Archaeology & Cultural Interaction in Roman

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 ; native perspective (Jesus’ disciples, 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, , 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 along Sepphoris’ decumanus. (a) the disappearance of chalkstone vessels and ossuaries in the archaeological record after AD Antipas around AD 20, seem to have been only 135; (b) a gradual superseding of native symbols on small towns compared to their later second century coins minted at Sepphoris and Tiberias by emperor developments (fig. 2). Their transformation appears portraits and Roman deities; and, as an example, (c) to have taken place later in time (Chancey 2001: 131- the destruction of a public building identified as a first 139; Jensen 2007: 18-20). century at Hammath Tiberias (c. AD 130) A cause for this rather undisturbed continuity (Magen 2002: 162; Chancey 2005: 188-191; Dothan of village life lies in the fact that Rome granted 1983: 19). Galilee autonomy immediately after annexation. Under Trajan and Hadrian, Galilee’s character Rome installed client kings like Herod and Herod gradually transformed into an increasingly urban Antipas to the region’s throne rather than being setting with Tiberias and Sepphoris as its centres directly involved itself. Furthermore, the assumed (Chancey 2005: 105-107). Sepphoris’s centre shifted poor accessibility of Upper Galilee caused by its to the east of the acropolis (fig. 2), while the Early Roman western quarter was slowly deserted during finds from the Decapolis, Jerusalem and the course of the second century (Hoglund & Meyers Maritima suggest (Adan-Bayewitz 1993: 201-220). 1996: 40-41). East of the acropolis, Sepphoris was Although from texts it is often argued that the constructed according to the Roman city model. It First Jewish revolt (AD 66-74) and Bar-Kokhba revolt had a regular street grid containing two colonnaded (AD 132-135) caused the region’s transformation, main streets (cardo and decumanus) with, at their archaeology may (additionally) point to other causes. intersection, an agora and (fig. 3). The For instance, the renovation of the main roads houses in the insulae (most with shops at the front) leading through Galilee under Trajan and Hadrian resembled those found in other Roman cities like (McCollough & Edwards 1997: 140-141) and the Pompeii and Antioch. Furthermore, a theatre (the stationing of a Roman legion at Legio (just south of fourth largest of Palestina and Arabia), an aqueduct Galilee) in AD 120, could have played an additional (conveying nine times the amount of water than important role in this. Especially when it has been the earlier aqueduct) and two bathhouses all date calculated that this legion’s salary produced 16.6% to this period. Even more remarkable is that under of the Gross National Product of . Since Hadrian the city changed its name to Diocaesarea Sepphoris was the city closest to Legio, presumably and stopped issuing coins for the rest of his reign (see most of this money went into the direction of Galilee Chancey 2001: 139-144, for an extensive overview on (Safrai 1992: 107-108). Moreover, since the military Sepphoris). was educated in Roman culture, it also explains the The countryside, on the other hand, remained change from Aramaic to Greek and Latin writing on relatively outside of direct Roman influence as the inscriptions from southern Galilee during the second almost total absence of monumental buildings century (Meyers 1976: 97; Chancey 2005: 124-133). might illustrate (see Chancey 2005: 107-108, for As may be suggested, the Middle Roman period some monumental building). Rome and local elites was one of integration into the Empire. During and rather focused their attention on the cities as a after the early second century’s rapid transformation, display of their power, not on the hinterland. The it seems that it were predominantly the natives recently conducted Eastern Galilee Survey shows, who had to accommodate and be competent in however, that even the countryside exhibited signs both a native and a Roman cultural setting. The of prosperity during this period with a growth in the discontinuity witnessed in the native material and number of settlements of roughly 10-15 percent the rather large-scale transformation attested compared to the Early Roman period (Leibner 2006: in Galilee, particularly at Sepphoris and Tiberias, 115-116). This growth might have been caused by suggests that “being” native gradually disappeared a direct benefit from the cities’ transformation and out of public Galilean life; they had to adopt (and flourishing, suggesting that Galilee’s hinterland was adapt to) an appropriate Roman style. In addition still influenced by Rome, though only indirectly. to this external adaptation, it can be assumed that This indirect influence and flourishing can also there was some kind of internal cultural continuation. be related to Galilee’s growing communication with This can assumed, first of all, from the fact that other regions in the Empire. Provenance studies the cultural fusion attested during the Late Roman on coins from Meiron, Khirbet Shema‘, Gush Halav period requires a continuation, rather than a full and Nabratein, for example, suggest extensive discontinuation, of native cultural elements (for contacts between the rural northern Galilee and an example, see below). Furthermore, miqva’ot do cities like those of the Decapolis, Antioch, Tyre and not disappear after the early second century, but Ptolemais (Meyers 1976: 97-100). From the latter two seem to have been used continuously throughout harbours one communicated easily with the entire the Roman period (see Hoss 2007). Since these Mediterranean as finds from Lyons, Rome and other miqva’ot have only been found inside houses and “exotic” places illustrate. The locally produced Kefar closed-off courtyards, where they were concealed Hananyah pottery seems to have crossed Galilean from the outside world, internal continuation seems borders too during the Middle Roman period as plausible. This suggestion of external discontinuity versus internal continuation of native cultural a stylistic similarity with mosaics from Antioch, elements supposes that people used some sort of Apamea, Byblos () and North Africa (Dothan “codeswitching” (see Wallace-Hadrill 1998: 83-86); 1983: 39; Hirschfeld 2004: 11; Talgam & Weiss 2004). within familiar closed-off environments one could This suggests that Roman influence not only crossed go Jewish, , Greek, etcetera, but in public Galilean borders as it did in the second century, but life adaptation to a Roman cultural style seemed was now also tolerated in their homes. necessary. The creation of the friendly and peaceful relationship opened up the setting for a native Late Roman Galilee: negotiating a new reaction on the aforementioned second century’s cultural setting transformation. In Hammath Tiberias this gave rise to Around the turn of the third century, the final stage the building of a new synagogue (Dothan 1983: 20- of cultural interaction began. By making concessions 26). The fact that this synagogue lay directly on top and creating tolerance, both Roman and native of the first century synagogue’s foundation is quite culture gradually merged into one new successor extraordinary in view of the area’s previous 100 years culture (fusion). This led to a so-called new negotiated of desolation. Could this spot have developed into cultural setting. a lieu de memoires during the course of the second That both cultures under the Severan dynasty century? If so, it seems that parts of the native were coming closer to one another seems evident cultural setting withstood the large-scale cultural from the new “friendship” between leading Rabbis transformation of the Middle Roman period (see and Severan emperors. According to texts, the above), continuing into the third century. Roman emperor Caracalla apparently fostered a Not only in Tiberias a new synagogue was friendly relationship with the Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi. constructed; the cultural setting of the third century This friendship may have persuaded Judah ha-Nasi seems to have given rise to the creation of a so-called (and succeeding Rabbis) to move from the country, Galilean “synagogue landscape” (fig. 1). Remains which lay outside of direct Roman influence, to a of these public buildings can be found throughout city such as Sepphoris (Freyne 2004: 60). By this the region, for example, in Meiron, Khirbet Shema‘, act, these native leaders seem to have accepted and Capernaum, Tiberias and Horvat ‘Ammudim (fig. tolerated Rome as their ruler. Archaeological findings 5), as well as in other smaller settlements (Tsafrir seem to correspond to this. Three early third century 1995). Note, however, that all these inscriptions from Sepphoris and Horvat Qazion all at the same time reflect a strong Roman influence mention the loyalty and friendship between the Galileans and Romans (fig. 4) (Freyne 2004: 60-61). Moreover, depictions on third-century sarcophagi Figure 4. Early third century coin from Sepphoris. The found inside Jewish burial caves at Beth She’arim inscription reads “Diocaesarea and mosaics from Tiberias and Sepphoris show a / the holy city of shelter / striking tolerance towards Roman figurative scenes autonomous / loyal friendship (see Chancey 2005: 197-220). The fact that such and alliance with the Romans”. depictions were forbidden by the Jewish Second Commandment implies a new approach to that Commandment in the Late Roman period. This could have been instigated by an increasing tolerance as seen, for instance, in their use of columns. Not towards Rome and its material expressions. Finally, only synagogues illustrate this native reaction, but Galilee’s communication with other Roman regions also the third-century Jewish burial caves at Beth was put on an even higher level than before. The She’arim can be viewed from this perspective, since depictions of Dionysos (c. AD 200), Orpheus (c. it was the burial place for many leading Rabbis and AD 250-300), Helios and a nilotic scene (both c. AD Diaspora Jews. 300) on mosaics from Sepphoris and Tiberias, show How Late Roman Galilee benefited from this Figure 5. Remains of the synagogue of Horvat ‘Ammudim (courtesy of biblewalks.com).

acceptation of Roman rule has recently been the Conclusion subject of a renewed discussion. Following texts and Contrary to the Roman West, where a dominant archaeological evidence, scholars in the past assumed Roman perspective has been passed on by written that this period was one of prosperity and doubted sources, Galilee has provided predominantly texts if Late Roman Galilee suffered from the third- from a native viewpoint. The fact that in the past century crisis seen in other parts of the Empire (see, the West was seen as a heavily Romanised region, most recently, Bar 2006: 101-104). Leibner’s recent while Galilee adopted the setting of being a native survey however, objects this view. He argues that “Jewish” region immune to Rome’s influence, in the Eastern Galilee there was a dramatic decline illustrates an overvaluation of texts at the expense in settlement and demography (ca. 60%) from the of the archaeological data. It has been attempted, mid-third century onwards into the Byzantine period. therefore, to exclude both modern textual paradigms, This decline, although not as dramatic, has also been allowing archaeology to have a voice of its own. detected in the Eastern Upper Galilee and at Khirbet By concentrating on the archaeological evidence, Qana (Leibner 2006: 116-120, 121-123; Edwards 2002: I have described Galilee’s cultural development in 118-119). However, decline or prosperity, at this three different stages, each with its own character point it does not influence the discussion on cultural of interaction (separation, integration and fusion). interaction in Galilee. Furthermore, I have also tried to demonstrate that In conclusion, the creation of the new negotiated Roman Galilee has to be seen as a hybrid cultural cultural setting in Late Roman Galilee was the result setting that did not develop into a region “unified” of almost 400 years of cultural interaction. As with with the rest of the Empire as “Romanisation” would every long history of cultural interaction that was suppose. It rather developed into a new regional initiated by Roman conquest, old identities were cultural setting due to “negotiation” between not forgone, but recast in the context of new needs Romans and natives throughout the course of Roman and pressures; Roman culture and native tradition rule. were in the end not in opposition anymore but Note, however, that a division into different intricately intertwined (Hingley 2005: 87). After the stages as proposed here is bounded by the theoretical earthquake of AD 363, this setting would be the concepts being used: life in Roman Galilee developed starting point from which the Byzantine period (and in a more subtle way than a three-stage development its Christianisation) took off. supposes. Yet, it seems that the problems within archaeology, especially with the precision of dating, Freyne, S. (2007) Galilee as Laboratory: Experiments stagnates the discipline towards such a view of for New Testament Historians and Theologians. subtlety (see, for example, Leibner 2006: 110, for New Testament Studies 53, 147-164. a recent approach to dating in surveys). As I have Hingley, R. (2005) Globalizing Roman Culture. Unity, tried to demonstrate, one solution for archaeology diversity and empire. London, Routledge. is the use of theoretical concepts (as has been done Hirschfeld, Y. (1995) The Palestinian Dwelling in the here with cultural interaction) and a division into Roman-Byzantine Period. Jerusalem, Franciscan securely datable stages (for both excavations and Printing Press. surveys). In this way, archaeology seems to be able Hirschfeld, Y. (2004) Excavations at Tiberias, 1989- to demonstrate a three-stage development in Galilee 1994. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 22. towards a new cultural setting. Jerusalem, Israel Antiquities Authority. Hoglund, K.G. & Meyers, E.M. (1996) The Residential Acknowledgements Quarter on the Western Summit. In: Nagy, R.M. This paper is based on my B.A. thesis Jewish Identity et al. eds. Sepphoris in Galilee. Crosscurrents of & Roman Culture. An archaeological perspective Culture. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 39-44. on Roman Galilee. I would like to thank Jürgen Hoss, S. (2007) Die Mikwen der späthellenistischen Zangenberg, Miguel John Versluys, Dianne van bis byzantinischen Zeit in Palästina. Zeitschrift der Zande, Corey Ochsman, Daniëlle Mirtenbaum des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 123, pp.49-79. and John Bintliff, for their help, discussions and Jensen, M.H. (2007) Herod Antipas in Galilee: friend comments. or foe of the historical Jesus? Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 5, 7-32. Bibliography Jones, S. (1998) Identities in Practice: Towards an Adan-Bayewitz, D. (1993) Common Pottery in Roman Archaeological Perspective on Jewish Identity Galilee: A Study of Local Trade. Bar-Ilan Studies in Antiquity. In: Jones, S. & Pearce, S. eds. in Near-Eastern Language and Cultures. Ramat- Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in Gan, Bar-Ilan University Press. the Graeco-Roman Period. Sheffield, Sheffield Bar, D. (2006) Rabbinic sources for the study of Academic Press, 29-49. settlement reality in Late Roman Palestine. Leibner, U. (2006) Settlement and Demography in Review of Rabbinic Judaism 9, 92-113. Late Roman and Byzantine Eastern Galilee. In: Chancey, M.A. (2001) The Cultural Milieu of Ancient Lewin, A.S. & Pellegrini, P. eds. Settlements and Sepphoris. New Testament Studies 47, 127-145. Demography in the Near East in Late Antiquity. Chancey, M.A. (2005) Greco-Roman Culture and Pisa, Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionale, the Galilee of Jesus. Cambridge, Cambridge 105-130. University Press. Magen, Y. (2002) The Stone Vessel Industry in the Dothan, M. (1983) Hammath Tiberias. Early . Excavations at Hizma and Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman the Jerusalem Temple Mount. Jerusalem, Israel Remains. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Antiquities Authority. Edwards, D.R. (2002) Khirbet Qana: from Jewish McCollough, C.T. & Edwards, D.R. (1997) village to Christian pilgrim site. In: Humphrey, Transformation of Space: The Roman Road at J.H. ed. The Roman and Byzantine Near East. Sepphoris. In: Edwards, D.R. & McCollough, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 49. C.T. eds. Archaeology and the Galilee: Texts and Portsmouth, JRA, 101-132. Contexts in Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods. Freyne, S. (2004) Dionysos and Herakles in Galilee. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism The Sepphoris mosaic in context. In: Edwards, 143. Atlanta, Scholars Press, 135-142. D.R. ed. Religion and Society in Roman Palestine. Meyers, E.M. (1976) Galilean Regionalism as a Factor Old questions, new approaches. New York, In Historical Reconstruction. BASOR 231, 93-101. Routledge, 56-69. Safrai, Z. (1992) The Roman Army in the Galilee. In: Levine, L.I. ed. The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1998) To be Roman, go Greek: Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 103-114. thoughts on hellenization at Rome. In: Austin, Talgam, R. & Weiss, Z. (2004) The Mosaics of the M. et al. eds. Modus Operandi Essays in honour of House of Dionysos at Sepphoris. Qedem 44. Geoffrey Rickman. BICS Supplement 71. London, Jerusalem, Old City Press. Institute of Classical Studies, 79-92. Tsafrir, Y. (1995) The synagogues at Capernaum and Yahya, A.H. (1997) Archaeology and Nationalism in Meroth and the dating of the Galilean synagogue. the Holy Land. In: Pollock, S. & Bernbeck, R.W. In: Humphrey, J.H. ed. The Roman and Byzantine eds. Archaeologies of the Middle East: Critical Near East: Some recent archaeological research. Perspectives. Oxford, Blackwell, 66-77. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 14. Ann Arbor, JRA, 151-161.