David M. Jacobson

Three roman client kings : Herod of Judaea, Archelaus of Cappadocia and Juba of Mauretania

The appointment of Herod as Romes client ruler of Judaea in 40 B.C.E. marked a radical change in the political, economic and cultural development of that country. In the course of a single generation, this relative backwater in the Levant joined the mainstream of the GraecoRoman world. Herod became a privileged member of an international elite, travelling abroad frequently, with Rome, the centre of the empire, as a common destination. His frequent journeys provide a striking contrast with the movements of his Hasmonaean predecessors, who never appear to have ventured far from J udaea. The Jewish historian Josephus has left a valuable record of Herods movements, which are catalogued in Table I. For his information on Herod, Josephus relied heavily on the memoirs of Nicolaus of Damascus, a leading intellectual and writer of his generation, who served as chief councillor to the king (Wacholder 1989). Josephus presents Herod as a loyal client of Rome, eager to maintain the esteem of Augustus and his deputy, Marcus Agrippa, and also to present himself as a champion of the traditional values of hellenistic monarchy. These aims took precedence over satisfying the aspirations of his Jewish subjects. It is no coincidence that this new era for J udaea commenced during the ascendancy of Antony and the painful transition of Rome from republic to principate. These years saw a fundamental change in the relationship between the Roman administration and the kings who were subject to its authority. Much of this change can be attributed to Antony (Braund 1g88, 76). The triumvir attended to replacing unsuitable client kings with appointees who were judged to be more cooperative and effective surrogates. When Octavian Augustus triumphed over Antony and established the Roman principate, he further rationalized the relationship between Rome and the client kingdoms, organising them into a close-knit network under his direct authority. This restructuring was sufficiently important to attract the following notice in Suetonius:

The oldest datable chambers on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem

Who would pass up the opportunity to venture beneath the Ḥaram al-Sharīf in Jerusalem? Religious sensitivities have long discouraged investigation of the Ḥaram. Yet, for a brief period in the second half of the nineteenth century a handful of European explorers visited many of the underground chambers of the Ḥaram. Gibson and Jacobson have excavated in the archives of the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) in London to recover crucial data about the earliest structure of the Temple Mount

Review Article: Placing Herod the Great and His Works in Context

The archaeological excavations qf the palaces qf Herod the Great, conducted over the past half-century, have largelY borne out Josephuss description qf their magnificence and opulence and succeeded in conftunding the sceptics. The earlY excavation reports and assessments qf Herods building complexes tended to view them in the narrow context qf the Levantine building tradition. A new generation qf scholars has now begun to extend their purview qf Herods architectural achievement to encompass contemporaneous developments across the Roman Empire and beyond. As this review of a selection of recent publications demonstrates, the broader approach being pursued is bearing rich fruit in elucidating the cultural framework qf Herodian building programme and also in improving our understanding qf the motivations that lay behind this remarkable

Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. 5, excavation report 2007–2013. The numismatic finds: coins and related objects

and by no means easy. The approach and method chosen by Rolf Hachmann is however not without problems and the author himself realised this—see his remarks concerning his work as historian on p. 119, paragraph 3, ‘Der Historiker’ / The historian... and again on page 201, chapter 7.1. ‘Vorbemerkungen’ / Preliminary remarks, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. I decided to abstain from commenting the more than 100 pages of historical construction in detail and suggest that the reader her-/ himself shall work with the elucidations and investigate which of the information compiled by the author may be helpful—regardless of the problems mentioned. The last publication of the first excavator of Kamid el-Loz is however an utterly useful one when we focus on the first and second part of the study, the compilation of the current state of knowledge concerning the tablets, their contents and the architectural context in which the then actors in Kamid el-Loz had kept—and the archaeological contexts in which the colleagues of the University of Saarbrücken had then captured them!

The Many Faces of Herod the Great

There are a number of key factors that account for the fascination for Herod the Great among scholars and the public at large. First, of course, there is his notoriety in Christian tradition for ‘the Massacre of the Innocents’ and pursuit of the infant Jesus, as described in Matthew 2. On the positive side is his remarkable success in crafting a kingdom that wielded considerable influence and prestige in the Roman Empire by deftly navigating the disparate power and interest groups affecting his realm, Roman, Hellenic and Jewish. Herod was also a prodigious builder: his splendid architectural monuments at Caesarea, Herodium, Masada, Jericho and elsewhere, even in their badly ruined state, still fill visitors with wonder. Our detailed knowledge of Herod is substantial, thanks to the copious historical information contained in the writings of the 1 century CE historian, Josephus. Little surprise, then, that more studies of Herod the Great and his times have appeared over the past two decades than of most statesmen in our own times. Notable publications include Richardson 1996; Kokkinos 1998; Roller 1998; Japp 2000; Netzer 2006; Bernett 2007; Rocca 2008; Schwentzel 2011; Mahieu 2012; Vermes 2014. The last new discoveries of major significance connected with Herod are the remains that Ehud Netzer identified with that monarch’s tomb (2008) and the theatre with its impressive royal box and the wall paintings within it (2008–2010). So what fresh insights on the subject can this recent appraisal of Herod and his achievements by Adam Marshak possibly provide? The answer is actually rather little that has not already been said by others. The main strengths of Marshak’s book lie in his synthesis of known facts, his impressive grasp of the published literature and his eloquent exposition. In a nutshell, Marshak’s analysis of Herod’s success in rising from the status of a commoner and outsider to exalted king of Judaea and establishing a dynasty has led him to conclude that he had a natural knack of managing to be “all things to all men”, or as Marshak puts it “a political chameleon” (pp. 312, 339), who “consistently morphed into the right king for the right situation” (p. 335). This description may be accurate in accounting for Herod’s ability to survive the twists and turns in leadership through the Roman civil wars, the death throes of the Republic and the rise of the Augustan Principate. However, it is a misleading model to use when comparing Herod’s response to his Roman masters, on the one hand, and to his Jewish subjects, on the other, because it implies some sort of equivalence in power and influence, which was simply not the case. A more hierarchical scheme would be more appropriate in this case. Whereas Herod displayed deference to Rome at all times, he brooked no dissent when it came to the Jews and his other subjects. He ruled over them with an iron rod and the description of his repressive regime given by Josephus has resonance with the conduct of despots in our own times:

The Changing Face of PEQ

This year began with PEQ under a new editor, Dr Linda Hulin, of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of Oxford. Linda previously served as Honorary Secretary and is accordingly well acquainted with the PEF and its activities. She has previous editing experience and is closely involved in archaeological endeavours, in particular projects associated with the Levant. This is an appropriate opportunity to take a retrospective view of PEQ, especially over the past six and a half years of my stewardship as Editor. Perhaps the most conspicuous change that has occurred in this timeframe was the reinstatement of PEQ as a true quarterly in . This was made possible by the increased inflow of article submissions and had the blessing of our publisher, Maney. Our journal had previously appeared as a quarterly back in , when wartime austerity obliged the frequency of publication to be reduced to twice a year. Behind the scenes, other changes were being implemented. The increased scale of editorial activity was addressed by the appointment of an assistant editor to help in preparing articles for publication. The first Assistant Editor was Dr Jonathan Stökl of KCL. Last year he stepped down and was succeeded by Dr Helen Dixon of the University of Helsinki. The editorial team was thereby increased to four, including the Deputy Editor (Professor Philip Davies) and the Reviews Editor (currently Elisabeth Sawerthal). Additional regular support has been freely given by two other PEF Committee members, Dr Ross Thomas and Penny Butler. Another conspicuous change has been the introduction of a fully online submission process with the implementation of Editorial Manager software. This offers potential advantages both to the editorial team and to authors. For the Editor and his colleagues, besides holding out the prospect of improved administrative efficiency, Editorial Manager also streamlines the entire assessment process and every step is filed and date-stamped. This enables the Editor to see at a glance the progress of any paper through the assessment and publication process, whilst for authors, one of the chief benefits offered by the new system is the ability to track their submissions all the way to publication. Editorial Manager provides improved security by preventing material from being inadvertently lost. Reminders to reviewers and authors are automatically generated at specified intervals, as necessary. One criticism that has been levelled at Editorial Manager is that it has distanced the authors from the Editor, being interposed between them. However, authors are still able to raise issues of concern with the Editor directly by email as before and several have done so. Another aspect of Editorial Manager is that its implementation has introduced a slight lack of flexibility in the submission process. However, some authors and reviewers find it difficult and unwieldy to use. Although this electronic submission system was designed to be a useful editorial tool, the jury is still out concerning its overall merits in practice. Hand-in-hand with the introduction of Editorial Manager has been the drawing up and issuing of a comprehensive style guide to assist authors prepare their manuscripts to suit the formatting and stylistic requirements of PEQ (see: http://www.maneyonline.com/pb/assets/raw/ifaform/peq_styleguide_. pdf). This guide has proved beneficial to authors and has also helped to reduce the work of copy editing. Until fairly recently, there has only been sufficient space in each issue to review at most a handful of new book titles. Two years ago it was decided to add a Short Book Notices subsection with the aim of achieving a wider coverage of publications received by the PEF library. A presentational improvement has been the addition of a cover design in full colour bearing an illustration that points to an article in each issue. Illustrations of a selected article are also reproduced in colour in the printed journal and most of the colour pictures supplied for other articles in the same issue appear as such in the online version, which is accessible to all subscribing members of PEQ. The complete run of issues of the journal, stretching back to Volume  of , is now available in pdf format as a benefit to members Palestine Exploration Quarterly, ,  (), –

EDITORIAL: THE GEZER BOUNDARY INSCRIPTIONS

It is rather uncommon for inscriptions with the name of a biblical settlement to be found at the actual site to fix its identification conclusively. In recent years there have been two famous instances where such vital discoveries have been made. One of these is the sensational royal dedicatory inscription discovered in  at Tel Miqne in the Shephelah. Before then, several sites had been proposed for ancient Ekron, including ‘Aqir (Robinson), Zikrin (Macalister) and Qatra (Albright). This th century BCE inscription confirmed the identity of Tel Miqne as Philistine Ekron by naming it, and presents a list of the kings of this city. Some of the names, including that of the goddess, Patgayah, point to Aegean Greek origins of Ekron’s inhabitants (Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh ). Another such happy find is the Zoilos votive inscription in Greek and Aramaic unearthed in the sacred precinct at Tel Dan in . Dated to the early to mid-nd century BCE, the Greek text reads: “To the god who is in Dan, Zoilos made a vow”. It suggested that the ancient royal sanctuary that operated in Jeroboam’s day continued in service well into the Hellenistic period (Biran , -). Beit-Shean, Arad, and Maresha/Marisa are other towns that have yielded inscriptions confirming their ancient names. The first biblical city to be identified by an inscription at the site was Gezer, just over a century before the votive inscription from Dan was uncovered, noticed by a pioneering scholar of Palestinian archaeology and expert epigrapher, Charles Clermont-Ganneau (, , -, -, -). Clermont-Ganneau was no excavator, but he more than made up for this limitation by his exceptional powers of observation and erudition. In , while combing the site of Tel Gezer (Tell el-Jezer) and the surrounding area, he noticed three inscriptions, in Greek and square Hebrew characters, cut into protruding limestone bedrock, almost  km distant from the tel to the east (Fig. , nos. -). In  he located another such inscription, several metres north-west of the others (Fig. , no. ). ClermontGanneau read the inscriptions correctly as “the boundary of Gezer”. He also dated them to “at or near the st century of our era, and rather before than after” (Clermont-Ganneau , ), i.e. most probably to the reign of Herod, a view that received a boost from B.-Z. Rosenfeld in . He pointed out that the names (H)alkios, Alexas, and Archelaos, which are represented in these inscriptions, are associated with individuals who were members of Herod’s court. However, Clermont-Ganneau did not believe that these inscriptions were mere boundary stones of private estates belonging to a named individual (he only knew of those bearing the name (H)alkios). Rather, he thought that they marked the limit of Sabbath day’s journey from Gezer (Clermont-Ganneau -). Six further inscriptions in this series were reported to the south of Tel Gezer beginning with the first of these found by Father Lagrange in  (Lagrange , ; Fig. , no. ; see Fig. ). Two have been found on the north east slope of the tel. The latest of the Gezer boundary inscriptions, no. , was discovered as recently as  by E. Mitchell and colleagues of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth in Texas. It was located alongside the group of four found by Clermont-Ganneau. Mitchell, Dodd and Coyle () have tabulated these inscriptions, giving their position, distance from the tel, the date of their discovery and the name(s) of the discoverer(s), their present location and epigraphical content (idem, , Table ). Mitchell’s team also happened to rediscover the inscription that Clermont-Ganneau had found in  (no. ) and reported in Archaeological Researches in Palestine (Clermont-Ganneau , -), aided by his sketch of it (idem, ). Of the thirteen Gezer inscriptions, eleven read “boundary (or limit) of Gezer” in Hebrew and of these ten also bear the Greek “of Alkios”. The other two carry the Greek names Archelaos and Alexas. Several of them are on two lines reading “boundary of Gezer” on one line in Hebrew and “of Alkios” on the second line in Greek, in tête-bêche configuration, with the Hebrew portion facing the tel. The distribution of the thirteen known boundary inscriptions would rule out Clermont-Gannaeu’s interpretation of their purpose, because they lie along arcs in a circle centred some . km to the southeast of the tel. It is more likely that they were indeed meant to delineate boundaries between private estates or between the town and these estates. The style of the lettering used in these inscriptions is very similar, indicating that they are of contemporaneous date. Palaeographic analysis and/or historical considerations have led most scholars to assign them to the Hasmonaean period (Reich , –, *; Palestine Exploration Quarterly, ,  (), –

EDITORIAL: VANDALISM AND WORSE AT HERODIAN SITES

A major Herodian site in the Jordan Valley is close to total destruction and at least one other is in jeopardy. More, in areas under both Israeli and Palestinian control, are being increasingly ransacked by treasure hunters on an almost daily basis, as highlighted by an article in the current issue of PEQ by Dr. Salah al-Houdalieh of Al-Quds University. During a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories in early April, I was taken by Professor Shimon Gibson to see the destruction that has been meted to the archaeological site of Khirbet el-Beiyudat,  km north of Jericho, generally identified with Archelais, a settlement in the Jordan Valley established by Herod’s son and successor in Judaea, Herod Archelaus ( BCE-CE). The Jewish historian Josephus states that Archelaus “rebuilt the royal palace in Jericho in splendid fashion and ... also created a village and gave it the name of Archelais” (Ant. .). We know the location of Archelais, thanks to its depiction on the  century CE Medaba mosaic map and the  century copy of a  century CE road map, known as the Tabula Peutingeriana after its  century owner. We learn that the economy of Archelais mostly depended on its large irrigated plantations of palms which yielded dates “of the highest quality” (Jos., Ant. .; cf. Pliny, HN ., ). Being located alongside the main road traversing the Jordan Valley, between Jericho and Beth She‘an, the settlement also obtained some of its revenue from pilgrim and other passing traffic, until its destruction during the Persian invasion of the southern Levant in the early  century CE. Between  and , excavations were carried out there by the Archaeology Department of the Israeli Civil Administration for the West Bank (ADCA), under the direction of its chief officer, Hananya Hizmi. These excavations uncovered rich remains of structures and numerous artefacts, described in an interim article by Hizmi (‘Archelaus builds Archelais’, BAR July/Aug. , -, ). We are informed that these excavations were initiated as a salvage operation, when the digging of a trench for new telephone cabling struck ancient remains there. Hizmi’s team uncovered a spacious mansion occupying an area of some  sq. m, perhaps constructed for Herod Archelaus, the settlement’s founder. It was approached through a portico or porch, which led into a large central courtyard, which was subdivided by a Doric colonnade. A well-preserved Jewish ritual bath (miqveh) with twin pools was found in the courtyard (Fig. ) and characteristic Herodian stone and ceramic vessels were found inside the building. Close by is the base of a tower, faced with elegant ashlar masonry (Fig. ). The excavations also laid bare a magnificent Byzantine church, covered in multi-coloured floor mosaics, complete with Greek dedicatory inscriptions and parts of its stone chancel screen, dating from the last decades of Archelais’ existence. When I visited the site, it was almost completely trashed, resembling more aWorld War  battlefield than a premier archaeological site. Treasure seekers had clearly been at work, littering the site with empty water bottles and other spent accoutrements and there were heaps of discarded fragments of pottery and glass vessels strewn about. A cursory examination of the wrecked remains indicated that roughly % of the site has been vandalised to date (Fig. ). Archelais is an object lesson in some of the worst problems that beset archaeological sites in the southern Levant today. By undertaking the excavation, Hizmi and his ADCA team attracted attention to the importance and richness of this particular site. They not only left their excavations entirely exposed but also unfenced and unprotected. No attempt seems to have been made to secure the site. Being located right beside a busy highway, it was easy prey to looters arriving in all manner of vehicles. Archelais is situated in ‘Area C’ under the Oslo Accords, so that it falls within the remit of the Israeli Government. According to its own documentation, ‘protecting [of sites] from theft, looting and destruction of antiquities is one of the most extensive duties of the department [ADCA]’. It is fully cognisant of the fact that ‘looting causes irreparable damage to the region’s cultural wealth, as looters often destroy the sites they vandalize. Decimation of archaeological sites is a problem that is rife’ (http://www.cogat. idf.il/Sip_Storage/FILES//.pdf, p. ). However, these seem to be hollow words because the authorities are clearly not living up to their responsibilities in this case. Palestine Exploration Quarterly, ,  (), –

The Northern Palace at Masada — Herod's Ship of the Desert?

Abstract In Volumes III and V of the Masada Final Reports, Ehud Netzer and Gideon Foerster highlighted the striking differences between the Northern and Western Palaces built by Herod at the site. Whereas the Western Palace is a hybrid of ancient Middle Eastern and east Greek architectural elements, the Northern Palace bears the stamp of Rome, and shows strong affinities with palatial edifices built for Augustus and Marcus Agrippa. This paper endeavours to show that the Northern Palace was consciously modelled on a pleasure boat, probably inspired by the construction of Herods city of Caesarea with its magnificent artificial harbour. It should then be re-dated to between about 20 and 15 BCE. This would be consistent with the assigning by Netzer of Herods Third Winter Palace at Jericho, which likewise displays strong Roman characteristics, to c. 15–14 BCE. An analysis is presented of the plan of the Northern Palace, which explains how it was conceived as a unitary scheme and highlights both the principles and specific proportions that were employed in its design.