IDENTITY and ROME in HERODIAN PALESTINE Brian A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Carolina Digital Repository ACTS OF DISPLAY: IDENTITY AND ROME IN HERODIAN PALESTINE Brian A. Coussens A thesis submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Depart of Religious Studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. Chapel Hill 2014 Approved by: Jodi Magness Zlatko Plese James Rives © 2014 Brian A. Coussens ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Brian A. Coussens: ACTS OF DISPLAY: IDENTITY AND ROME IN HERODIAN PALESTINE (Under the direction of Jodi Magness) Scholars have been divided over how to interpret the relationship between Palestinian Jews and the Roman Empire during the Herodian period (40 BCE – 70 CE). This thesis attempts to understand this relationship through a model of Romanization based on theories of identity negotiation. It uses the unit of the household and its objects to examine the range of identity displays in which the Jews of Herodian Palestine participated, and it examines this display vernacular to see how it compares to that of other sites and how it changes over time. For its sample, this thesis examines the sites of Jerusalem (the Upper City) and Qumran. It finds that, although these sites show a range of identities and experiences under Empire, the context of the Roman Empire affected both by changing the discourse of identity expression. iii Dedicated to the memory of Colleen Gunter Cavin, my beloved and much missed grandmother. You did not see the end, but you always believed in me. And, yep, I’m still digging. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all of the people who made this thesis possible. First, I would like to thank my advisor, Jodi Magness, without whom this thesis would not be. Because of her close readings and her helpful comments, it is more readable than it would have been and is characterized by more rigorous scholarship, even though we do not always agree. I would also like to thank my committee for their time, patience, and comments. For a number of reasons, the process of completing this thesis took longer than I anticipated, and they were all too kind in accommodating my personal needs. Second, I would like to thank my family, especially Mom and Dad. Without your support, I am not sure how I would have gotten through the past several years. Thank you, Mom, for the countless number of phone calls and for listening to me talk (and complain) endlessly about the same things over and over again. Thank you, Dad, both for getting me through some rough spots and for reading large sections of this thesis, even if it was outside of your field. Thank you both for investing in my education and believing in my capabilities, even when I fail to believe in them myself. Third, I would like to thank all of those colleagues and friends who helped me both with the content of this thesis and with overcoming hurdles along the way. I would like to give a special thanks to Shaily S. Patel, who, having the unfortunate luck of being my neighbor, had to listen to me rattle off about this thesis way too often. She is a rock in the storm and, to appropriate for her another religion, a saint. She is always willing to walk the critter if I decide to stay on campus for a twelve-hour work session and thoughtful enough to send me encouraging v texts and emails. Thanks to my other stalwart companion, Stephanie Gaskill, who, knowing how I hate to share my work, through her patient persistence and, perhaps, a bit of stubbornness, managed to get me to present part of this thesis at the Religious Studies’ Writing Group. I would also like to give a special shout out to Shannon Schorey, Daniel Schindler, Lenny Lowe, and anyone else who got to play counselor to my particular brand of crazy when I let the process overwhelm me. Thanks to the members of the UNC Religious Studies Writing Group for reading and commenting on Chapter 2 and the members of the Judaism and the Levant in Antiquity Reading Group for slogging their way through the original version of Chapter 4. Thanks to all of you who have helped me think through some of these issues over the past couple of years, including Travis Proctor, Matt Grey, Brad Erickson, Jocelyn K. Burney, and David Culclasure. Finally, thanks to Lady Eowyn Kiyo, because my dog puts up with way too much from me. She patiently waits for me to get home from extremely long days, generally lets me sleep in after pushing myself too hard for several days, and gives the best doggy snuggles. And, let’s face it: when you are writing on a topic such as Romanization, you get through the hairier parts with a lot of puppy breaks. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... X CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: HOW TO READ “ROMAN”: THE SHIFTING PARADIGM OF ROMANIZATION ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1. From Romanization to…? A Century of Reading “Roman” ....................................... 8 2.1.1. Roman-izing: Haverfield and the Acculturation Model (1890s-early 1900s) .................................................................................... 8 2.1.2. Resisting “Roman”: The Post-Colonial Resistance Model (1970s-1980s) ........................................................................................... 14 2.1.3. Resurrecting Roman: Neo-Romanization Model (1990) .......................... 15 2.1.4. Breaking Roman: The “Post”-Romanization Era (1990-Present) ............ 19 2.2. Can the East Be Won? Romanizing the “Roman” East ............................................. 26 2.3. Romanizing Palestine: Changing Perspectives on the East ....................................... 30 2.3.1. Roma Philohellene: Rome as Hellenizer .................................................... 31 2.3.2. Herodes Philorhomaios, a Roman Exception?............................................ 35 2.3.3. Emerging Romanization Paradigms ........................................................... 38 2.3.3.1. Defining Boundaries in the Galilee (Berlin) ................................ 39 2.3.3.2. Roman in Politics, Not in Culture (Lee) ...................................... 40 2.3.3.3. A Roman Cultural Revolution (Altshul) ...................................... 42 2.4. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 42 CHAPTER 3: RE-READING ROMANIZATION: IDENTITY NEGOTIATION, DISPLAY, AND THE HOUSEHOLD ............................................................................. 44 3.1. Romanization, a Champion of the “Post”-Romanization Critique ............................ 45 vii 3.2. Power Plays: Negotiating Identities and Acts of Display .......................................... 49 3.3. Archaeological Dyslexia and Interpreting Changing Display Acts ........................... 53 3.4. Locating Identity: The Household as a Locus of Romanization ................................ 55 3.5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 57 CHAPTER 4: IDENTIY DISCOURSE AND DISPLAY: ROMANIZATION AND THE HOUSES OF JERUSALEM’S UPPER CITY ......................................................... 58 4.1. A Multi-vocal Romanization? Limits and Survival Bias ........................................... 59 4.2. The Vernacular of Elite Display: A Summary ........................................................... 60 4.2.1. Frescoes....................................................................................................... 61 4.2.2. Stucco .......................................................................................................... 65 4.2.3. Mosaics ....................................................................................................... 68 4.2.4. Opus Sectile ................................................................................................ 71 4.2.5. Pottery: Imported Finewares ....................................................................... 72 4.2.7. Glasswares .................................................................................................. 74 4.2.8. Chalk Vessels .............................................................................................. 76 4.2.9. Miqva’ot ...................................................................................................... 79 4.3. Negotiated Identities: Material Displays and the Identity(ies) of the Jerusalem Elite ..................................................................................................... 80 4.3.1. A Shifting Vernacular: Changes in Display Practices ................................ 80 4.3.2. Multiple Identities: the Multivalency of Displays ...................................... 81 4.3.3. Imperial Identities: Rome and the Jerusalem Elite ..................................... 84 4.4. Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 88 CHAPTER 5: ANTI…: IDENTITY AND DISPLAY AT QUMRAN ........................................ 89 5.1. A Villa or Sectarian Community? Methodology ...................................................... 90 5.2. The Display