View of Late Antiquity In

ARAM, 23 (2011) 489-508. doi: 10.2143/ARAM.23.0.2959670

Dr. ROBERT SMITH (Mid-Atlantic Christian University)

Walls were important to the citizens of the Decapolis cities.1 While the world- view of Late Antiquity interpreted the rise and fall of cities as ultimately being the result of divine intervention, the human construction of defensive walls was still a major civic concern. Walls, like temples, honored a city’s patron deities and fostered a sense of local identity and well-being. These structures, long a bulwark of independence and status for cities in the Levant,2 were present in the Hellenizing pre-Decapolis cities, permitted in the Decapolis during the Roman period and were promoted during the subsequent Byzantine period as well. Instead of fostering local rebellion against a distant Rome or later Con- stantinople, the construction of Decapolis city walls, like other components of the imperial architectural palette, was a strategic asset that served to culturally unify the region’s ethnically and linguistically diverse population.3 The “spiritual walls” of cultural solidarity, established in Hellenism and continued by Rome, together with the physical walls of the Decapolis cities helped to preserve their identities for centuries. The Roman and Byzantine empires depended upon strong loyal cities like those of the Decapolis to sustain their rule in the Levant.

WALLS OF PRE-DECAPOLIS CITIES IN THE PRE-ROMAN ERA

Cities that would be counted as part of the Decapolis in the Roman Era were typically established in the Hellenistic era on the remains of ancient settlements. These earlier Semitic settlements had developed at sites where there were plentiful resources and defensible locations. Naturally prominent heights

1 The much discussed identification of the constituent poleis of the Decapolis that originates in the divergent lists in ancient sources (Pliny 5.16.74 and Ptolemy 5.7.14f) remains to be resolved. In this study the contiguous territories dominated by the cities of Abila, Canatha, Capitolias, Dion, Gadara, Gerasa, Hippos, Pella, Philadelphia, and Scythopolis will be the central focus. 2 The remains of Early and Middle Bronze period walled cities in the Levant are extensive. The construction of city walls continued through the Iron Age. The consternation of Nehemiah, for the unwalled city of Jerusalem, in the Persian era provides a poignant example of the con- tinuing symbolic and real significance of walls in the ancient Levant (Nehemiah 1:3-4). 3 Segal, Arthur, From Function to Monument: Urban Landscapes of Roman Palestine, Syria and Provincia Arabia. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997. Pp. 1-4.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 489489 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 490 WALLS OF THE DECAPOLIS

or the accumulated occupational debris of centuries on tells provided the basis for easily fortified acropoleis. Access to study these early fortifications has been obscured by added strata from continued occupation and removal of some masonry materials for later reuse. Significant Iron and Bronze Age fortifications have been excavated at sites like Pella, Scythopolis and Philadel- phia. No extensive, stratigraphically verified, Hellenistic defensive walls stand exposed in Decapolis cities at the present time. Historical texts, however, testify to the presence and importance of such walls during the Hellenistic Period. Like other Hellenizing cities in the Levant,4 the Pre-Decapolis poleis, formally established by the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, were informed by Greek defensive architecture. As a result their citadel walls may reasonably be pre- dicted to have been made with locally quarried stone and not mud bricks. In keeping with Hellenistic architectural style the stone used on the exterior would often have been chiseled into uniform rectangular blocks dressed on the face with smoothed boarders around a protruding boss. These carefully hewn stones were laid in bonded courses closely fitted together on the exterior. Such walls were not easily climbed or penetrated. Lesser quality stones were employed for the interior surfaces. The space between the interior and exterior faces would have been filled with irregular stones and stone-cutting debitage. These effi- ciently built walls bolstered with towers at weak points were able to resist attackers and their siege machines. When the walls were built along the edge of cliffs or above steep slopes, they did not have to be very tall to be effective. As locations with fortified acropoleis, some pre-Decapolis cities like Phila- delphia held strategic settings that helped the Ptolemies maintain control of the Southern Levant for a century. The Seleucid expansionist, Antiochus III, was only able to consolidate his hold on the Southern Levant, following his victory at the battle of Panias, by securing the fortified poleis of Scythopolis, Pella, Abila, Gadara and Philadelphia.5 The Seleucids, like the Ptolemies, benefitted from these strongly defended cities and promoted their development. With the decline of the Seleucids, the Hellenized cities that would become the Decapolis may have contemplated greater independence, but were in fact vulnerable to being subjugated by local dynasts or seized by regional chiefs.6 The greatest threats to civic independence were the ascendant Hasmoneans and the Nabataeans. The walls of the cities like Gadara and Gerasa were obstacles to the consolidation of the Hasmonean territory east of the Jordan River.7 They were not, however,

4 In nearby Jerusalem the Hasmonean walls on the eastern side of the Temple platform above the Kidron valley are the most commonly viewed Hellenistic era walls. These provide a picture of the techniques and dimensions that were possible in the nearby pre-Decapolis cities.. 5 Polybius, History 5.71.1, Josephus, Antiquities 12.3.3, 135-137 6 Local dynasties are evidenced at Abila.Polybius V.70 7 Josephus Antiquities 13.13.3, Wars 1.4.8.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 490490 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 R. SMITH 491

sufficient to withstand the long sieges of Alexander Jannaeus. The subjugated pagan cities were subjected to judaizing policies that were resisted only at the possible price of destruction, as was seen at Pella.8 Inside the Hellenizing poleis that the Ptolemies and Seleucids had founded the “cultural walls” of the cities were built up through the adoption of Hel- lenistic culture. While under the monarchical rule of the Ptolemies and then the Seleucids, the poleis were juridically semi-independent communities, with their own councils and judges appointed by the assembly of citizens to manage the local public affairs.9 The cultural walls were also built up by shared wor- ship of deities in the local temples. Semitic polytheism was easily syncretised with Hellenistic religion. The newly emergent goddess Tyche was particularly amenable to being accommodated to local traditions. In Gerasa, Artemis the patron deity who probably was associated with an earlier Semitic goddess, was called Tyche.10 The Semitic tradition of retaining peace with the local tutelary gods was a duty of every citizen in Hellenistic poleis.11 The acropoleis of pre- Decapolis cities were typically not only a military strongpoint but also a religious center where the temple of the patron deity was constructed. These military and religious structures created a place where the cities’ citizens felt they could be safe. Sacred and secular were combined. The construction of walls in the pre-Decapolis cities was promoted by civic pride and religious conviction but was probably most strongly driven by inse- curity. While a thorough chronology of pre-Decapolis wall construction is not possible, it seems reasonable to surmise that the unsettled century prior to the coming of Pompey, and the creation of the Decapolis, would have been a time when wall building would have been a priority. The elements of Hellenistic defensive architecture were known. Building stone was available to be quarried near all of the cities. The limiting factor was economic. Much greater walls that would encompass residential neighborhoods would become possible when the population and prosperity grew.

THE DECAPOLIS WALLS IN THE EARLY ROMAN ERA (65 BC-AD 235)

Vitruvius, the renowned architect of the Augustan period, and client of the Princeps, assumed that cities under Roman rule would have walls. Subsequently, in his work, On Architecture, he made recommendations regarding city wall

8 Josephus Antiquities 13.13.4. 9 Julian M. C. Bowsher, “Civic Organization within the Decapolis.” ARAM 4 (1992):278. 10 Susan B. Matheson, “The Goddess Tyche” Pp. 18-33 in An Obsession with Fortune: Tyche in Greek and Roman Art. Yale University Art Gallery Bulletin 1994. 11 Louise B. Zaidman, and Pauline Schmitt-Pantel. Religion in the Ancient Greek City. Trans. Paul Cartledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 491491 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 492 WALLS OF THE DECAPOLIS

construction materials, foundations, thickness and shape of defensive towers.12 Rome set the architectural standard for cities of her Empire.13 Rome’s walls developed over the centuries, from a simple fortified hilltop, to having enlarged walls that encompassed surrounding domestic areas.14 Rome did not have to expend public funds on significantly enlarging her walls in the Principate and Early Empire as her powerful armies served as her walls and kept foreign ene- mies far away. In such periods of peace and relative safety there were no military reasons to build Rome’s walls, but civic pride and related belief continued to drive wall construction.15 Similarly in the Decapolis, Hellenistic era fortifications on strategic acropoleis that had antedated the Pompeian settlement and extended walls erected during the subsequent years of Roman domination, were maintained and enlarged out of civic pride, the honor of tutelary deities like Agatha Tyche, and emergent local security concerns. The Roman Empire as a whole, and the region of the Decapolis within it, was greatly influenced by religion. Augurs in Rome continually sought signs by which to discern the approval of the gods and endeavored to ensure their bless- ing through observing proper ritual. The Roman polytheists recognized cities which came under their control as being sacred and to be protected in honor of the patron deity of the place. The Romans were wary of disturbing the gods of foreign lands. The Romans, while rather superstitious, did not let their fear of deities get in the way of advancing the Empire. They asserted that their

12 Vitruvius On Architecture 1.5 is concerned with the location, resources and defenses of cities. His work is not seen as being innovative but rather a reiteration of Hellenistic defensive architecture that had developed in the previous three centuries. 1.5.2 Towers should project so as to expose attackers to fire 1.5.4 Towers should stand no more than a bowshot apart. 1.5.5 Towers should be shaped round or polygons not square. 1.5.3 Thick walls should allow movement of troops along the top. 1.5.8 The best walls are made of cut stone. 2.7.5 Foundations of city walls are to be solid on rock, if possible, with foundations thicker than the supported walls. Wall foundations could be made of weak stone but that which was exposed should be harder. 13 P. Zanker, “The City as a symbol: Rome and the creation of an urban image” pp. 25-41 in E. Fentress Ed. Rome and the City: Creations, Transformations and Failures. (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 38), Portsmouth, RI: JRA, 2000. 14 Rome’s earliest walls about the Palatine hill might have been perceived by Remus as laughably inadequate (Livy, History of Rome 1.6), and its second generation defenses of little more than ditches and earthen ramparts (Livy, History of Rome 1.25), that left it vulnerable to attack but the later walls grew substantially. The subsequent walls of King Servius Tullius were extended and enlarged upon during the Republic. During the height of the Roman Empire there was no pressing need to enlarge the fortifications. With the conflicts and erosion of power during the period of the Barracks Emperors and the increasingly deep penetration of invaders the defense of the city became an issue. As a result the massive Aurelian Walls were initiated in the late third century. 15 Rabban Simon ben Gamliel observes that the only cities that need walls are those near the borders. (Baba Bathra 7b).

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 492492 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 R. SMITH 493

victories and subsequent Roman rule were a reward for Roman piety.16 This idea of protecting sacred cities was not new in the Semitic Levant.17 This idea, accepted by the Greeks,18 was also perpetuated by the Romans. Roman domination of the Levant with its established Hellenistic cities was promoted through Pompey’s moderate religious policies toward all religions and his recognition of privileges for the cities. The Romans fought no battles to capture the Decapolis cities. The gates in the walls of the Decapolis were open to the pagan Romans who accepted their deities and relieved the Hellenizing cities from four decades of Jewish domination. Numismatic evidence from the Roman era Decapolis testifies to the religious disposition of the poleis and their valuation of city walls. The most common theme on the reverse of Decapolis coins from the first century BC through the mid-third century AD is the image of Tyche, the personification of the city, wearing a mural crown.19 The inscriptions found in the Decapolis that refer to Tyche usually address her as “good” and demonstrate the local devotion to her. This characterization stands in contrast to the observation of the Greek writer Menander who found her to be rather capricious.20 The appearance of crowns depicting city walls with projecting towers and merlons on the busts of Tyche found in statuary and coins from the Decapolis follow similar patterns found on the coins from other famous cities like Antioch and Ephesus. The walls on the Tyche crowns, however, cannot be consistently correlated with the exist- ence or shape of actual defensive walls of the Roman Era Decapolis cities.21 Some cities’ issues of coins show busts of Tyche crowned with walls, but they do not appear to have had large scale defensive walls surrounding the city at the time. Other cities minted coins that depict varied numbers of towers on their Tyche’s crown. These changing numbers of towers appear to have had no relationship to the number of towers on their walls, expansion of the city walls, or the status of the city. The Decapolis cities, which had a historical connec- tion with the Seleucids, often depicted their patron Agathe Tyche in a manner

16 J. H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1979. p.1. provides references in Cicero, Sallust, Livy, Dionysus of Halicarnassus and Pliny. 17 Cities patronized by deities are claimed throughout antiquity in the Levant. 18 U. Sinn, “Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Refuge,” Pp. 88-109 in Greek Sanctuaries, ed. Nanno Marinatos and Robin Haegg. New York: Routledge, 1993. 19 Six of the cities feature a bust of Tyche on the reverse of one issue of their coins. Five of the cities have Tyche enthroned and most have issues in which she is standing. 20 “Fortune observes no rules by which she decides human affairs” (Menander Fragment 355). 21 The mural crowns typically depict tall walls with closely spaced projecting towers. The only Decapolis city ruins that support such a depiction of regularly spaced towers found on its coins are seen at Gerasa. In contrast the over 200 m. of wall at Abila has no evident projecting towers. In the mural crowns found on Decapolis coins there are usually three and occasionally four towers shown as Tyche is viewed from the side. In the case of Gerasa there are at least 101 towers and the Tyche on the coins might be projected as having six to eight towers at most.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 493493 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 494 WALLS OF THE DECAPOLIS

following a famous Tyche statue in Antioch. This depiction has a formally dressed and mural-crowned Tyche, seated holding a cornucopia, with her foot resting on a personification of a river.22 At the same time the Tyche imagery, on other Decapolis coins, is seen to have been assimilated with the Semitic and Hellenistic tutelary deities. On some issues Tyche is understood to be depicted as standing in a short robe like an Amazon warrior23 with her right breast exposed.24 Whether resting on a throne or standing ready to go to war, the mural- crowned Tyche was seen to be the defender of Decapolis cities. The mural crowns on Tyche were a projection of civic identity. The cities of the Decapolis claimed, in the Roman period, to have been founded as Hellenistic poleis with constitutions and rights that originated in Greek democratic traditions bestowed on them by Alexander the Great or his successors. The Roman period memory in the Decapolis of a legacy of civic freedom was probably rosier than any earlier reality.25 Some poleis of the Decapolis proclaimed on their coins and other public inscriptions that they were variously “holy,” “autonomous,” “inviolate” and “self governing.” These civic rights asserted on late second and early third century coins of Abila, Capito- lias, Gadara, Gerasa, Hippos and Scythopolis26 may be found paralleled in some contemporary cities of the Roman Empire, such as nearby Damascus or further away in Asia Minor.27 While these cities claimed autonomy, they uni- formly included on the obverse images of the Roman Emperors. The privileges of these cities appear to have included some continued local leadership by a council of affluent citizens. The Decapolis cities, as a result of the Pompeian settlement, were placed under the greater authority of the governor of Syria and in times of potential conflict could be relegated by the governor to the

22 Mark Stansbury-O’Donnell, “Reflections of the Tyche of Antioch in Literary Sources and on Coins” Pp. 50-63 in Susan B. Matheson 1994. 23 See coins of Capitolias in Spijkerman. 24 See coins of Abila, Scythopolis, and Philadelphia. 25 The cities that came to be a part of the Decapolis do evidence some local assemblies and the selection of local judges and officeholders but they had clearly been subject to the foreign and domestic policies of the Ptolemies, and the Seleucids. With the decline of the Seleucids, promoted by Rome in the second century BC, these cities had been vulnerable to being subjugated by local dynasts such as the Hasmoneans from Judea or being seized by regional chiefs. 26 Kent J. Rigsby, Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. (Hellenistic Society and Culture, 22). Berley: University of California Press, 1996. Pp.532-539. 27 The assertion of these rights appear on Some Decapolis coinage from the second century. The greek letters IAA are found on coins from Gerasa from the reign of Hadrian, Gadara from Antoninus Pius, and Abila and Capitolias from the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Hippos and Scythopo- lis claim to be “Holy and inviolate from the time of Antoninus Pius. Julian M. C. Bowsher, “Civic Organization within the Decapolis.” ARAM 4 (1992):265-281. on p. 270. The gamma found on the coins of Abila and Capitolias is suggested as best being a reference to Gabinius in Getzel M. Cohen, “The letters IAAG on some coins of Abila and Gadara,” American Journal of Numis- matics 10 (1998): 95-102.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 494494 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 R. SMITH 495

authority of a regional military commander.28 These cities’ claims to be the beneficiaries of the protection of patron deities and beneficiaries of civic free- doms were deeply seated in Hellenistic tradition, but it was the emperors who granted and imperial armies that guaranteed their status as cities. Augustus and subsequent emperors could change Decapolis cities’ status and reassign them to new jurisdictions.29 In AD 22, the Senate under Tiberius reviewed the civic claims made in Asia and seems to have discerned that the bestowal of “inviolability” to provincial cities was a potential limitation on imperial authority. The Imperial biogra- pher, Suetonius, asserted that a city’s right to provide asylum was abolished by Tiberius.30 Tacitus, a Roman who championed old Republican institutions, indicates that the matter was heard in the Senate which found the arguments confusing and therefore it referred the matter to the consuls, who in turn found the origins of most cities’ claims for privileged status were lost.31 Tacitus does not affirm that all civic rights were retracted, but some cities may have lost the claim to “inviolability.” The Decapolis cities’ assertion of this and other civic rights on their coins in the late second and early third centuries seem to be based on alleged historical claims that these rights were conferred between c. 260 BC when such rights first were given, and AD 22 when a general mora- torium on conferring the right of asylum to provincial population centers was apparently instituted.32 The Decapolis civic claims of “inviolability” involved the expectation that there would be reprisals by people who respected the gods if the place were attacked.33 The retaliatory threat of a declaration of “inviolability” is not shown historically to have held much efficacy as a wall of protection. If Abila, Gadara and the other cities were indeed honored with this wall of inviolability by the Seleucids, it is apparent that this did not protect them from the Hasmoneans’ grasp. In the subsequent Roman era, Decapolis cities could reasonably expect that Rome would send the legions based in Syria if they were attacked. This would have been seen both as a religious obligation and a matter of political expedience. The old Greek titles claimed during the apex of the Roman era were a matter of civic pride.34 While the claim to be “holy” and therefore

28 Pompey placed the free cities of Syria under a military official when he was settling affairs in the Levant Josephus Antiquities XIV.4.4.and this practice was repeated later when Herod was installed as strategos of the Decapolis. Josephus Antiquities XIV.9.5. 29 This is seen in the transfer of Gadara and Hippus to the realm of Herod the Great. The Decapo- lis cities’ subjection to Roman and Byzantine authority is also seen in subsequent movement of boundaries that put the cities in the new administrative districts of Arabia and Palestina Secunda. 30 Suetonius, Tiberius 37.6 31 Tacitus, Annals 3.63. 32 Rigsby p.3. 33 Tacitus, Annals 3.60-63. See Rigsby p.16. 34 Rigsby p.24.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 495495 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 496 WALLS OF THE DECAPOLIS

“inviolable” is well attested on several Decapolis coins in the second century AD., the claim reiterates rights asserted earlier in Gadara and presumably claimed in some of the other Decapolis cities in the first century BC.35 Under the Pompeian settlement and the Augustan Peace the cities of the Levant prospered. Small denomination bronze coins that the Decapolis cities were permitted to issue promoted trade and subsequent taxes that helped to fund civic projects like wall construction. The techniques they employed can be compared with those of Herod’s constructions, but they did not have the resources he had as a king and could not have built walls and towers of the scale of those in Jerusalem or Samaria.36 Remnants of these Early Roman era walls still stand and control tourist access to parts of the Decapolis sites of Gadara, Gerasa and Philadelphia. These walls were built of local stone in opus quad- ratum. The ashlars were laid in alternating courses of headers and stretchers. The size of the remaining walls indicates that the central parts of the cities were strongly defended by substantial walls. There is unfortunately little literary evidence regarding the Early Roman era walls in the Decapolis. Josephus indicates that the Decapolis cities of Philadelphia, Gerasa, Pella, Scythopolis, Gadara and Hippos were sacked by Jews following the massacre of Jews in Caesarea.37 His description of the Decapolis cities being sacked is incongruous with his subsequent discussion of the Scythopolitians massacre of Jewish residents, the killing of Jewish leaders and incarceration of Jewish residents at Hippos and Gadara and the more moderate Gerasine reaction of tolerating Jews who wished to stay and escorting away those who wanted to leave under protective cus- tody. 38 It is likely that attacks by Jewish nationalists took place in the territory of these Decapolis cities but it does not appear that cities were taken captive by the Jews. It appears that the cities were sufficiently defended and loyal to Rome that they resisted attacks in the Jewish War. Their walls would have been a great obstacle to Jewish rebels without the resources or time for extended siege warfare. The arrival of Roman forces in the region crushed any hopes of taking the cities. The city of Scythopolis welcomed the fifteenth legion under Vespasian and served as their base during the winter of AD 67.39 In the next generation with the Second Jewish War, the Decapolis cities’ walls once again protected their citizens. The walls of the Decapolis that existed at that time were a local haven and a strategic asset for Rome that were on show as the travelling emperor Hadrian visited Decapolis cities like Gerasa.

35 Meleager of Gadara in an epigram composed for his epitaph speaks of his hometown as “the holy land of Gadara” See Greek Anthology vii. 419. 36 Ehud Netzer, The Architecture of Herod the Great Builder. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. See pp. 84-85 and 119-129. 37 Josephus Wars 2.18.1 38 Josephus Wars 2.18.5 39 Josephus Wars 3.9.1

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 496496 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 R. SMITH 497

THE WALLS OF THE DECAPOLIS IN THE LATE ROMAN AND BYZAN- TINE ERAS (AD 235-635).

As the political and economic circumstances changed with the civil wars of the Barracks Emperors in the third century and the later intrusion of invaders, huge walls were eventually constructed for Rome and later Constantinople. Provincial cities with walls, like those of the Decapolis, continued to copy the capitols, as they could afford to do so,40 and were bastions of the Roman economy and way of life. Fortifications on acropoleis and later circumvallation of domestic areas were ways that the cities of the Decapolis competed for pres- tige, honored their gods and fostered a greater sense of security. The fortified cities of the Decapolis region, like other parts of Syria, continued to provide Rome and later Constantinople with a low cost, self-sustaining portion of frontier that made relatively few demands on increasingly stretched military resources. The Empire’s eastern frontier threatened by Jewish revolts, Pal- myrenes, Parthians and later Sassanid invasions was strengthened by having a loyal culturally-integrated citizenry in the Decapolis who gloried in their “walls” whether they were towering structures on their citadels, circumval- lating walls made of newly cut masonry, sacred structures or nothing more than extramural gates and periodic stones marking their sacred boundaries.41 The expense for the construction of Decapolis city walls, like those of their Jewish neighbors in the city of Tiberius, was borne by a combination of wealthy patrons and poll taxes.42 The desire for security promoted the expensive fortification of Levantine towns in the uncertain Late Roman and Byzantine eras.43

40 The cessation of Decapolis city coins in this period suggests that they were experiencing economic challenges that would have limited wall construction. 41 Boundary stones were widely known in the Ancient Near East. These consecrated stones marked property claims of people groups and individuals (Proverbs 23:10). The Greeks also employed sacred boundary stones to mark their sacred precincts and cities. According to Livy 1.44 the Romans followed the Etruscan practice of consecrating a new town with boundaries established in priestly ceremonies. The resulting pomerium was the sacred boundary of a city marked periodi- cally by cippi stones. This religious precinct was not necessarily an actually walled area. According to Varro the furrow cut by the plough of the agurs was the moat and the earth that piled up beside the furrow was the wall of the inaugurated district (Varro, de Ling. Lat. V.143). The subsequent walls built along this boundary were supposed to be free standing unencumbered with construction. These sacred zones were excluded to any foreign rulers and legal or military officials lost their imperium when entering this zone. Within the pomerium weapons were banned and the burial of the dead was proscribed. According to Tacitus, Emperor Claudius expanded the pomerium of Rome with the understanding that those who had added to the Roman Empire were allowed to enlarge the sacred precinct (Tacitus Annals 12.23). While several inscribed Roman era boundary stones of Gezer have been discovered none have been highlighted in heavily excavated cities like Gadara, Scythopolis or Gerasa. If boundary markers identified the sacred precincts of the Decapolis cities they may not have been inscribed and thus have not been recognized as holding significance. 42 See the discussion of Rabbais Eleazer and Yohannan over who should pay for the construction and repair of the walls of Tiberius c. AD 260 (Baba Bathra 7b). 43 Codex Justinian 11.4.1.1.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 497497 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 498 WALLS OF THE DECAPOLIS

Local threats like the Samaritans prompted construction of walls at Scythopo- lis and the regional threat of the Sassanids would have been a reason for all the old Decapolis cities now divided between Palestinian provinces and Arabia to give attention to their defenses. Fortification in the Byzantine era should be seen to include the construction of many ecclesiastical structures in Decapolis as well as city walls. The construction of churches at the site of former pagan temples and throughout the residential parts of the cities in the Byzantine era mark a change from dependence on the pagan pantheon to dependence upon the singular Christian God for salvation and providence. Byzantine era converts to Christianity carried cultural baggage that they transferred from the pagan temple to the new churches. Churches became sacred locations where divine favor for supplicants and their city might be curried. While churches were bastions of sacred power like the earlier pagan temple had been for the populace, the later Decapolis Christians, like their pagan predecessors, also built and maintained city walls. This construction was not seen as a denial of God’s power seen in the churches, but as a means to honor Him by protecting His flock. Late Roman and Byzantine period fortifications are most evident at Decap- olis city sites. During this period the walls reached their greatest heights and encompassed the greatest area. Extensive refurbished walls with periodic towers circumvallated cities like Gerasa and Scythopolis. In places where the local limestone was soft such as at Abila the ashlars were cut very precisely and able to be fitted into very regular tightly-bonded courses.

EVIDENCE OF FORTIFICATIONS IN THE DECAPOLIS

Evidence of fortification of the Decapolis cities is found in the sparse literary records of the region and in the physical monuments that remain in view or have been excavated. Aerial observation of the Decapolis sites through satellite images helps to make sense of the confusing wall lines that confront those who walk the ruins. The following is a brief summary of the physical walls of the Decapolis cities and an enumeration of known ecclesiastical structures that serve as a cultural indicator of the growing Byzantine era “spiritual walls” of the Decapolis.

Abila The city of Abila had a fortified acropolis that was defended against Antio- chus III on two occasions by the forces of a local dynast named Menneas.44

44 Polybius History V.71.1-4. See also John D. Wineland, Ancient Abila: An Archaeological History. (BAR International Series, 989) Oxford: Archaeopress, 2001. p.104-105.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 498498 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 R. SMITH 499

These Hellenistic fortifications are not currently exposed for scrutiny. It would be reasonable to assume that Tell Abil would have been naturally defensible, having steep slopes on all sides. The pre-Roman fortifications were probably located at the elevated west end of Tell Abil. The Hellenistic fortifications which created an obstacle to the advance of Antiochus III were needed in the next generation as the site was attacked and captured along with Gadara, Hippos, Gerasa, Pella, Philadelphia and Scythopolis by the Hasmonean expansionist Alexander Janneus.45 In 1886 Gotleibb Schumacher traced many wall lines onto his map but did not discern the encircling wall that defends Tell Abil. A century later, in the spring of 1984, a local landowner bulldozed a terrace along the northeast side of the tell to plant olive trees. In doing this he exposed more than 200 meters of the fourth-century wall.46 This Early Byzantine period wall, made of local limestone ashlars, stands up to ten courses and five meters tall where it is exposed. This exposed piece of the city defenses does not have any projecting towers. The absence of towers suggests that the persons responsible for the wall felt that the long steep slope below the wall was sufficient to discourage any attack from that side of the acropolis. In the Wadi Abil at the base of the northwest end of the Tell, about 100 m. below the unexcavated portion of the defensive wall, the local municipality has been excavating “gravel” for local road improvements. This “gravel” is the more than eight meters deep talus of limestone masonry detritus from up slope. This scree suggests that there is significant fortification and perhaps a Late Roman/ Early Byzantine tower on that corner of the tell. On the south side of the tell one excavation unit has exposed the wall line and the fact that it was built in at least two phases. On that wall line some large basalt blocks may indicate the presence of a tower that would have overlooked the city center. The city of Abila appears to have protected the residential and public areas in the saddle area and a portion of Umm al-Ammad south of the acropolis. A substantial wall, more than three meters thick, connects the west end of Tell Abil and Umm al-Amad. This wall is pierced by a gate and has been described by Harold Mare as a viaduct. Down slope the saddle area between the heights of Tell Abil and Khirbet Umm al-Amad has two distinct levels that are created by walls. The walls which create these terraces are substantial and the lower one was probably more than an architectural structure. This lower wall is preserved at a height of more than six meters at the west end of the trefoil Byzantine church building in Area E. That wall which served to support structures upslope and carried a water chan- nel would have been very effective in controlling access into Abila from the

45 Josephus, Antiquities 13.13.3 and George Syncellus, Ecologa Chronographica 559. 46 See reports of Abila wall excavation in Amy Deeds, “A Preliminary Archaeological Report: Area F – The City Wall.” NEASB 32/33 (1989):43-48.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 499499 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 500 WALLS OF THE DECAPOLIS

east and was a part of its defenses in the Late Byzantine period. The spiritual walls augmenting the physical walls of Abila include six ecclesiastical structures that have been excavated on the west side of the Wadi Qwelbah47 and there is at least one further church located on the east side of the wadi on the terrace below the guard house.

Canatha

The extensive ruins at the site of Canatha are identified with El-Qanawat. This site is situated on a tell overlooking a river. This site has had little formal excavation, but satellite observation suggests significant fortifications beneath the surface. At this city the ruins of Es-Serai are the remains of a c. 23 m. long basilica that has a colonnaded atrium.48

Dion

Dion located at Tell al-Ash’ari has recently come to be studied, but there have been no excavations of its fortifications.49 Satellite observation of the site reveals that the Tell has perimeter defenses that suggest a fortified acropolis. Ecclesiastical structures are evident at Dion but they remain to be excavated.

Gadara

The city of Gadara is understood to derive its name from a Semitic reference to a fortification. The polis’ fortifications under the Ptolemies made it one of the most difficult places for Antiochus III to capture in his campaign of 218 BC. Having captured the site Antiochus III is thought to have authorized further construction of Gadara’s walls helping to make the place notably strong and capable of withstanding the 103 BC siege of Alexander Jannaeus for ten months.50 The south wall of the acropolis of Gadara was dedicated with an inscription dated to 85 BC that suggests that it was part of the defenses built in resistance against the Jews led by Alexander Jannaeus. The citadel wall of Gadara is obscured for much of its course, but is significantly visible on the south side where it stands exposed alongside the guest parking lot. The exposed six courses of the wall stands over four meters tall and is made up of sawn

47 Anne Michel. Les Eglises D’Epoque Byzantine et Umayyade de la Jordanie Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2001. Pp.111-120 provide an overview of the churches. 48 Simeon Vailhe, The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appelton, 1908. Accessed 07/04/08 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03244a.htm 49 Mohammad Qasim and Andreas Kropp, “Dion of the Decapolis: Tell al-Ash’ari in Southern Syria in the light of Ancient Documents and Recent Discoveries.” Levant 38 (2006): 125-144. 50 Josephus Antiquities 13.13.3; BJ 1.4.8

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 500500 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 R. SMITH 501

ashlars that are laid in a header stretcher technique. There is no clear pattern of defensive towers that have come to light. In the one tower that has been studied, the ceramic evidence confirms utilization in Late Hellenistic/ Early Roman period. 51 The Tiberius Gate of Gadara at the end of the decumanus maximus was an extramural monument that stands c. 100 m. west of the city wall. This gateway flanked by cylindrical basalt towers is dated to the Herodian era and was reorganized by the early third century.52The extra-mural gateway suggests that the religious boundary of the city was extended beyond the physical walls. The spiritual walls of Gadara included at least three currently excavated ecclesiastical structures.53

Gerasa

The city of Gerasa has the most extensive and well preserved walls of the Decapolis cities today. These walls were constructed in response to the uncer- tainties of the late Roman period. Gerasa was established at a location where people had long lived, but it was not a particularly powerful bastion. The city centered on a tell on the west side of the river would have had religious boundaries and some defensive walls in the early Hellenistic period.54 These walls were enhanced in the Roman period when the citizens constructed walls near the Temple of Zeus and the South Gate. These early walls were formerly dated to the first century,55and now understood to be early second century56 may be seen to have been a response to the Jewish opposition to Roman rule or to the Emperor Hadrian’s visit. This early wall was 1.75 m. thick. The limestone wall was made of large limestone ashlars set in an isodomic pattern. The exterior faces of the stones in the early portion of the South Walll were left with a smooth border and a raised boss in the center. The more extensive later city wall built in c. AD 390 was 3-3.5 m. wide and has a circumference of c. 3.5 km. enclosing c. 85 ha.57 The wall is defended by more than 100 six meter square

51 Susanne Kerner, “Umm Qais-Gadara: Recent Excavations.” ARAM 4 (1992): 407-423. A. Hoffman, “Churches, temples, high places, and a city wall: The 1997 season at Umm Qais.” Occident and Orient 2.2 (1997):5-6. 52 S. Felicia Meynersen, “The Tiberius Gate of Gadara (Umm Qays)” ADAJ 45 (2001):427- 432. 53 Anne Michel. p. 1128-132 reports on the octagonal church but not those excavated at the west side of the city. 54 Iain Browning, Jerash and the Decapolis. London: Chatto & Windus, 1982. p.80. 55 C. H. Kraeling, Gerasa City of the Decapolis, New Haven, 1938. p. 42. 56 Ina Kehrberg and John Manley, “New Archaeological Finds for the Dating of the Gerasa Roman City Wall,” ADAJ 45 (2001):437-446, used ceramic data from probes of the wall’s foundations to correct the early first century date of Kraeling and the late date fourth century suggested in Jacques Seigne, “Jerash romaine et Byzantine: developpement urbain d’une ville provinciale orientale,” SHAJ 4(1992):331-341. 57 Rami Khouri, Jerash: A frontier city of the Roman East. London: Longman, 1986. p. 52-53.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 501501 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 502 WALLS OF THE DECAPOLIS

towers that project from the wall at c.20 m. intervals. These square towers are spaced at intervals of 17-22 meters. This distance would have provided ample protection to the walls. The spacing of towers appears to have fluctuated with the terrain. The towers would have had sufficient space for the location of small artillery pieces like catapultae, scorpions or ballista. The western and southern sides of the city, which were more vulnerable, had more closely concentrated towers. The curtain wall between towers was built of limestone ashlars tightly bonded in a header and stretcher technique. The curtain wall was wide enough for troop movement behind the battlements between the towers. The city of Gerasa, which straddled the Chrysohoras river, had a ready supply of water but the water gates had to be protected. While the defenses of the upstream entrance are unknown, the downstream exit was a substantial dam that created a water- fall between towers on either bank. Kraeling attributes the Byzantine period improvements to Gerasa’s walls to the threat of raids by local Arabs,58 but such fortifications were sufficient to address the more substantial Persian threat. Bolstering the extensive walls of the city, Gerasa also had at least eight- een ecclesiastical structures from the Byzantine era.59

Hippos

The city of Hippos has a fortified acropolis. The walls are made of well dressed basalt ashlars laid in uniform courses that surmount the steep flanks of the mountain upon which the city is located. These fortifications are studied in an unpublished MA thesis written in Hebrew.60 The steep slopes on the sides of the spur on which Hippos was located made substantial walls at those places less important than the eastern side, where the spur connects to the Golan Plateau. In the Byzantine era Hippos had at least four ecclesiastical structures that contributed a sense of security to its residents.

Pella

The city of Pella had fortifications that protected it during the Bronze and Iron ages, but has no evidence of Hellenistic period walls other than those of the fort on the height above the city. The citadel of the city in the Greek and Roman periods lay on the heights to the south of the city. No description of the city’s defenses is made in the description of its military defeats. In the Byzantine

58 Kraeling, p.65. 59 Anne Michel. p 224-274. 60 Michael Eisenberg, The Fortifications of Hippos (Sussita) In Light of the Hellenistic- Roman City Fortifications in the Roman East, University of Haifa; Haifa, 2003.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 502502 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 R. SMITH 503

era there do not appear to have been any efforts to create walls that protected domestic areas. At that time, the city of Pella had at least three ecclesiastical structures that promoted a sense of common identity and the belief that God was with them.61

Philadelphia

The city of Philadelphia long had a fortified acropolis. This citadel on Jebel al-Qalat existed prior to the Iron Age and was the focus of locally remembered hostilities between the Ammonites and the forces of the Israelite King David.62 These fortifications continued to be modified over the centuries. In the depiction of a stylized Philadelphia in the Byzantine era mosaic portrayals of Umm ar-Rasas, a small portion of the city that may represent the citadel is depicted as having encircling walls.63 Closely spaced three-story projecting towers with crenellations on the curtain walls are depicted. There is no evidence that any- thing more than the citadel of Roman or Byzantine Philadelphia ever was circumvallated. The more than eight meter tall walls of the nymphaeum provide a sense of the grandeur of the walls that protected parts of the urban area in the wadi floor beneath the citadel. Spiritually, the city was strengthened by at least seven ecclesiastical structures.64

Scythopolis

The city of Scythopolis like Gadara and Gerasa had both walls and extramural monumental gateways. In the early second century the Damascus Gate and the Caesarea Gate arched over two major external thoroughfares.65 After the city became the capitol of Palestina Secunda in AD 409, these extra-mural gates were soon joined with walls forming a circuit c. 4.8 km. long encom- passing c. 100ha. This wall of newly cut ashlars on the exterior and recycled stones on the interior was 2.9 m. wide, filled with recycled stones and protected by occasional square towers.66 This circuit had to surmount significant topographical obstacles, such as Nahal Harod on the northeast corner of the

61 Anne Michel. p 120. 62 2 Samuel 12:26ff. 63 M. Piccirillo Mosaics of Jordan p.219. 64 Anne Michel. Pp. 276-283. 65 Gabi Mazor, “Beit Shean, (Nysa-Scythopolis): The Roman Period: The City’s Streets and Gates.” http://www.israntique.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id+17&sub_subj_id=326&id=652 accessed 5/15/2008. 66 Ya’akov Billig, “Bet She’an, the City Wall” reporting on a 2002 probe in Hadashot Journal Vol. 120 2/4/08 The outside stones were 87 c. wide 40 c. tall and 80 c. deep.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 503503 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 504 WALLS OF THE DECAPOLIS

city. In the sixth century these defenses were further enhanced.67As the seat of a prominent bishop Scythopolis had at least seven ecclesiastical structures in the Byzantine era that contributed to its sense of security.

OVERVIEW OF THE CITY WALLS OF DECAPOLIS

Walls were the one of the most expensive public facilities that cities of the Decapolis could possess.68 The width, height, construction materials location of gates and spacing of towers in Decapolis cities’ fortifications were shaped by changing construction conventions, local geology and topography. Rectan- gular ashlars with raised bosses in the Hellenistic period became flatter and more closely fitted in the Roman and Byzantine period walls. Soft, easily sawn eocene limestone was employed at Abila, and Capitolias; hard, chiseled limestone was used at Gadara, Gerasa and Philadelphia. Harder basalt was used at Scythopolis and Hippus. The Decapolis’ local stone quarries supplied cheaper materials than the fired clay bricks cemented into the later walls of Rome and Constantinople. While lower courses of Decapolis walls are often preserved, the upper courses are able only to be reconstructed through local Roman era numismatic depictions in the crowns of the poleis’ Tyche and a few stylized Byzantine mosaic portrayals.69 These suggest that the cities had circumferen- tial curtain walls surmounted by crenellations and periodic projecting towers that would have been typical of Roman and Byzantine era fortifications. In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, gods were worshipped in temples of the Decapolis cities and provided a sense of security. These deities depicted on the city coins in the Roman era show particular devotion to Zeus, Herakles, Dionysus, Astarte and almost always Tyche.70 With the conversion from polytheism to Christianity in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, the Decapolis cities continued to depend upon supernatural protection that is seen in the proliferation of church buildings. These physical structures were a part of the defense of the city that constituted “spiritual walls.” Benevolent saints whose venerated remains rested in reliquaries and graves in churches were believed to intercede with almighty God on behalf of suppliant citizens. Together the

67 Gabi Mazor, “Beit Shean, (Nysa-Scythopolis): The Byzantine Period: The City Wall in the Byzantine Period” http://www.israntique.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id+17&sub_subj_ id=326&id=652 accessed 5/15/2008. 68 Kevin Butcher, Roman Syria and the Near East. Los Angeles: Getty Museum, 2003. p. 243 69 Byzantine depictions of cities are preserved in ecclesiastical mosaics at Gerasa, the Madaba map and the mosaics from Umm er Rasas. See Glen W. Bowersock, Mosaics as History. Cam- bridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Pp. 81-83 for discussion of the accuracy of depictions. 70 See chart of deities on Decapolis coins in Wineland p.137.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 504504 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 R. SMITH 505

physical fortifications and spiritual fortifications of Decapolis cities were a valuable investment that helped to sustain a loyal prosperous citizenry until earthquakes and a cultural change crumbled Decapolis walls and churches.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAM, Jean-Pierre, Roman Building: Materials and Techniques. Trans. Anthony Mat- thews. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. ARUBAS, B. “The Impact of Town Planning at Scythopolis on the Topography of Tel Beth-Shean: A New Understanding of its fortifications and status.” Pp. 48-60 in Amihai Mazar, Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean, 1989-1996. Vol. 1. From the Late Bronze Age IIB to the Medieval Period. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2006. AUGE’, M. Christian “Divinites et Mythologies sur les Monnaies de la Decopole”, Le Monde de la Bible 22(1982):43-46. BOWERSOCK, G.W. Mosaics as History: The Near East from Late Antiquity to Islam. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. BOWSHER, Julian M.“Civic Organization within the Decapolis.” ARAM 4 (1992):265-281. BRAUN, J. P., I. KEHRBERG, and J. MANLEY. “The First Gerasa City Walls Excavations.” American Journal of Archaeology 105.3 (2001): 446-448. BUTCHER, Kevin. Roman Syria and the Near East. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003. COHEN, Getzel M. The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa. Berkley: University of California Press, 2006. —, “The letters IAAG on some coins of Abila and Gadara.” American Journal of Numismatics 10 (1998): 95-102. DEEDS, Amy. “A Preliminary Archaeological Report: Area F – The City Wall.” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 32/33 (1989):43-48. DEVER, William G. “Gezer” Pp. 396-400 in Eric P. Meyers, Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. New York: Oxford University Press. 2002. EISENBERG, Michael. The Fortifications of Hippos (Sussita) In Light of the Hellenistic- Roman City Fortifications in the Roman East, Unpublished MA thesis. University of Haifa; Haifa, 2003. HOFFMANN, A.R., “Churches, temples, high places, and a city wall. The 1997 season at Umm Qeis.” Occident and Orient 2.2 (1997):5-6. JONES, A.H.M. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. JOHNSON, Stephen. Late Roman Fortifications. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble, 1983. KEHRBERG, I. M. J. “Gerasa/Jerash City Wall Project: 2001 report.” AJA 106.3(2002):– —, “New Archaeological Finds for Dating of the Gerasa Roman City Wall.” ADAJ 45(2001):437-446. —, “La protegee du rampart de Gerasa.” Le Monde de la Bible 144(2002) KERNER, Susanne, “Umm Qais-Gadara: Recent Excavations.” ARAM 4 (1992): 407-423. KRAELING, Carl H. Gerasa: City of the Decapolis. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1938. LANDER, James. Roman Stone Fortifications: Variation and Change from the First Century A.D. to the Fourth. (British Archaeological Reports, International series no. 206). Oxford: Archeopress, 1984.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 505505 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 506 WALLS OF THE DECAPOLIS

LIEBESCHUETZ, J. H.W.G. Continuity and Change in Roman Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. LEWIN, A. Roman Urban defences in the East in Late Antiquity. The Case of the Negev” Pp. 267-275 in David H. Frend Ed. The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire. (BAR Intl. Series, 553). Oxford: Archaeopress, 1989. MACNICOLL, Anthony W. Hellenistic Fortifications from the Aegean to the Euphrates. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. MATHESON, Susan B. An Obsession with Fortune: Tyche in Greek and Roman Art. Yale University Art Gallery Bulletin 1994. MEYNERSEN, S. Felicia “The Tiberius Gate of Gadara (Umm Qays)” ADAJ 45 (2001):427- 432. MICHEL, Anne. Les Eglises D’Epoque Byzantine et Umayyade de la Jordanie Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2001. NETZER, Ehud. The Architecture of Herod the Great Builder. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. Northedge, A. “The fortifications of Qal’at al Amman (Amman Citadel): Preliminary Report.” ADAJ 27(1983):437-460. PARKER, S. Thomas. “Fortifications of the Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Periods” Pp.329-334 in Eric Meyers Ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. PICCIRILLO, Michele. The Mosaics of Jordan. Ed. Patricia Bikai. Amman: ACOR, 1993. PLATNER, Samuel Ball, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Rev. by Thomas Ashby. London: Oxford University Press, 1929. QASIM, Mohammad and Andreas Kropp, “Dion of the Decapolis: Tell al-Ash’ari in Southern Syria in the light of Ancient Documents and Recent Discoveries.” Levant 38 (2006): 125-144. RIGSBY, Kent J. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkley: University of California Press, 1996. SCHMITZ, Leonhard, “Pomoerium” pp.930-931 in William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. John Murray: London, 1875. SESTON, W. “Les murs, les portes e les tours des enceintes urbaines et le probleme des res sanctae en droit romain.” Pp. 1489-1498 in R. Chevallier ed. Melanges d’archaeologie et d’histoire offert a Andre Piganiol. Vol. 3. Paris: Speven, 1966. SEGAL, Arthur, From Function to Monument: Urban Landscapes of Roman Palestine, Syria and Provincia Arabia. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997. SEIGNE, Jacques. “Jerash romaine et Byzantine: Developpmente urbaine d’une ville provinciale orientale.” In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, 4(1992): 331-341. SINN, U. “Greek Sanctuaries as Places of Refuge,” Pp. 88-109 in Greek Sanctuaries, ed. Nanno Marinatos and Robin Haegg. New York: Routledge, 1993. SPERBER, Daniel. The City in Roman Palestine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. SPIJKERMAN, Augustus. The Coins of the Decapolis and Provinicia Arabia ed. Michele PICCIRILLO. (PSBF Coll. Maior XXV), Franciscan Printing Press: Jerusalem, 1978 VICTOR Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. S Applebaum Trans. Phila- delphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959. Pp. 90-116. VERMEULE, Cornelius Clarkson, “The Urban Tyche as an index of Numismatic Art in the Antonine and Severan Periods” Pp. 21-24 in Numismatic Art of the Greek Imperial World: Interactions between Rome, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, the Holy Land and Egypt. (Art of Antiquity 5.2) Cambridge: Boston Museum of Fine Art, 1986.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 506506 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 R. SMITH 507

WINELAND, John D. Ancient Abila: An Archaeological History. (BAR International Series, 989) Oxford: Archaeopress, 2001. WINTER, Frederick E. Greek Fortifications. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971. ZAIDMAN, Louise B. and Pauline Schmitt-Pantel. Religion in the Ancient Greek City. Trans. Paul Cartledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ZANKER, P. “The City as a symbol: Rome and the creation of an urban image.” Pp. 25-41 in E. Fentress Ed. Rome and the City: Creations, Transformations and Failures. (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 38), Portsmouth, RI: JRA, 2000.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 507507 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30 508 WALLS OF THE DECAPOLIS

Aerial view of the Early Roman walls & Gadara from the south. Courtesy Jane Taylor.

994097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd4097_ARAM_23_23_Smith.indd 508508 111/02/131/02/13 08:3008:30