ARAM, 23 (2011) 211-251. doi: 10.2143/ARAM.23.0.2959658 ROMAN HIPPO-STADIA: THE “HIPPODROME” OF GERASA RECONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF THE HERODIAN HIPPO-STADIUM OF CAESAREA MARITIMA Prof. JOSEPH PATRICH (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) On terminology: The composite term hippo-stadium was coined by John Humphrey to denote a small, stadium-size hippodrome, like the Herodian multi-purpose entertainment structure of Caesarea Maritima (Fig. 1).1 The U-shaped entertainment structure of Gerasa (Fig. 2), dubbed “hippodrome” when published,2 is even smaller, and likewise it was multi-purpose, serving for both gymnika and hippika. Hence it was classified by Humphrey in one group, together with the hippodrome of Neapolis (Fig. 3).3 The Herodian stadia (Table 1),4 where horse and chariot races were also held as well, preceded these structures by a century and a half. The most elaborate among them was 1 The full term coined is: ‘Amphitheatrical’ Hippo-Stadia: J. Humphrey, “Amphitheatrical’ Hippo-Stadia,” in: A. Raban and K. G. Holum (eds.), Caesarea Maritima. A retrospective after two millennia (Leiden–New York–Köln 1996), pp. 121-129. 2 E.B. Müller, II. The Hippodrome, in: C.H. Kraeling, Gerasa. City of the Decapolis, New Haven 1938, pp. 85-100. In his opus magnum: Roman Circuses, Arenas for Chariot Races, Lon- don 1986, pp. 495-504, Humphrey noted (p. 498) that it is the smallest hippodrome on record in the empire. 3 So far this is the only stadium, apart from those in Caesarea Maritima and Gerasa, in which starting gates (carceres) for chariot races were found. The Roman stadia of Gadara (early third c. CE, but seemingly never completed) and Scythopolis (second c. CE), both cities of the Decapolis, might have also belonged to the hippo-stadia group, but so far no starting gates have been found there, hence their inclusion in the group of hippo-stadia rather than being simply stadia is uncertain. However, arenas of regular stadia, serving athletics, were just 30 m (ca. 100 feet) wide or less; while hippo-stadia had an arena ca. 50 m wide. The arena at Scythopolis was 48 m wide, and blocks that may be attributed to the far turning post (meta prima) suggest that the structure there was indeed a hippo-stadium (see below). In addition, make-shift mechanism (mangenon in Gr.) for starting gates could be easily installed in a stadium for an occasion (Humphrey, supra note 1, p. 124). A stadium, not yet explored, also existed in Philippopolis (Shahba) in Arabia. Agonistic inscriptions and literary sources also record athletic contests in Philadelphia, Gaza, Askalon, and Caesarea Philippi (in addition to Caesarea Maritima and Scythopolis). See Aupert and Callot, infra note 56, pp. 186-89. For Gaza see: Ch. Wallner, “ Zur Agonistik von Gaza,” Zeitschrift des Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135 (2001), pp. 125-135; Z. Weiss, “Games and Spectacles in Ancient Gaza: Performances for the Masses held in Buildings now Lost,” in: B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky (eds.), Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity, Leiden and Boston 2004, pp. 23-40. 4 J. Patrich, “Herodian Entertainment Structures”, in: D.M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos (eds.), Herod and Augustus. [Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st–23rd June 2005, Leiden – Boston 2009, pp. 181-213, 455-467. 94097_ARAM_23_11_Patrich.indd 211 11/02/13 08:21 212 ROMAN HIPPO-STADIA that of Caesarea Maritima, U-shaped as well.5 A more detailed comparative study of the group as a whole will permit us to trace the architectural evolution in time within this typological group since Herodian times into the second and third centuries. In fact, such a study is a desideratum, since more than sixty-five years have elapsed since archaeological works had started in the hippodrome of Gerasa, being the first of its sort to be uncovered in our region. Since then other hippo-stadia have been excavated, increasing our data-base for such a study. That of Gerasa is the best preserved; that of Caesarea is the most thoroughly excavated. One may elucidate points absent in the other. A reconsideration of the Gerasa hippo-stadium in the framework of such a comparative study can also solve the enigma of the underground structure in the arena there, and also the question of whether a solid barrier existed in the small hippodromes. A small hippodrome is not a Roman circus, in spite of the fact that both have starting gates. The Circus Maximus had an arena of 580 ≈ 79 m. It was narrower than the hippodrome of Olympia,6 the length of which was ca. 3 stadia (540 m), affording 48 or even 60 chariots to compete abreast.7 Both structures, and many other Roman circuses inspired by the Circus Maximus (see Table 2), were much larger than the Hellenistic and Roman stadia of the East (see appended Tables 3-7). The dimensions determined the sort and scale of the races; in a Roman circus (or in the hippodrome of Olympia) the racecourse was much longer per lap and more chariots could be accommodated in a more spacious venue. The greater distance separating the actual events and the spec- tators was compensated for by other means, such as more opulent decorations and more crowded events. The moderate dimensions set the small hippodromes of the East as a group apart, different from the large Roman circuses on the one hand, and from other stadia types (see below), where no chariot races were 5 Y. Porath, “Herod’s ‘amphitheatre’ at Caesarea: a multipurpose entertainment building,” in J. H. Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East: some recent archaeological research [Journal of Roman archaeology supplement series 14], Ann Arbor, MI 1995, 15–27; idem., “Herod’s ‘amphitheater’ at Caesarea (preliminary notice),” ‘Atiqot 25 (1995) 11*–19*; idem., “Herod’s ‘amphitheater’ at Caesarea,” Qadmoniot 29/112 (1996) 93–99 (Hebrew); idem, “Theatre, Racing and Athletic Installations in Caesarea,” Qadmoniot 36/125 (2003), pp. 25-42 (Hebrew); J. Patrich, “The Carceres of the Herodian Hippodrome/Stadium at Caesarea Maritima and con- nections with the Circus Maximus,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 14 (2001), pp. 269-283; idem, “Herod’s Hippodrome / Stadium at Caesarea and the Games Conducted Therein”, in L.V. Rutgers (ed.), What has Athens to Do with Jerusalem. Essays in Honor of Gideon Foerster, Leuven 2002, pp. 29-68; idem., “More on the Hippodrome-Stadium of Caesarea Maritima: a response to the comments of Y. Porath,” JRA 16 (2003), pp. 456-459; idem, “On Circus Carceres and a third farfetched hypothesis. Comments on Y. Porath’s article in Qadmoniot 125 ‘Theatre, Racing and Athletic Installations in Caesarea’,” Qadmoniot 36, no. 126 (2003), pp. 119-120 (Hebrew). See also idem, Studies in the Archaeology and History of Caesarea Maritima: Caput Judaeae, Metropolis Palaestinae, Leiden-Boston 2011, pp. 177-204. 6 Humphrey, supra note 2 (1986), pp. 132-294. 7 Humphrey, supra note 2 (1986), pp. 6-11; H.A. Harris, “The starting gates for chariots at Olympia,” Greece and Rome 15 (1968) 113–26. 94097_ARAM_23_11_Patrich.indd 212 11/02/13 08:21 J. PATRICH 213 held, on the other. The study of ancient entertainment structures should not remain a stagnant field. Applying the term hippo-stadium reflects the advance- ment in the study of sports and entertainment structures in their cultural setting at large, resulting from new archaeological discoveries like the one in Caesarea Maritima. Such terminology permits a more precise discussion and gives expres- sion to more refined argumentation. The general terms ‘hippodrome’ and ‘stadium’ are too simplistic and general; they became imprecise and anach- ronistic. The composite term ‘hippodrome/stadium’, or in short hippo-stadium acknowledges the appropriate architectural affiliation between both, and its dual function as both hippodrome and stadium. It also acknowledges the differences between the composite structure and a fully fledged hippodrome / circus on the one hand, and a regular stadium on the other. Naming such structures ‘circuses’8 fails to recognize all these features. We are not dealing with a barren terminology here; it conveys different cultural affiliations – either to the agones in the stadia of the Greek speaking Hellenistic east, or to the Latin imperial Circus Maximus of Rome. The cultural settings were decisively different.9 The date: The Herodian hippo-stadium of Caesarea was inaugurated in 10/9 BCE. E.B. Müller, who was in charge of the publishing of the Anglo- American excavations at the hippodrome of Gerasa in the late twenties and early thirties of the last century, had suggested that the structure was built in the late second or early third c., and might never have been completed, and that in any case it was later than the triumphal arch (erected in 129-130),10 while Horsefield preferred a date antedating the triumphal arch by sixty or seventy years.11 After further excavations from the 1960’s to the 1990’s, Ostrasz dated the construction to the second half of the second c., being completed before 212 CE – a terminus ante quem given by four inscriptions on incense altars that stood on top of the carceres, one of which is datable to 209-212 AD.12 Ostrasz’s date is based on a more refined pottery reading, hence it should be 8 As Y. Porath is doing in some of his publications, such as: Herod’s Circus at Caesarea: a response to J. Patrich (JRA 14, 269-83), JRA 16 (2003), pp. 451-55, and in the title of his forth- coming Final Report: Y. Porath et al., Herod’s Circus at Caesarea Maritima. 9 On the differences between chariot races à la Olympia and à la Circus Maximus see Patrich, supra note 5 (2002), pp.