Inscriptions referring to Germanicus
Three inscriptions discovered at Palmyra provide some interesting detail on Germanicus’ visit to Syria in AD18/19 and are held to be significant in drawing conclusions about Roman control over Palmyra from this time. One inscription shows that statues were raised to Tiberius, Drusus and Germanicus by the legatus of Legio X Fretensis in the Temple of Bel and another shows that Germanicus sent an envoy named Alexandros to Mesene, a kingdom in the Persian Gulf. The third reference comes from
Figure 2.2 Sculpted sarcophagus from a tower tomb and hypogeum of the second century AD.
The tariff law inscription dating to the last year of Hadrian’s reign in which part of the law was described as having been approved earlier by Germanicus.22
The cella of the Temple of Bel is thought to have been constructed between ad19 and 32, with the statues and dedicatory inscription honouring the imperial family put up during this period.23 The temple was clearly a central point of worship and occupied an important focal point for the city. The presence of Roman imperial statues in Palmyra’s most important shrine represents an honour to both Rome and Palmyra and demonstrates clearly that relations between the two were good, but it is difficult to establish how their presence reflects the nature of Roman control over Palmyra at this time. As a point of comparison Isaac points out that a temple of the Augusti existed in Vologesias in Parthia and that this can hardly imply that the Parthians were in some way under Roman control.24
The inscription that refers to the dispatch of Alexandros on an embassy to the king of Mesene was put up in Palmyrene only and was designed to honour Alexandros himself.25 We have no knowledge of the nature of the embassy on which Alexandros was sent, but it indicates Roman recognition of Palmyra’s trading connections with the kingdoms of the Persian Gulf - Mesene and Characene being the most important. Connections between Palmyra and Characene, with its capital at Spasinou Charax, were particularly important to Palmyra’s development as a successful trading entity. Characene had established independence from the Seleucid Empire in 127bc and the kingdom was able to maintain a considerable degree of independence of the Parthians.26 The first and early second centuries AD saw Palmyrene merchant colonies (fonduqs) established in southern Mesopotamia and it is thought that these colonies survived until the middle of the third century AD.27 The importance of both Characene and
Figure 2.3 The cella of the Temple of Bel dedicated in AD 32.
Mesene to the caravan traffic crossing the desert from the Euphrates to Palmyra was vital to the growing wealth of Palmyra in the first and second centuries AD. It has been suggested that Palmyra maintained a level of independence of Rome in a similar manner to the independence that Characene was able to maintain from Parthia. D. T. Potts summarizes this similarity and the reasons for it well:
In many ways the positions of Palmyra and Spasinou Charax were strikingly comparable. Each city existed with remarkable financial independence in the shadow of a more powerful neighbour, Palmyra in the shadow of Rome, Spasinou Charax in the shadow of Parthia. Both of those powers of whom it was said by Pompeius Trogus that they divided the world between them (Justin 41.1.1), recognized that a laisser-faire [sic] attitude towards these trading centres would be more profitable than a heavy-handed attempt at imposing too rigid controls on them.28
The mission of Alexandros to the Persian Gulf is reflective of this approach.29 A local Palmyrene was sent on the embassy rather than an individual more immediately connected with the Roman imperial
Figure 2.4 Inscription on base dedicating statues to Tiberius, Drusus and Germani-cus in the Temple of Bel. From H. Seyrig, ‘L’incorporation de Palmyre a I’empire romain’, Syria 13, 1932, p. 275.
Authority. Over the following century both Palmyra and the kingdoms of the Gulf profited due to Roman demand for the products passing through them, and the good relations that each enjoyed with Rome were important with regard to this.30
The third inscription from Palmyra that refers to Germanicus is the tariff law inscription and it indicates that a ruling on the tariff on animals for slaughter was made by Germanicus through the Roman procurator in Syria.31 The tariff law inscription dates to 137 and was a codification of existing tariff conventions, together with the establishment of new ones. The inscription lists tariffs on some products in a new law and others as they existed under the old law. The old tariff list shows that the Romans set or approved some tariff levels in the first century AD. The earliest of these to be attested is that made by Germanicus, and during the reign of Nero the inscription indicates that Rome was largely responsible for the establishment of the tariff structure at Palmyra through a ruling of the legatus pro praetore of Syria, Gaius Mucianus.32 It was in the context of the ruling by Mucianus that the earlier ruling of Germanicus was referred to.33 The tariff law, as it was presented in a new form and brought together in its old form under Hadrian, demonstrates a history of Roman involvement in the tariff structure at Palmyra from as early as Germanicus’ presence in the East.
Rome’s commercial interest in Palmyra is shown no more clearly than in this inscription. Palmyra was to become the most important commercial centre in the Roman Near East at a time when trade throughout the whole region was increasing due to demand from all over the Roman Empire.34 As a result of this, the tariffs charged on the products that passed through Palmyra on their way to the markets of the empire had the potential to impact significantly on the prices paid by the purchasers of these products. Tariff charges were added to the cost of products and became an important factor in the determination of final prices. Roman rulings on tariffs charged at Palmyra served to limit the amount that could be charged in an attempt to control prices. This point is illustrated clearly in the discussion of the tariff inscription below.
In the case of all three inscriptions that refer to Germanicus it is possible to show that the Romans exercised power and influence at Palmyra from the early first century AD, but it is difficult to see how any of them indicate that Palmyra was formally included in Roman provincial territory or that Palmyra was a tributary city. Palmyra could not be described as independent of Rome on the basis of these inscriptions, but dependence and independence take many forms and occur at varying levels. When Pliny and Appian referred to Palmyra in later times, they emphasized for literary purposes the unusual status Palmyra enjoyed. As Potts points out, this was a status that was beneficial to its ability to benefit from trade.
It is also important to consider the wider context of Germanicus’ mission in the East and his dealings with Palmyra demonstrated in the inscriptions. Germanicus was sent on a mission to the East early in the reign of Tiberius. This was ostensibly to deal with issues in Armenia, but there were other purposes not specifically spelled out. Tiberius clearly thought that a Roman imperial presence was required in Asia Minor and Syria, but he disapproved of Germanicus’ visit to Egypt.35 Germanicus began by settling a dispute in Armenia with the crowning of the king of Pontus, Zeno, as king of Armenia.36 He also installed governors in the new provinces of Cappadocia and Commagene.37 These actions were associated with the ongoing struggle between Rome and Parthia for control and influence in Armenia. Germanicus moved on to Cyrrhus, the base of Legio X Fretensis, where he met the governor of the province of Syria, Cn. Calpurnius Piso, with whom he would later have a serious falling out.38 His dealings with the Palmyrenes probably took place at this stage of the mission, as the dedicatory inscription of the legatus of Legio X Fretensis in the Bel enclosure indicates. At Cyrrhus, Germanicus received envoys from the king of Parthia in response to an earlier embassy. Tacitus told the story of a banquet given by the Nabataean king in honour of Germanicus at which Piso is reported to have behaved inappropriately.39 It is unclear if the banquet took place at Cyrrhus, or at one of the Nabataean cities such as Petra or Bostra.40 If it took place at Petra, Germanicus may have visited Palmyra between his departure from Cyrrhus and his arrival in the Nabataean kingdom, but the three inscriptions do not indicate that Ger-manicus visited Palmyra himself.41 Following his visit to Cyrrhus, German-icus travelled to Egypt, without the necessary authority, before returning to Syria where he fell ill and died at Antioch.
During his mission in the East, Germanicus dealt with regions such as Armenia and the Nabataean kingdom, perhaps on a closer level than he dealt with Palmyra. These areas were influenced by Rome, but clearly were not within Roman provincial territory at this time. Germanicus’ organization of provinces out of client-kingdoms, which was related to the problems in Armenia, took place on the upper Euphrates. This organization was to continue for much of the first century, with Commagene reinstated as a client-kingdom under Caligula and Claudius but incorporated into the province of Syria under Vespasian.42 When Germanicus visited Cyrrhus in Syria, there was no need for provincial organization in Arabia or central Syria as relations with the Nabataeans and the Palmyrenes were clearly good. There is also no mention in the sources of the Emesenes at the time of Germanicus’ visit, but the kings of Emesa continued to rule as client-kings until at least the reign of Vespasian. It is difficult, therefore, to conclude that Palmyra was part of the province of Syria using the evidence of the inscriptions when the historical context of Germanicus’ visit is taken into account.
Boundary markers
The discovery of a boundary marker that identified the boundaries of regio Palmyrena at the time in which Creticus Silanus was legatus of Syria is another piece of evidence used to suggest that Palmyra became a part of Roman provincial territory early in the first century AD.43 The boundary marker was found 75 km north-west of Palmyra at Khirbet el-Bilaas in the general direction of Epiphania (modern Hama) and is dated ad153.44 The inscription indicating the boundary refers to an earlier restoration of the boundaries of the region of Palmyra under Hadrian in accordance with how they had been set by Creticus Silanus. Creticus Silanus was governor of Syria prior to the appointment of Piso to the office, and his term came to an end just before the arrival of Germanicus in the East.45 The establishment of the boundaries of regio Palmyrena, therefore, predated Germanicus’ arrival. The boundary marker’s attribution of the establishment of the boundaries to Creticus Silanus almost 150 years later indicates that it is unlikely that Ger-manicus undertook any territorial reorganization with regard to Palmyra.
Another boundary marker published by Schlumberger was found 60 km west-south-west of Palmyra at Qasr el-Heir West.46 Qasr el-Heir West lies 60 km south of Khirbet el-Bilaas. The marker indicated the boundary between Hadriana Palmyra and Emesa.47 The inscription dates to the reign of Hadrian, or later, as Palmyra took the name of Hadrian after his visit to the city c. 129/130. It is possible that this inscription indicates the earlier establishment of a boundary at Qasr el-Heir West in a similar way to that indicated on the inscription from Khirbet el-Bilaas, but it does not refer to an earlier boundary.
The establishment of the boundary of regio Palmyrena indicates that Rome had the power to mark the boundaries of Palmyra early in the first century AD, and it is important to consider the likely purpose of marking such a boundary. Firstly, the establishment of these boundaries was equally important in marking the boundaries of the region to the west of
Figure 2.5 Khirbet el-Bilaas. From D. Schlumberger, ‘Bornes frontieres de la Palmyrene’, Syria 20, 1939, p. 46.
Palmyra, namely the kingdom of Emesa. Emesa was not a formal part of Roman provincial territory in the early decades of the first century AD as it was a client-kingdom of Rome, persisting through most of the first century AD.48 It was not until at least the last decades of the first century ad that it is thought to have been brought under formal Roman control and included in the province of Syria.49 On this basis, Millar concludes that in the early first century AD Emesa ‘must have represented a zone which the Roman forces did not occupy, and where the Roman Empire did not raise taxes’.50 There is no reason to suggest that the situation at Palmyra, even further to the east than Emesa, was any different.
World History
