It has already been noted that the tariff inscription of 137 refers to a number of rulings on tariffs levied at Palmyra made by governors of Roman Syria in the middle of the first century AD. These include those made by Cn. Corbulo, legatus pro praetore of Syria c. 60-63, and his successor Gaius Mucianus. The determination of tariffs at the instigation of Mucianus shows that during his period as legatus the schedule of tariffs was substantially approved by Rome.51 This, combined with the presence of a milestone of AD 75 from Erech, 27km north-east of Palmyra, is used
Figure 2.6 Boundary marker naming Creticus Silanus. From D. Schlumberger, ‘Bornes frontieres de la Palmyrene’, Syria 20, 1939, p. 60.
Either to confirm the formal inclusion of Palmyra in the provincial territory of Syria from the beginning of the first century AD or as an indication that it had taken place by the reign of Vespasian.52
The presence of the milestone is thought to be indicative of a Roman military road leading from Palmyra to the Euphrates serving as important evidence for Palmyra being firmly within Roman provincial territory by 75.53 Very little specific detail was provided on the circumstances of the milestone’s discovery and no trace of the road accompanying it has been found. The milestone marks 16 miles so it is probable that it was found close to its original location as Erech lies approximately 16 miles from Palmyra. The inscription is very fragmentary and reservations about its proposed reconstruction were expressed by the publishers, particularly about the length of the abbreviations.54 In its published form it appears reasonable to attribute the milestone to Marcus Ulpius Traianus, the father of the future emperor, when he was legatus of Syria.55
The proposed road is generally described as a military road that ran from Palmyra to Sura on the Euphrates, and this conclusion is used to indicate that Sura was a Roman fortification where the road is thought to have terminated.56 It is clear that considerable reliance has been placed on this piece of evidence as a means of building further on conclusions about Roman policy towards Palmyra and in the Near East more generally in the first century AD.
The claims of Pliny the Elder on the political status of Palmyra during the reign of Vespasian stand in direct contrast to these conclusions and they are generally discounted in modern scholarship as anachronistic. Writing in the reign of Vespasian and dedicating his work to Titus, Pliny provided a brief description of Palmyra in the Naturalis Historia. Palmyra was referred to in the context of Pliny’s description of the Euphrates, Mesopotamia and Arabia. It was, he said, ‘famous for its rich soil and plentiful springs’ (divitiis soli et aquis amoenis) and ‘its fields were surrounded on all sides by a vast circuit of sand’ (vasto undique ambitu harenis includit agros).57 Pliny specifically referred to the political status of Palmyra at this time and described it as ‘having a destiny of its own between the two empires of Rome and Parthia’ (private sorte inter duo imperia summa Romanorum Parthorumque).
Pliny’s claim is largely dismissed as anachronistic as it is held to be reliant on an earlier Augustan source.58 It is worth noting, however, that earlier in his description of the Euphrates and Syria, Pliny specifically refers to Cn. Domitius Corbulo and Gaius Mucianus, the Syrian governors coincidentally named in the tariff inscription, as his authorities on the source of the Euphrates.59 He clearly had access to their knowledge of the region, which must have been considerable. Corbulo died in ad 66, but he wrote extensive memoirs that were later used by both Tacitus and Dio and were undoubtedly available to Pliny.60 Mucianus was dead by the time Pliny’s work was published, meaning that Pliny either had access to his writings or more directly to his knowledge at an earlier time. Pliny’s possible sources on Palmyra and its relationship to the Roman Empire could not have been more contemporary. Further to this, the words ‘private sorte’ need not indicate that Palmyra was completely independent of Parthia and Rome but that its position was not clearly or officially defined. As argued earlier, this is part of an exotic literary portrayal of Palmyra in Pliny’s coverage of the Euphrates and Syria.
Figure 2.7 The grand colonnade at Palmyra with rear wall of theatre to the right.
The grand colonnade is thought to be Trajanic in date.
A reflection of this can also be seen in the works of Josephus. Writing towards the end of the first century AD, Josephus referred to Palmyra as a foundation of King Solomon, which is clearly a mythical claim, but it also develops a literary image of Palmyra as an exotic and fabled location.61 Josephus knew something of the contemporary culture in Palmyra when he noted that the Greeks called the city Palmyra and the Syrians called it
Figure 2.8 Rear section of a flanking arch to the main gateway to the grand colonnade at Palmyra.
Thadamora (Tadmor). Josephus is emphasizing here the influence of Hellenism on Palmyra, combined with the ongoing strength of local Semitic culture. The large number of bilingual inscriptions in Greek and Palmyrene from Palmyra demonstrate that Josephus was correct in his claims and that these important elements of Palmyrene culture were well known.
World History
