1374-08_Anc_Soc38_08_Mahieu 30-10-2008 15:03 Pagina 183 THE FOUNDATION YEAR OF SAMARIA-SEBASTE AND ITS CHRONOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS* Abstract: This paper considers the foundation year of Samaria-Sebaste and the implications it has for the chronology of some related events. In doing so, a new time setting will be proposed for three topics: 1) the grant of Trachonitis, Batanea and Auranitis; 2) the Syrian governors Varro and Cicero the Younger; and 3) the departure of Alexander and Aristobulus IV for Rome. 1. THE FOUNDATION YEAR OF SAMARIA-SEBASTE The historical background of Sebaste’s foundation In 40 BC, Antony and Octavian proclaimed Herod king (B.J. I 282- 285; A.J. XIV 377-389), but Herod was principally Antony’s ally. When Octavian defeated Antony at the Battle of Actium on 2 September 31 BC1, Herod found himself in a precarious position. Tactfully, he rendered him- self to Rhodes to submit himself to Octavian2. He openly confessed his former loyalty to Antony and expressed his hope for Octavian’s good- will (B.J. I 386-390; A.J. XV 187-193). Octavian appreciated Herod’s sincerity and thus confirmed him in his rule (B.J. I 391-393; A.J. XV 194-195). When Octavian had captured Alexandria on 1 August 30 BC3, Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide soon thereafter4. In the aftermath, Herod rendered himself to Egypt where Octavian conferred several favours upon Herod, among which was the grant of Samaria (B.J. I 396-397; A.J. XV 217)5. In recognition of Octavian’s benefits, Herod decided to rebuild the * The present study is part of my paper «The Conventional Chronology of Herod the Great: Rock or Sand?», presented at the Josephus Colloquium Flavius Josephus: Author, Editor or Historian?, held at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Human- ities and Social Sciences, Wassenaar, 2-4 June 2008. 1 The Actian campaign took place when Messalla and Caesar were consuls (Dio Cassius L 10.2) = 31 BC (SAMUEL, Chronology, p. 267). Augustus’ victory took place on 2 September (Dio Cassius LI 1.1). 2 Octavian stayed on Rhodes in the first half of 30 BC: FITZLER & SEECK, Augustus, col. 333. 3 KIENAST, Kaisertabelle, p. 62. 4 FITZLER & SEECK, Augustus, col. 335-336; SCHÜRER, History I, p. 302. 5 The exact significance of Samaria’s grant is unclear given that Herod possessed Samaria already before (B.J. I 213, 229, 302, 344; A.J. XIV 284, 411, 413, 467; Appian, Bell. civ. V 75, see OTTO, Herodes I, col. 18). Several proposals have been made in order to explain this apparent contradiction. OTTO, Herodes I, col. 49, 55, proposes that the grant Ancient Society 38, 183-196. doi: 10.2143/AS.38.0.2033275 © 2008 by Ancient Society. All rights reserved. 1374-08_Anc_Soc38_08_Mahieu 30-10-2008 15:03 Pagina 184 184 B. MAHIEU city Samaria and to dedicate it to Octavian-Augustus, changing its name into Sebaste (B.J. I 403; A.J. XV 292-298, Greek Sebastóv = Latin Augustus). The year of Sebaste’s foundation As to the foundation date of Sebaste, it certainly happened after 16 January 27 BC, the day Octavian received the title Augustus6. Numismatic evidence helps to fix the foundation year more precisely7: (1) The Roman emperor Commodus (180-192 AD) minted in year 216 of the local Sebastian era. Commodus was assassinated on 31 December 192 AD8. Therefore, year one of Sebaste started at the latest in 24 BC (215 years earlier). (2) In year 226 of the local Sebastian era, the Roman emperor Caracalla (198-211 AD) — who ruled contemporaneously with his father Septim- ius Severus (193-211 AD) — issued a coin very similar to a die used on the occasion of Sebaste’s becoming a Roman colony, which thus seems to have happened in the year 226. It is not known for sure in which AD year Sebaste became a colony. As Septimius Severus stayed in the Syr- ian province in the summer of 199 AD and again from late 200 AD until early 2029, the years 199 and 201 seem possible. If it was in 199 AD, year one of Sebaste would start in 27 BC (225 years earlier); if in 201, year one would start in 25 BC. Most scholars opt for a foundation in 27 BC because Herod likely ded- icated the city to Augustus shortly after Octavian had received the title Augustus10. Only some scholars prefer the year 25 BC11. The latter option signifies the abolition of tribute which Herod had paid for Samaria until then (Appian, Bell. civ. V 75). SCHALIT, Herodes, p. 161, 162 n. 64, argues that somewhere between 39 and 30 BC Samaria was given to Cleopatra and then remitted to Herod in 30 BC. JONES, Review, p. 229-230, tries to solve the dilemma by suggesting that Herod received the region Samaria in 39 BC but the city Samaria in 30. 6 FITZLER & SEECK, Augustus, col. 343; KIENAST, Kaisertabelle, p. 63. 7 BARAG, Castle, p. 16 n. 6. 8 KIENAST, Kaisertabelle, p. 148. 9 SPIELVOGEL, Severus, p. 120-122, 127-129. 10 OTTO, Herodes I, col. 53-54 n. *, 76-77 and n. *; HAEFELI, Cäsarea, p. 9; SCHALIT, Herodes, p. 358; SMALLWOOD, Jews, p. 77 n. 55; PRAUSE, Herodes, p. 354; GÜNTHER, Herodes, p. 258; WHITE, Herod, p. 376. BARAG, Castle, p. 16 n. 6, favours the year 27 BC because Severus gave Eleutheropolis (Beth Govrin, Idumea) and Diospolis (Lod, Judea) the titles L(enkía) Sep(timía) Seou(ría) in 199 or in 199/200 AD. Analogously, Severus would have made Sebaste a colony in 199 AD, which implies a foundation in 27 BC. 11 BMC 27, p. xxxix, noting that Severus’ foundation of Tyre likely dates to 201 AD; SCHÜRER, History I, p. 290 («25?»); I, p. 290-291 n. 9 (referring to the possibility of 27 BC, but finally opting for 25 BC); II, p. 163 («probably 25 B.C.»); SARTRE, Alexandre, p. 531. 1374-08_Anc_Soc38_08_Mahieu 30-10-2008 15:03 Pagina 185 THE FOUNDATION YEAR OF SAMARIA-SEBASTE 185 is sometimes influenced by Josephus’ statement in A.J. XV 299: «Now in this (same) year, which was the thirteenth of Herod’s reign, the greatest hardships came upon the country» (translation by Marcus and Wikgren). Given that the preceding passage A.J. XV 292-298 relates the foundation of Samaria-Sebaste, «in this (same) year» would imply that the founda- tion happened in Herod’s thirteenth year. Scholars assume that Herod’s years were reckoned from Nisan (March/April) 37 BC12, so that Herod’s thirteenth year is interpreted as the year Nisan 25/24 BC13. Thus, Samaria- Sebaste’s foundation would have happened in 25 BC. On the other hand, those who date Sebaste’s foundation to 27 BC assign only the hardships to the thirteenth year (and not Sebaste’s foundation)14. It seems indeed unjustified to prefer the year 25 BC above the year 27 BC merely on the basis of the expression katà toÕton mèn oŒn tòn êniautón in A.J. XV 299. With the majority of scholars, I adhere to the year 27 BC. The implications of this choice — in difference with Schürer’s option for the year 25 — will be worked out in the next sections. 2. THE GRANT OF TRACHONITIS, BATANEA AND AURANITIS A grant «after the first Actiad» According to the Jewish Antiquities, Alexander and Aristobulus IV15 were sent to Rome after Samaria-Sebaste had been founded (A.J. XV 342) and before Augustus granted the districts of Trachonitis, Batanea and Auranitis to Herod (A.J. XV 343). The Jewish War situates this grant «after the first period of the Actian era» (B.J. I 398 metà dè t®n prÉtjn ˆAktiáda, translation by Thackeray)16. Augustus’ victory at Actium on 2 September 31 BC was commemorated by quadrennial games17. Similar to an Olympiad, an Actiad was the period of four years between the games. Schürer makes the following assumptions: (1) the first Actian Games were held in September 28 BC (with subsequent games in 24, 20, 12 SCHÜRER, History I, p. 326-328 n. 165. 13 SCHÜRER, History I, p. 291. 14 OTTO, Herodes I, col. 76-77 and n. *. Otto adds still another possibility: the thirteenth year may refer to the completion of Sebaste in 25 BC (with work starting in 27 BC). CORBISHLEY, Chronology, p. 25, proposes that the thirteenth year for Sebaste’s foundation was reckoned from Herod’s nomination as king in 40 BC: 40 BC – 28/27 BC, but the hard- ships’ thirteenth year from Herod’s capture of Jerusalem in 37 BC: 37 BC – 25/24 BC. 15 Alexander and Aristobulus IV were sons of Herod by his second wife Mariamme I: SCHÜRER, History I, p. 321, 614. 16 Whiston translates «on the completion of the first Actiad». 17 Strabo, Geogr. VII 7.6; Suetonius, Aug. 18.2; Dio Cassius LI 1.2, 18.1. 1374-08_Anc_Soc38_08_Mahieu 30-10-2008 15:03 Pagina 186 186 B. MAHIEU 16, etc.) and (2) the counting of Actiads started with the first Actian Games. Thus, the first Actiad would correspond to the period September 28 BC – September 24 BC. The grant of territories took place after that four-year cycle: at the end of 24 BC or at the start of 23 BC18. Nevertheless, it seems that the first Actian Games were held in September 27 BC (four years after the Battle of Actium) rather than in 28 BC19. Moreover, the Actiads were probably reckoned from the Battle of Actium itself instead of from the first Actian Games, especially as no era starts at the first games, while there is the well-known Actian era of 31 BC20 (attested even in Josephus: A.J.