im Principat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lewin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ariel S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rainer Wiegels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monumentalisierung römischer Macht – augusteische Stadtanlagen zwischen „Monotonisierung“ und imitatio Urbis Sabine Panzram . . . . . .6 Tradition – Persistenz – Resistenz: Kultmonumente. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Der Kaiserkult als Mittel der politischen Integration Peter Herz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

September 2009 den internationalen Kongress „Fines imperii – Imperium sine fine? Römische Okkupationsund Grenzpolitik im frühen Principat“. wird hier mit publiziert. Äußerer Anlass war die spektakuläre Niederlage des römischen Feldherrn Publius Quinctilius Varus gegen ein Aufgebot germanischer Stämme unter Führung des Arminius „im Teutoburger Wald“ im Jahr 9 n. Sie diente zugleich der regionalen Vorbereitung des Kongresses und stieß in der Öffentlichkeit auf große Resonanz. Chr. Gallien. der Hispania und den afrikanischen Provinzen mit durchaus eigenen Akzentsetzungen. Im letzten Block wurden die Instrumente der Herrschaftssicherung Roms behandelt. wurde der Blick über bestimmte Provinzgrenzen hinaus auf das Imperium als Ganzes gerichtet. grundlegende Aspekte herauszuarbeiten. wobei der Schwerpunkt in die Zeit von Caesar bis Domitian gelegt wurde. die von 2008 bis 2009 an der Volkshochschule Osnabrück stattfand und von Universität und Stadt veranstaltet wurde. An dieses Datum wurde auch in Haltern. nämlich die Frage nach Widerstand und Integration der Bevölkerung in den Grenzzonen des Imperiums. nach grundlegenden. die zu Kristallisationspunkten einer fortschreitenden Romanisation wurden. die ihrerseits dann Eingang in die römische Provinzkultur fanden. Pannonien und Moesien). war von vornherein klar. Inhaltlich sollte auf vergleichender Basis ein Kernproblem der Geschichte des Römischen Reiches insbesondere in der Kaiserzeit thematisiert werden. der vor einer großen Öffentlichkeit in der Marienkirche in Osnabrück von Prof. also vor genau 2000 Jahren. bis 18.Vorwort Universität und Stadt Osnabrück veranstalteten in Zusammenarbeit mit der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen vom 14. Kurt Raaflaub (USA) gehalten wurde. Ebenfalls . Vielmehr ging es darum. Andererseits lässt sich aber auch in vielen Fällen ein Festhalten der indigenen Gesellschaften an alten Traditionen feststellen. welche durch den Kongress begleitet und zugleich ergänzt wurde. von Rom aus gesteuerten und beeinflussten Entwicklungen im Verhältnis zu eigenständigen.. Dass ein derart komplexes Thema im Rahmen eines Kongresses auch nicht nur annähernd erschöpfend abgehandelt werden kann. Zudem organisierte Ralph Häussler neben dem Kongress eine viel beachtete Vortragsreihe zum Thema „Römer und Germanen in Nordwestdeutschland“. Dr. Er wurde nicht zuletzt angesichts des Anspruchs der Stadt Osnabrück als „Friedensstadt“ ausgewählt. regionalen Prozessen aufschlussreich sind oder sein könnten.und Friedenssicherung. Zu diesen Instrumenten zählten aber auch eine auf Rom als Zentrum ausgerichtete Ideologie und der Kaiserkult. An vielen Orten entstanden neue Zentren. denen an dieser Stelle für ihre Bereitschaft zur Mitwirkung ausdrücklich gedankt sei. Dieses geschah zunächst durch Studien zu den Provinzen an Rhein und Donau (Germanien. Um hier zu differenzierten Ergebnissen zu gelangen. sondern zudem eines der wichtigsten Mittel zur Integration der einheimischen Bevölkerungen in den Randgebieten in den Gesamtverband des Imperium Romanum. Für diese Aufgabe konnte erfreulicherweise eine eigene Stelle eingeworben werden. Besonderer Dank gilt Dr. Kalkriese und Detmold mit der großen Ausstellungstrias „Imperium – Konflikt – Mythos“ erinnert. d.h. die nicht nur machtpolitisches Instrument war. Dabei standen insbesondere indigene Anpassungsstrategien und Formen der Resistenz in den verschiedenen Regionen des Römischen Reiches im Mittelpunkt der Erörterungen. Ein zweiter Themenblock galt der Evolution der Zivilstrukturen in den von Rom neu gewonnenen Gebieten: Dazu gehören Urbanisierung und Transformation des ländlichen Siedlungswesens ebenso wie die Entwicklung der Wirtschaftssysteme und der religiösen Strukturen. Ralph Häussler (Osnabrück) für die sich über zwei Jahre erstreckende Vorbereitung und Organisation der Tagung. was zu einem eigenständigen „Tertium“ jenseits von „römisch-mittelmeerländisch“ und „einheimisch-indigen“ führte. Als Referenten und Teilnehmer an den Diskussionen konnte eine große Anzahl von internationalen Spezialisten gewonnen werden. womit eine Brücke zwischen Antike und Gegenwart geschlagen werden sollte. welche insbesondere für die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Zentrum und Peripherie. Als Schirmherrn des Kongresses konnte der damalige Ministerpräsident des Landes Niedersachsen und heutige Bundespräsident Christian Wulff gewonnen werden. Raetien. Dokumentiert werden sollten unterschiedliche Formen römischer Herrschafts. aber auch zu Britannien. Ein Schwerpunkt lag dabei auf der Behandlung der römischen Armee. Der Festvortrag zur Tagung mit dem Titel „Zum antiken Friedensideal im antiken Rom“. Noricum.

8 Vorwort zu danken ist den Hilfskräften der Alten Geschichte und Archäologie der Universität Osnabrück sowie weiteren Studierenden. Die Redaktion der Tagungsbeiträge. Die Durchführung des Kongresses und die Publikation der Akten wurden in erster Linie ermöglicht durch die großzügige Finanzierung seitens der Stadt und der Universität Osnabrück. so dürfte damit doch die Tagung ihren Intentionen entsprechend ausreichend dokumentiert sein. Susanne Wilbers-Rost. die erst im Herbst 2010 vollständig zur Verfügung standen. führt automatisch zu inhaltlichen Lücken. ohne die der Kongress nicht hätte durchgeführt werden können. Ihnen allen. lag in den Händen von Dr. Die Überprüfung der fremdsprachlichen Beiträge erfolgte durch Teresa Gehrs und Anne-Marie Plet vom Europäischen Sprachendienst in Osnabrück.V. Aus diesem Grund bestand von Anfang an der Gedanke. aber auch Verlag und Layout-Büro sei herzlich für die letztlich zügige Umsetzung der Manuskripte in Buchform gedankt.) erhebliche finanzielle und sachliche Hilfestellung. Achim Rost und Dr. unterstützt von den wissenschaftlichen Hilfskräften des Faches Alte Geschichte Dirk Sievertsen und Christian Stephan. die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. die zum reibungslosen Ablauf der Tagung beitrugen. einen Überblick zu diesem komplexen Thema zu geben. einen zweiten Band mit ergänzenden Artikeln zu publizieren. der Landkreis Osnabrück und die Varus-Gesellschaft (Gesellschaft zur Förderung der vor. Zu den guten Geistern bei Vorbereitung und Durchführung der Tagung gehörten schließlich Hannelore Riese und Rita Hetzer aus dem Sekretariat Geschichte der Universität Osnabrück. Der Versuch.und frühgeschichtlichen Ausgrabungen im Osnabrücker Land e. Ferner leisteten die Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen als Mitveranstalter. Allen Institutionen sei auf diesem Weg unser besonderer Dank ausgesprochen. Die Planungen hierzu sind noch im Gange. Auch wenn aus unterschiedlichen Gründen nicht alle Beiträge in diesem Tagungsband vorgelegt werden können. Gustav-Adolf Lehmann – Günther Moosbauer – Siegmar von Schnurbein – Rainer Wiegels .

fr Prof.ch PD Dr.2 17. N.fr Prof. Dr.il Dr.de Prof .de Dr.halfmann@uni-hamburg.fr Prof.tau.ac. William Van Andringa HALMA-IPEL – UMR 8164 (CNRS.francois2@wanadoo. Stefanie Martin-Kilcher Institut für archäologische Wissenschaften Abt.ac.groot@let.minas-nerpel@swansea. Helmut Halfmann Universität Hamburg Historisches Seminar – Arbeitsbereich Alte Geschichte Von-Melle-Park 6 / VIII 20146 Hamburg Deutschland helmut. Lille3) Université Lille 3 Pont de Bois BP 60149 59653 Villeneuve d’Ascq cedex Frankreich william.lewin@fastwebnet. Maaike Groot Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Faculteit der Letteren De Boelelaan 1105 1081 HV Amsterdam Niederlande m. Dr. Miroslava Mirković Universität Beograd Philosophische Fakultät Cika-Ljubiana 18-20.unibe. Martina Minas-Nerpel Swansea University Department of History and Classics College of Arts and Humanities Singleton Park UK-Swansea SA2 8PP Großbritannien m.martin-kilcher@sfu.lebohec@wanadoo. Archäologie der Römischen Provinzen Universität Bern 3005 Bern Schweiz stefanie.uni-regensburg. François Favory Professeur des universités Université de Franche-Comté UMR 6249 Laboratoire Chrono-Environnement Directeur de la MSHE C. Simon James BSc PhD FSA School of Archaeology & Ancient History University of Leicester Leicester LE1 7RH.herz@geschichte. Yann Le Bohec Boîte 9.nl Prof.Die Autoren des vorliegenden Bandes Prof.uk Prof. Dr.vu. Sauro 85 85100 Potenza Italien arielsamuel. em. Moshe Fischer Tel Aviv University Department of Archaeology Ramat Aviv 69978 Israel fischer@post. rue Olympe de Gouges 59000 Lille Frankreich yann.rs . Peter Herz Universität Regensburg Institut für Geschichte / Alte Geschichte 93040 Regensburg Deutschland peter. Dr. Ariel Lewin Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Linguistiche e Antropologiche Via N.va@free.uk Prof.it Prof. UK Großbritannien stj3@leicester. Dr.ac. Ledoux 32 rue Mégevand 25030 Besançon Cedex Frankreich favory. Djuriceva 1 11000 Beograd Serbien frida@eunet.

p. Deutschland schnurbein@rgk. kurt_raaflaub@brown.michel@yahoo.ouriachi@wanadoo.wiegels@uni-osnabrueck.nuninger@univ-fcomte. Dr. Dr. Rainer Wiegels Universität Osnabrück FB Kultur.A. 4/19 91054 Erlangen Deutschland Guenther.uni-erlangen.S.und Geowissenschaften Archäologie der Römischen Provinzen Schloßstraße 8 49069 Osnabrück Deutschland guenther.M.fr Dr.de Prof. Günther Moosbauer Universität Osnabrück FB Kultur.fr Dr.si Prof. Michel Reddé INHA/EPHE 2 rue Vivienne 75002 Paris Frankreich redde.I.de . 306) 1001 Ljubljana Slowenien mkos@zrc-sazu.dainst. Dr.Schoerner@arch.und Geowissenschaften Alte Geschichte Schloßstraße 8 49069 Osnabrück Deutschland rainer.es Laure Nuninger UMR 6249 Laboratoire Chrono-Environnement University of Franche-Comté-CNRS 32 rue Mégevand 25030 Besançon Cedex Frankreich laure.de Prof. Dr. Kurt Raaflaub Dept.phil.fr Marie-Jeanne Ouriachi UMR 6249 Laboratoire Chrono-Environnement University of Franche-Comté-CNRS 32 rue Mégevand 25030 Besançon Cedex Frankreich marie-jeanne.10 Die Autoren des vorliegenden Bandes Prof.de Prof. Sabine Panzram Universität Hamburg Historisches Seminar – Arbeitsbereich Alte Geschichte Von-Melle-Park 6 / VIII 20146 Hamburg Deutschland Sabine.de Prof. Dr. 02912-1856 U. Ángel Morillo Cerdán Departamento de Ciencias y Técnicas Historiográficas y de Arqueología Facultad de Geografía e Historia Universidad Complutense C/ Profesor Aranguren s/n. Marjeta Šašel Kos Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU Novi trg 2 (p.edu Prof. Siegmar von Schnurbein Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Palmengartenstraße 10-12 60325 Frankfurt a. of Classics Brown University Providence R.moosbauer@uni-osnabrueck.ucm. Günther Schörner Universität Erlangen Institut für Klassische Archäologie Kochstr. ES-28040 Madrid Spanien amorillo@ghis.Panzram@uni-hamburg.

the road system and architectural-artistic expressions. Unlike there. it is not surprising that the majority of official Roman documents in the East were edited in Greek. note. alongside those that had been used for centuries. various main aspects of the Herodian era will be briefly presented with an emphasis on ‘pre-Roman Roman’ elements. First. all this reflects a real contrast between Judaea and other provinces. no Jew was to command a Roman legion (an exception is Tiberius Alexander. including petitions to the governor. as a continuing tradition. it is even more striking to realise. which will serve as short case studies. which made it acceptable and even desirable.] with the fierce rebellions motivated by religious and national motives against everything which the empire represented?” (Cotton 2007a:407). Most of these were written in Greek. On the contrary. Eck has shown that Hebrew-Aramaic was used for those who could not read/understand the two official languages. It is obvious that coexistence was present in the country. for example. thus. which could have been the reason for certain inquietude. and Latin became the language of the region’s rulers. found in the Caves of the Judean Desert (Lewis 1989). concludes with the following major question: “How are we to reconcile this [namely the acceptance of Roman rule. The Roman conquest of Judaea brought the Latin language to the area.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 Rome…no awareness of the benefits of the ‘Imperial Peace’…”. an article published by Hannah Cotton on the impact of the Roman army in Judaea. could have been the clue to the modus vivendi. Werner Eck drew attention to the information given in John’s Gospel that Pontius Pilate published his reasons for the condemnation of Jesus in three languages. mainly military presence. In a paper presented at a table ronde I organised at the 17th International Congress of Classical Archaeology on behalf of the Association Internationale d’Archéologie Classique (AIAC). The postHerodian period (after 6 CE) will then be presented in an attempt to distinguish between the time before and after 44 CE (Agrippa I’s death). Latin became the language of the new rulers. 22-26 September 2008. M. Rome. 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. Latin was not forced onto the people as an exclusive language. namely HebrewAramaic. on the other. no sharing of common interests occurs here. Thus. and their relationship with the Empire. It also fits the reality of the documents of the archives of Babatha and Salome Komaise. emphasising the adjustment to and reconciliation with Roman rule as reflected by the same Babatha archive from the Judean Desert preceding the Bar Kokhba War. 2009). such as urban frames.Rome and Judaea during the First Century CE: A strange modus vivendi Moshe Fischer Abstract This paper focuses on the situation of 1st century CE Judaea against the background of Herodian era (37-4 BCE) achievements (‘pre-Roman’). that the main reason Agrippa used in his famous speech in 66 CE (BJ 2. who abandoned Judaism). On the other hand. Moreover. based mainly on recent archaeological research carried out in the area. Does all this not reflect the strange modus vivendi I try to focus on in my paper? Recently. following Menahem Stern in an article from 1987 (1987:71-72. An attempt will be made to highlight new ‘real’ Roman elements (not known under Herod the Great) then introduced to Judaea.F. FAO. or local elites from only the non-Jewish sector in Palestine were integrated in . The Babatha archive clearly shows that the advantages of Roman rule. namely Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. where Greek became de facto the second language. This reflects the linguistic reality of Rome itself. the years of the First (Great) Revolt and thereafter will be examined. Greek and Latin (see also Eck 2003. However. or a great part of them. Finally. All this should explain the subtitle ‘A strange modus vivendi’. and so on (Eck 2003:125 -144. 4). whilst Greek was the lingua franca of the whole East. pointed out by Cotton 2007a:405). but also that it was of a rather special nature. Greek continued to be used whenever required.

as evidenced by a milestone discovered at its original spot (Isaac and Roll 1976). Simeon were sitting and Jehudah. As to various aspects of landscape used to judge historical events and processes. Kypros/Jericho (BJ 2. The formation of the province as an administrative. Thus. 2005). R. etc. In Ward-Perkin’s eyes. not to mention its involvement in the belligerent events of the second half of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd century CE. but mainly in the decades following his death. that the end was ultimate. they have built bridges. but R. such syntheses are still a desideratum. 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 early as during the 1st century CE. They have established markets. Jose said nothing. such as opus caementicium. too. were introduced to the country before real Roman rule began (Ward-Perkins 1994:281). ceramics. from 6 CE onwards. as emphasised by various articles published in recently (e.309) and Jezreel Valley (vita 115) (Cotton 2007a:395. civic. The army had to play an important role in the formation of the province.408). Fentress Ed. J. yet there. where Roman elements. B. 12). 1997. Settlement and architectural landscape In a different context. (Cotton 2007a: 406). this paper is an attempt to present aspects of the reality of the antebellum period. yet still bearing the name Judaea. glass. Jehudah opened the conversation. 1997. military units were stationed at several ‘strategic’ points. Jose. de Blois and lo Cascio Eds. etc. which dealt with rural. funerary habits and their expression. coins. creating a picture of 1st century CE Judaea. 2002. however. Jehudah.144 Fischer. A kind of provincialisation now started. Such units existed at Ascalon (BJ 3. Their comparison leads imminently to the question of what in fact was newly introduced in the postHerodian 1st century CE.” (Jackson 1984:8. Fischer 2009. and R.484-5). 156). It would therefore . For Judaea. which in 6 CE became a province of the Roman Empire. Ward-Perkins explored the ‘Roman contribution’ to the development of architecture in Anatolia and compared it with Herod’s Judaea. including postHerodian Judaea. the army. Ostenfeld Ed. Such attempts have often been made recently. For such a purpose. we can adopt the inspiring model proposed by Alcock in 1993. 2000. the son of proselytes.g. namely to change names of provinces as a result of revolts. 2007. or as in our case here.”” (Babylonian Talmud. leading finally to the establishment of an independent province after the death of Agrippa I in 44 CE. Herod was a pioneer in introducing such elements to the East.” R. provincial and sacred landscapes. art. This pessimistic view contrasts somewhat with the famous rabbinic discussion regarding Roman rule. In any case. uncommon in the Roman Empire. Hoff and Rotroff. countryside. Herodian Palestine 1. they should be seen as part of a process. as emphasised by highly stimulating collections of papers published for various areas under Roman rule (such as Alcock Ed. in fact. Schörner Ed. Fischer [in press]). etc. such as Hellenisation or Romanisation. they have built baths for the purpose of indulging themselves in their comforts. In our attempt to present the Roman provincial picture versus that inherited from preRoman/Herodian rule. creating a new reality. which seems to be a crucial factor. not only already in Herodian era. Rome and Judaea during the First Century CE the imperial elite. ten years after Herod’s death (4 BCE). Eds.” she concludes (Cotton 2007a:398). We have to bear in mind. however. such as urbanisation. Simeon b. on the landscape. Their markets are gathering-places for harlots. I. represents a sign of change in landscape to be fully carried out in the coming centuries.. Cotton and Geiger 1989:14). they have opened bathing-houses. Samaria (BJ 3. political and military unit is in fact accompanied by changes and their impact on the environment. which I will focus on shortly. since landscape is “never simply a natural space… always artificial. both the advantages and disadvantages of the latter are put into perspective: “R. virtually all aspects of everyday life have to be taken into account. saying: “How beautiful are the works of this nation (the Romans). and how these changes contributed to altering the landscape. R. and possibly also to the dramatic events of 66-70 and 132-135 CE. sat before them. since the name Judaea suffered a “kind of damnatio memoriae” – says Hannah Cotton in her article quoted above. always synthetic. they have built bridges to collect tolls from those who cross them. Shabbat 33b). Roman-style temples and colonnaded streets. which was. Archaeological reality also seems to strengthen the aspect of advantages of Roman civilization. “it was air-brushed out of the map of the Roman provinces. always subject to sudden or unpredictable change. Masada (BJ 2. yet their location at the outbreak of the Great Revolt was probably an emergency measure. To return to my main issue. Johai said: “All these things they have instituted for their own sake.

a grand building programme. focusing primarily on various main aspects of the landscape at his time.” (AJ 15. Viewing the Temple and its place among Judaism. one of the monumental features of the Temple should be mentioned in this context. which unfortunately remained poorly explored due to its special place in the tumultuous religious tradition and reality of the Near East. Thus. see also Boffo 1994: 283-241) are highly important. a real stabilisation of central rule occurred under Herod the Great (37-4 BCE). from ruins. 11) or the pavement of the . 2. surpassing everything constructed previously.. has definitely marked the religious landscape of Jerusalem. or totally neglected sites. including even a strong mixing of orders (Avigad 1954. It seems that Augustan Rome then made its entrance to the Near East. which in fact lasted until the Late Antique period. The harbour of the latter – Sebastos – was definitely an outstanding logistical and architectural project. Despite representing a continuous tradition. ep. Sukkah 51b. as early as during the Hellenistic period (Fischer and Tal 2003). 194. Fig. Flavius Josephus also provides many details on the building (AJ. a real architectural revolution occurred. cf. unprecedented in the country. which was considered to be a monument comparable with achievements in the Greco-Roman world. namely that a clear tendency towards the use of Corinthian style can only be felt during the Herodian period and. as well as that of the whole country and even Jewish diaspora. as emphasised by Flavius Josephus and evidenced by the underwater archaeological project carried out at the site (Oleson. ad Ephes.. implying a thrice-yearly pilgrimage of all Jews to the Temple in Jerusalem. the temples of Caesarea and Samaria-Sebaste and many other structures of this period illustrate this trend. namely the Royal basilica (basileios stoa) where “the number of all the columns was a hundred-and-sixty-two. We even hear of gladiatorial combats that accompanied the festivities of the inauguration of Caesarea. its monumentality. including several main steps which led to a serious re-modelling of the landscape. including that of the ruling power. At that time. AJ 15. mentioning that the punishment for this trespass was death. After the dramatic end of both Seleucid and then Jewish/Hasmonean rule over the Near East and Pompey. such as in the bathhouse at Jericho (Netzer 1977. reflecting the massive transformation of Rome itself during the time of Augustus (Gleason 1996. transformed Caesarea (old Straton’s Tower). Lichtenberger 1999. 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. However. The Temple Mount. as was common in the whole Mediterranean. and their capitals were ornamented in the Corinthian style of carving.or even anti-isolation. 184-237). the Promontory Palace. Baba Bathra 4a)..Osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 14 145 be appropriate to present a brief overview of Herod’s Judaea. even towards the use of the regular style (Fischer 1990). Japp 2000. all three main classical orders were used in Ancient Israel. into flourishing cities. the Patriarchs’ Tombs at Hebron. see Zanker 1988). They warn strangers – non-Jews – against crossing the balustrade of the Second (Middle) Courtyard of the Temple in Jerusalem. Another interesting point should be emphasised here. but mainly during the Herodian period. ad Gaium 212. too. they demonstrate that Jews were unable to isolate themselves from their surroundings and reality. 125. leg. The most prestigious building project was doubtlessly the construction of the Second Temple at Jerusalem. including a monumental architecture realised according to a combination of local traditions with a strong influence 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). 15. Antipatris (old Afeq/Pegae). Raban and Hohlfelder 1989). probably in the recently excavated hippo-amphi-stadium (Humphrey 1996). despite being surrounded by nonJews. as emphasised by Kathy Gleason in a wonderful description of the building phases of the Herodian palace at Caesarea. with the exception of rudimentary use for opus sectile. 6. 414). At the same time. it is unlikely that the latter marble was used in Judaea. 388-420. Philo. moreover. as reflected by the Latin version of the inscription (although it has not yet been discovered). Samaria (becoming now SamariaSebaste). 14) and signalised by archaeological finds (Clermont-Ganneau 1871: 132-133. which caused amazement by the magnificence of this whole effect.” (Babylonian Talmud. the famous forbiddance inscriptions in both Greek and Latin mentioned by Josephus and Philo (BJ 5. BJ. the remains of Caesarea Philippi. Roller 1998). As to non. 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). due to its centralising character. as becomes apparent by looking at any Herodian building project. The vitality of Hellenistic royal architecture was now combined with and adapted to the new style. which began to be popular under Augustus. 417. the Great’s and Gabinius’s activity in the area between 63 and 55 BCE. 5. 9. As a matter of fact. etc.

which was found at Herodium and attributed to the Herodian period (Netzer 1985. As to the consequences of the riots themselves. These have been enjoyed or rejected by certain parts of local populations. anti-Herodian/antiRoman(?) riots broke out in Judaea (‘Varus revolt’). Such a trend also lasted under Herod’s descendants. wrongly dated by me to the Severan period (Fischer 1998.) Weber has also re-evaluated fragments of marble statues which he interpreted as representing Herod the Great him- . BJ 1. 176. 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. 648-655). and might be seen against the background of Herod’s pro-Roman policy. It is interesting to note that the isotopic composition of its marble points to Pentelikon. 149-163. No. after Herod’s death in 4 BCE. preparing the scene for the future dramatic events to come. The First Century 1. BJ 2. including the use of marble as a building and decorative material. since this technique was used widely and successfully by Herodian artisans (see Fischer and Stein 1994). A rather strange story is that regarding the Golden Eagle required by Herod to be attached to the Temple in Jerusalem (AJ 17. p. 210A. 2. 79e-f). The late Hannan Eshel (2008) pointed out that there is no claim that Varus was killed in Germania due to his actions in Jerusalem. Pl. Schürer 1973:330-335. which would shed further light on the relationship between Herod and Augustan Rome. Flavius Josephus’s description. as depicted by Josephus telling us that. A first sign of the latter occurred soon after Herod’s death. Fisher and Lyon 1924. bringing to the scene Publius Quinctilius Varus – who became ‘renowned’ following the Teutoburg Forest disaster (9 CE). the former kingdom of Herod was divided into three territories which had their own history. note 9. 12. 159. which – unfortunately – are lost. 206-323. where Netzer (1977) attributes its use to the presence of Roman artisans brought there by Herod Jerusalem (Ben-Arieh and Netzer 1974). Nor can such claim be found in the writings of Josephus or in the apocryphal and rabbinic works. on the other hand. 75. It is worth mentioning that the marble of this item has been identified by Norman Herz (University of Georgia at Athens) as originating from Carrara. see now Lichtenberger 2009:165-166). Josephus largely describes the use of colossal statues erected in the Temple of Augustus and Roma at Caesarea (BJ 1. together with the newly rediscovered Carrara quarries! As to building projects. These events are also mentioned in the pseudoepigraphical work The Assumption of Moses and in the rabbinic chronicle work Seder ‘Olam Rabbah (Schürer 1973:332333. the Caesarea mob looted “the images of the king’s daughters” (AJ 19. was probably misled in many cases by the white shining stucco applied to walls. Among the various Roman influences in architectural planning and design. keeping almost strictly to the anti-iconic attitude of the Second Commandment. Gaifman 2008). as described in detail by Flavius Josephus (AJ 17. The post-Herodian interregnum and Varus in Judaea The picture presented above should be sufficient to reflect the introduction of ‘symbols of Romanitas’ to this area. 534. II. Sculpture of Herodian Palestine A 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 figurative art were used. Caesarea Maritima (Levine 1975) and Caesarea Philippi (Paneas. after the death of Herod Agrippa (in 44 CE). Eshel 2008). including acts with Roman soldiers razing the porticos of the temple in Jerusalem. Following this development. No. 85). I will deal with this item and its place in the sculpture of Early Roman Palestine on another occasion. such as the head of a marble Silen. he ruthlessly suppressed them. Rome and Judaea during the First Century CE orchestra in the theatre at Caesarea (Albricci 1965).146 Fischer. cf. the most strident one is the use of opus reticulatum – this very typical western Roman technique – by the builders in Herod’s lifetime and that of his successors. yet a crystallisation of opponent resistance on the other. self. Fig. 2. 414).356-357). as expressed by Flavius Josephus (Ap. as Alcock puts it (Alcock 1997:4). modern Banias) (Tzaferis and Israeli 2008). such as at Jericho (Kelso and Baramki 1955. cf. a very popular source of marble in Augustan Rome. He concludes. Serving as the Roman governor of Syria between 7 and 4 BCE when. II. that it seems as though Josephus and Jews in Judaea were unaware of what befell Varus in the Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE. therefore. I. the decades after Herod’s death seem to witness a progressing introduction of Romanitas on the one hand. and a few pieces of minor art. note 92. 182) and later attributed to the Early Roman/Herodian period (Fittschen 2002). Pritchard 1958). it may have depicted an emperor (Augustus?) or somebody of his entourage. cf. as suggested by Thomas Weber (2008.

such as the suspension of large-scale building activity in Jerusalem after the construction of the Temple. the rock for roads leading through Beth Horon or Horvat Mazad passes had been cut for generations before the Romans arrived (see Fischer. Greek and Roman elements. cf. as revealed by archaeological remains. 211). Jews were still enjoying broad autonomy. albeit under Roman rule. monumental tombs from Jerusalem. successfully meeting the demands of such a structure (Burrell 1996). namely a multi-ethnic/ multi-religious urban society vis-à-vis a mono-ethnic/mono-religious rural landscape (Hirschfeld 1996).Osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 14 147 2. Isaac and Roll 1996:8-10.000 workers (AJ 20. Artists give the impression that they wish to emphasise their knowledge of the fashionable artistic language. Caesarea Philippi was founded by Herod’s son Philip in 3 BCE and was later inherited to Agrippa II (54-100 CE). 221). Although there is no doubt about the Roman contribution to road building and the development of transport networks. An intensive building boom is also reflected by interesting economic data. the traditional pyramid is replaced by a Greco-Roman tholos. 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. Cities founded by Herod the Great and his successors were inhabited by representatives of the whole ethnic/religious spectrum of Judaea. 1). such as Caesarea. co-existing for better and for worse. in fact that of the legendary Helen of Adiabene. At the Tomb of Absalom. such as milestone inscriptions and other epigraphic or historical evidence. in fact family mausolea. a Jewish synagogue and Christian complexes were active throughout the 1st century CE. as felt in Western and Eastern provinces at the same time (Fedak 1990:140148). mainly from the Kidron Valley (Avigad 1954) and that of Helen of Adiabene (Kon 1947). 329. at least until the events after 66 CE (Levine 1975). The first century reality In the 1st century CE. For this purpose. including that in the Near East and Palestine (Fig. 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. According to Josephus (BJ 3. Jacobson and Kokkinos 2009). where Pagan temples. however. architectural. only excavated sites along the roads in combination with dated material. mainly to its ‘two’ capitals: the political capital Caesarea and the traditional capital Jerusalem. regarded against the periods in which the roads were actually used. and mainly in the so-called Kings’ Tomb. Tradition. Jewish Jerusalem under Roman rule. Wilson 2001. The entrance to the so-called Yehoshaphat tomb behind the Absalom Tomb is carved in wonderful GrecoRoman style. 36-37. The main Herodian structures of Caesarea – predominantly its royal palace complex (‘the Promontory Palace’) – now became the praetorium of the praefectus of Judaea. 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). it should be noted. Pl. The creation of the province of Judaea in 6 CE gave new impulses. Now. represent a clear adaptation of Jerusalem’s aristocracy to the architectural and artistic principles of the Roman Eastern Mediterranean. as emphasised by archaeological and epigraphic finds in recent decades (Levine 1975. 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 façade of the Benei Hezir Tomb and the Doric-Ionic combination of the Zachariah Tomb) and Roman influence. who even changed the name of the city to Neronias (AJ 20. recently Tzaferis and Israeli 2008:17-20. Clear Greco-Roman artistic and architectural décor is used in a strange. As to architectural and artistic achievements. artistic and epigraphic remains. Hirschfeld 2004:3. during the reign of Agrippa II “the natural beauties of Paneion have been enhanced by royal munificence…the place having been embellished by Agrippa at great expense. A truly outstanding example of this mixture of tradition and Greco-Roman elements is visible in the Umm el Amud tomb. Isaac and Roll 1996:320-338). these monumental tombs. Herod’s descendants created settlements and palaces reflecting a new trend of a certain aristocratic flair such as Caesarea Philippi (Hellenistic Paneas/Paneion/now Banias.514). reminiscent also of the Petra monuments. we witness the first real Jewish-Roman interchange. for example. could give a reasonable answer regarding periods in which the roads were used (Fischer. 137-138.64). which is becoming the model for later periods. Ancient roads and sites Beside architectural and artistic changes.” (Tzaferis and Israeli 2008:174-175). 62-63). Isn’t this a strange modus vivendi? 3. Thus. This situation is well reflected by archaeological. sometimes even to the present day. Schalit 1969. tomb of a Lady converted to Judaism. n. resulting in unemployment affecting 18. mainly that leading to Jerusalem. Any research dealing with roads and communication systems should distinguish between: (a) road building and (b) their ultimate use. An interesting settlement pattern is now developing in Judaea. . In my opinion. 174-175) and Tiberias (AJ 18. Oriental way.219-222.

1 Roman road system in Palestine .148 Fischer. Rome and Judaea during the First Century CE Fig.

some over land.v. Many of these settlements that have been surveyed and excavated in the Dead Sea area (Fischer. Masada and Machaerus (Schürer 1973:362-364). at every feast. see: Fischer [in press]. due to the increasing size and population of the city of Jerusalem in detriment of the farms and villages around it. Shavuot and Sukkot (Tabernacles). leading to a greater involvement of the Roman factor. This may indicate a certain amount of Roman reservation. mainly due to its outstanding topographic location (Fig. however. for preliminary observations. as well as Jews from all over the world. from east. both army members and veterans (Shahar 2000). One of its characteristics was the topographic possibility of using various alternatives. most of them even in the Byzantine period (Hirschfeld 1996). that after Herod’s death and during the establishment of the Roman rule. Surveys of the roads leading to Jerusalem have revealed that increased settlement can be observed during the Herodian/ Early Roman period. Gichon and Tal 2000). 4. The New Testament refers also to the intensive use of public roads and their dangers (Hengel 1983:169-175). rather intensive use was also recorded before the Roman era. was brought to Jerusalem by a delegation containing ‘tens of thousands of Jews’ (AJ 18. the hillside of Jerusalem alone was depopulated from its Jewish residents following 70 CE. others over sea. the Judean Hills (Fischer. Samaria. Kh. during the .’ Josephus exaggerates when he speaks of 2. such as Jerusalem. The Temple tax paid by Babylonian Jews. especially from the Roman east. Kureikur) and the Antipatris area (Fischer 1989) ended violently during the First Jewish Revolt against the Romans. between the consequences of the First Revolt in the Shephelah and the Judean hills north and south of the hillside of Jerusalem and between Jerusalem’s hillsides.Osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 14 149 It is obvious. Isaac and Roll 1996: 328-329). including Jerusalem. A distinction can be made. most of the settlements were hit less severely. ad Daliya. Indeed. However. Kh. and were re-settled on a larger scale only later in the Roman period. 1977. Caesarea. including the famous ‘Emmaus story’. mainly at the official level but certainly with an impact on everyday life.or medium-sized sites with a rural character continued to exist without being occupied by the Romans. the area underwent certain changes. obviously up to the Destruction of the Temple (70 CE). 12.700. Philo states in his De specialibus legibus I. 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 Great’s reign and the 1st century CE up to ca. Nonetheless. they were resettled or their inhabitants continued to live there up to the destruction of the settlements in the Bar-Kokhba War. 3). 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). Applebaum 1976:642643.425). Kafr Rut. this gives us an idea of the dimension of such pilgrimages. Jericho (Kypros). see Fischer 1987). as was the case in Jerusalem itself. 312). On the former. and later during the consolidation of Roman rule in the 2nd century CE. only a brief reminder of the archaeological evidence is given here (for a full report. Hundreds of small. as mentioned above. west. Roads and sites along the roads. too.000 Jews spending the Passover of 68 CE in Jerusalem (BJ 6. 2) played an important role in connecting the Mediterranean coast with the Judean Mountains. although it seems that it occupied only a few sites. and was partly replaced by Romans. a number of surveys in and around Jerusalem have shown that there were fluctuations in this development. one of which – leading through the Horvat Mazad pass – is given here as a case study. one year prior to the Destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE). For the purpose of this article. however. including the construction of cities and the development of the countryside (in general Schalit 1969. s. The site of Horvat Mazad seems to have been built as a fort overlooking the main road. do not seem to have been affected by this development (Baruch 1998). however. The Emmaus-Jerusalem roads: The Horvat Mazad alternative as a case study The Emmaus-Jerusalem roads (Fig. Ascalon. north and south. Presence of the Roman army was visible all over the country. refraining from direct confrontation with the Jews in the very heart of the Jewish area and pilgrimage. Isaac and Roll 1996:87-98). during the Hasmoneans. 96 that ‘thousands of people from thousands of cities come to the Temple. during this period many thousands of Jews continued to make their pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year. Isaac and Roll 1996. namely at Pessah (Passover). mainly along the roads (Fischer. On the other hand. 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. from earliest antiquity onwards (Fischer. The development of roads under Herod and his successors may also be considered part of a general development of the country. recently Japp 2000).

2 Roads between Jaffa and Jerusalem . Rome and Judaea during the First Century CE Fig.150 Fischer.

v. It seems that Horvat Mazad owes its existence to the pilgrimage policy mentioned here. as evidenced by numismatic finds mentioned above. (like the Apostles did)’ (cf. According to the Rabbinical sources referring to the time before the Destruction of the Temple. and in this geographical area mainly around 68 CE. Duden. 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 Herod’s death as well. can be seen in various areas of Judaea surrounding the core land of Jerusalem and its neighbourhood (Barouch 1996). The journey was made either using asses or on foot. see Safrai 1990).).Osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 14 151 Fig. this structure was still in use in Year III of the First Jewish Revolt (68/9 CE). A rather elaborate structure. As to the New Testament it was emphasised several times that its heroes travelled a lot (Hengel 1983). Foto by Derrick Riley reign of Alexander Jannaeus. Isaac and Roll 1996:17-19. according to both Rabbinical and New Testament sources. as revealed by archaeological and numismatic evidence. cf. 3 Horvat Mazad along the ancient road.. The road station built under Herod at Horvat Mazad on the ruins of the earlier (Hasmonean) watchtower reflects his general policy of pacifying the country and the increasing security issues and settlement policy. . It was probably abandoned sometime after his death (76 BCE).. created in accordance with Herodian policy mentioned above. 5. The changes made in the last few years of its existence and their hasty character can be seen as preparations. after which it was abandoned. The road station. probably as a public responsibility (Fischer. reflecting the emergency atmosphere after 66 CE. including annual repairs of roads and bridges. Judging from numismatic evidence. such as the existence of Jewish stone vessels and a miqveh (ritual bath)(for such installations see: Reich 1990). 2520. Signs of such road stations. was only built there during the reign of Herod the Great. It covers the whole period called the ‘End of the Second Temple Period’ or the ‘Herodian period’ (40[37] BCE . Thus Hillel the Elder asks the ass driver “For how much will you rent me your ass from here to Emmaus?. Fischer. which had to assure maximum security to Jewish pilgrims going to Jerusalem (Safrai 1981). Isaac and Roll 1996: 18-19). To this. often fortified.. Krauss 1911.. one of the main concerns of Herodian ‘pilgrimage policy’ was the organisation of the road system. 59. n. It is worth mentioning the Latin idiom ‘per pedes [apostolorum]’ used for ‘walking. continued to exist under Roman governors until its final abandonment in 68/9 CE. Vol. serving as a fortified road station.70 CE).” (cf. 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. all of them pointing to that ‘Jewish’ character of the site (as emphasized by Berlin 2005 for the whole region). II: 324. s. the absence of pork bones among the archaeozoological finds of this stratum can be added.

repartitions of rooms. Fischer. 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. it had to guard the city. Moreover. Isaac and Roll 1996.273277. Here. The fact that Jewish pilgrimages to Jerusalem no longer took place certainly had an impact on the situation. It seems that stationing the fifth legion at Emmaus and the tenth at Jerusalem was a guarantee for the Roman control of the major routes to Jerusalem and Jerusalem itself.274). as was the case later. (68/9 CE). used frequently by the Roman army. Horvat Mazad lost its previous importance. which became a plague during the Herodian period (Isaac 1984. as stated by Flavius Josephus (BJ 7. the discovery of three Jewish coins from Years II (67/8 CE) and III (68/9) of the Revolt are worthy of mention. Hengel 1983). Titus marched with legion XII Fulminata and other troops from Caesarea through Samaria and Gophna to Jerusalem.. Somewhat later. 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 difficult to differentiate between the two. Gazetteer. 18. the only one advantage it had over Caesarea. 422) and as evident from inscriptions (ILS 9059). s. He occupied the passes leading to the capital. the area and site of Horvat Mazad were used temporarily by Roman troops patrolling the road. BJ 2. 52). additions of several smaller installations.v. the Romans entered a period of reorganisation and preparation toward the final battle for Jerusalem. Herod established the famous unit of Zamaris’s archers in Batanaea (AJ 17. Emmaus)....57-59. it seems that Titus’s order given to the fifth legion to march ‘through points to the choice of the Emmaus’ Emmaus-Horvat Mazad-Abu Ghosh-Biddu option over frightening Beth Horon. However. A military presence for an undetermined period after the First War can be ascertained at Emmaus. as reflected by various Talmudic passages referring to Emmaus (Lamentations Rabbah 1.1) whilst Caesarea Iudeae caput est (Historiae II. culminating in the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the expelling of Jews from this area. 78. during the military escort of Paul to Caesarea (Acts 23. leaving the fifth legion there. and a number of coins.152 Fischer. (BJ 4. Thus.17.443-450. gaining primacy over the 1st century CE. 46). came by Vespasian’s taking over of Emmaus in the spring of 68 CE. The last stage of the 1st century CE modus vivendi starts with the dramatic events of the sixties. 29. Such items include a fragment of an imported oil lamp with the stamp of the potter Fortis. built a fortified camp and. AJ 17.278-284. 21. in case of emergency. s. In 70 CE.5. Tacitus describes this vividly. the roads leading to Jerusalem still remained important. Isaac and Roll 1996. 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. 23. such as small dolia. The headquarters of Legio X Fretensis was established after 70 CE in Jerusalem. Although Josephus does not explicitly say how the fifth and tenth legions went to Jerusalem. It seems that the inhabitants of the site of Horvat Mazad reorganised themselves at the same time. as evident from reinforcements of walls. cf. 31. Applebaum 1989:47-65). which frightened both pilgrims from Babylonia and the local population. respectively (BJ 5.2). AJ 17. cf. It was now more important for the Romans to strengthen the sites overlooking the passes between the mountain and the plain. 8. The terminus post quem of this phase is given by the coins from Year III of the Jewish Revolt. where it remained until the last quarter of the 3rd century CE. Now the Roman expeditionary force to suppress the Jewish revolt was sent to Judaea. He then ordered the fifth and tenth legion to join him from Emmaus and Jericho. as mentioned above. Josephus mentions robbery on roads several times (AJ 17. Control over them and the lands behind .came to Emmaus. Josephus states that Vespasian ‘. too. one with his mother Shuqailath (70-76 CE) and the other with his wife Gamilath (last quarter of the 1st century CE). recalling the changes made in Masada by the zealots (Netzer 1991:623-624. It seems that Horvat Mazad’s inhabitants were preparing to face the new threat which.. Following these events. however. which has been in fresh memory after Cestius Gallus’s attempt of reaching Jerusalem in 66 CE. see also Hengel 1983. a rather popular supplier of lamps for the Roman army during this period. BJ 2. Cotton and Geiger 1989:4-7). it also had to control traffic to and from Jerusalem. Jerusalem had lost its previous status as a major city and centre of Jewish life in the province. also vita 76.270.60-65. after the Cestius Gallus campaign in 66 CE (BJ 2. However. As a preventive act against banditry in the Trachonitis. 42). 1. Emmaus). the inhabitants of Horvat Mazad abandoned the site. NO: ]. Rome and Judaea during the First Century CE One of the main obstacles to the pilgrimage system was banditry. at least by several inscriptions found there (Fischer. the latter was preferred by the Romans as the capital of Judaea (Stern 1980:12-13. 169-175). saying that Hierosolyma genti caput (Historiae V. 507555). both the road and its stations could have been controlled by armed forces as well. as evidenced by items attributed to this stratum and dated to the Middle Roman period. 1. for example. indeed. First of all. 28.v. In the context of the military reorganisation of the province in general and the roads leading to Jerusalem in particular. 2.

so that the Varus passage included in this article would symbolise the Judaean connection of the Roman general. bath complexes. as evident from the milestones erected along it. Gazetteer. as McDonald (1986) puts it. such as Roman-style roads with road stations. 2). which are limited in the 1st century CE to Vespasian’s Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesarea. bringing the Latin language with them. Of course official representatives of the Roman rule. tiles. s. see Arubas and Goldfus 2005). coins (Avigad 1983:205-206) and industrial activity (as discovered at the Jerusalem Convention Center. the Latin language only became prominent where Roman citizens were living. On the other hand. Isn’t 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. Its presence there is evidenced by various finds. even that of the elite. Archaeological remains.v. the idea behind this act was to maintain security in the region. in qua fuere Hierosolyma longe clarissima urbem orientis. perhaps that of – at least partial – acceptance of the Roman way of life. Isaac and Roll 1996:16. as was the case in many Roman provinces (Mattingly 1997). It is obvious that. Fischer. theatres. Veterans made up the majority in coloniae. Lauricius wrote this. used Latin. inscriptions and milestones reflect this position (de Vaux and Steve 1950. In spite of the introduction of the Roman way of life in almost all fields of activity. Romans who came to Judaea from other regions. yet its localisation remains problematic (Geva 1984). Abu Ghosh started to play an important role due to its good location on a large saddle and its water sources (see Fig. Jones 1997: 185). is here. The environmental. namely that of Ammaus (Motza). creating an exceptional frame for talks and discussions. 70: “Orinen. I. such as inscriptions. albeit on a lower scale than it has been thought (Isaac 1992:347-349). The activity of patrolling was conducted from the headquarters of Legio X at Jerusalem. only one settlement of 800 veterans is related by Josephus (a chorion BJ 7. which replaced Jerusalem as a toparchy of this area. and is rapidly filled with artistic content based later on marble Acknowledgement The Conference of these proceedings was very much held under the impact of the 2000 year perspective of Varus’s activity in Germania. Abu Ghosh). s. that of less resistance to imitation of the latter. to which Hadrian’s founding of Colonia Aelia Capitolina can be added only around 130 CE. cf.4:138. including veterans. later also called Colonia (as preserved by Arabic Qaluniya.Osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 14 153 them was based on a combination of systematic military patrolling and the settlement of veterans. Isaac and Roll 1996. It is also a good opportunity to thank the organisers for an amazing conference. non Iudaeae modo” definitely reflects a certain reality. which have been definitely dated to a time between the two Jewish Wars (Bar Nathan and Sakler-Frances 2008. architectural and artistic expressions presented here reflect aspects of the impact of Roman imperialism. Conclusions Corroborating the data presented here. in addition to cheap land division. however. it is rather obvious that Judaea shows real expressions of Romanisation during the late 1st century BCE and first half of the 1st century CE. cardo & decumanus-based cities. Cotton 2007b). see Fischer. They have rightly been attributed to the newly created toparchy called Oirene. shed new light on that tumultuous period. Some observations regarding this aspect could be taken from the language issue we have started to explore in our paper. to emphasise a more complex situation of Jews living in the shadow of their destroyed Jerusalem. as a kind of continuing strange modus vivendi. In fact. The Roman ‘armature’. My thanks are going also to . was a Near Eastern one – we can agree with symptoms of colonial impact. such as “actions which leave an imprint…on the physical and mental landscape. Within the newly established patrolling system. recent discoveries of Jewish settlements in the area north of Jerusalem. etc. art and adapted to local needs (Hölscher 1994:140143). 217. Eck (2009) points out that veterans and their successors determined the public aspect of the coloniae. Pliny’s description from his Naturalis Historia 5. as far as we can deduce from their epigraphic material. Motza). yet the archaeological finds mentioned here seem.v.” (Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002:9). Without exaggerating the colonial aspect of Roman Palestine – since it seems that a large part of the population. such as that at Giv’at Shaul (Shuafat). farewell Zeno’) (IGLSyria 21. The road was reorganised as a Roman public road.

C. (Eds. In: Frova. L. N. Papers from a New York University conference marking the retirement of Baruch A. Jewish Life before the Revolt: the Archaeological Evidence. Cambridge. APPLEBAUM. Bibliographical references ALBRICCI. D. and Amit.) 1989. Presence. M. ARUBAS. Jerusalem: 12*-18*.) 2007. 476) Capri. O. Berlin. G. FAO. The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC – AD 476). M. Palace to Praetorium: The Romanization of Caesarea. Judaea as a Roman Province. Levine. S. In: Schumacher. K. and Holum. Werner Eck. 200 B. A. The Impact of the Roman Army in the Province of Judaea / Syria Palaestina. In: Raban. ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins. Political. BURRELL. 1994. N. the impact of their contributions and fruitful talks we had together can easily be found in this paper. 1977. In: ANRW II. JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology. PJb Palästina-Jahrbuch.) 2005.D. In: Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum II. H. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. S.G. JRS Journal of Roman Studies PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly. CH.). W. Discovering Jerusalem. AND LO CASCIO. J. 1871. DAS GROSSE WÖRTERBUCH SPRACHE. E. Discovery of a Tablet from Herod’s Temple. Religious and Cultural Aspects. COTTON. AND GEIGER. Milano 93-120. Jerusalem.M. H. Economic. 1976. B. (Eds. 2003. E.J.). Economic. H. and Wasserstein. The Early Roman Empire in the East. In: Patrich. BARUCH. English abstract pp. BERLIN. 476) Capri. S. E. ECK. 22-26 September 2008. E. J. BAROUCH.). 2007B. Social. (Ed. Hoyland. H. 1974. S.). The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC – AD 476). IEJ 24: 97-107. (ED. BASOR Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers. M.154 Fischer. X-XI). 1954. J.). Jerusalem. The Landscapes of Roman Greece. COTTON. In: Schiffman. St. Road Stations in Judea during the Second Temple Period. Y. (ED. The Economic Hinterland of Jerusalem in the Herodian Period. Comparative Studies in Archaeology. AND GOLDFUS. JJS Journal of Jewish Studies. In: De Blois. MANNHEIM 1994. March 29 – April 2.C. B.) 1997. and Lo Cascio.). Oren Tal and Boaz Zissu who kindly contributed to the table ronde organized by me at the 17th International Congress of Classical Archaeology. Masada II: The Latin and Greek Documents. Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman empire. 1996. The Coutryside as a Political and Economic Factor. APPLEBAUM. Graecia Capta. C. H. ALCOCK. L. L. Brescia. ALCOCK. E. E. D. Judea & Samaria Research Studies. Sprache und Kultur in der kaiserzeitlichen Provinz Arabia. BEN-ARIEH. 2005. Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman empire. W. Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity. Centre and Periphery. Oxford Monograph 95. 1998. 2005. ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel. Leiden: 125-144. DE BLOIS. L. 2007A.. 1989. Leiden: 228-247. CHAMPION. S. Price. IEJ Israel Exploration Journal. 196-197). 2005. (EDS. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region. A. Leiden: 393-408. A. 2009. London. J. and Stoll. Journal of the Study of Judaism 36: 417-470. Ramallah-Shu’afat Road. (Eds. (Ed. Role and Significance of Latin in the Epigraphy and Culture of the Roman Near East. In: Cotton. A. Economic Life in Palestine. Adaptation and Extinction: Nabataean and Jewish Aramaic Versus Greek in the Legal Documents from the Cave of Letters in Nahal Hever. Iscrizioni Greche e Latine per lo studio della Bibbia (Biblioteca di storia e storiografia dei tempi biblici 9). M. R. The Administrative Background to the New Settlement recently discovered near Giv’at Shaul. 1965. L. BOFFO. – A.D. Scavi di Caesarea Maritima. Excavations on the site of the Jerusalem International Convention Center (Binyanei Ha’uma). 2003. AND NETZER. (EDS. Leiden. Ariel: 125-135 (Hebrew. Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley. H. CLERMONT-GANNEAU. Abbreviations ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. COTTON. Il pavimento dipinto della conistra. Rome and Judaea during the First Century CE Rina Talgam. DER DEUTSCHEN AVIGAD. DUDEN. AVIGAD. (Eds. Religious and Cultural Aspects. English abstract pp. 1996. 8: 355-396. T. Assen: 631-700. Excavations along the ‘Third Wall’ of Jerusalem 1972-1974. Rome. March 29 – April 2. Jerusalem (Hebrew).. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting 1996. RB Revue Biblique. 1993. Cathedra 89: 41-62 (Hebrew. . 1983. – A. H. Portmouth. Political. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement: 112-119. Katharinen: 1-11. Social. Althistorische Beiträge zur Erforschung von Akkulturationsphänomenen im römischen Nahen Osten. COTTON. 1965. ECK. 200 B. Survival. The Language of Power: Latin Reflected in the Inscriptions of Judaea/Syria Palaestina. EI Eretz Israel.

Das korinthische Kapitell im Alten Israel in der hellenistischen und römischen Periode. Cathedra 80: 3-18. Mainz. Raanana: 187-206 (Hebrew. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Weges von Jerusalem nach Emmaus. K. Y. N. M. 2009.). B. A. M. 1984. Zur Panzerstatue aus Samaria Sebaste. Volume II. Leiden: 37-72 K ASHER. Oxford. With contributions by B. A Milestone of A. L. GEVA. 1987. Architectural Decoration in Ancient Israel in Hellenistic Times. B. FISCHER. ISAAC. (Hebrew). Lyon 1986. (Ed. Rome: 1781-1807. 1984. (Xenia.) 2009. Die Baupolitik Herodes’ des Großen. Studien zur Geschichte der Baudekoration im Nahen Osten. FROVA.J. K. ISAAC. HOFF. Roman Palestine and the Marble Trade. V. H. I. 1983. J. B. Horvat Mazad through the Ages: Archaeology of a RoadStation at the Jaffa-Jerusalem Road. S. FISCHER. Zikrin (Israel). FISCHER. J.). In: Mattingly. Rome. (IN PRESS). O. Transeuphratène 6: 149-168. Proceedings of an International Conference held at Lincoln. Ruler and Spectacle: The Promontory Palace. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World Volume 164. ZDPV 99: 147-183. M. JACKSON. 2008. 1990. 1989. I. ESHEL. FISCHER. Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East. C. K. 1998. (Ed. 2003. The Persian Royal Road System in Syria-Palestine. HENGEL.Osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 14 155 From Hellenism to Islam. ISAAC. M. Die Straßenstation von Horvat Masad (Hirbet el-Qasr). 28). AND TAL. B. Oxford. D. FISCHER. Papers Presented to Israel Shatzman on his Jubilee.). Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age: A Study of Selected Tombs from the Pre-Classical to the Early Imperial Era. H. Die Bedeutung der Architektur für die Herrschaftslegitimation eines römischen Klientelkönigs (Internationale Archäologie Band 64). 1996. The Legio-Scythopolis Road (BAR International Series 141). AND ROLL. Excavations at New Testament Jericho and Khirbet En-Nitla. 1996. I.). M. AND ROLL. Leuven: 9-17. D. HUMPHREY. G. 1994. English abstract p. K ELSO. (Ed. Mediterranean Language Review 8: 20-40. D. H. Publius Quinctilius Varus in Jewish Sources. FISCHER. FISCHER. ISAAC. Y. Some Aspects of Hellenization. AND BARAMKI. GICHON. M. Papers Presented at the IJS Conference. GAIFMAN. Excavations at Tiberias. Discourse. 69 from Judaea. (Eds. GLEASON. 1989-1994. D. M. M. (EDS. G. Toronto. (Ed. S. JRS 66: 15-19. Roman Roads in Judaea. Josephus on the Use of Marble in Building Projects of Herod the Great. FEDAK. A. and Holum. The Camp of the Tenth Legion in Jerusalem: An Archaeological Reconsideration. The Jaffa-Jerusalem Roads (British Archaeological Reports. The Aniconic Image of the Roman Near East. M. New Haven. 1996. Changes in Settlement Patterns of the Jewish Rural Populations Before and After the Rebellions Against Rome. 2007. Leiden: 121-129. A Contribution to Archaeology of Pilgrimage. Concluding Remarks: From Brittunculi to Wounded Knee: A Study in the Development of Ideas. AND WITZTUM. I. T. Milano. JJS 45: 79-85. ZDPV 103: 117-136. Jerusalem. Dialogues in Roman Imperialism. The Romanization of Athens. Mainz. 628). ZDPV 119. FISCHER. M. JONES. AND ROTROFF. G. The Limits of Empire: the Roman Army in the East. D. D. ‘En Boqeq. Power.1: 19-37. Oxford. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 2000. In: Rutgers. FISCHER.). and Stiebel. A. L. An Early Roman Building on the Dead Sea Shore. (Ed. B. 1990. Discovering the Vernacular Lanscape. K.. 1993. 190). The Officina. M. 2008.L. E. B.(JRA Supplementary Series Number 23). AND STEIN. AND ROLL. Rahden / Westfalen. HIRSCHFELD. H. 1994. 1996. In: Raban. Konstanzer Althistorische Vorträge und Forschungen No. JACOBSON. AND KOKKINOS. Marble Studies. M. Cotton. M. ISAAC. F. Konstanz. The Security Issue on the Emmaus-Jerusalem Road Before and After the Great Revolt: Horvat Mazad as a Test Case. Portsmouth: 185-200. 2000. King Herod: A Persecuted Persecutor. International Series. (IAA Reports. 22).). Leiden: 208-227. FISCHER. Tel Aviv.) 1997. HÖLSCHER. B. O. The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Arensburg et al. Der Historiker Lukas und die Geographie Palästinas in der Apostelgeschichte. 1976. In: Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of Christian Archaeology. Historical and Philological Observations on Marmorarii in Byzantine Palestine in the Light of Two Greek Inscriptions. A. 1955. T. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 88: 171-203. IEJ 34: 239-254. FITTSCHEN. (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 1992. GRAF. Roman Roads in Judaea II. Bandits in Judaea and Arabia. AND TAL. G. Scavi di Caesarea Maritima. M. Excavations in an Oasis on the Dead Sea. 1994. M. I. J. Herod and Augustus. 1984. 2002. Israel’s Land. 1965.. No. Nebraska (April 1996).. 1982. M. A. Monumenti statali e pubblico. 40). Leiden. 1997. L. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. J. An Early Byzantine Settlement at Kh. and Holum. and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire. “Amphitheatrical” Hippo-Stadia. 2004. L.D. HIRSCHFELD. In: Kaizer. No. In: Raban. FISCHER. What Athens has to do with Jerusalem. C. In: Geiger. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 94. JJS 59/1: 112-119. Cambridge: 15-42. New Haven. J. . (EDS. M. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. 21-23 June 2005. JAPP.

G. A. L. ROLLER. 1988.B. Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity (ASMA) III. (ED. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. . Judaism. E. F. J. 1990. 2002. The Buildings. N.A. D. P. Jerusalem (Hebrew). 1998. Edinburgh. SCHÜRER. Tabula Imperii Romani: Iudaea.C. New Studies on Jerusalem (Proceedings of the Sixth Conference. King Herod .D. FISHER. WEBER.. MACDONALD. Wiesbaden: 249-269. Hebrew University of Jerusalem) (Hebrew). 26. Portrait of a Ruler. C. Vermes. D. 1986.156 Fischer.. Goodman).). 1999.Z. and ed. 1981. SAFRAI. M..G. R. D. A. NETZER. Theoretische Modelle und praktische Fallbeispiele. Imperium. Jerusalem: 159–180 (Hebrew) LICHTENBERGER. K. 1950. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. Rediscovering Caesarea Philippi. Th. From Jerusalem to Orine .) 1997. .. R EISNER. K.). The Maintenance of Local Roads in Palestine in the Periods of the Mishnah and the Talmud. 37). B. F. VAUX DE. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908-1910. OLESON. Greek Papyri. (ED. 2008. and Papadopoulos. Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels. 1985. M. L. SCHÖRNER. SAFRAI S. E. The Building Program of Herod the Great. NETZER. The Architecture of the Roman Empire II: An Urban Appraisal. Romanisierung – Romanisation.) 2005.) 1989.).-U.A. 1980-1985. G. E.). 1987. R EICH. 1994. AND GREEN. King Herod. C. AND PAPADOPOULOS. Jerusalem. AND LYON. S. Roman Caesarea. Palaestina.Consequences of the First Revolt in the Vicinity of Jerusalem. Portsmouth. 1958. The Documents from the Bar-Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. 1973-1987. (Eds. (Eds. AND ISRAELI. WILSON J. C. Oxford. 1990. K. T. Die Baupolitik Herodes des Großen.. (Eds. 1969. Jerusalem. BAR International Series 1427. A.). Discourse. 2009. Power. ZANKER. J. and Baruch.. In: Kedar. LEVINE. H. The Excavation at Herodian Jericho 1951. and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire. (ED. Fouilles à Qaryet el-‘Enab Abu Ghôsh Palestine. Wiesbaden. A.-M. Aarhus. 2000. Oxford. Berkeley. 14). The Architecture of Roman Anatolia: The Roman Contribution. Z. OSTENFELD.) 2002. Commerce in Palestine throughout the Ages. L. L.Jerusalem. The Winter Palaces of the Judaean Kings at the End of the Second Temple Period. Mass. (ED. 1947. JRA Supplementary Series. AND PAPADOPOULOS. Rome and Judaea during the First Century CE KON. Neukirchen. (BAR Int. (rev. TIR TSAFRIR. BASOR 228: 1-13. WARD -PERKINS. J. by G. W. Miqwa’ot (Jewish Ritual Immersion Baths) in Eretz Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishnah and Talmud Periods (Ph. Los Angeles.S. Archaeology and Colonialism. Jerusalem. 1991. Varus in Syrien. W. Ingeborg Rennert Centre for Jerusalem Studies): 187-201 (Hebrew). Talmudische Archäologie Leipzig. Josephus and the Roman Empire as Reflected in The Jewish War. NETZER. SH. 2008. In: Ward-Perkins. LYONS. AND HOHLFELDER. J. S. (Eds. Paris. (EDS.2. The Roman to Early Islamic Periods. Ann Arbor 1995. 1994. J. 1924. 1989. Cambridge.) 2002. Y. E. B. Die Provinz Syria und das Klientelkönigreich Judäa.. (Eds. LYONS. Tel Aviv. G. Excavations in Areas A. (Königtum. MATTINGLY. L. The Tombs of the Kings. R. Studies in Roman and Early Christian Architecture. Millar and M. The Harbours of Caesarea Maritima: results of the Caesarea Ancient Excavation Project. E. Augustus – der Blick von außen.I. PRITCHARD. Greek Romans and Roman Greeks. and Christianity. N. The Masada Reports III. Stratigraphy and Architecture. In: Faust. Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen 8). In: Lyons. J. D. DISEGNI. E.Good or Bad for the Jews? Edan 5: 83-88 (Hebrew). Herodes der Große und statuarische Repräsentationsformen in orientalischen Heiligtümern der frühen Kaiserzeit. and Weber. The Archaeology of Colonialism. Paneas Volume I. A. B. Leiden 1987: 71-80. L. and Hata. Dissertation. G and H. 1910. L. SHAHAR. 1977. (IAA Reports No. New Haven. LEWIS. I-III. STERN. B. 1975. (Hebrew). J. Josephus. The Archaeology of Colonialism. In: 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht. In: Feldman.D. Y. No. Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästinavereins No. M. E. Pepperdine. Dothan. Jerusalem. 23. Studies in Cultural Interaction. New Haven. Stuttgart: 160-166. series 491 and 594). R ABAN. A. London: 276-286. K RAUSS. C. Dialogues in Roman Imperialism. LICHTENBERGER. TH.) 2001. L. 135). J. AND STEVE. Schollmeyer. An Archaeological-Topographical Study (Qedem 2). SCHALIT. The Ancient City of Pan. and Safrai. P. K. ROMAN AND BYZANTINE NEAR EAST The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research (JRA Supplementary Series No. Ann Arbor. Los Angeles: 1-26. V. L. P. (EDS. In: Kreikenbom. Mahler. F. R. Der beste Freund des Kaisers.. TZAFERIS.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful