Archaeology Cultural Interaction in Roman Galilee

Archaeology & Cultural Interaction in Roman Galilee A three-stage Development towards a New Cultural Setting Rick Bonnie [Archaeology] presses ahead to social explanation and interpretation. (…) This entails respect for archaeology’s independence (…) and an acknowledgement of its right to be heard on its own terms. It should not be deemed the mere servant of history, least of all – as has happened too often in the past – the servant of biblical history’s apolo- getic concern. (Freyne 2007: 149) In view of the central role of Galilee (northern Israel; native perspective (Jesus’ disciples, Josephus and fig. 1) within the history of two religious movements, Rabbis), the picture of a “Jewish” Galilee immune our curiosity towards this region sounds hardly to Roman influence was created (see Chancey surprising. It seems, however, that past scholarship, 2005: 1-7). Archaeology, so often being history’s which merely focused its attention on textual “handmaid”, adopted this view without questioning evidence for the Jesus movement and Rabbinic it. Furthermore, the founding of modern Israel (1948) Judaism, confined scholars to the assumption and the rise of a new nationalistic movement within of a “Jewish” Galilee under Roman rule. Despite archaeology seem to have prioritized this “Jewish” recent awareness of Rome’s influence on Galilee, setting even more (Yahya 1997). this supposed Jewish character still dominates During the last 30 years, archaeology as a archaeological discussion (Jones 1998: 32-37). To discipline and an awareness of the Hellenistic and avoid an assumed cultural setting, questions from a Roman influence have seen a lively renewal in different perspective need to be asked. Galilean studies (see Chancey: 1-16). As excavations uncovered more material related to Greco-Roman Putting “Rome” back into Galilee culture (for instance, Sepphoris, Tiberias, Meiron When scholarly interest in Galilee’s Roman history and Khirbet Qana), Galilean history was rewritten awakened in the late 19th century, it was due to its according to these new findings and subsequent particular setting as the birthplace of two religious interpretations. In light of this, Freyne’s (2007: 149) movements. In order to study the historicity of “respect for archaeology’s independence” seems these religious movements, scholars instigated an reasonable. However, despite new material and immediate focus upon Galilee’s cultural setting as awareness, Galilee’s material culture is still often it was provided by the main written sources (New being set in a context based on textual findings, Testament, Josephus, Mishnah and Tosefta). Because where one arranges the archaeological material these texts describe the Roman period from a largely around an essentially historical narrative. Bar (2006), Figure 1. Map of Galilee. For practical reasons not all sites are shown. for example, first searched within the rabbinic illustrating them (Jones 1998: 36). It may be argued texts for evidence of a third-century crisis, which that archaeology still needs more independence he then illustrated by archaeological findings from text-based narratives in order to add supported without examining possible other interpretations evidence to the Galilean discussion (see, for example, for the material (see Leibner 2006, for another Leibner 2006); it needs to identify patterns in its interpretation). Another example is Hirschfeld’s material rather than material to illustrate patterns (2004: 10-11) unsupported claim of the discovery of offered by texts. Tiberias’ Great Academy (beth midrash) founded by The aim of this paper is to study the cultural Rabbi Yohanan (mid-third century AD). He based this interaction between the native Galileans and their assumption on only one highly doubtful miqveh, a Roman rulers during some 400 years (63 BC – AD stepped pool used for Jewish ritual immersion, found 363). To escape a web of problems concerning inside the building. Some regard this as just a matter archaeology’s relation to the text-based narratives, of prioritizing questions relevant to New Testament this paper will focus almost solely on Galilee’s and Rabbinic scholars above other questions. Yet, it material culture. This then will lead to the proposal also causes a circular reasoning: the interpretations of a three-stage development towards a new cultural based on the archaeological material need to setting as a framework for cultural interaction in demonstrate the validity of the texts rather than Galilee. The three stages are as follow: the Early Figure 2. General plan of the site of Sepphoris. Early Roman Sepphoris (west) looks only modest compared to the later developments (east). Roman period (63 BC – c. AD 100), the Middle Roman This unbalanced understanding of Rome’s relation period (c. 100 – 200 AD) and, finally, the Late Roman with its conquered regions has created a distorted period (c. 200 – 363 AD). However, since our recent view of “unity” within the Empire (see, for example, colonial analogies (irrespective of the specificity of Hingley 2005: 42-45). the context) still play a leading role in our view of In order to balance this cultural power relation Rome’s relation with its conquered regions, “cultural it seems necessary to abandon this distorted interaction” as it is used here first needs to be “unity” and the concept that created this view explained briefly. (Romanisation). Cultural interaction in the Roman world needs a fresh start; the Empire needs to be Cultural interaction and the concept of viewed as a hybrid cultural setting that is created Romanisation through “negotiation” between different identities Cultural interaction between Rome and others (see Jones 1998: 48; Hingley 2005). Note, for has often been explained by the concept of instance, that on a local level it was often not Rome Romanisation, which itself was founded within early initiating changes within a region, but rather local 20th century colonialism. Although the concept’s elites who acted as mediator between the two “colonial” image was largely called into question parties. during the decades that followed, “Romanisation” has stayed within archaeological and classical Early Roman Galilee: annexed by Rome? discourse (only a constant change in definition can Although Galilee was annexed in 63 BC by Pompey, be attested; see Hingley 2005: 14-48). Recently, it remained relatively outside of Rome’s influence. however, some scholars began avoiding the concept Like in earlier periods, the majority of life focused on because they feel that the inherited perspectives hilltop settlements like Khirbet Qana and Meiron. stagnate the discipline. Due to the colonial analogy While in other regions in the Empire (like Judea, of a dominating Roman versus a suppressed native Phoenicia and the Decapolis) large-scale building power relation, “Romanisation” still leaves behind an programmes and consequent transformations were image of “others” as passive machines, whose actions instigated by emperors, the military and elites (see were marginalised and mostly determined by Rome. Chancey 2005: 73-82, for Herod’s building program), nowhere in Galilee traces of such a transformation, setting at the outskirts of the Lebanese mountains, nor a building program, have been found. Even and a marginal infrastructure connecting Galilee Herod Antipas, client king of Galilee (4 BC – AD to neighbouring regions, may have contributed to 37), who was thought to have had a relatively big this by creating a “barrier” for cultural interaction influence on Galilee, appears to have been only “a (McCollough & Edwards 1997: 140-141). Only Judea, modest developer” (Jensen 2007: 31). Rather local to the south, seems to have had some influence on developments, as illustrated by the style of house Galilean life. This can be argued on the evidence of architecture, chalkstone vessel finds and ossuaries, ossuaries and large amounts of chalkstone vessels dictated the region’s character (Hirschfeld 1995: 23; made at Jerusalem, which have been attested in Magen 2002: 162). Textual evidence challenges this Galilee from the first century BC onwards (fig. 1). “rural” view by claiming that by the Early Roman This, however, had nothing to do with Roman rule, period both Sepphoris and Tiberias (among others) but was a result of Judean domination since the were “transformed” into larger city-like settlements Hasmonean takeover of Galilee. (Josephus, Bell. III, 44; Vita 123; 235). However, as We may thus argue that Roman rule had no direct excavations have illustrated, Early Roman Sepphoris influence on Galilean life, its materialisation and as well as Tiberias, which was founded by Herod cultural identity during this period. Only indirectly, due to the Pax Romana, can some influence be noticed, as the expansion of Khirbet Qana and a population growth in Eastern Galilee illustrate (Edwards 2002: 110; Leibner 2006: 115). Early Roman Galilee saw a relative continuity with the previous era, in which Galileans and Romans culturally remained rather separated from one another. The depiction of native “Jewish” symbols instead of emperor portraits on coins issued at Sepphoris and Tiberias during this period may be illustrative of the cultural differences still existing between Galilee and its Roman rulers at that moment (Chancey 2005: 184-187). Middle Roman Galilee: integration into the Empire During the early second century a dramatic Figure 3. Remains of an early second century colonnaded side- discontinuity with the former period occurred: walk paved with mosaics

Load more