HEROD’S CONTEMPORARIES IN BRITAIN AND THE WEST

John Creighton

Abstract

This paper is focused on Herod’s contemporaries in the west. Whereas we know much about the Herodian dynasty in Judaea, we know much less about many of the other friends and allies of Rome which, alas, had no authors such as Josephus to write about them. This article pieces together aspects of the numismatic and archaeological evidence to show that despite the lack of literary evidence, many of the kings of the west were probably similarly locked into the developments of the Principate as Herod was. First the context of client kingship is briefl y discussed, after which the cases of Britain, northeast Gaul, Noricum and Mauretania are all examined. Imagery on the coinage shows how these members of distant aristocracies bought into the visual language of the Augustan revolution. Sometimes this might mean displaying Victory on their coins; a goddess that Octavian made signifi cant play on after his victory at Actium in the war against Mark Antony. On the other hand it could be displaying an image of Capricorn (Augustus’ birth sign), or inanimate representations such as vine leaves or ears of corn (representing even nature ordered and adhering to the Princeps’ new world order, as exemplifi ed on late Augustan art such as the Ara Pacis). Unlike Herod, these monarchs had no taboos on them preventing the representation of pagan deities, living people or animals (see Ariel’s paper in this volume). While these monarchs used Augustan imagery, they also shared types amongst themselves, so we fi nd the curious case of a particular lion image being found on the coinage of three extremes around the Roman world: in Southern Britain, Mauretania and in the Bosporan Kingdom. Coinage is not the only signifi er in terms of material culture showing contacts amongst the friends and allies of Rome. There is also other evidence which attests to this: from identical brooches in Eastern Britain and Noricum to graffi ti linking merchants from Noricum and Mauretania. Collectively the picture that emerges is that while the friendly kings on the northeast- ern fringes of the Roman world may have been the poor relations in terms of archi- tecture and wealth, their outlook in the developing culture of the Augustan Principate was very much on the same lines as those of Herod, Juba and their ilk.

Friendly Kings and Conquest in the West

Just as Herod’s appointment as Rome’s client ruler of Judea marked a radical change in the political, economic and cultural landscape of that country, similar changes were taking place elsewhere around the Roman dominions. The key difference is that without the fulsome testimony of Josephus, the evidence for similar processes in the West is fragmentary 362 john creighton in the extreme, and has to be pieced together from very slim literary evidence, numismatics and archaeology. Herod’s appointment saw him join an international elite, a network of privileged rulers around the Roman world. In comparison to his predecessors he travelled far and wide, visiting not only Augustus in Rome but also other rulers and kings.1 It is the material by-product of this network of long distance relations that can sometimes reveal itself in the archaeological record when the literary evidence fails us. Some of this evidence is discussed below, in the form of the designs on coin- age, the importation of material culture, and new forms of burial and religious practice. These come from a range of kingdoms in the West, predominantly Britain, but also the Treveri (northeast Gaul), Noricum, and much further south in Mauretania. Let us start by defi ning ‘client’ kingship.2 Briefl y stated this was where the senate (or later Princeps) recognised a king as a ‘friend and ally of Rome’. This phenomenon developed so much in the late Republic that Mark Antony was almost surrounded at court by eastern Hellenistic monarchs such as Herod and Cleopatra. Octavian also associated with or appointed in the West such people, using them as an indirect means of Roman control. The best example is Juba II, the son of Juba I of Numidia, who was brought up in Rome after his father’s death in the civil wars, and was placed on the throne of Mauretania by Octavian in 25 BCE. Associated with this phenomenon was the appearance in Rome of the sons of these kings, often growing up there receiving an education in Roman values. These were the obsides or ‘hostages’, though this translation does not quite do justice to the Latin; perhaps a word like fosterage is more appropriate to describe the process. Some obsides, such as Juba II, even spent time on campaign with the Roman army before returning to rule in their kingdoms. As we come into the Principate client kingdoms were just another aspect of Augustus’ rule. Some territories were managed as senatorial provinces, others directly by himself as Imperial provinces, and yet more were managed by client kings who had often been brought up as children at Rome. Suetonius summed this up succinctly:

1 Jacobson 2001, 22–38. 2 The best introduction to ‘client kingship’ is Braund 1984. The phenomenon with specifi c reference to Britain and its transformation into a Province is discussed exten- sively in Creighton 2006.