THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PALESTINE

63 BCE—CE 70

The period under discussion coincides roughly with what is usually called the Early Roman or Herodian period.1 While the former term is quite accurate and somewhat neutral, the latter is rather more appropriate. Our period bears the sharp imprint of Herod and his dynastic successors, who ruled the country from 3 7 BCE onward. Unlike many periods bearing the names of a monarch, but actually owing very little to him (e. g. ‘Edwardian’), many of the features of the Herodian period were indeed shaped by Herod himself — the greatest builder in the history of Palestine and one of the outstanding builders of all antiquity. Herod introduced new styles and building methods into the country and built on a monumental scale and to an unparalleled extent: cities, fortresses, palaces, a large harbour and the most magnificent building ever to be built in Palestine, the Jerusalem temple complex. Many of these monuments which were preserved because of their size or sacred character (e. g. the Temple Mount, the Cave of Machpelah) or because of their location in desert areas, where the remoteness and climate ensured their survival (e. g. Masada) have given us a better knowledge of the Herodian period than of any other period in the history of the country.

The beginning of modern research into this period was ushered in by the explorations of the American scholar Edward Robinson who, as early as 1838, noted in Jerusalem the skewback of an Herodian arch, now bearing his name, and correctly identified remains of the ‘Third Wall’ as well as the sites of Masada, Herodion and others. The Frenchman F. de Saulcy was the first to excavate in Jerusalem, clearing the so-called Tombs of the Kings in 1854, and in 1864 the British Charles Wilson began his series of soundings around the Temple Mount, thus initiating the modern scientific approach. Archaeological activity has hardly stopped ever since.

Archaeological research on this period owes much to the wealth of contemporaneous literary sources, especially the writings of Flavius

For a comparison of various chronological systems see P. W. Lapp, Palestinian Ceramic Chronology 200 bc—ad 70 (1961), p. 4, n. 20; J. F. Strange, ‘The Capernaum and Herodion Publications’, BASOR 226 (1977), 66.

Fig. I. I Building projects within Herod’s kingdom.

Josephus. Josephus meticulously described the monuments of his time (e. g. Jerusalem on the eve of Titus’ siege) and particularly the Herodian building projects (thirty-one in all, including nine outside his kingdom),2 in many cases giving detailed and exact descriptions. Research has confirmed much of the data provided by Josephus; these descriptions did not consist simply of materials derived from the author’s memory, but were to a large extent based on written sources, sketches and plans. The description of Jerusalem or of the fortress of Masada could not have been written by a man who had been away from his country for many years unless he had had recourse to written documents. It is highly probable that Josephus, owing to his status in the imperial court, had free access to the archives of the Roman army. One glaring exception to Josephus’ accuracy almost invariably emerges when he cites population numbers, his gross exaggeration being typical of most classical authors.3 To a lesser extent, though the material is still of great value, much can be drawn from Talmudic literature, e. g. on the Jerusalem Temple (see chap. 2). Further data are found in contemporary Greek and Latin authors.4

I JERUSALEM

Jerusalem was a spacious city already at the beginning of our period, and by its end it had more than doubled in size. The ‘First Wall’, probably begun by Jonathan in c. 144 bce and completed by his brother Simeon in 141 bce, encompassed an area of 65 hectares (160 acres). By ce 70 the city’s area, including the new suburbs enclosed by the ‘Third Wall’, had reached 170 hectares (425 acres). The population on the eve of the siege numbered about 80,000.5 During this period the city underwent far-reaching changes. The Temple was rebuilt upon a huge new platform, which expanded the sacred area to 14.4 hectares (36 acres), the largest single temple complex in the the Classical World. It formed the dominant feature of the townscape, and not merely by its sheer size (about a sixth of the city during most of the period).6 Two fortresses were raised: the

Fig. 1.2 Temple Mount, the largest temple complex in the classical world.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Antonia on the north-east side of the city and a three-tower citadel on the north-west, adjacent to and protecting the palace, which Herod built upon an extensive platform. The city came to be filled with numerous magnificent buildings, both public and private.

The splendour of the city is revealed in both the literary sources and the archaeological discoveries. But Jerusalem is one of the rare instances where the literary evidence still contributes more than the archaeological data, despite almost a century and a half of intensive field work. Jerusalem was the first site in Palestine to be excavated by archaeologists, but most of the work was carried out beyond the walls of the Old City. Two factors prevented extensive excavations within the Old City: the density of building and religious sensitivities concerning many of the areas there. Some of these constraints have been overcome since the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967, especially in the area south and south-west of the Temple Mount (excavated by B. Mazar) and in the Jewish Quarter, which was largely destroyed in 1948 and has been rebuilt since the unification of the city in 1967 (excavated by N. Avigad).

A The city walls Of the three walls described by Josephus, we are now quite well acquainted with the ‘First’ and the ‘Third’; of the ‘Second Wall’, only the literary evidence exists. The course of the ‘Second Wall’ ran entirely within what is now the built-up area of the Old City, and no excavations have been possible. The other two walls, the ‘First’ and ‘Third’, run partly or mostly through unbuilt areas. The ‘First Wall’, as we noted, was of Hasmonaean construction. Josephus’ statement that this wall was founded by ‘David and Solomon and the following kings’ can now be understood in the light of the discovery by Avigad of a segment at the northern line of this wall which incorporated a tower of the Israelite period. The entire circuit of the ‘First Wall’ can now be reconstructed. Broshi’s excavations along the western line of this wall (which also served here as the outer wall of Herod’s palace) have revealed that the Hasmonaean construction (5.5 m thick) was bolstered by an additional wall abutting on it and bringing it to a total thickness of between 8 and 10 metres. The Hasmonaean towers here were also enlarged. This additional fortification process should be ascribed to Herod, who sought to ensure the security of his palace. Such thickening of walls was quite common in Hellenistic military architecture, and was known as proteichisma in Greek and agger in Latin.7 Walls like these were generally built some

Fig. 1.3 The three walls of Jerusalem.

Distance away from the the main line, but here topographical considerations led to the abutting of the two walls. This feature has not been noted otherwise in Palestine, but Josephus mentions an outer wall below the Antonia fortress.8 Several other segments of the ‘First Wall’ were uncovered during the last century, by H. Maudsley, F. J. Bliss and A. C. Dickie on the slopes of Mount Zion; and in the twentieth century by C. N. Johns, R. Amiran and A. Eitan at the citadel; and by K. M. Kenyon and Y. Shiloh on the eastern ridge. The ‘First Wall’ ran along an optimal line of defence, with steep slopes on three of its flanks; only on the north was the terrain less favourable. This led to the utilization of this same course in later periods. In the Byzantine period, most of the city wall was built upon this line.

The ‘Second Wall’ was the shortest of the three, and all knowledge of it stems from Josephus.9 The reconstruction given in the plan follows that of Avi-Yonah; he based his reconstruction inter alia on remains discovered beneath the present-day Damascus Gate.10 But it is not only the course of this wall that is obscure, but also the date of its construction. It is either late Hasmonaean or Herodian, but Josephus’ enigmatic passage still awaits the discovery of actual archaeological remains which may shed light on the wall’s date.11 The ‘Third Wall’ was begun by Agrippa I, who broke off the work by order of the Romans; it was completed hastily after the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt.12 Substantial segments of this wall were traced and partly exposed for some 700 metres of its length by E. L. Sukenik and L. A. Mayer in 1925—6 and 1940. The identification of this has been the most controversial and heated issue in Palestinian archaeology, and scientific logic has not always reigned in the argumentation. In 1972—4, further segments were unearthed by S. Ben-Arieh and E. Netzer, whose results provided further stratigraphic confirmation for this identification.13 This wall enlarged the defended area of the city from 90 hectares (225 acres) to 170 hectares (425 acres), but the added quarters were sparsely built up.14 In comparison with the ‘First Wall’, the ‘Third Wall’ ran along a topographically much less favourable line (the ‘Second Wall’, the topography of which is even less favourable, was now enclosed by the ‘Third Wall’) — and indeed it was this northern flank that Titus breached.

B The fortresses At the north-western corner of the Temple Mount, Herod erected a fortress, naming it Antonia after his benefactor, Mark Antony. This was built on the site of an earlier fortress, the ‘Baris’, which had stood here in the Hasmonaean period and perhaps even earlier. The Antonia was intended to protect the northern flank of the city in general, and the Temple Mount in particular. Until recently scholars accepted the archaeological reconstruction by L. H. Vincent, but more recently P. Benoit has challenged this. He demonstrated that much of the evidence cited by Vincent is actually of a later date, and suggests a reconstuction of more modest proportions.15 At the north-western corner of the city Herod erected three mighty towers, protecting this flank as well as his adjacent palace. The three towers were named after Phasael (his older brother), Hippicus (a friend, ‘of the cavalry’ ), and Mariamne (one of his wives, the granddaughter of the Hasmonaean king Hyrcanus II). They are described in detail by Josephus.16 Only one of these towers survives; it has been known since the Middle Ages as ‘The Tower of David’. This structure is built of solid masonry throughout and at present measures 21.4 X 17.2 metres at the top and rises some 20 metres above its base.17 Some scholars identify this tower with Phasael (for its dimensions approximate those given by Josephus), while others regard it as Hippicus (for topographical reasons).

C The palace The largest and most luxurious of Herod’s secular constructions in Jerusalem was his palace. Our knowledge of this building is based almost exclusively on Josephus’ enthusiastic description. The palace complex comprised two spacious buildings, and included banqueting halls, bed-chambers, porticoes, pools and other features — all ornately decorated.18 Excavations conducted in the palace area (Kenyon and Tushingham,

P. Benoit, ‘L’Antonia d’Herode le Grand et le Forum d’Aelia Capitolina’, HTR 64 (i97f)> i 3 5-67.

C. N. Johns, ‘The Citadel, Jerusalem: A Summary of Work since 1934’, QDAP 14 (1950), 121-90, and especially 140ff. On later works: H. Geva, ‘Excavations at the Citadel of Jerusalem 1976-1980’ in Geva (above, note 7), 156-67; R. Sivan and G. Solar, ‘Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel’, ibid. 168-76.

Bell. v.176-83 et passim; R. Amiran and A. Eitan, ‘Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel’ in Y. Yadin (ed.) Jerusalem Revealed (Jerusalem and New Haven 1976), p. 54; D. Bahat and M. Broshi, ‘Excavations in the Armenian Garden’, ibid., pp. 55—6.

Amiran and Eitan, Bahat and Broshi) have not revealed anything of these buildings themselves. The only actual remains of the palace that have been found are a series of retaining walls. In building this palace Herod’s engineers resorted to methods similar to those employed in the construction, for instance, of the Temple complex, and of Caesarea, Samaria and Jericho: the raising and levelling of the area and the stabilization of the immense quantities of fill by means of supporting walls. There were other splendid buildings in Jerusalem such as the Hasmonaean palace (which continued to be used throughout our period, even under the later Herodian rulers), or the palace of Queen Helena of Adiabene in the Lower City, but no part of them has been located so far.

D Other public structures Of other monumental buildings in Jerusalem of this period we have only literary evidence. Josephus related that Herod built both a theatre and an amphitheatre.19 The latter apparently served also as a hippodrome.20 The intensive building activity initiated by Herod must have brought about considerable changes in the layout of Jerusalem and in the network of its streets.21

A street uncovered by Avigad was built in the latter part of Herod’s reign and Mazar found several finely paved Herodian streets, running at a tangent to and out from the Temple Mount around its south-western corner22 Herod’s projects were continued under his successors, up to the very eve of the First Jewish Revolt. Josephus relates that in the days of the Roman procurator Albinus, the construction of the Temple compound was completed. This led to the laying-off of some eighteen thousand labourers (certainly an inflated figure). Agrippa II had them employed in paving the city’s streets.23

E The water supply At this time both the growth in the population of Jerusalem and the rise in the standard of living demanded a reliable and abundant supply of water. The only spring in Jerusalem, the Gihon, even when augmented by the storage of rain-water was no longer sufficient to provide for the increased population, swelled by myriads of pilgrims

Ant. xv.268f. C. Schick believed he had found Herod’s theatre in Abu Tor (Givat Hananiah), the hill across the Hinnom Valley, south of the city. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement i88y, 161-6. Schick, ‘Herod’s Amphitheatre - Jerusalem’. Trial digs conducted by A. Kloner (as yet unpublished) proved Schick was wrong.

Bell. ii.44; Ant. xvii.255.

On the Herodian city cf. N. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville 1987), pp. 81-203. M. Ben-Dov, In the Shadow of the Temple (New York 1982).

Ant. xx.219-22. Apparently Josephus used here, as elsewhere, the term ‘white stone’, sometimes translated marble, to denote fine, hard limestone.

Three times a year. Supply was assured through the hewing of cisterns15 and the building of pools and aqueducts. Private cisterns attached to every house have been found in excavations.

Many of the public cisterns of this period are still extant — such as the thirty-four known cisterns on the Temple Mount, with a total capacity of 40,000 cubic metres (about 10,000,000 gallons). Six huge pools are also known, five of them mentioned by Josephus: the Pool of the Towers (Amygdalon), the Strouthion Pool, the Sheep’s Pool (Bethesda), the Serpents’ Pool,16 and Solomon’s Pool (the Pool of Siloam). The sixth pool is the Pool of Israel (Birket Israel), abutting on the north-eastern corner of the Temple Mount. This is the largest reservoir in Jerusalem (measuring 38 X 110 metres, with a maximum depth of 26 metres). Outside the city to the west was the Mamilla Pool, which fed the Pool of the Towers. Several of the pools collected the winter run-off (e. g. Bethesda and the Pool of Israel), while others were fed by aqueduct or tunnel (e. g. Strouthion, Siloam). In our period (or possibly already in the Hasmonaean period) an aqueduct was constructed to bring water from the springs of Arrub some 25 km to the south.17 It had no siphons or bridges, and this necessitated a very long course (68 km), more than two and one-half times the distance as the crow flies. A very small gradient was employed (about one in one thousand), and there are several lengthy tunnels.

F Domestic architecture Recent excavations in Jerusalem, especially those of Avigad in the Jewish Quarter, have afforded a glimpse of the domestic architecture of the Herodian period.18 Prior to these discoveries our knowledge was confined to monumental Herodian architecture. The houses found in the Jewish Quarter are notable for their spaciousness (ground plans as much as 600 square metres in size) and for their luxurious decoration (e. g. wall paintings, mosaics). Until future work brings to light further residential quarters, it will remain unclear whether this quality of architecture was confined to the Upper City or was widespread. The usual plan is of a series of rooms arranged around a central courtyard. Each house has several cisterns, reservoirs and ritual baths; steam-baths are also found. Mosaic pavements of fine quality are not rare, and wall paintings often in fresco technique, are quite common. The conventional mural divided the wall into rectangular panels, painted mostly in warm colours. There were always painted panels running along the lower part of the wall (dados). The panels are often painted in imitation of marble, or of architectural elements, seeking to convey an illusionistic effect. Floral motifs are also commonly used to achieve the effect of landscape. On Mount Zion a unique wall painting of birds was found - a rare instance in the art of this period of a violation of the prohibition against graven images.19

G The Necropolis The Necropolis that surrounded Jerusalem like a belt was founded in the Hellenistic period (see vol. i, chap. 20) but developed greatly in the Herodian period. The tombs of the poor, who were probably interred in plain graves dug in the ground, have not been preserved. The 800 ‘middle class’ to ‘aristocratic’ family tombs, chambers hewn in the rocks, range from the very simple to the very ornate and expensive; from small chambers to a big complex like the ‘Tomb of the Kings’ which necessitated quarrying 20,000 cubic metres of rock. Hundreds of inscriptions (in Aramaic, Greek and to a lesser extent, Hebrew) only give us meagre information about those buried, seldom more than the name of the deceased and a patronymic, and on rare occasion an indication of origin (e. g. Beth Shean (Scythopolis) or Cyrenaica) or the profession of the deceased (e. g. builder, teacher). In a few cases we can identify the tombs with historical figures, as with the tombs of ‘Bene Hezir’, Nicanor, and Helena of Adiabene. The tomb of the family of Hezir, which dates to the Hasmonaean period (and see vol. i, ch. 10) belonged to a priestly family known from the Bible (i Chr. 24:15). The tomb of the family of Nicanor on Mount Scopus has an inscription in Greek which mentions ‘Nicanor of Alexandria who made the gates’.20 This Nicanor donated the doors of one of the gates of the Temple, and the Talmud tells of a miracle that befell the doors on their voyage from Alexandria.21

The largest and one of the most impressive of the tombs is known by its popular name as the ‘ Tomb of the Kings’. This is the only sepulchral monument mentioned by the ancient authors (Josephus, Pausanias, Eusebius and Jerome) which can be identified with certainty.31 The tomb was constructed about ce 50 by Queen Helena of Adiabene (an Hellenistic

Fig. 1.4 The ‘Tomb of Absalom’.

Petty kingdom in northern Mesopotamia) who was a convert to Judaism and had settled in Jerusalem. The three pyramids that crowned the tomb have disappeared, but the rest of the compound is fairly well preserved — a sizeable, sunken courtyard, a majestic facade and a huge hypogeum (underground series of chambers) that were likened by Pausanias to the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus.22 Almost all the other monumental tombs in Jerusalem carry apocryphal names (e. g. ‘Tombs of the Judges’, alias ‘Tombs of the Sanhedrin’). One of the tombs with apocryphal names, the ‘tomb of Absalom’, the most magnificent of the four Kidron Valley monuments, is the tallest (20 m) as well as the most complete sepulchral monument in western Palestine.23 24 It consists of two parts — the substructure is mostly a rock-cut monolith which contains a small burial chamber with arcosolia. The superstructure served as a funerary monument (nephesh) to the tomb below and perhaps also for the adjacent ‘Tomb ofJehoshaphat’. The ‘Tomb of Absalom’ was built in a unique mixture of styles: the Ionic columns bear a Doric frieze crowned by an Egyptian cavetto cornice and the round roof is made in the Hellenistic-Roman style. Here we find the most eloquent example of the eclectic nature of the art that existed in Palestine in this period. Behind it, the ‘Tomb of Jehoshaphat’ is a complex of eight subterranean rooms with a large facade adorned with an ornate pediment. It seems that the two monuments were planned as a unit in the first century ce.34 The ‘Tomb of Zachariah’ is a monolithic cube (each side of which is 5 m long) crowned by a pyramid. The monument also served as a nephesh for a tomb.25

The importance of the monumental tombs lies in the fact that they constitute the chief source for the architectural art of the period, because most of the other monuments have disappeared.

In addition to the tomb facades much can be learnt from the burial containers found in the tombs: sarcophagi and ossuaries. The sarcophagi, full-sized stone coffins, are costly. They are found only in the tombs of the very rich, as in the ‘Tombs of Kings’ and the so called ‘Tomb of the House of Herod’.26 Ossuaries, on the other hand, are caskets carved from quite soft stone, that were intended for secondary burial (that is for collecting the bones after the flesh had decayed).27 The ossuaries, being inexpensive, could be afforded even by the common people, and many score have been found. The sarcophagi are ornamented in relief with floral designs such as garlands and rosettes, while the ossuaries are decorated by chip-carving, a technique common in woodwork. Most of the patterns were executed by means of compass, stylus and ruler. There are also ossuaries that bear architectural motifs. In a tomb excavated at Giv’at Hamivtar, in the new suburbs of northern Jerusalem, several ossuaries

Of exceptional interest were discovered. One of them, ‘Simon builder of the Sanctuary’, was apparently someone connected with the building of the Temple, perhaps in a significant post. Another ossuary contained the skeletal remains of a person who had been crucified — the first actual evidence of crucifixion unearthed by archaeologists.38

The existence of an Essene community in or near Jerusalem was proven lately by the discovery of a large cemetery whose tombs are very similar to those of Qumran. In this graveyard, almost 5 km south-west of Herodian Jerusalem, are over forty shaft graves totally different from the regular Second Commonwealth tombs but of great kinship to those dug at the Essene settlement near the shores of the Dead Sea.39

II THE OTHER CITIES

Josephus relates that Herod founded five cities: Caesarea, Samaria (Sebaste), Antipatris, Gaba-Hippeum and Anthedon-Agrippias. The first four have been excavated, but of the fifth we have no archaeological data and even its location has not definitely been established. Two cities were developed by Herod’s sons: Tiberias was founded by Herod Antipas, and Paneas was expanded by Philip and renamed Caesarea Philippi.

A Caesarea Both Caesarea and Sebaste were named in honour of the emperor Augustus: Caesarea is derived from ‘Caesar’ and Sebaste from the Greek equivalent of ‘Augustus’. These two cities were built over earlier settlements: Caesarea arose on the site of the old Phoenician colony of Strato’s Tower, whereas Sebaste was built on the site of Samaria, the ancient capital of the northern kingdom of Israel. These were new creations, however; their size and ‘modern’ character obliterated their modest predecessors.

V. Taferis, ‘Jewish Tombs at Givat Hamivtar’, lEJ 20 (1970), 18-32; J. Naveh, ‘The Ossuary Inscriptions from Givat Ha-Mivtar’, lEJ 20 (1970), 33-7; N. Haas, ‘Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Givat Hamivtar’, lEJ 20 (1970), 3859; Y. Yadin, ‘Epigraphy and Crucifixion’, lEJ 23 (1973), 18—32; V. Moller-Christensen, ‘Skeletal Remains from Givat Ha-Mivtar’, lEJ 26 (1976), 35—8; see also M. Hengel, ‘Mors turpissima crucis: Die Kreuzigung in der antiken Welt und die “Torheit” des “Wortes vom Kreuz’’ ’ in Rechtfertigung Fs Kasemann, ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pohlmann and P. Stuhlmacher (Tubingen, Gottingen 1976); ET Crucifixion, with later additions (Philadelphia 1977); J. Zias and E. Sekeles, ‘The Crucified Man from Givat Ha-Mivtar, A Reappraisal’, IEJ 35 (1985), 22-7.

B. Zissu, ‘“Qumran-type” Graves in Jerusalem: Archaeological Evidence of an Essene Community’, DSD 5 (1998), 158-71.

Fig. 1.5 Caesarea, main features of the Herodian city.

After Jerusalem, Herod’s biggest building projects were carried out in Caesarea.28 Its primary feature was its huge harbour, but it also possessed all the attributes of a classical Roman city: a fortification system, a major temple, a royal palace, markets, a theatre, an amphitheatre (which served mainly as a hippodrome), a rectangular street network, an efficient system of water supply and a sewage network flushed by the sea. Our picture of ancient Caesarea, like that of Jerusalem, is based on literary sources (primarily Josephus) as well as on data from several archaeological expeditions, Israeli, Italian and American.

The harbour of Caesarea was Herod’s biggest and most ambitious civil project. The port area was first surveyed underwater by the Link expedition in the 1960s, and since 1975, annually, by expeditions led by A. Raban, mostly under the auspices of the Center for Maritime Studies at the University of Haifa. The investigation was hampered by the fact that the western part of the port had sunk some 5 to 7 metres over the centuries. The Herodian harbour was composed of three basins one inside the other. The outer basin, the largest of the three, was created by constructing two breakwaters to enclose a vast area of open sea, an engineering operation that was the first of its kind in history. It is also the first harbour known to us to apply the techniques recommended by Vitruvius, the noted Roman architect, a contemporary of Herod. Thus it was one of the most advanced artificial ports of its times and the only all-weather Palestinan port on its Mediterranean coast. Two huge break-waters enclosed an area of 10 hectares (25 acres). Near the entrance to the harbour were found what seems to be the foundations of what Josephus describes as the most prominent feature here — the tower named ‘Drusion’, named after Augustus’ stepson. This tower probably served as a lighthouse. The middle basin (200 X 200 m) lies to the east of the outer harbour. To its north were found ashlar buildings which might have served as shipyards. Near the inner basin remains of warehouses were unearthed.

East of the harbour area, the remains of a platform - partly natural and partly artificial — were found, elevated some 12 metres above its surroundings. This was most probably the podium of the temple of Augustus. Such platforms were a common feature in Herodian construction (e. g. the Temple Mount and the palace in Jerusalem, the Caesareum at Samaria-Sebaste, the winter palaces at Jericho). This gigantic platform could accommodate much more than a temple and it is quite possible that the marketplace was also built on top of it. Remains of a palace-like building

Fig. 1.6 The theatre at Caesarea.

Were unearthed in 1976 on a promontory jutting 100 metres into the sea west of the theatre. At the centre of the structure was a large pool (18 X 35 m), which had been surrounded by a peristyle. This was probably Herod’s palace, which, like those found at Herodion, Jericho and Masada, was provided with a swimming-pool. There is a possibility though, that the palace was built somewhat later and that it was used as the praetorium, the seat of the Roman governors. Much of the promontory was eroded by the waves, but three rooms with elegant mosaic floors are a further proof of the palatial nature of this complex. Two entertainment facilities described by Josephus — a theatre and amphitheatre — have been excavated.29 The theatre was excavated by an Italian expedition in 1959— 64. This is one of the earliest theatres in the Syrian provinces. Though it was remodelled often over the centuries of its use, some of its original Herodian elements could still be discerned, such as the orchestra, whose plaster floor was painted with floral, geometrical and fish-scale designs. The wall-paintings of the orchestra are in imitation of marble panelling. The theatre seated an audience of some 4,000. Recent excavations have unearthed Herod’s amphitheatre (so called by Josephus, but in fact a hippodrome and stadium). The monumental U-shaped structure lies to the south of the harbour and close to the sea. It is 64 metres wide, and of its length 235 metres have been excavated so far. This entertainment facility, which was used for horse and chariot races, could accommodate 7,500—9,000 spectators. Another amphitheatre which has been identified on the basis of aerial photographs in the north-eastern part of the city, and of which only the imprint of the oval arena is visible, seems to belong to a later period and not to the Herodian, as was thought until recently. Josephus’ description of Caesarea as a well-planned city30 of what we would call today the rectangular or Hippodamian plan has been confirmed by aerial photographs, as well as by recent excavations of residential quarters. So far one cardo (main street running north-south) and four decumani (main streets running east-west), 90 metres apart, have been detected.

Caesarea enjoyed what was probably the best water supply of any city in the country. A network of terracotta and lead pipes supplied the city with an abundant supply of excellent water. In the ‘palimpsest’ of Caesarea’s aqueducts, a channel in the eastern high-level aqueduct ought most probably to be ascribed to Herod.31 It drew its waters from the Shumi Springs, some 7 km in a straight line to the northeast. The gradient of this aqueduct was only 0.16 per cent — one of the lowest in Roman aqueducts. The capacity of the aqueduct was i50 cubic metres per hour. Caesarea, a city c. 40 hectares in area and of about 15,000—20,000 inhabitants, was an elegant city which enjoyed almost all the amenities possible in that period.

B Samaria (Sebaste) Since Palestinian archaeology has always had a predilection for Hebrew Bible sites, Samaria (Sebaste) has been until the last quarter of the twentieth century the subject of more archaeological activity than Caesarea. Two major expeditions have explored the site: the Harvard Expedition, led by G. A. Reisner and C. S. Fisher (1908—10) and a joint expedition led by J. W. Crowfoot, Grace Crowfoot, Kathleen Kenyon and E. L. Sukenik (1931—5). As at Caesarea, there were all the attributes of a Roman city: fortifications, a colonnaded main street, temples, a stadium, a forum and an aqueduct system. The area of the Herodian city was 64 hectares (i60 acres), spreading a kilometre (six-tenths of a mile) from west to east. The circumference of its walls reaches 3.5 km (2.2 miles), which would agree with the data given by Josephus. The

Western city gate is flanked by two round towers, each 14 metres in diameter. These are preserved to a height of 8—11 metres and are built on square bases dating from the Hellenistic period. Similar round towers have been found at the northern gate of Caesarea and the southern gate of Tiberias. The largest temple (24 X 35 m), apparently the ‘Augusteum’, included a high peristyle temenos. This temenos was built upon an artificial platform (72 X 83 m and 15 m high; cf. e. g. the Temple Mount, the palace in Jerusalem and the temple at Caesarea). The temple has a broad nave flanked by narrow aisles, with a portico of apparently eight columns on the front. The high standard of construction is attested also in the fine foundation laid directly upon the bedrock, some 9 metres below floor-level. West of the temple stood a royal villa or small palace and to its south an apsidal building. The stadium, the only one known in Palestine, seems also to have been built by Herod. It measured 60 X 230 metres and was surrounded by porticoes with Doric columns, the walls of which bore plaster painted in the masonry style. Remains of the spacious forum and an adjacent basilica are of the second century ce, but various associated discoveries point to an earlier phase, which could be ascribed to Herod or even Gabinius. The colonnaded main street may well have been founded by Herod. Two aqueducts bringing water to the city have long been known; recently, a third aqueduct was found, leading in from several abundant springs in the vicinity of Shechem-Neapolis to the south. This latter aqueduct called for great engineering skill, for the course necessitated the erection of a bridge some 5 5 metres high. So far it has not been possible to date this project, but it could probably be ascribed to the Herodian period.32 33

C Antipatris (Tel Aphek) This city, half-way between Jerusalem and Caesarea, was named by Herod after his father. Between 1972 and 1985 the site was excavated by an expedition headed by M. Kochavi. Part of the main street has been uncovered, some 8 metres wide and running on a north-south axis. Shops and workshops line the street, bordered by raised

Pavements.

D Gaba Hippeon In the Valley of Jezreel a settlement of cavalry veterans was accorded by Herod the status of a polis. Recent excavations at Tell Shusha near Kibbutz Mishmar ha-Emek, some 25 km southeast of Haifa, point to the identification of this site with Gaba.34

E Tiberias The ancient city, founded by Herod Antipas in ce 18 or shortly thereafter, lies south of the modern town, stretching some 1,200 metres along the shore of the Sea of Galilee and reaching some 250 metres inland on average. The literary evidence concerning Herodian Tiberias far exceeds the archaeological data, which are still scanty despite sporadic excavations there since 1950, and despite the expeditions headed by G. Foerster in 1973—4 and Y. Hirschfeld since 1989. Josephus tells of palaces, a stadium and a large synagogue. Foerster’s excavations have revealed the southern city gate and the main street icardo) leading north from an agora. The gate is flanked by two round towers, some 7 metres in diameter.35

F Paneas This centre of trade and of the cult dedicated to Pan was renamed Caesarea by Herod the Great’s son the tetrarch Herod Philip. To differentiate between it and its maritime namesake the epithet Philippi was added. The city was ‘founded’ in 2/1 bce and served as the capital of his kingdom until his death in cE 3 4 and for a very short time also under Agrippa I. Several expeditions have worked here since 1977, the principal ones being directed by E. Netzer, V. Tzaferis and Z. Maoz. Near the Paneion, the sacred grotto dedicated to Pan, were unearthed the remains of the temple built by Herod in honour of Augustus. Its walls, part of which were preserved to the height of 4 metres, were made in the opus quadratum technique. This, and the semicircular and rectangular niches that alternate along its walls, made probably to house statues, are typical of the architecture of Herod the Great. On a terrace to the west the remains of Herod’s palace were found. Here the walls were built in the opus reticulatum (net-like) technique also employed exclusively by Herod (in his palace in Jericho and in a tomb in Jerusalem). It is wellnigh certain that these two monumental buildings were built under the supervision of Italian architects, like other of the king’s constructions. Several first-century Jewish graves were dug around the city.48

III HEBRON, THE CAVE OF MACHPELAH

The temenos built over the Cave of Machpelah (the tombs of the Patriarchs) is ascribed by most scholars to Herod, though neither Josephus nor any other ancient source makes any mention of its builder. The style of the stone masonry bears great resemblance to that of the outer walls of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and the sheer monumentality of the structure lends probability to this ascription. The temenos is a rectangle (32 X 60 m) surrounded by walls preserved to their full original height (18 m on the average). The lower part of the walls (to the height of 10 m) presents a flat surface, whereas the part above is adorned by a series of pilasters; the level of the base of the pilasters is also that of the floor within. Adequate investigation of the subterranean parts of the structure, the caves and passages, has been prevented by religious sensitivities. Recent studies suggest that the rock-hill on which the temenos is built contains several caves, natural and artificial, interconnected by hewn passages.49

IV JERICHO

The classical authors (Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus and others) gave more attention to Jericho than any other place in Palestine except Jerusalem. The importance and fame of Jericho and its oasis stemmed from three factors: an abundance of water, a temperate winter climate and its strategic location. The two former factors combined to produce high yields of exotic crops, including medicinal herbs and spices, particularly the much sought after and expensive balsam. Indeed, the lower Jordan Valley and the En Gedi oasis on the Dead Sea were the only

48  Ibid., 1, 136-43.

49  L. H. Vincent and H. J. H. Mackay, Hebron, le Haram El-Halil (Paris 1923); Z. Yeivin, The Machpela Cave Subterranean Complex, Israel — People and Land 2-3 (1985- 6), pp. 53- 62 (Hebrew, English abstract pp. 9*-10*).

Fig. 1.8 Restored isometric view of eastern wing of Herod’s second palace, Jericho.

Places within the Roman Empire where balsam could be grown; otherwise it was imported from southern Arabia. Guarding the eastern approaches to Jerusalem, Jericho and its vicinity had several fortresses (e. g. Doq and Cypros; see section v). The mild winter climate made the town a favourite winter resort. Little is known of the city itself, the remains of which lie under the modern town. It seems to have been relatively small. Various ruins and an elaborate network of aqueducts show that Herodian Jericho resembled modern Jericho in character, but was on a much larger scale, a vast village of gardens.

The winter palaces at Jericho lie at Tulul Abu el-Alayiq, spreading over both banks of Wadi-Qilt, 2 km south-west of the modern town.36 Two American expeditions, led by J. H. Kelso and D. C. Baramki in 1950, and by J. B. Pritchard in 1951, and an Israeli expedition directed by E. Netzer between 1973 and 1986 unearthed extensive remains of the Hasmonaean and Herodian palaces. Aided by data from the palaces of Masada and Herodion, Netzer was able to identify and date the remains correctly. The Hasmonaean buildings (see vol. i, chapter 20) were taken over and expanded considerably by Herod. His earliest palace was built on the southern bank of the Wadi (identified by Pritchard as a ‘Gymnasium’). His second palace was built, probably after the fierce earthquake of 31 bce, over the Hasmonaean palace north of the wadi. On the ruins of the earlier palace an 8 m high mound was piled, and on it the second palace was erected. The Herodian complex comprised four wings — three south of the Wadi and one on the north. Part of the earlier palace may well have continued in use but most of it was covered by new constructions.

The northern, unearthed mostly by Netzer, has two peristyle courtyards, two large reception halls and a magnificent Roman bath. The larger of the two halls (19 X 29 m) was the main unit here, with rows of columns on three sides and a broad entrance on the fourth side, facing the majestic landscape of the ‘sunken garden’. This hall was paved in opus seciile, the stones being partly of imported marble and partly of local coloured stone. The two large halls of this palace bring to mind the two halls mentioned by Josephus in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem, and they, too, may have been named after Augustus and Agrippa. The bathhouse has five rooms, the most splendid of which was the round room, apparently laconicum, an equivalent of a sauna. The two swimming pools (probably in one of which Aristobulus, Herod’s brother-in-law, was drowned) were united. The new large pool (32 X 18 m) was surrounded by Roman-style gardens.

On the southern bank of the wadi, a ‘sunken garden’ came to light, the main feature of which is a grand facade, some 130 metres wide, with porticoes flanking it. The excavations revealed flower-pots still in siiu. South of the garden is an artificial mound (mound no. 1) with a monumental stairway leading to its summit. On the top are the remains of a square structure containing a large round hall similar to the frigidarium of the northern wing but twice the diameter (16 m). A huge swimming pool has been excavated to the east of this (42 X 90 m).

In the construction of the expanded palace, two building techniques were used concurrently and integrally: Roman cement with an outer layer of opus reiiculaium and opus quadraium and mud brick laid over rubble foundations. The former is an imported technique, whereas the latter is local. Undoubtedly much of the work here was produced or supervised by Roman architects and artisans.37 The palace walls were plastered over throughout, and painted in the ‘masonry style’ and ornamented in stucco relief. The enlarged palace seems to have been used primarily for entertainment and reception.

The overall area of the three palaces is c. 12 hectares (30 acres). It is not clear when the palace complex was abandoned, but it was most probably maintained even after Herod’s death, perhaps as late as mid-first century CE.

The hippodrome at Jericho, south of Tell Samarat, mentioned by Josephus, was explored by E. Netzer in 1976. The complex consists of three units — a race-track, a theatre and an elevated construction standing upon a platform (10—13 m high). The racetrack area is 315 metres long (c. 1000 Herodian feet) and 84 metres wide. No seats were found around the track, and the adjacent theatre may have served for the spectators here as well. The theatre rose to about 13 metres above the level of the track and had a diameter of 70 metres, with a seating capacity of 3,000— 4,000. Of the third element, the elevated building (70 X 70 m), only the mud-brick foundations remain. Various finds here, however, including ashlar and fragments of painted plaster, point to the building’s former splendour. It may have been a gymnasium with a palaestra at its centre.

V FORTRESSES

Of the seven desert forts of Judaea, six were constructed in the Hasmonaean period and only one, Herodion, was founded by Herod.38 Another two, Cypros and Masada, were rebuilt by Herod in such a thoroughgoing manner that they may be regarded as virtually new creations. In the following only the latter three forts will be discussed in detail, but in the introduction we deal with the whole system. The forts were much more than mere military outposts. In addition to their various defensive functions, of defending the Jewish territories (Alexandrion and Machaerus), guarding the main roads (Alexandrion and Cypros) or secondary roads (Hyrcania), they served also as administrative centres (Herodion and Machaerus), dungeons (Hyrcania) and burial places (Alexandrion, Hyrcania and Herodion). They were at the same time magnificent palaces, luxurious and comfortable, designed to be used by the kings, both for pleasure and for havens of safety. Above all this, in what was probably their primary role, they were meant to serve as shelters after the hope of overcoming the enemy in the open field had been lost.39 The most amazing element in these forts was the excellent water supply and magnificent cisterns, all the more amazing for being in an arid zone, with an annual rainfall as low as 25 mm (1 inch). Only two of the forts, Cypros and Herodion, received their waters from permanent sources; all the others obtained their supply from run-off water and floods. In Masada the twelve cisterns hewn on the northern slope (and there were other cisterns at Masada), have a total capacity of 40,000 cubic metres (10,000,000 gallons). Though the least conspicuous, they were not only the most vital element of the fortress but also one of the largest and most difficult elements of the whole complex to build. The least expected features of a desert fortress such as Masada and its like are the bathhouses and swimming pools.

A Masada Masada is the southernmost of the desert forts and the most studied — it is almost the only Palestinian site that has been practically completely excavated.40 In two seasons lasting eleven months in the years 1963—5, an expedition led by Y. Yadin uncovered almost all the built-up area and carried out a sounding in Camp F. In 1997 excavations were resumed under E. Netzer.

Masada, an isolated rock-cliff, is a natural stronghold, and it was already fortified by one of the Hasmonaean kings, probably Alexander Jannaeus. On this we have only literary evidence; so far no archaeological remains from this period have been unearthed. Herod built around the whole circumference, even above sheer unscalable cliffs, a casemate wall 1,400 metres long. The buildings on the plateau (an area of 8 hectares (20 acres), somewhat resembling a boat) can be divided roughly into two categories: palace and pleasure buildings, and buildings and other constructions belonging to the fortress. To the fortress belong the casemate wall, the storehouses and the cistern system. (Storehouses and cisterns are indeed necessary also for a palace, but their extraordinary dimensions point clearly to their military nature. They were made to enable the fortress to withstand a siege almost indefinitely.) The great complex of storehouses is located at the northern end of Masada, but there are other storehouses, quite big, attached to other units. There are two complexes of palaces, the northern and the western. The northern palace is situated on three terraces, on the very edge of the abyss. The lowest terrace is 3 5 metres below the upper one, which is on the level of the plateau.

Ingenious construction called for both daring skill and imagination: the rock-terraces were extended by means of supporting walls, built on to the sheer cliff-face.

A small villa was built on the upper terrace to serve as living quarters, while the two lower terraces were equipped for leisure. The middle terrace, a tholos, has niches in its walls which could have been used for a library. The lower one is a triclinium which must have served for banqueting. On all three levels the buildings were richly ornamented with wall paintings (in floral and geometric patterns), moulded stucco and mosaics. A small bathhouse was attached to the lower terrace. Just south of the northern palace lies the largest bathhouse at Masada (the other bathhouses on the site are all within palace complexes). This spacious building has all the required components of the Roman bath: an entrance and dressing room; warm, cold and hot rooms; and an elegant courtyard. It was lavishly decorated with wall paintings, and originally it had been paved with mosaics, and it was again later repaved in opus sectile (mosaic). The architecture of the northern palace is a fusion of late Hellenistic architecture, perhaps of Alexandrian origin, with strong Italian elements. There is good reason to believe that Roman artisans were employed, as for other Herodian palaces, in its building and decoration.

The western palace, the largest residential building at Masada, has a total area of almost 4,000 square metres (an acre). It is most probably the oldest of the two palaces, built before 31 bce when the Roman influence — conspicuously missing here — starts showing its mark. Four main units comprise the building: the royal apartments including reception and banqueting halls, the service wing and workshops, the storerooms (one 70 m long) and administrative wing, and the residence of the courtiers. As befits the main palace, its status is evident not only from its size but also from its splendid ornamentation — wall paintings and finely executed, coloured mosaic floors. There was also a bathhouse and a swimming pool, the latter adjacent to the palace, a spectacular feature in this bleak landscape, and perhaps typifying more than anything else the luxurious nature of the complex. The effort needed to fill the pool with water must have been enormous. In several places, including the synagogue (see below section vi), the remains of fourteen scrolls were found — biblical, apocryphal and sectarian books. Apart from their intrinsic value, these fragmentary manuscripts have the added importance of having been found in a clear archaeological context. Particularly significant is the Qumranic

Fig. 1.9 (Above) Aerial view of Masada; (below) Plan of Masada.

‘Songs of the Sabbath Offerings’, a composition relating to the calendar used by the Qumran Community (identified by most scholars with the Essenes; see chap. 24). This, and perhaps two other fragmentary scrolls are the only Qumranic manuscripts found outside Qumran, and their clear context confirms the accepted dating of the Qumran library. The 700 ostraca found at Masada are mainly in Hebrew and Aramaic, but some are in Greek and Latin. The bulk of this epigraphic discovery, the largest group of ostraca ever found in Israel, come from the Zealots who occupied Masada during the First Revolt, and they are very informative about the defenders of Masada. Of special interest are Latin papyri written a short time before the siege and left in one of the wall casemates by the Roman garrison. Among those papyri were found a fragment of Virgil’s Aeneid, military pay records and medical care documents and two manuscripts mentioning balsam, the lucrative product of the environs of the Dead Sea.41

The Roman siege of Masada, in ce 73 (or 74)42 has left some of the most impressive and best-preserved Roman military constructions known - the assault ramp, the circumvallation (siege-wall) and the eight camps. The ramp, a huge earthwork 200 metres long and rising 60 metres, and based on a wooden foundation (the tips of the logs can still be seen), was constructed to enable the use of a siege-tower with a battering ram. The camps, six minor and two major (135 X 170 m, 125 X 150 m), in conjunction with the circumvallation guarded the paths leading to and from Masada, and effectively prevented the escape of the besieged as well as providing defence against sudden sorties. Though the camps have been studied by several scholars (A. Schulten, C. Hawkes, I. A. Richmond, S. Guttman and Y. Yadin), it is only in 1995 that a small-scale excavation (directed by G. Foerster, J. Magness, B. Arubas and H. Goldfuss) has been carried out.

B Herodion Like Masada, Herodion combines fortress and palace, but here the palatial nature of the site overshadows the fortress. This huge complex spreads over 20 hectares (50 acres), with the actual built-up area comprising about a third. This is the third largest palace complex in the Roman world, after Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli and Nero’s Domus Aurea in Rome, both built later than Herodion. This seems to have been Herod’s main summer palace, its winter counterpart being at Jericho. Herodion, some 12 km south of Jerusalem and a conspicuous feature visible from afar, has been studied by numerous scholars. Excavations were undertaken by V. Corbo in 1962-7 and G. Foerster in 1967 and 1970 - both on the fortress-hill — and by E. Netzer since 1972, mostly in the lower areas. After a decade of inactivity, Netzer has resumed in 1997 his excavations in the lower area.

The hill, a truncated cone resembling a volcano, rises 60 metres above its surroundings. The fortified palace which Herod built at the top can be divided into seven elements: (1) the outer shell, which consists of two concentric walls (the diameter of the outer wall is 63 m); (2) the circular interior with the palace quarters; (3) the eastern round tower (diameter 18 m); (4) the three semi-circular towers (diameter of each: 14.5 m); (5) the entry stairs; (6) the cisterns on the slopes; (7) the earthen and stone fill which gives the mountain its shape.

The two concentric walls are preserved up to a height of 15 metres The space between the walls, 3.5 metres wide, had been divided into several storeys by means of wooden floors. These were probably utilized for dwelling, storage and so on. The interior palace served as a private, intimate royal villa, for the main palace was in Lower Herodion; and functionally this private mansion is analogous to the northern palace of Masada. The interior is divided into two halves: the western part included dwelling quarters and service rooms, while the eastern part was occupied almost entirely by a garden courtyard. The western part had three elements — triclinium (dining room), on the south, living rooms in the middle, and an elaborate bathhouse decorated with wall paintings and mosaics (similar to those in the baths found at Masada, Jericho and Cypros) on the north. The monumental stairway, 120 metres long, was described by Josephus as having 200 marble stairs. Three huge cisterns have been found, hewn deep into the rock together with other smaller cisterns on the summit; they must have been filled primarily with water brought on pack animals and human backs from the pool at the foot of the hill (see below). After the palace-fortress had been completed, a fill was deposited on the surrounding slopes, building them up to create the artificial mound as it now stands, some 10—15 metres higher than the original hill and considerably increasing the angle of its slopes. Like Masada, Herodion was occupied by the Jewish insurgents during the First Revolt against Rome, and also served as a Jewish stronghold during the Second (Bar Kokhba) Revolt. The literary sources mentioning this are confirmed by the excavations. Much evidence was found for the insurgents’ occupation, for they made changes within the palace to accommodate a large population of squatters. The changes included the conversion of the triclinium into a

Fig. I. I0 (Left) Aerial view of Herodion; (right) Plan of Herodion.

© From H. Shanks, Judaism in Stone, 1979; W. Braun, after E. Netzer.

Synagogue (see below section vi). Josephus relates that Herod was buried at Herodion but the tomb has not been found.43 Lower Herodion, lying north of the hill-fortress, comprises at least four units (more may be unearthed in the future): the great palace, the race-track, the pool and the northern area. This is a well-planned complex, covering an area of 350 X 500 metres, in which all the buildings are arranged in a unified alignment and in symmetry with those on the hill-fortress. The great palace (55 X 130 m) is exactly north of the hill fortress and on the same axis of symmetry. Most of the stones of the palace are missing now, but the artificial terrace on which it was erected is well preserved. This kind

A.  Pool Complex

B.  Central Bathhouse

C.  Northern Area

D.  Large Palace

E.  The Race-Track

F.  Monumental Building

G.  Mountain Palace-Fortress

Of terrace is known from almost every Herodian site, and here also it was constructed by levelling the ground on one side and raising it by means of vaults on the other. Netzer suggested that this palace was used for receptions, while the palace-villa on the fortress hill served the king and his entourage. The race-track (25 X 300 m) is also built upon an artificial terrace. It is too narrow to have served as a hippodrome. This, and a monumental building nearby, might have been intended for the funeral procession and for the funerary ceremony.

The big pool (40 X 70 m) stands in the midst of a spacious complex (110 X 160-220 m) of gardens, porticoes etc. The pool, with a capacity of some 10,000 cubic metres (2,500,000 gallons), probably had the double purpose of serving as a reservoir storing the waters brought by the aqueduct from springs in the west and as a pleasure-pool for swimming and possibly also boating. In the northern area remains of many luxurious buildings can be discerned as well as a small bathhouse and a long storehouse.