The nature of the relationship between Rome and Palmyra in this period is problematic and in modern scholarship there is considerable debate about it.7 There are varying hypotheses, which range from Palmyra’s inclusion in the province of Syria under Pompey, to its annexation to the empire early in the reign of Tiberius, to its establishment as a tributary city under Tiberius or its integration into the province of Syria under Vespasian. Some conclude that it is more appropriate to see Palmyra under Roman influence rather than under formal control in the first century AD, suggesting that it retained a level of semi-independence at this time.8 The debate has implications for the nature of Roman control of territory to Palmyra’s east, particularly on the Euphrates, as epigraphic evidence indicates a Palmyrene presence at a number of sites on the river late in the first century AD. If Palmyra was formally included in the province of Syria in the first century AD it is a reasonable proposition that the empire extended power to sites on the middle Euphrates below Dura at which Palmyrenes had a strong presence. If the arrangement was less formal than this, Roman power on this section of the middle Euphrates is more difficult to define.
The conclusion of Henri Seyrig in an important article published during the Second World War was that Palmyra had lost its independence by the reign of Tiberius and was annexed to the empire.9 In drawing this conclusion, Seyrig saw Palmyra as being included in the province of Syria. This conclusion has been influential ever since and those supporting it have attempted to expand knowledge of the events using epigraphy and archaeology while discounting claims made in ancient literature.10 The suggestion that Palmyra was a tributary city of the Romans from the reign of Tiberius was initially made by Mommsen, with the Semitic language expert G. A. Cooke concurring.11 This position is also held by two of Palmyra’s most distinguished excavators.12 There are some who assert that Palmyra was within the province of Syria as early as Pompey’s formation of the province, with one claiming that the Temple of Bel was constructed later to celebrate the event.13 More cautious assessments hold that Palmyra was within the sphere of Roman influence in the reign of Tiberius, with the Flavian period providing firmer evidence for Palmyra’s inclusion in the province of Syria.14
In all, the evidence used to support most current theories on the relationship between Rome and Palmyra in the first century AD is much more problematic than is generally admitted in scholarship. It is important to consider this evidence in some detail and to admit the possibility of other theories. One such theory is that the good relations that existed between Rome and Palmyra from the early first century AD, and probably earlier, did not necessitate a Roman military presence at the city during that time. There was not the necessity to annex territory due to revolts or suspicions over loyalty as was often the case with the client-kingdoms further to the west. The Palmyrenes knew that a good relationship with Rome was essential to continued economic success, and Rome sought the regular supply of luxury goods from the East without being directly involved in the protection of trade itself. Roman power and influence at Palmyra was, therefore, expressed in terms other than those of a military nature, meaning that the evidence is often more subtle and potentially ambiguous. Rome came to exercise power through the institutions of government that developed at Palmyra and this is shown most clearly in the way Rome controlled Palmyra’s tariff structure. It was, therefore, an economic imperative that drove the relationship between Rome and Palmyra at this stage, rather than a military one. It is in this context that the question of how Palmyra was controlled by Rome in the first century AD should be asked, and how this relationship evolved in the second century.
World History
